Why so much more credit given to CYGS, rather than NCYGS?

Even though you have to "start" a CYGS in Australia, you do need to win 28 consecutive BO5 matches for any combination. Every single one of them requires perfection for a year. Which is why I think the difference is minimal.

And it would be nice if all those complaining how all surfaces play the same these days didn't talk about difficulty of FO-Wimbledon doubles in this discussion all of a sudden. But obviously that is an unrealistic expectation...
 
Even though you have to "start" a CYGS in Australia, you do need to win 28 consecutive BO5 matches for any combination. Every single one of them requires perfection for a year. Which is why I think the difference is minimal.

And it would be nice if all those complaining how all surfaces play the same these days didn't talk about difficulty of FO-Wimbledon doubles in this discussion all of a sudden. But obviously that is an unrealistic expectation...
This would be the correct way to look at it, winning 28 in a row by winning all four. Call it a PERFECT slam?
 

Zoid

Professional
much harder to win the french and then the wimbledon in a month than it is to win wimbledon and win french a year later with 3 months of clay lead up
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Soo if CYGS is 75% more difficult than NCYGS then ...

YEC is 75% more difficult to win than a slam

& Olympics is 16 times more difficult?

Yes we are comparing different tournaments vs winning 4 slams in a calender year vs 4 slams in a year.

But still it does open up a can of worms of sorts ...

@TripleATeam
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Soo if CYGS is 75% more difficult than NCYGS then ...

YEC is 75% more difficult to win than a slam

& Olympics is 16 times more difficult?

Yes we are comparing different tournaments vs winning 4 slams in a calender year vs 4 slams in a year.

But still it does open up a can of worms of sorts ...

@TripleATeam
Well, as much as I do enjoy a good false equivalence fallacy, clearly I'm comparing order of grand slams (assuming each order of grand slams is as difficult as the other), whereas you're comparing completely separate events.

Also notice that I do acknowledge that each individual NCYGS is as difficult as a CYGS (no order is tougher than the others), just that one of them is called differently because it all happens in one season, and that is 3x less common than the others.
 
Simply put: if it was easier or the "same thing", it would've already happened with the quality of players we've had.
Not only didn't it happen, it wasn't even that close to happening.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Yeah, but...

... You get to warm up 3 months on clay in either case.
I never thought about Djoker's NCYGS was not inclusive of the "Channel Slam"

What about NCYGS's that are inclusive of the channel slam? It could go like this in terms of ratings. Vanilla ratings ...

CYGS #1
NCYGS (inclusive of channel slam) #2
All other NCYGS's #3

Or any combo of 4 consecutive slams inclusive of more top 10 wins .Or defeating defending slam champs along the way , Or defeating main rivals more often . Or dropping the least amount of sets , or hitting the most aces etc , etc ...

I need a Panadol

;P
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Because nobody has put a different letters in front of every NCYGS. If we want to be precise all the way, there is FOCGS, WMCGS and UOCGS. They are completely the same.
Yes. That is precisely why being in one classification is more difficult than the others. I'm not putting down Novak's achievement, I'm saying it's more common than the other.

Say we're at the Olympics and I make two groups:
A: A gold medal in swimming
B: A gold medal in anything else.

Group A is more exclusive, but Group B is just as hard (effort-wise) to get into than the other, it's just there's two requirements for Group A: 1. Be a swimmer, 2. Win the gold medal. Only the second applies for Group A.

Similarly, a CYGS has two requirements: 1. Win the AO, 2. Win the next 3 slams.
a NCYGS has only 1 requirement: Win any 4 slams in a row.

They are both equally as difficult in terms of effort, it's just harder to do a CYGS because of reduced chances to do it.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Simply put: if it was easier or the "same thing", it would've already happened with the quality of players we've had.
Not only didn't it happen, it wasn't even that close to happening.
Well to be fair , if two things are in varying degrees of difficulty apart yet neither scenario had indeed occurred . It does not magically put them back to parity.

It just means that neither scenario had occurred during said timeframe.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Simply put: if it was easier or the "same thing", it would've already happened with the quality of players we've had.
Not only didn't it happen, it wasn't even that close to happening.
What wasn't?

The three versions of All-4-Slams in three different combos that Novak hasn't done?

You have to realize that had he done FO-W-USO-AO then everyone would be saying how mediocre THAT was compared to W-USO-AO-FO.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
They are both equally as difficult in terms of effort, it's just harder to do a CYGS because of reduced chances to do it.
All 4 combos same odds.

All 4 identical in terms of no of slams, no of days, variety of surfaces, no of rounds (7), and with the same racket technology.

Same planet even.

Or am I wrong perhaps?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I never thought about Djoker's NCYGS was not inclusive of the "Channel Slam"

What about NCYGS's that are inclusive of the channel slam? It could go like this in terms of ratings. Vanilla ratings ...

CYGS #1
NCYGS (inclusive of channel slam) #2
All other NCYGS's #3

Or any combo of 4 consecutive slams inclusive of more top 10 wins .Or defeating defending slam champs along the way , Or defeating main rivals more often . Or dropping the least amount of sets , or hitting the most aces etc , etc ...

I need a Panadol

;P
Or how about a channel slam AND Novak plays using just one hand? Would that be enough?

No?

OK, then, we give every opponent a 1-0 lead in sets. Would that be enough to respect his achievement?

No?

OK, then, we let his opponents have three bounces.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
All 4 combos same odds.

All 4 identical in terms of no of slams, no of days, variety of surfaces, no of rounds (7), and with the same racket technology.

Same planet even.

Or am I wrong perhaps?
Yes, all 4 combos have the same odds. But because you've grouped up 3 of the combos, now there's a 3/4 chance to do that one. Is this so hard to understand?

Imagine I have 4 apples, labelled A, B, C, and D. Each of these represents one way to do 4 slams in a row. Now if you pick one at random, there's a 3/4 chance it will be one of B, C, or D. Only 25% chance of it being apple A, which represents the AO-RG-WIM-USO combo (a CYGS), whereas the other group are all called NCYGS and have a 75% chance of being picked.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Yes, all 4 combos have the same odds. But because you've grouped up 3 of the combos, now there's a 3/4 chance to do that one. Is this so hard to understand?

Imagine I have 4 apples, labelled A, B, C, and D. Each of these represents one way to do 4 slams in a row. Now if you pick one at random, there's a 3/4 chance it will be one of B, C, or D. Only 25% chance of it being apple A, which represents the AO-RG-WIM-USO combo (a CYGS), whereas the other group are all called NCYGS and have a 75% chance of being picked.
Hilarious!

YOU grouped those three combos. I did not. Why would I group them as a separate set of entities when all 4 are the same?

That is the whole point. So take your apples and oranges and make a fruit salad instead.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Well, as much as I do enjoy a good false equivalence fallacy, clearly I'm comparing order of grand slams (assuming each order of grand slams is as difficult as the other), whereas you're comparing completely separate events.

Also notice that I do acknowledge that each individual NCYGS is as difficult as a CYGS (no order is tougher than the others), just that one of them is called differently because it all happens in one season, and that is 3x less common than the others.
Well YEC is a totally seperate tournament .

But let's go off the chances to win theory . YECs are only available to a specific group of players .

If we go by vanilla #s each slam is open to 128 players .
YEC is open to 8 players only. Both inclusive of the world's best.

So by that notion , it is incredibly more difficult to win a YEC than a slam . The fact that YEC is a totally different tournament in the specific way that it is vs a slam is what puts it in its own category making it so much more mathematically difficult to win during any given year in the first place.

It's basically like saying , well YEC is different to slams because of all these things so we cannot compare the two .

Yet "all these things" are what makes the YEC mathematically so much more difficult to achieve (win) than any of the 4 slams in any given calender year.

By this theory of yours you are unable to compare slams to ATP 250s due to the fact that they're different tournament formats.

Again , a can of worms ...
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Hilarious!

YOU grouped those three combos. I did not. Why would I group them as a separate set of entities when all 4 are the same?

That is the whole point. So take your apples and oranges and make a fruit salad instead.
NCYGS is a group of 3 combinations of slams, my friend. CYGS is a single one. I didn't group anything. By definition, they are grouped. Is it not enough for you that I say "any combination of 4 grand slams is as difficult as the others"? Do you really have to try to deny anything I say?

I guarantee you, mathematically, a NCYGS is more common than a CYGS (if only for the arbitrary definitions).
 

StANDAA

Legend
Well, the CYGS must begin at the AO, whereas any 4 in a row can happen at any of the other 3 slams. Because of this, it should be about 3 times harder to win a CYGS than a NCYGS.

As for why people measure it more highly, probably because a tennis season is a season. If you win all the slams in one season, you've utterly dominated the season, whereas if you win 2 in one and 2 in another, you only half-dominated 2 seasons.
let’s say Novak has achieved the "Wimbledon YGS", which is 4 in a row starting with Wimbledon.

equally as difficult to achieve as a CYGS, because it must start at Wimbledon. Math, right?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
NCYGS is a group of 3 combinations of slams, my friend. CYGS is a single one. I didn't group anything. By definition, they are grouped. Is it not enough for you that I say "any combination of 4 grand slams is as difficult as the others"? Do you really have to try to deny anything I say?

I guarantee you, mathematically, a NCYGS is more common than a CYGS (if only for the arbitrary definitions).
Don't you realize that how humans divided time i.e. a year is SUBJECTIVE? There is no scientific method that decides that a year changes in January instead of November or July. It's arbitrary, not related to any logic - especially not to any logic that enables CYGS to become the most impressive combo.

We could have Jesus's birthday being celebrated in June...
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Don't you realize that how humans divided time i.e. a year is SUBJECTIVE? There is no scientific method that decides that a year changes in January instead of November or July. It's arbitrary, not related to any logic - especially not to any logic that enables CYGS to become the most impressive combo.

We could have Jesus's birthday being celebrated in June...
Congratulations, you've educated me on the meaninglessness of the calendar, which I pointed out earlier. Thank you.

NCYGS is more common than a CYGS (if only for the arbitrary definitions).

Now that you've done so, explain to me how that disproves any of what I just said. The NCYGS is defined as "any 4 in a row combo that doesn't start the AO" and the CYGS is defined as "any 4 in a row combo that starts that the AO."

How can I make this any clearer for you? Maybe in a list.
  1. Any 4-in-a-row slam combination is just as hard to achieve as any other.
  2. The CYGS can only begin with the AO.
  3. The NCYGS can begin with anything except the AO.
  4. Hence, there are 3 ways to achieve a NCYGS and only 1 way to achieve a CYGS.
  5. This makes it less common, despite these differences being arbitrary, as I pointed out in my last post.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Congratulations, you've educated me on the meaninglessness of the calendar, which I pointed out earlier. Thank you.




Now that you've done so, explain to me how that disproves any of what I just said. The NCYGS is defined as "any 4 in a row combo that doesn't start the AO" and the CYGS is defined as "any 4 in a row combo that starts that the AO."

How can I make this any clearer for you? Maybe in a list.
  1. Any 4-in-a-row slam combination is just as hard to achieve as any other.
  2. The CYGS can only begin with the AO.
  3. The NCYGS can begin with anything except the AO.
  4. Hence, there are 3 ways to achieve a NCYGS and only 1 way to achieve a CYGS.
  5. This makes it less common, despite these differences being arbitrary, as I pointed out in my last post.
Did you actually think I was going to TRACE all your comments in this thread?

Yeah, right. You overvalue your importance here.

Actually, the fact you knew the obvious makes me even more baffled why you'd waste your time try to split hairs between various combos.

This whole thing is akin to saying "yeah, that Cassius Clay is so overrated, he only managed a KO after 5 minutes, it'd be more impressive if he'd done it after 15 seconds".

Why are you even saying the obvious about 3/4 being 75%? That's kid stuff. Utterly pointless. Because it has no basis in reality.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Did you actually think I was going to TRACE all your comments in this thread?

Yeah, right.

Actually, the fact you knew the obvious makes me even more baffled why you'd waste your time try to split hairs between various combos.

It's akin to saying "yeah, that Cassius Clay is so overrated, he only managed a KO after 5 minutes, it'd be more impressive if he'd done it after 15 seconds.
No, I expected you to read my reply to your own post. I've said time after time "all 4 in a rows are as difficult as the others." It took you quite a few tries to finally read that sentence.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
No, I expected you to read my reply to your own post. I've said time after time "all 4 in a rows are as difficult as the others." It took you quite a few tries to finally read that sentence.
But WHY then would you group the other three combos and go on about that? It's irrelevant. It's moot. It's like random situation maths. "Let's group all Spanish and Malaysian players and see how they fare against a Brazilian, Chinese and Nicaraguan players combo". It's that random and pointless an exercise.
 

StANDAA

Legend
Congratulations, you've educated me on the meaninglessness of the calendar, which I pointed out earlier. Thank you.




Now that you've done so, explain to me how that disproves any of what I just said. The NCYGS is defined as "any 4 in a row combo that doesn't start the AO" and the CYGS is defined as "any 4 in a row combo that starts that the AO."

How can I make this any clearer for you? Maybe in a list.
  1. Any 4-in-a-row slam combination is just as hard to achieve as any other.
  2. The CYGS can only begin with the AO.
  3. The NCYGS can begin with anything except the AO.
  4. Hence, there are 3 ways to achieve a NCYGS and only 1 way to achieve a CYGS.
  5. This makes it less common, despite these differences being arbitrary, as I pointed out in my last post.
yes, but the Wimbledon YGS can only begin with Wimbledon, thus it’s just as hard to achieve as a CYGS.

hehe
 

TripleATeam

Legend
But WHY then would you group the other three combos and go on about that? It's irrelevant. It's moot. It's like random situation maths. "Let's group all Spanish and Malaysian players and see how they fare against a Brazilian, Chinese and Nicaraguan players combo". It's that random and pointless an exercise.
The question was about NCYGS and CYGS, my friend. Not up to me how to define these terms. Don't lose any sleep over it, okay?
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
The thing here is . The tennis year is a concoction of separately played tournaments in different countries on different surfaces . So any notion towards a tennis 'season' in a sporting sense makes zero sense.

What you do @ 1 tournament has very little to do with what you do @ another .

Win Wimbledon? Great , what does that do for your U.S Open chances? If you're a top ranked player not much apart from 'confidence' , confidence which stems from winning a tournament that happens to slot in the same category as the other , despite being played in a different country & on a different surface.

The tennis calender year is meaningless . Tennis consists of a rolling format of tournaments that fly under seperate tiers on seperate formats against varying types of opponents. Any top player can get hot & win 7 best of 5 matches @ AO within a two week timeframe. That's great , so winning AO has something tied to winning the FO? It doesn't .

So why does anything in any calender year mean more than during any other 52 week period?

Winning AO has nothing to do with winning FO a few months later. Just as winning USO has absolutely nothing to do with winning AO @ the start of the following year.

Calender Slam is an artificial goalpost.

It's not a calender slam vs all 3 other combinations.
It's all 4 combinations just being the same , with different start points & ends.

So in conclusion , a calender slam would mean something if the tennis calender year actually meant something . Which it doesn't. Which nullifies the 'C' in CYGS .

I see your point . But it'd only mean something if it in reality meant something. Which again it doesn't.
@TripleATeam
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The thing here is . The tennis year is a concoction of separately played tournaments in different countries on different surfaces . So any notion towards a tennis 'season' in a sporting sense makes zero sense.

What you do @ 1 tournament has very little to do with what you do @ another .

Win Wimbledon? Great , what does that do for your U.S Open chances? If you're a top ranked player not much apart from 'confidence' , confidence which stems from winning a tournament that happens to slot in the same category as the other , despite being played in a different country & on a different surface.

The tennis calender year is meaningless . Tennis consists of a rolling format of tournaments that fly under seperate tiers on seperate formats against varying types of opponents. Any top player can get hot & win 7 best of 5 matches @ AO within a two week timeframe. That's great , so winning AO has something tied to winning the FO? It doesn't .

So why does anything in any calender year mean more than during any other 52 week period?

Winning AO has nothing to do with winning FO a few months later. Just as winning USO has absolutely nothing to do with winning AO @ the start of the following year.

Calender Slam is an artificial goalpost.

It's not a calender slam vs all 3 other combinations.
It's all 4 combinations just being the same , with different start points & ends.

So in conclusion , a calender slam would mean something if the tennis calender year actually meant something . Which it doesn't. Which nullifies the 'C' in CYGS .

I see your point . But it'd only mean something if it in reality meant something. Which again it doesn't.
@TripleATeam
Amen, Hallelujah and may God save us from Novak haters!
 

TripleATeam

Legend
The thing here is . The tennis year is a concoction of separately played tournaments in different countries on different surfaces . So any notion towards a tennis 'season' in a sporting sense makes zero sense.

What you do @ 1 tournament has very little to do with what you do @ another .

Win Wimbledon? Great , what does that do for your U.S Open chances? If you're a top ranked player not much apart from 'confidence' , confidence which stems from winning a tournament that happens to slot in the same category as the other , despite being played in a different country & on a different surface.

The tennis calender year is meaningless . Tennis consists of a rolling format of tournaments that fly under seperate tiers on seperate formats against varying types of opponents. Any top player can get hot & win 7 best of 5 matches @ AO within a two week timeframe. That's great , so winning AO has something tied to winning the FO? It doesn't .

So why does anything in any calender year mean more than during any other 52 week period?

Winning AO has nothing to do with winning FO a few months later. Just as winning USO has absolutely nothing to do with winning AO @ the start of the following year.

Calender Slam is an artificial goalpost.

It's not a calender slam vs all 3 other combinations.
It's all 4 combinations just being the same , with different start points & ends.

So in conclusion , a calender slam would mean something if the tennis calender year actually meant something . Which it doesn't. Which nullifies the 'C' in CYGS .

I see your point . But it'd only mean something if it in reality meant something. Which again it doesn't.
@TripleATeam
Yep. It's all meaningless in the end, other than the way we describe these terms, which is completely arbitrary to begin with.

An exercise in futility.
 

topher

Semi-Pro
There’s a clear order on which is toughest:

1. AO-RG-W-USO

This includes the channel slam, no offseason and the last 3 slams are within 3 months of each other. Tough way to finish. That’s not including the extra pressure that would come along with the CYGS title itself.

2. USO-AO-RG-W

Includes off season, but ends on the channel slam. Arguably as tough of a way to finish as the CYGS but includes an offseason. And ending at Wimby would be a very high pressure situation.

3. RG-W-USO-AO

The finish is potentially easier, as you have the offseason to rest. But the start, including the channel slam plus USO is the hardest part of this one.

4. W-USO-AO-RG

Avoid the channel slam, get an offseason, even get the 5 month surface transition time between AO and RG to finish. This is definitely the easiest way to do it, but still a great accomplishment.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
There’s a clear order on which is toughest:

1. AO-RG-W-USO

This includes the channel slam, no offseason and the last 3 slams are within 3 months of each other. Tough way to finish.

2. USO-AO-RG-W

Includes off season, but ends on the channel slam. Arguably as tough of a way to finish as the CYGS but includes an offseason.

3. RG-W-USO-AO

The finish is potentially easier, as you have the offseason to rest. But the start, including the channel slam plus USO is the hardest part of this one.

4. W-USO-AO-RG

Avoid the channel slam, get an offseason, even get the 5 month surface transition time between AO and RG to finish. This is definitely the easiest way to do it, but still a great accomplishment.
And of course this silly order has NOTHING to do with the fact that Novak won your 4th-ranked combo...

Nothing, right? Just a weird coincidence?
 

King No1e

Legend
Pressure. You saw what Serena did at USO15. The pressure gets to even the GOAT of women's tennis.
Still, Djoker's NCYGS is criminally underrated by tennis fans. It's the single greatest achievement by any of the three. It demonstrates utter mastery of tennis just as much as a CYGS.
However, Rod Laver won 2 CYGS and 1 calendar Pro slam. 3>1 hence Laver > Djokovic.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Pressure. You saw what Serena did at USO15. The pressure gets to even the GOAT of women's tennis.
Still, Djoker's NCYGS is criminally underrated by tennis fans. It's the single greatest achievement by any of the three. It demonstrates utter mastery of tennis just as much as a CYGS.
However, Rod Laver won 2 CYGS and 1 calendar Pro slam. 3>1 hence Laver > Djokovic.
Laver played these four on two surfaces. Not three.

And I believe not all events were 7 rounds and/or weren't all bestof5.

And amateur era...

Laver: overrated.
 

topher

Semi-Pro
And of course this silly order has NOTHING to do with the fact that Novak won your 4th-ranked combo...

Nothing, right? Just a weird coincidence?
The lack of a channel slam is the biggest factor putting that one at the bottom for me. Even with the slow down at Wimbledon and the extra week, it’s inarguably the hardest two tournament combo in the sport.
 

King No1e

Legend
Laver played these four on two surfaces. Not three.

And I believe not all events were 7 rounds and/or weren't all bestof5.

And amateur era...

Laver: overrated.
Only one of the CYGS were in the amateur era. Obviously none of Laver's individual CYGS's were as hard as Djokovic's NCYGS, but doing it 3 times is definitely harder.
 

King No1e

Legend
The lack of a channel slam is the biggest factor putting that one at the bottom for me. Even with the slow down at Wimbledon and the extra week, it’s inarguably the hardest two tournament combo in the sport.
It wasn't hard for Borg or Nadal ;)
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
No, that's pretty accurate. Djokovic winning the RG-W double would've been way harder and more impressive.
I repeat: holding all 4 at once means you didn't lose a match in a slam in 365 days.

They all have that, all 4 combos. Everything else is absurd hair-splitting that involves bizarre theories, and strange assumptions.

The only thing more impressive would be winning FIVE in a row. Nothing else.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
I've always thought the feat was extremely underrated. Since every topic on this board boils down to a GOAT debate, Novak's feat only gets looked at in comparison to his rivals, not how amazing an achievement it is in a vaccuum. I think the lack of respect it gets is mostly due to the frustration of Federer fans like myself who know Fed could've won multiple calendar slams if not for Nadal, so Novak winning a NCYGS without Nadal in Paris feels like there's always an asterisk attached to it whenever it's brought up in a debate as something Novak did that Federer didn't.
 
Top