Will federer spare pete of his remaining 2 records?

[piece]

I included the calender slam in my calculations. Removing that, you have 15 times at a non-calender slam in 6 years compared to 6 tries for a calender slam.

What you are not getting is while "chance" of winning CYGS=X, CYGS=Y,CYGS=Z

the chances of getting a non-calender is equal to the chance of winning either X or Y or Z. it gets added up.

If you understand the consequences of this statement^, then you'll see it's equivalent to conceding my point. Any single non-calendar slam that someone could achieve has the same frequency as the calendar slam.

It isn't relevant that the non-calendar slam in general has a higher frequency than the calendar slam, because you can't achieve a non-calendar slam in general, so any non-calendar slam that is actually achieved is one that there was exactly the same number of shots to achieve as the CYGS, and is thus just as great an achievement.

 

[powerangle]

Federer was last able to beat Nadal in a slam in mid 2007 and even then it was by the skin of his teeth. He then proceded to lose 3 Slam finals to Nadal on 3 different surfaces in 2008-early 2009. Federer now looks to be in a free fall of sorts. He is now regularly losing to the likes of Berdych, Baghdatis, and Gulbis in Masters events, and even took his first Slam quarterfinal defeat ever to his pigeon Soderling. It is not like Soderling was playing unbelievable either as some potrayed him to be either. He would barely beat Berdych on Berdych's worst surface in the semis, then get waxed himself by Nadal.

There is nothing that indicates Federer could face down Nadal in a slam final in the future.

So Nadal beating Fed in 5 sets at Wimby 08 and AO 09 wasn't by the skin of his (Nadal's) teeth? Either the way you look at it, the matches in slam finals (barring clay) have been close. And yes, Federer is not nearly as consistent now...outside of slams. But put them in a slam final at Wimby, AO, or USO (if Nadal can even reach the final), I souldn't say Federer doesn't have a chance.

 

[abmk]

If you understand the consequences of this statement^, then you'll see it's equivalent to conceding my point. Any single non-calendar slam that someone could achieve has the same frequency as the calendar slam.

It isn't relevant that the non-calendar slam in general has a higher frequency than the calendar slam, because you can't achieve a non-calendar slam in general, so any non-calendar slam that is actually achieved is one that there was exactly the same number of shots to achieve as the CYGS, and is thus just as great an achievement.

This is just getting ridiculous. The bold part is VERY relevant.

even if you lose either the AO, FO or wimby, you can start working on your non-calender slam the very next slam ( FO,wimby,USO respectively). for a calender slam, you have to wait for the next year .

The pressure for a CYGS is higher and chances MUCH lower . The chance being lower is one part of what puts the much added pressure and makes it tougher

That X,Y,Z being equivalent was just mathematically ... in reality, the pressure for a calender slam is MUCH higher

 

[NonP]

This is just getting ridiculous. The bold part is VERY relevant.

even if you lose either the AO, FO or wimby, you can start working on your non-calender slam the very next slam ( FO,wimby,USO respectively). for a calender slam, you have to wait for the next year .

The pressure for a CYGS is higher and chances MUCH lower . The chance being lower is one part of what puts the much added pressure and makes it tougher

That X,Y,Z being equivalent was just mathematically ... in reality, the pressure for a calender slam is MUCH higher

Yes, good point. One could make an argument against putting too much stock in a CYGS, but grade-school algebra isn't one of 'em.

 

[piece]

This is just getting ridiculous. The bold part is VERY relevant.

even if you lose either the AO, FO or wimby, you can start working on your non-calender slam the very next slam ( FO,wimby,USO respectively). for a calender slam, you have to wait for the next year .

The pressure for a CYGS is higher and chances MUCH lower . The chance being lower is one part of what puts the much added pressure and makes it tougher

That X,Y,Z being equivalent was just mathematically ... in reality, the pressure for a calender slam is MUCH higher

I don't know what else to say. If you lose FO, W, or USO you can start working on your non-X slam the very next slam, but for an X-slam you have to wait until next year. Chances for the elusive X slam are just as low as for a CYGS. Same goes for the Y slam when compared to the non-Y slams, and the Z slam when compared to the non-Z slams. Each of the four different types of grand slams has the same frequency. Are you deliberately trying to not understand? Because I've explained it many times in as many ways as I can. It's fine if you think a CYGS is cool or something, but it's mathematically false to say that it chances to achieve it occur less frequently than chances to achieve one of the particular permutations of a non-calendar slam.

Just so you know, I realise the chances of getting a non-calendar slam are greater than getting a CYGS, but it's simply not the case that getting a PARTICULAR non-calendar slam is more likely than getting the CYGS (but same goes for getting a non-X-slam compared to getting an X-slam). It's an equal chance for all.

I'll try one last time to illustrate this. Imagine I have ten balls in a bag, numbered 1 through 10. You reach in to the bag and pick out the ball numbered 1 and think to yourself "wow, it was much less likely that I would pick ball number 1 than any of balls 2-10. this is amazing". What you have thought to yourself is true to an extent, but if you went further and thought that since picking ball 1 is less likely than picking balls 2-10, then picking ball 1 must be less likely than picking ball 3, you'd be wrong. It is exactly the same principle in comparing the chances to achieve the CYGS and the X-slam. Both are equally likely. And the alternate categorisation I gave in my previous post (X-slam and non-X-slam) should serve to show that I can use your reasoning to show that the X-slam is better than a non-X-slam, and thus better than the CYGS. This is absurd, so your reasoning must be wrong.

That's it...I did my best.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

He is the top tier, he can be considered a greater more dominant champ than Fed by being more dominant over the next best guy in his era than Fed will be over the next best guy in his own era. This means to be as relatively dominant as Sampras was over his greatest challenger Fed needs to end up with at least 6 more slams than Nadal and he needs to reverse the slam final domination v Nadal, otherwise he won't stand alone head and shoulders above the rest like Sampras did. Fed better keep adding to his slam tally and hope that Nadal doesn't accumulate too many slams.

why?.

What sampras did against his rivals will never be the same as federer against his rivals.

Sampras was more dominant against his rivals?? then why did he end up with less slams than federer?. Why did he never win a french (after all he was dominating?)

Sampras didnt stand head and shoulders (may be in his fans minds). If anything It is Federer standing head and shoulders above him for sure and is in the top tier.

How can you put Sampras in top tier when he doesnt even have a Clay Major?.

 

[piece]

Yes, good point. One could make an argument against putting too much stock in a CYGS, but grade-school algebra isn't one of 'em.

Care to back that up?

And my argument isn't against putting too much stock in a CYGS simpliciter. It's against putting more stock in a CYGS than a non-calendar year grand slam

 

[abmk]

I don't know what else to say. If you lose FO, W, or USO you can start working on your non-X slam the very next slam, but for an X-slam you have to wait until next year. Chances for the elusive X slam are just as low as for a CYGS. Same goes for the Y slam when compared to the non-Y slams, and the Z slam when compared to the non-Z slams. Each of the four different types of grand slams has the same frequency. Are you deliberately trying to not understand? Because I've explained it many times in as many ways as I can. It's fine if you think a CYGS is cool or something, but it's mathematically false to say that it chances to achieve it occur less frequently than chances to achieve one of the particular permutations of a non-calendar slam.

Just so you know, I realise the chances of getting a non-calendar slam are greater than getting a CYGS, but it's simply not the case that getting a PARTICULAR non-calendar slam is more likely than getting the CYGS (but same goes for getting a non-X-slam compared to getting an X-slam). It's an equal chance for all.

I'll try one last time to illustrate this. Imagine I have ten balls in a bag, numbered 1 through 10. You reach in to the bag and pick out the ball numbered 1 and think to yourself "wow, it was much less likely that I would pick ball number 1 than any of balls 2-10. this is amazing". What you have thought to yourself is true to an extent, but if you went further and thought that since picking ball 1 is less likely than picking balls 2-10, then picking ball 1 must be less likely than picking ball 3, you'd be wrong. It is exactly the same principle in comparing the chances to achieve the CYGS and the X-slam. Both are equally likely. And the alternate categorisation I gave in my previous post (X-slam and non-X-slam) should serve to show that I can use your reasoning to show that the X-slam is better than a non-X-slam, and thus better than the CYGS. This is absurd, so your reasoning must be wrong.

That's it...I did my best.

What you are not getting is that in this X,Y,Z are bunched together ( ANY of them is a non-calender slam ) and the CYGS IS alone ....

What you are saying is analogous to saying beating a player once in 15 tries is AS tough as beating a player once in 6 tries . While the effort involved may, note the word may be the same, the pressure is MUCH more and the chances lesser

I can't make it simpler than that. I quit !

 

[NonP]

Care to back that up?

And my argument isn't against putting too much stock in a CYGS simpliciter. It's against putting more stock in a CYGS than a non-calendar year grand slam

The point was that there's more to a CYGS than simple math, which you obviously didn't get.

 

[piece]

What you are not getting is that in this X,Y,Z are bunched together ( ANY of them is a non-calender slam ) and the CYGS IS alone ....

What you are saying is analogous to saying beating a player once in 15 tries is AS tough as beating a player once in 6 tries .

I can't make it simpler than that. I quit !

I explained in my last post that I understand that! And I showed you two or three times that you can bunch any 3 together that you like, getting a different result for which is the better achievement each time! You failed to reply at all! Here you go, one last time:

X-slam
non-X-slam

In a 6 year period you have 6 chances to complete the X-slam, but 21 chances to complete the non-X-slam (which includes the CYGS). Therefore and X-slam is better than a non-X-slam, and thus it is better than the CYGS.

The categorisation can also be altered to favour the Y-slam and the Z-slam. Your categorisation superficially favours the CYGS. Why should I prefer your categorisation?

Stop thinking about it as non-calendar vs calendar, it's an arbitrary viewpoint. Once you'll do this you'll see that all 4 grand slams have the same probability as each other.

 

[piece]

The point was that there's more to a CYGS than simple math, which you obviously didn't get.

That's deep...

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I don't know what else to say. If you lose FO, W, or USO you can start working on your non-X slam the very next slam, but for an X-slam you have to wait until next year. Chances for the elusive X slam are just as low as for a CYGS. Same goes for the Y slam when compared to the non-Y slams, and the Z slam when compared to the non-Z slams. Each of the four different types of grand slams has the same frequency. Are you deliberately trying to not understand? Because I've explained it many times in as many ways as I can. It's fine if you think a CYGS is cool or something, but it's mathematically false to say that it chances to achieve it occur less frequently than chances to achieve one of the particular permutations of a non-calendar slam.

Just so you know, I realise the chances of getting a non-calendar slam are greater than getting a CYGS, but it's simply not the case that getting a PARTICULAR non-calendar slam is more likely than getting the CYGS (but same goes for getting a non-X-slam compared to getting an X-slam). It's an equal chance for all.

I'll try one last time to illustrate this. Imagine I have ten balls in a bag, numbered 1 through 10. You reach in to the bag and pick out the ball numbered 1 and think to yourself "wow, it was much less likely that I would pick ball number 1 than any of balls 2-10. this is amazing". What you have thought to yourself is true to an extent, but if you went further and thought that since picking ball 1 is less likely than picking balls 2-10, then picking ball 1 must be less likely than picking ball 3, you'd be wrong. It is exactly the same principle in comparing the chances to achieve the CYGS and the X-slam. Both are equally likely. And the alternate categorisation I gave in my previous post (X-slam and non-X-slam) should serve to show that I can use your reasoning to show that the X-slam is better than a non-X-slam, and thus better than the CYGS. This is absurd, so your reasoning must be wrong.

That's it...I did my best.

I think what you are saying is :

The probability of winning a CYGS is the same as the probability of winning a particular NCYGS if all the failed attempts at winning a slam are ignored each time there is a failed attempt in the sequence of winning the NCYGS

But why would anyone ignore previous failed attempts, would be pointless wouldn't it as these all add to the extra probability of winning a particular NCYGS.

 

[abmk]

I explained in my last post that I understand that! And I showed you two or three times that you can bunch any 3 together that you like, getting a different result for which is the better achievement each time! You failed to reply at all! Here you go, one last time:

X-slam
non-X-slam

In a 6 year period you have 6 chances to complete the X-slam, but 21 chances to complete the non-X-slam (which includes the CYGS). Therefore and X-slam is better than a non-X-slam, and thus it is better than the CYGS.

The categorisation can also be altered to favour the Y-slam and the Z-slam. Your categorisation superficially favours the CYGS. Why should I prefer your categorisation?

Stop thinking about it as non-calendar vs calendar, it's an arbitrary viewpoint. Once you'll do this you'll see that all 4 grand slams have the same probability as each other.

@ bold part :Because the CYGS runs from the first slam to the last slam.

where you fail is that in your hypothetical case:

you are forgetting that you ought to bunch the Y,Z with the CYGS ( removing them from the group of X ) and keep X separate. ONLY then X becomes special ...

Coming back to reality,

If ONLY X is my aim, then yeah mathematically, only mathematically, it is the same as a CYGS.

But for a non-calender slam, I could aim for either X or Y or Z, why only X ??? which is why a non-calender slam is easier than a CYGS ..

 

[piece]

I think what you are saying is :

The probability of winning a CYGS is the same as the probability of winning a particular NCYGS if all the failed attempts at winning a slam are ignored each time there is a failed attempt in the sequence of winning the NCYGS

But why would anyone ignore previous failed attempts, would be pointless wouldn't it as these all add to the extra probability of winning a particular NCYGS.

Not quite. See my posts about an X-slam as compared with a non-X-slam. Each time you fail to win one of the slams in the X-slam permutation you need to start again, just as you do with a CYGS. So the probability is the same for winning an X-slam and winning a CYGS. This same reasoning goes for the Y and Z slams I mentioned. Thus each particular NCYGS (note, that means NOT all 3 grouped together) have a probability equal to the CYGS.

But I appreciate you trying to understand what I'm saying instead of just dismissing it.

 

[piece]

@ bold part :Because the CYGS runs from the first slam to the last slam.

where you fail is that in your hypothetical case:

you are forgetting that you ought to bunch the Y,Z with the CYGS ( removing them from the group of X ) and keep X separate. ONLY then X becomes special ...

Coming back to reality,

If ONLY X is my aim, then yeah mathematically, only mathematically, it is the same as a CYGS.

But for a non-calender slam, I could aim for either X or Y or Z, why only X ??? which is why a non-calender slam is easier than a CYGS ..

But for a non-X slam I could aim for either Y or Z or CYGS. They're exactly symmetrical. Which is why a CYGS has the same probability as an X-slam.

 

[piece]

@ bold part :Because the CYGS runs from the first slam to the last slam.

where you fail is that in your hypothetical case:

you are forgetting that you ought to bunch the Y,Z with the CYGS ( removing them from the group of X ) and keep X separate. ONLY then X becomes special ...

Coming back to reality,

If ONLY X is my aim, then yeah mathematically, only mathematically, it is the same as a CYGS.

But for a non-calender slam, I could aim for either X or Y or Z, why only X ??? which is why a non-calender slam is easier than a CYGS ..

And your categorisation of keeping the CYGS separate isn't some objective reality, it's abstract categorisation. Categories aren't somehow out there in the real world, people choose to apply them.

 

[angiebaby]

I hope Roger does not get disrespected the same way Pete does whenever his records start to fall. Sad thing about tennis fans. Pete who? Pete Sampras is a bad ass tennis player that desereves admiration. I'm not going to get into a silly GOAT debate but why the hatred for Pete? He was and is awesome.

Totally agree. When he was active I was never a big Sampras fan but since he's retired I've looked upon his career with far more fondness and respect. Definitely a case of absence makes the heart grow fonder. He was great. I truly dislike and don't understand the effort some fans put in to denigrate him at every turn or gleefully applauding his records tumbling just to show Federer is better.

Roger, IMO, will win two more at least. Probably this year's. And he should get that number one back for at least a few weeks at some point. At least.

I've always enjoyed Roger at the USO more personally.

I don't see where that can happen though. It would mean Rafa essentially not adding AT ALL to his points in the coming months and while not impossible, it's high unlikely. Plus Djokovic will have to rise from the dead at some point and I expect him to do better in the fall. Fed isn't just up against Nadal in front of him, the others behind him can and likely will catch up fast.

You forget this is not about Nadal being superior to Federer at this point. Nobody is seriously arguing that unless Nadal gets very close to Federer in slam count, which he is a long way from being right now. This about the fact Federer is legitimately owned by the 2nd best player of his own generation. Something that is not even close to true of any other GOAT candidate, and certainly not of Sampras.

Well said.

 

[roysid]

Well Fed made the sloppiest play possible to stop at 285 weeks.

Not winning at Estoril, Halle.

Should have done better in IW, Miami and Rome.

 

[Rippy]

Sampras will always be the undisputed king of Wimbledon due to his undefeated 7-0 record in Wimbledon finals and due to his beautiful classic SV style at Wimbledon.

Losing in the final is BETTER than losing earlier. Pete had that loss to Krajicek, which is worse than losing in the final. but anyway, Pete is still the grass GOAT.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Not quite. See my posts about an X-slam as compared with a non-X-slam. Each time you fail to win one of the slams in the X-slam permutation you need to start again, just as you do with a CYGS. So the probability is the same for winning an X-slam and winning a CYGS. This same reasoning goes for the Y and Z slams I mentioned. Thus each particular NCYGS (note, that means NOT all 3 grouped together) have a probability equal to the CYGS.

But I appreciate you trying to understand what I'm saying instead of just dismissing it.

Ok I think I get what you mean. Do you mean the probability of a NCYGS is the same as a CYGS as long as you pre-select which slam you want to begin with in the NCYGS sequence. In that case yes they're equally likely or difficult.

But in a NCYGS no one pre-selects which slam they will begin with, they just begin with whichever they win first. In the CYGS there is no option but to try to win the AO first.

 

[Speranza]

It's amazing how some of you never get tired of all this my boy-vs.-your boy talk. Try to keep in mind that it's just a game. Chill.

I normally stay out of these inane "discussions," but I thought I'd expand on this post:



Yes. What these people don't realize is that the ATP ranking points are not permanent but limited to a 12-month period, which itself is designed to end with the year-end championship. Your analogy in this case is very apt.

That said, you guys are missing the big picture here. I say that because the ATP ranking system, like all human concoctions, is not some infallible, inerrant product of divine providence that's set in stone. It's an arbitrary system that's bound to be changed and modified, as it has been over the years, and thus open to criticism and scrutiny. If we were to accept the ATP rankings at face value, we'd have to grant that Connors was indeed the top player in 1977, when many if not most serious fans would argue that Borg or Vilas better deserved the title. Or that had he won the YEC in '98 Rios should've claimed the top spot ahead of Sampras, although he had made only one major final (at the AO) and advanced past the 4th-round just once more at the other majors (RG). And so on. The official ranking system should serve only as a reference which you could use to form your own judgment, nothing more. It doesn't hold any more value than any other ranking system that one may devise, as long as the alternate system is reasonable and well argued.

And that brings us to an even bigger picture. Importance, again like all things human, is an arbitrary concept. It's an illusion that we've come to accept in order to make our life easier. It's impossible for us to do and deal with everything, so we have to somehow rank and prioritize it based on our own needs and wants. It's an important (yes, the word usage is intentional) survival mechanism, but still arbitrary.

This place (and others) would be a whole lot better off if more people understood that last part. Some people think the Federer-Nadal H2H is important, others don't. And some people think failing to win one of the four majors is important, while others don't. Ditto with the calendar-year Grand Slam. All these opinions are arbitrary and subjective, and reasonable people can and do disagree. The thing that matters is whether they're based on sound logical and empirical grounds. So if you want to argue that the Fed-Nadal H2H matters in your own ranking, judgment or whatever, you have to say more than that it's lopsided in Rafa's favor, as other all-time greats faced a few competitors who had their number. And if you want to argue that Laver's CYGS isn't that important, you can't just say that the competition back then wasn't as tough as today's because the population was smaller, as that's a reductive fallacy that fails to account for other variables like number of other sports, specialization of professions and disciplines, political climate, etc. And so on.

The best we can say about Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver and other all-time tennis greats is that they were the best of their era. Comparing eras is not as simple as a few arbitrary numbers that you choose to accept at face value. But I know this won't stop most of you guys. Do as you wish.

Holmes: Worthy of an exemplary scholar. Your points are robust and utterly valid.

As many members like to say here, quoted for truth.

 

[abmk]

Ok I think I get what you mean. Do you mean the probability of a NCYGS is the same as a CYGS as long as you pre-select which slam you want to begin with in the NCYGS sequence. In that case yes they're equally likely or difficult.

But in a NCYGS no one pre-selects which slam they will begin with, they just begin with whichever they win first. In the CYGS there is no option but to try to win the AO first.

yes, yes and yes. I don't see how anyone could make this any simpler !!!

 

[piece]

Ok I think I get what you mean. Do you mean the probability of a NCYGS is the same as a CYGS as long as you pre-select which slam you want to begin with in the NCYGS sequence. In that case yes they're equally likely or difficult.

But in a NCYGS no one pre-selects which slam they will begin with, they just begin with whichever they win first. In the CYGS there is no option but to try to win the AO first.

Again, not quite, but it seems you're understanding me better than abmk. There are four different possible orderings of grand slams:

AO, FO, W, USO - CYGS
FO, W, USO, AO - X
W, USO, AO, FO - Y
USO, AO, FO, W - Z

X has the same probability as CYGS, and if you miss one of the slams in X you have to wait a year to try and achieve X again, just like you do in a CYGS. Now, you've said that in an NCYGS noone preselects which slam they begin with - this is true of the NCYGS in general, but I'm talking about the particular permutations of an NYCGS. So to achieve X you have to begin with the FO, just like with the CYGS you have to begin with the AO. The error you're falling into is thinking of the NCYGS in the abstract instead of thinking of a concrete example of one. X, Y and Z are all concrete examples, and in each one of these you have to win a particular slam to start with, just as you have to for a CYGS. And, as I said, you might as well categorise the four grand slams in the category of X-slams and non-X-slams, in which case you have to win a FO to start an X slam but can win any of the other slams to start a non-X-slam (which is the category a CYGS is grouped into) - so this makes it look like the CYGS is actually part of the easier-to-achieve category.

- This easier to achieve category thing is of course what I've been arguing against, but the example is just meant to illustrate that each of the four possible grand slams (including CYGS) are just as easily grouped into a category that makes them seem easier to achieve. So each individual one is really just as easy/hard to achieve as any other.

Clearer?

 

[Speranza]

Yeah and we can all see what happens when the pressure is "off Fed" as you say. The motivation/ability to win is pretty much off as well.
But even that is irrelevant when it comes to beating Nadal in slams. He just doesn't have the game to do it at this point, period.

Nadal has faced Fed at his best (he's beaten him in 4 finals in 2006). The notion that he will feel more heat now that Fed is considerably worse is simply preposterous, sorry.

The way Fed is currently playing? I doubt it. There is also a question of stamina and athleticism. Fed cannot hang on long enough in a best of 5 vs Nadal at almost 30 years old.

He can clown around or not, won't make a difference. Nadal is as strong as ever and Fed is weaker. You do the maths any way you like, Fed's odds are lower than they used to be when he endured all those previous losses.

In a best of 5? The only chance I see for Fed is a Nadal injury. He cannot stay with Nadal in a long match. And that's much truer now than it's ever been.

Holmes: Dearest Veroniquem, as ever some valid points re. Sir Federer's chances. I'd agree that Sir Nadal is unlikely to lose if they were to meet again.....However, are you saying that Sir Federer really has, in your opinion, no chance at all against a fully fit Sir Nadal? If so, are you 100% behind that belief?

 

[piece]

yes, yes and yes. I don't see how anyone could make this any simpler !!!

Except that it's not true that you can start a PARTICULAR NCYGS with any slam you like. X must start with FO, Y with W, and Z with USO. Just like the CYGS must start with AO.

I don't think I'm going to convince you on this one if I havn't already, I think I've made all the points I need to in order to prove my case. And I don't think you're going to convince me either, abmk. So we can end this discussion if you like and just agree to disagree. It's pretty off-topic as it is

I apologise if I was rude when I was struggling with the frustration of trying to express myself and convince you of my position. But I think we stayed fairly civil considering some of the discussions round here. Neither of us got called a "****" once!

 

[NonP]

And your categorisation of keeping the CYGS separate isn't some objective reality, it's abstract categorisation. Categories aren't somehow out there in the real world, people choose to apply them.

You still don't get it. This isn't a sophomoric matter of "objective reality" or "abstract categorisation." You're right that Slam X, Y or Z has the same mathematical difficulty as a traditional CYGS, but the fact is that the tour isn't structured that way. As it stands each tennis season begins a few weeks before the AO and ends after the YEC, and players adjust their schedule accordingly.

I'll provide a simple example. Let's say this employee at a financial firm is scheduled to complete 4 major projects this year and another 4 next year, but the firm's fiscal year corresponds with the regular calendar year. And assume he gets a solid A--analogous to a W (win) for the majors in tennis--for the performance review of the last 3 projects in the 1st year and the first project in the next year. By your logic this 4-peat achievement is as great as the regular 4-peat in a calendar year (fiscal year in this case, in fact), because the chances of pulling either off are the same. But it doesn't work like that in real life. The majority of firms reserve a special value for the year-end performance, place and the like, just as the ATP ends the season with the YEC and lets the rankings stand for a month or two before the start of the next season, and like I said the players adjust their performance as they see fit. The mathematical permutations are only one piece of the puzzle.

Holmes: Worthy of an exemplary scholar. Your points are robust and utterly valid.

As many members like to say here, quoted for truth.

LOL, thanks. I'd thank you personally, but I don't know which one to address.

 

[fed_rulz]

You forget this is not about Nadal being superior to Federer at this point. Nobody is seriously arguing that unless Nadal gets very close to Federer in slam count, which he is a long way from being right now. This about the fact Federer is legitimately owned by the 2nd best player of his own generation. Something that is not even close to true of any other GOAT candidate, and certainly not of Sampras.

What was the ranking of the "2nd best player" of Pete's generation throughout Pete's reign as #1? Was it #2? Or at least top 5 throughout?

Now compare Nadal's ranking throughout Federer's reign.

#2 during Federer's era >>>> #2 during Pete's era.

Pete was lucky that:
1. he sucked on clay
2. did not have a consistent #2 as his rival

So take your "main rival" cr@p somewhere else...

 

[Rippy]

What was the ranking of the "2nd best player" of Pete's generation throughout Pete's reign as #1? Was it #2? Or at least top 5 throughout?

Now compare Nadal's ranking throughout Federer's reign.

#2 during Federer's era >>>> #2 during Pete's era.

Pete was lucky that:
1. he sucked on clay
2. did not have a consistent #2 as his rival

So take your "main rival" cr@p somewhere else...

His argument was pretty fail anyway. He said "well no other GOAT candidate was owned by their main rival". Someone could easily say of Sampras, "well no other GOAT candidate was such a clown on clay". You can't just look at one factor in isolation.

 

[piece]

You still don't get it. This isn't a sophomoric matter of "objective reality" or "abstract categorisation." You're right that Slam X, Y or Z has the same mathematical difficulty as a traditional CYGS, but the fact is that the tour isn't structured that way. As it stands each tennis season begins a few weeks before the AO and ends after the YEC, and players adjust their schedule accordingly.

I'll provide a simple example. Let's say this employee at a financial firm is scheduled to complete 4 major projects this year and another 4 next year, but the firm's fiscal year corresponds with the regular calendar year. And assume he gets a solid A--analogous to a W (win) for the majors in tennis--for the performance review of the last 3 projects in the 1st year and the first project in the next year. By your logic this 4-peat achievement is as great as the regular 4-peat in a calendar year (fiscal year in this case, in fact), because the chances of pulling either off are the same. But it doesn't work like that in real life. The majority of firms reserve a special value for the year-end performance, place and the like, just as the ATP ends the season with the YEC and lets the rankings stand for a month or two before the start of the next season, and like I said the players adjust their performance as they see fit. Your mathematical permutations are only one piece of the puzzle.



LOL, thanks. I'd thank you personally, but I don't know which one to address.

I agree with everything you've said here, and I apologise if I came off as being in opposition to the point you're making. All I was trying to argue was against ABMK's assertion that a particular NCYGS is easier to achieve (mathematically) than a CYGS. It seems you're in agreement with me there. There's sociological reasons for preferring a CYGS, I understand that, but such reasons cannot pretend to any objectivity, or even any persuasiveness to a person not susceptible to their influence. I, for one, think the two achievements are of equal significance, but I perfectly understand the person who favours the CYGS because of the importance of the tennis season as a unit or because of the importance of the calendar in society in general, what I don't understand is someone thinking there's a probabilistic difference between the two.

 

[Speranza]

LOL, thanks. I'd thank you personally, but I don't know which one to address.

Watson: No need for thanks. However, we'd ask you to just keep posting as you have. It keeps both Holmes and I encouraged that there is sanity and intelligence on this forum.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Again, not quite, but it seems you're understanding me better than abmk. There are four different possible orderings of grand slams:

AO, FO, W, USO - CYGS
FO, W, USO, AO - X
W, USO, AO, FO - Y
USO, AO, FO, W - Z

X has the same probability as CYGS, and if you miss one of the slams in X you have to wait a year to try and achieve X again, just like you do in a CYGS. Now, you've said that in an NCYGS noone preselects which slam they begin with - this is true of the NCYGS in general, but I'm talking about the particular permutations of an NYCGS. So to achieve X you have to begin with the FO, just like with the CYGS you have to begin with the AO. The error you're falling into is thinking of the NCYGS in the abstract instead of thinking of a concrete example of one. X, Y and Z are all concrete examples, and in each one of these you have to win a particular slam to start with, just as you have to for a CYGS. And, as I said, you might as well categorise the four grand slams in the category of X-slams and non-X-slams, in which case you have to win a FO to start an X slam but can win any of the other slams to start a non-X-slam (which is the category a CYGS is grouped into) - so this makes it look like the CYGS is actually part of the easier-to-achieve category.

- This easier to achieve category thing is of course what I've been arguing against, but the example is just meant to illustrate that each of the four possible grand slams (including CYGS) are just as easily grouped into a category that makes them seem easier to achieve. So each individual one is really just as easy/hard to achieve as any other.

Clearer?

Ok it makes sense, for the attempt of the NCYGS of CYGS you just begin with the first slam in any of the combos of the NCYGS just as you do with the regular CYGS. I think this is the assumption I bypassed by just thinking about how players compete until they win one instead of having the same starting point for the attempt of each permutations of NCYGS or CYGS.

 

[Speranza]

His argument was pretty fail anyway. He said "well no other GOAT candidate was owned by their main rival". Someone could easily say of Sampras, "well no other GOAT candidate was such a clown on clay". You can't just look at one factor in isolation.

Holmes: You can if you are not open minded. He seems to be extremely guilty of the failing many of us have as humans, and perhaps more so than most:

People believe what they want to believe.

 

[piece]

Ok it makes sense, you just begin with the first slam in any of the combos of the NCYGS just as you do with the regular CYGS. I think this is the assumption I bypassed by just thinking about how players compete until they win one instead of having the same starting point for each permutations of NCYGS or CYGS.

I'd say so too. And I honestly appreciate you putting the time in to understand where I was coming from instead of dismissing my argument, which would have been the easy thing to do given that assumption you mentioned. Sign of an open mind.

 

[Gemini]

Wimbledon is Federer's best bet in my opinion to win another major this year. That being said, I think out of the next three Wimbledon's (this year included), Federer will win one.

As for total weeks at no. 1, if Federer's the no. 2 seed going into the A.O. next year, he'll re-take the no 1. ranking next year just long enough to break the record.

 

[fed_rulz]

I honestly don't know why so much stock is being put into that 6 consecutive year end #1. If my memory serves me correctly, Sampras would go around playing Micky Mouse tournaments just to ensure he would be the year end #1 esp. that 6th year.

oh yes he did. I read somewhere that he called up Becker to request him to give up his spot in a mickey mouse tournament, so that Sampras could play instead of him to seal the # 1 spot for the YE. And Becker obliged...

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I'd say so too. And I honestly appreciate you putting the time in to understand where I was coming from instead of dismissing my argument, which would have been the easy thing to do given that assumption you mentioned. Sign of an open mind.

no worries. I need a kit kat now

 

[piece]

no worries. I need a kit kat now

Don't we all

 

[newmark401]

Originally posted by davey25:

"Pete has alot of substantial records that Roger still hasnt and probably wont ever surpass, and many wont even match:

-6 straight year end #1s.
Federer has managed to finish the year-end no. 1 5 times in 6 years, which is quite impressive in itself.
-6 total year end #1s.
To Federer's 5 (difference: 1 year).
-7 Wimbledon titles
William Renshaw also won 7 Wimbledon singles titles (1881-6 and 1889); Federer can join both him and Sampras in a couple of weeks if Federer retains his Wimbledon title.
-only man to win both 5 U.S Open titles and reach 8 U.S Open finals
Federer has won 5 US Open titles, all in a row (2004-08) and lost the 2009 final by the narrowest of margins.
-most weeks ranked #1
Sampras has 286 weeks at number 1; Federer has spent 285 weeks at number 1 (difference: 1 week)."

I'm not trying to denigrate Pete Sampras, a great player, but I just want to show how close Federer is to breaking or equalling some of the records Sampras still holds.

 

[Praetorian]

Federer could lost in the 1st round by a triple bagel, and his pinky finger on his left hand would still be greater than all of us put together.

 

[NonP]

I agree with everything you've said here, and I apologise if I came off as being in opposition to the point you're making. All I was trying to argue was against ABMK's assertion that a particular NCYGS is easier to achieve (mathematically) than a CYGS. It seems you're in agreement with me there. There's sociological reasons for preferring a CYGS, I understand that, but such reasons cannot pretend to any objectivity, or even any persuasiveness to a person not susceptible to their influence. I, for one, think the two achievements are of equal significance, but I perfectly understand the person who favours the CYGS because of the importance of the tennis season as a unit or because of the importance of the calendar in society in general, what I don't understand is someone thinking there's a probabilistic difference between the two.

This isn't a matter of "preferring" a CYGS or any other achievement. Tennis itself is a "sociological" or human activity, and assigning an arbitrary value to a human achievement is not an "objective" exercise, or at least no more objective than considering the structure of the tour and gauging its effects on the players. Of course not everyone will be persuaded by the reasons given, but if you want to persuade others that your position is right you need to provide your own sound reasons. So far you haven't done that, except to say that there's no probabilistic difference between the CYGS and one of the other three successive GS's. Again this simple mathematical fact is just part of the equation. The structural/institutional differences are another part.

Watson: No need for thanks. However, we'd ask you to just keep posting as you have. It keeps both Holmes and I encouraged that there is sanity and intelligence on this forum.

I'll try.

 

[fed_rulz]

@ bold part :Because the CYGS runs from the first slam to the last slam.

where you fail is that in your hypothetical case:

you are forgetting that you ought to bunch the Y,Z with the CYGS ( removing them from the group of X ) and keep X separate. ONLY then X becomes special ...

Coming back to reality,

If ONLY X is my aim, then yeah mathematically, only mathematically, it is the same as a CYGS.

But for a non-calender slam, I could aim for either X or Y or Z, why only X ??? which is why a non-calender slam is easier than a CYGS ..

abmk, i think piece clearly factored that into his/her argument.

If X is considered unique, then you have a chance of winning the CYGS or Y or Z 21 times in 6 yrs, but you only have 6 chances to winning X. I believe piece's core argument is why should so much emphasis be placed on winning AO, FO, W, USO (in that order), as opposed to say, W, USO, AO and FO. Am I right? Are they that different?

 

[piece]

This isn't a matter of "preferring" a CYGS or any other achievement. Tennis itself is a "sociological" or human activity, and assigning an arbitrary value to a human achievement is not an "objective" exercise, or at least no more objective than considering the structure of the tour and gauging its effects on the players. Of course not everyone will be persuaded by the reasons given, but if you want to persuade others that your position is right you need to provide your own sound reasons. So far you haven't done that, except to say that there's no probabilistic difference between the CYGS and one of the other three successive GS's. Again this simple mathematical fact is just part of the equation. The structural/institutional differences are another part.



I'll try.

As I said, my position (as far as my argument went) was nothing other than to establish the lack of a probabilistic difference between the CYGS and any of the other 3 grand slams. My personal opinion, that the CYGS and the NCYGS's are of equal merit isn't something that I was arguing for, and I wouldn't pretend to do so. I can just see no reason for holding to the contrary - so I don't. You're quite correct that I need to provide good reasons to persuade others of this position, but I'm not sure I have any, which is ok because I'm not trying to persuade anyone of it.

 

[piece]

abmk, i think piece clearly factored that into his/her argument.

If X is considered unique, then you have a chance of winning the CYGS or Y or Z 21 times in 6 yrs, but you only have 6 chances to winning X. I believe piece's core argument is why should so much emphasis be placed on winning AO, FO, W, USO (in that order), as opposed to say, W, USO, AO and FO. Am I right? Are they that different?

You're right. That's my argument.

And it's "his".

 

[gold soundz]

Federer won't beat Sampras' record but I think Gilles Simon will.

 

[abmk]

abmk, i think piece clearly factored that into his/her argument.

If X is considered unique, then you have a chance of winning the CYGS or Y or Z 21 times in 6 yrs, but you only have 6 chances to winning X. I believe piece's core argument is why should so much emphasis be placed on winning AO, FO, W, USO (in that order), as opposed to say, W, USO, AO and FO. Am I right? Are they that different?

Firstly there are 4 possible combos, right ? So, out of these 4, one of these, one of these is chosen to be special and that is the calender slam . That is because it goes from the first slam of the season to the last and indicates the player's dominance over that calender year and you know a calender year holds a "distinctive" position in tennis, right ?

 

[aaziz]

pete record of finishing 6 years as no. 1 + 6 cons. year end no. 1 + only guy to win 3 cons. wim twice in his career are safe.

u have to understand, each goat has some record which will never be broken. like to first one to win 14 GS, first one to win 7 wim, undefeated in 7 wim finals.

 

[abmk]

As I said, my position (as far as my argument went) was nothing other than to establish the lack of a probabilistic difference between the CYGS and any of the other 3 grand slams. My personal opinion, that the CYGS and the NCYGS's are of equal merit isn't something that I was arguing for, and I wouldn't pretend to do so. I can just see no reason for holding to the contrary - so I don't. You're quite correct that I need to provide good reasons to persuade others of this position, but I'm not sure I have any, which is ok because I'm not trying to persuade anyone of it.

Like I already, IF you consider all the 4 permutations of equal importance, then mathematically they are the same.

But reality is, the CYGS is unique ( me and NonP already explained why ) and it has been established. So considering that, it is a different category from the other 3. The other 3 are considered equivalent and any one of them is a non-calender GS.

So achieving a non-calender GS is easier, since you know you have more shots at it. ( unless you want to achieve it in some specific order , say Y, in which case , mathematically it is equivalent, but not in reality )

 

[NonP]

As I said, my position (as far as my argument went) was nothing other than to establish the lack of a probabilistic difference between the CYGS and any of the other 3 grand slams. My personal opinion, that the CYGS and the NCYGS's are of equal merit isn't something that I was arguing for, and I wouldn't pretend to do so. I can just see no reason for holding to the contrary - so I don't. You're quite correct that I need to provide good reasons to persuade others of this position, but I'm not sure I have any, which is ok because I'm not trying to persuade anyone of it.

If you're not trying to persuade anyone, you're of course free to believe what you want, but I have already provided one reason to counter your opinion--the structural/institutional difference. Guess I'll have to elaborate.

Tennis, like any other profession, is governed by its own set of rules, and one of them is that a tennis season begins a couple of weeks before the AO and ends after the YEC. It's thus natural for the players to adjust their schedule accordingly, especially come the Davis Cup ties--keep in mind that DC also follows the calendar tennis season--when the top players try to balance their participation in DC and their preparation for the Masters events and of course the majors, and also toward the year-end when the players make a last push to qualify for and win the YEC. This is what I mean by the structural/institutional difference: it affects the tour as a whole.

So when you say you see no reason to view the CYGS and the NCYGS's differently you're ignoring one of the key structural/institutional differences. This is no different from ignoring the diminished status that the AO used to hold before the '90s, or even the demarcation between the amateur and pro tours before the pre-Open era, as all these three differences affect/ed the whole group of players. I can definitely see why one would reject environmental or physical factors--that is, those that affected a particular player or a small subset of the population only--but I'd say one needs to provide a strong counterpoint in order to reject any of the structural/institutional factors as inconsequential. In this case you have not done that. You simply said you just can see no reason to treat the CYGS and the NCYGS's differently.

But if that's your preference, fine, I won't try to convince you. After all it's your personal choice.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The big question is will Fed end up being the best of his own era.

Mmmm, I think that question has been answered!

 

[Cyan]

Federer will break both records.