Will federer spare pete of his remaining 2 records?

[NonP]

abmk, though I've been arguing for the CYGS, I actually don't rate it as high as some people (and maybe you) do. Here's why. Let's say these two hypothetical players have won a GS each and no more majors. (And I do mean a true Grand Slam--both players have won each of the four majors.) Let's also say one's GS was achieved in the same year, the other's 17 years apart, like Rosewall's major titles. Which GS is greater? I'd pick the latter for sheer longevity, and I don't think I'm alone in this.

Of course real-life comparisons are never this simple, but at least you can see why some of us don't think the CYGS is such a monumental achievement. I'd personally give a player's CYGS significant extra points only when his and his competitors' records are comparable. To me it's only a small part of the player's resume. Others will disagree, and that's fine, this is where reasonable people can differ. Hence my earlier post about the arbitrary and subjective nature of these types of judgments.

 

[newmark401]

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.

William Renshaw won six (3 + 3) consecutive Wimbledon singles titles, from 1881-1886, and a seventh and final title in 1889.

So you have the following:

Most Wimbledon men's singles titles

7 William Renshaw, Pete Sampras
6 Roger Federer
5 Laurie Doherty, Bjorn Borg
4 Reggie Doherty, Tony Wilding, Rod Laver
--

As for the most majors record, Federer broke that at Wimbledon 2009 when he won his fifteenth major. Obviously, though, Sampras will always be the first man to have won fourteen majors.

 

[TMF]

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...

Interesting. I would hate to see Federer ask Nadal to skip a tourney for the same reason. But i don't think it will ever happen.

 

[sunny_cali]

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.

I agree with you that CYGS/NCYGS are of equal merit -- CYGS is just an accepted arbitrary convention. I see little reason to rate it higher than a NCYGS -- in both cases you are winning 4 GS spread out roughly over an year -- It also somewhat ties in with my disinclination towards "year-end" No. 1.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Mmmm, I think that question has been answered!

We have to wait until the end of Nadal's career to answer that question.

 

[dh003i]

Winning 4 slams in a row is just as impressive whether its in a calendar year or over a non-calendar year 1-year period.

And winning 5 slams in a row, even if that didn't mean winning the CYGS, would obviously be more impressive than the CYGS. (i.e., Wimbledon, USO, AO, FO, Wimbledon).

 

[Jchurch]

Sampras would lead Nadal at this point in Nadal's career by more than a 6-4 ratio on non clay surfaces. It would probably be something like 8-2 or 9-1 in fact. So the argument of "because of all those clay meetings" would hold much more weight. Since Nadal and Federer are almost tied in non clay meetings, while Nadal owns Federer on clay, that arguments holds little ground for Federer.

Sampras probably would lead, BUT only if Nadal played him more frequently on grass and hard court than he did Federer

 

[AAAA]

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.
-6 total year end #1s.

This is virtually counting the same thing in 2 different ways.

Write a long riposte if you must Davey25 but it won't change what is essentially double-counting.

 

[dh003i]

This is virtually counting the same thing in 2 different ways.

Write a long riposte if you must Davey25 but it won't change what is essentially double-counting.

Davey25 loves to double count.

If you're going to do that, you should at least acknowledge that it is double counting, and that the only reason your doing it is to show a different aspect of something...

i.e., for Federer, he holds a record of consistency and excellence, reaching 23 consecutive SF from 2004 Wimbledon to 2010 AO; during that period, he reached 10 consecutive GS finals, appeared in 18 of 19 finals from 2005 Wimbledon to 2010 AO, and won 16 GS.

This makes it clear that each case kind of a subcategory of the other, but going beyond it. So it is clear that we aren't counting the same thing twice, but elaborating on a kind of "pyramid of excellence".

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Davey25 loves to double count.

If you're going to do that, you should at least acknowledge that it is double counting, and that the only reason your doing it is to show a different aspect of something...

i.e., for Federer, he holds a record of consistency and excellence, reaching 23 consecutive SF from 2004 Wimbledon to 2010 AO; during that period, he reached 10 consecutive GS finals, appeared in 18 of 19 finals from 2005 Wimbledon to 2010 AO, and won 16 GS.

This makes it clear that each case kind of a subcategory of the other, but going beyond it. So it is clear that we aren't counting the same thing twice, but elaborating on a kind of "pyramid of excellence".

Too many redundant sub categories. All that matters is what fed and Nadal have won compared to each other when determining the best of their era. at the end of both their careers. The rest is double counting

Fed:
16 Slams
16 MS titles
4 year end championships
0 Davis cups
0 Olympic medals in singles
7-14 h2h v Nadal (2-5 in Slam finals)
62 total singles titles

Nadal:

7 Slams
18 MS titles
0 YEC
3 + Davis cups
1 Olympic Gold (singles)
14-7 h2h v Nadal (5-2 in Slam finals)
40 total singles titles

 

[fed_rulz]

Interesting. I would hate to see Federer ask Nadal to skip a tourney for the same reason. But i don't think it will ever happen.

Here you go from this link:

Boris: for pete's sake<

NEW YORK - In the battle to keep his No. 1 ranking for a record sixth year, Pete Sampras has turned to an unlikely source - Boris Becker.

Sampras has been ranked No. 1 in the world for the last five years, a streak matched only by Jimmy Connors. He wants the record by himself.

Sampras, being chased by Patrick Rafter, is playing five extra tournaments in Europe. Becker had received the last wild card for Vienna, which begins on Monday, and gave it to Sampras after a phone conversation.

 

[TMF]

Here you go from this link:

Oh, that is just too bad. Becker and Sampras can’t keep it behind close door. I wonder how Rafter must of felt like.

For many posters who don’t give the year end #1 much weigh, I’m beginning to support their idea.

 

[fed_rulz]

Oh, that is just too bad. Becker and Sampras can’t keep it behind close door. I wonder how Rafter must of felt like.

For many posters who don’t give the year end #1 much weigh, I’m beginning to support their idea.

wait, there's more. See this link:

The article captures the mood at that moment (whiny Pete-****s should really read this article); most of it is stuff we already know, but Pete-****s need a reality check:

1. Sampras played with no one to challenge him (weak-era, anyone?) Sampras himself admits he had no rivals.

2) On a related note, prior to the sampras run, there Borg-Mac met consecutively thrice, Edberg-Becker met thrice at the wimby finals. There was no such rivalry in the 90s on grass. Now we have Fed/Nadal meeting thrice in the finals, and Fed/Roddick.


3) Becker quit because he could not compete with the likes of Sampras (mentally strong 90s, hello!!). I will paste this link to counter any post that claims Sampras had stronger rivals. If by stronger, you mean "over-the-hill past GS champions", then I concur.

4) total grand slam count was a big deal at that time; Sampras with 14 would be considered the GOAT. Of course, all excuses for why he's not the GOAT even with 16 slams only applies to Federer.

Admittedly, this is just one article. But I'm sure it captures the mood at that time (and google can fetch other ones too..)

 

[davey25]

1. Sampras played with no one to challenge him (weak-era, anyone?) Sampras himself admits he had no rivals.

Agassi and Becker were definitely legitimate rivals. 20-14 is more of a rivalry than 14-7. Agassi was able to give Sampras more battle than so called GOAT Federer can give the #2 player of his generation, LOL!

2) On a related note, prior to the sampras run, there Borg-Mac met consecutively thrice, Edberg-Becker met thrice at the wimby finals. There was no such rivalry in the 90s on grass. Now we have Fed/Nadal meeting thrice in the finals, and Fed/Roddick.

Sampras and Ivanisevic were the 2 top grass courters of the 90s. They met in the semis in 92, finals in 94, semis in 95, finals in 98. They didnt always meet in the finals as Ivanisevic wasnt as dominant on other surfaces and so was rarely ranked in the top 2. If Federer and Nadal meet at Wimbledon they will match the # of times Sampras and Ivanisevic did. Add to those 2 Becker, Agassi, Stich, Edberg, Henman, Todd Martin, young Philippoussis, and you had one killer grass court field.

3) Becker quit because he could not compete with the likes of Sampras (mentally strong 90s, hello!!). I will paste this link to counter any post that claims Sampras had stronger rivals. If by stronger, you mean "over-the-hill past GS champions", then I concur.

Becker was playing at an extremely high level still from 93-95. In 96 he was still at a very high level when he was healthy but unfortunately he had alot of injuries this year. By 97 injuries and age had taken their toil and he was now indeed a shadow of his old self. He always had alot of pride so it is no surprise when he reaches the point he can no longer beat Kafelnikov on grass he moves on. It has nothing to do with his mental toughness, Becker is one of the toughest mental players of the last couple decades.

4) total grand slam count was a big deal at that time; Sampras with 14 would be considered the GOAT. Of course, all excuses for why he's not the GOAT even with 16 slams only applies to Federer.

Those who did consider Sampras the GOAT did not consider him this just because of his 14 slams. They did because of his 6 straight year end #1s (probably an even better achievement than winning 14 or 16 slams), his 7 Wimbledons, his longevity at the top level, and his stellar all court game which in truth is more complete than Federer's who barely plays at the net or has any skills there at this point.

 

[Rippy]

Agassi and Becker were definitely legitimate rivals. 20-14 is more of a rivalry than 14-7. Agassi was able to give Sampras more battle than so called GOAT Federer can give the #2 player of his generation, LOL!

.

That's where the whole "weak era" thing breaks down though, since you can just twist these things subjectively. What's to stop someone from saying, "oh well, Sampras has no losing H2Hs against major rivals, so nobody really challenged him, so he had a weak era. Whereas Federer has someone who REALLY challenged him."

(I don't believe that, but you know, you can twist these things to suit whatever point you want to make.)

 

[Chadwixx]

Here you go from this link:

Good info, pretty sad on pete's part

 

[ksbh]

FR, considering how much weight you give to 'mental strength', I take it that you don't appreciate Andy "I don't mind losing 8 finals to Federer" Roddick, who Federer had to beat to win 3 of his Wimbledon titles?! What a great champion's mentality! LOL!

FYI, I'm not arguing that the 90s was mentally stronger or anything. Just pointing out that there are some clowns in the tennis circuit today!

3) Becker quit because he could not compete with the likes of Sampras (mentally strong 90s, hello!!). I will paste this link to counter any post that claims Sampras had stronger rivals. If by stronger, you mean "over-the-hill past GS champions", then I concur.

 

[fed_rulz]

Agassi and Becker were definitely legitimate rivals. 20-14 is more of a rivalry than 14-7. Agassi was able to give Sampras more battle than so called GOAT Federer can give the #2 player of his generation, LOL!



Sampras and Ivanisevic were the 2 top grass courters of the 90s. They met in the semis in 92, finals in 94, semis in 95, finals in 98. They didnt always meet in the finals as Ivanisevic wasnt as dominant on other surfaces and so was rarely ranked in the top 2. If Federer and Nadal meet at Wimbledon they will match the # of times Sampras and Ivanisevic did. Add to those 2 Becker, Agassi, Stich, Edberg, Henman, Todd Martin, young Philippoussis, and you had one killer grass court field.



Becker was playing at an extremely high level still from 93-95. In 96 he was still at a very high level when he was healthy but unfortunately he had alot of injuries this year. By 97 injuries and age had taken their toil and he was now indeed a shadow of his old self. He always had alot of pride so it is no surprise when he reaches the point he can no longer beat Kafelnikov on grass he moves on. It has nothing to do with his mental toughness, Becker is one of the toughest mental players of the last couple decades.



Those who did consider Sampras the GOAT did not consider him this just because of his 14 slams. They did because of his 6 straight year end #1s (probably an even better achievement than winning 14 or 16 slams), his 7 Wimbledons, his longevity at the top level, and his stellar all court game which in truth is more complete than Federer's who barely plays at the net or has any skills there at this point.

did you even read the article that i linked to?

 

[powerangle]

Sampras has more of an all-court game when he couldn't win at FO?

Fed is clearly better than Sampras in ~40% of the tennis season, while they are fairly close elsewhere. That is Federer being head and shoulders above Pete.

 

[fed_rulz]

FR, considering how much weight you give to 'mental strength', I take it that you don't appreciate Andy "I don't mind losing 8 finals to Federer" Roddick, who Federer had to beat to win 3 of his Wimbledon titles?! What a great champion's mentality! LOL!

FYI, I'm not arguing that the 90s was mentally stronger or anything. Just pointing out that there are some clowns in the tennis circuit today!

ksbh, i don't subscribe to weak-era theories at all, in any era. i was just trying to point out to the whiny pete-****s (who claim that this era is filled with mental midgets) that one of the so-called legitimate rivals to Pete quit because he felt he no longer could compete. I did not mean to imply that Becker was a mental-midget, but by Pete-**** standards as applied to this era, he most certainly is.

Either that, or Becker was on his last legs, and was not a legitimate threat in 97, or a couple years preceding it. The Pete-****s can't have it both ways.

btw, I took the Roddick statement to imply that he doesn't mind coming back at Fed over and over again with all he's got, despite losing 8 finals; not as a sign of resignation. If anything, it points to his mental strength.

 

[powerangle]

Here you go from this link:

Sad indeed how desperate Pete was to get another record. He didn't think he could do it by himself so he needed to get some outside help. I like Pete but he should let his own tennis on the court prove he deserves the #1 ranking. Not via phone conversations.

 

[fed_rulz]

Sad indeed how desperate Pete was to get another record. He didn't think he could do it by himself so he needed to get some outside help. I like Pete but he should let his own tennis on the court prove he deserves the #1 ranking. Not via phone conversations.

to be fair to Pete, the ph conversation was just a request for Becker to relinquish his wild card and give it to Pete. But yeah, Pete was desperate to retain the #1 position, and apparently played 5 extra european tournaments!!

OTOH, I don't understand what led Fed to skip Monte carlo.. a good showing there would've definitely sealed the #1....

 

[ksbh]

Agreed!

As for Roddick, disagreed!

ksbh, i don't subscribe to weak-era theories at all, in any era. i was just trying to point out to the whiny pete-****s (who claim that this era is filled with mental midgets) that one of the so-called legitimate rivals to Pete quit because he felt he no longer could compete. I did not mean to imply that Becker was a mental-midget, but by Pete-**** standards as applied to this era, he most certainly is.

Either that, or Becker was on his last legs, and was not a legitimate threat in 97, or a couple years preceding it. The Pete-****s can't have it both ways.

btw, I took the Roddick statement to imply that he doesn't mind coming back at Fed over and over again with all he's got, despite losing 8 finals; not as a sign of resignation. If anything, it points to his mental strength.

 

[fed_rulz]

Agreed!

As for Roddick, disagreed!

Ok, glad we agree on something .

Can you provide a link to the Roddick quote? I'd be interested to ascertain the context

 

[davey25]

Sampras has more of an all-court game when he couldn't win at FO?

All court and all surface are not the same thing. Or do you consider even Andre Agassi to have a better all court game than Sampras since he won the Career Slam, LOL!

I will put it simply. Does Sampras play more or better at the back of the court or Federer at the net? I think that is a pretty obvious one and it is what I am referring to.

 

[egn]

All court and all surface are not the same thing. Or do you consider even Andre Agassi to have a better all court game than Sampras since he won the Career Slam, LOL!

I will put it simply. Does Sampras play more or better at the back of the court or Federer at the net? I think that is a pretty obvious one and it is what I am referring to.

See I get the point you are making but here is where I feel the comparison is unfair. It is more natural and easier to play from the back court nowadays, one of the first things most people learn now is how to hit a forehand rally. Net play has always been more difficult. In order to be a pro you need to have a solid baseline game no matter what, sure people will say guys like Karlovic have baseline skills of a 5.0 but that is not true. Sampras had a very solid baseline game, however it had it's holes, and he wasn't the best but thats also because he was exceptional at the net. Sampras used his baseline basically in return of serve or with the intentions of getting to the net to attempt to go on the offense to win the point. Sampras was not a fan of battling at the baseline because that was not his thing, however if he need to he could. His forehand was a great weapon and his backhand was not so bad. However its impossible to say a player is better at the baseline than another player is at the net because they are incomparable I feel.

A majority of players will spend less time at the net, and come to the net to either hit an easy winner or if brought there by a drop shot. Federer makes his net choices wisely and will approach less because of his great baseline game. However to say Federer is less of an all court player I feel is not fair. I feel they both have all court games, Federer is capable of hitting volleys very well and is probably top 10 on tour in that category at the moment. He is not the god at the net like his worshipers here make him out to be but then the game has changed a bit. A good thing about Federer that makes him an all court player I feel is the big ability of him to step inside the baseline and take those risky on the rise shots. His ability to hit all sorts of different shots of both wings, his approach shots and his ability to come in a finish off points at the net. Sure Fed doesn't come in on every point, but he is completely capable. Nobody is saying Fed serve and volleys but Fed definitely will use the whole court in his game. This argument however is never concrete, because it comes down to what is actually an all court player and who is that to judge?

However I feel the best example of an all court guy at the moment is Jo Willy when he is on.

 

[piece]

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.

I disagree with the analogy in bold, as the status of the AO and the amateur/pro separation both had an effect on who youl would play in trying to win either the AO or an amateur/pro slam. The CYGS/NCYGS demarcation is not one that affects who you will play in order to achieve either one. It's not like you're going to play reduced competition for an NCYGS as opposed to a CYGS. With the AO's diminished status, however, there was a negative effect on the competition at that slam, thus further diminishing its status. I would liken the CYGS/NCYGS demarcation more to the slight edge in importance WImbledon holds over the other slams to many people. With the CYGS being analogous to Wimbledon, and the NCYGS being analogous to the other slams. And, in keeping with this analogy, I for one don't think winning wimbledon is a greater achievement than winning the us open (for example), just like I don't think winning a CYGS is a greater achievement than winning a particular NCYGS. I understand why some people do (issues of tradition, prestige etc.) but these reasons, while legitimate, don't sway me, because all I really use in evaluating the greatness of these achievements are their difficulty. And I think it's just as difficult to win the USO as it is to win Wimby, and just as difficult to win a particular NCYGS as it is to win the CYGS.

So basically where we're differing is criteria for greatness of an achievement. I have mine and you have yours.

 

[hoodjem]

Fed is out for Fed. He does not give a rip about "Pete's record."

I can hear his thinking now: "Oh, I'd better tank this Wimbledon final and not win another Wimbledon trophy, even though I'm up two sets and 5 love--just so I don't break my buddy 'Pete's record.' "

Yeah, right.

 

[powerangle]

All court and all surface are not the same thing. Or do you consider even Andre Agassi to have a better all court game than Sampras since he won the Career Slam, LOL!

I will put it simply. Does Sampras play more or better at the back of the court or Federer at the net? I think that is a pretty obvious one and it is what I am referring to.

Federer has a better baseline game while Sampras has a better net game, imo. Who has a better all-court game is debatable. I've seen both play and at their primes, and I think Fed is more complete when taking everything into context.

All surface...we won't even go there.

 

[piece]

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 )

The categorisation you use to determine it as unique is a calendar/non-calendar categorisation, which makes you trivially correct in saying that it is unique. But even if it is unique, your position that it is easier than any PARTICULAR NCYGS is mathematically false.

IN REALITY you can't achieve a NCYGS in general - you can only achieve a particular one. So if Nadal were to win the next three slams, he would have achieved the X-slam, which is no more likely to be achieved than a CYGS, thus Nadal's achievement (the X-slam) is no easier to achieve mathematically than a CYGS. To ignore that Nadal achieved a particular NCYGS and instead categorise it as an NCYGS in general and go on to denigrate it on the basis that (according to your method for categorisation) an NCYGS in general is easier to achieve, would be to violate the Principle of Total Evidence, as you would be setting aside a stronger, more specific, piece of evidence in favour of a weaker, less specific, piece of evidence. To do so, especially in the context of probabilistic reasoning, is to reason badly. So your argument does not hold up. Any player achieving a particular NCYGS (which, IN REALITY, is all you can do. you can't achieve one in general) has achieved something that is just as difficult (in a probabilistic) sense as an CYGS, and thus their achievement cannot be denigrated on the basis of your argument.

If you're arguing that a CYGS is more prestigious than an NYCGS for reasons of tradition, or because of how the tennis season is structured around a calendar year, that's perfectly legitimate. But your probabilistic position has been refuted.

 

[dh003i]

The categorisation you use to determine it as unique is a calendar/non-calendar categorisation, which makes you trivially correct in saying that it is unique. But even if it is unique, your position that it is easier than any PARTICULAR NCYGS is mathematically false.

IN REALITY you can't achieve a NCYGS in general - you can only achieve a particular one. So if Nadal were to win the next three slams, he would have achieved the X-slam, which is no more likely to be achieved than a CYGS, thus Nadal's achievement (the X-slam) is no easier to achieve mathematically than a CYGS. To ignore that Nadal achieved a particular NCYGS and just categorise it as an NCYGS is general and go on to denigrate it on the basis that (according to your method for categorisation) an NCYGS in general is easier to achieve, would be to violate the Principle of Total Evidence, as you would be setting aside a stronger, more specific, piece of evidence in favour of a weaker, less specific, piece of evidence. To do so, especially in the context of probabilistic reasoning, is to reason badly. So your argument does not hold up. Any player achieving a particular NCYGS (which, IN REALITY, is all you can do. you can't achieve one in general) has achieved something that is just as difficult (in a probabilistic) sense as an CYGS, and thus their achievement cannot be denigrated on the basis of your argument.

If you're arguing that a CYGS is more prestigious than an NYCGS for reasons of tradition, or because of how the tennis season is structured around a calendar year, that's perfectly legitimate. But your probabilistic position has been refuted.

I agree, the CYGS is no more difficult to achieve than any other string of 4 slams in a row. And I don't think it should be any more prestigious, as there is no real tennis off-season. It is just artificial.

 

[abmk]

The categorisation you use to determine it as unique is a calendar/non-calendar categorisation, which makes you trivially correct in saying that it is unique. But even if it is unique, your position that it is easier than any PARTICULAR NCYGS is mathematically false.

IN REALITY you can't achieve a NCYGS in general - you can only achieve a particular one. So if Nadal were to win the next three slams, he would have achieved the X-slam, which is no more likely to be achieved than a CYGS, thus Nadal's achievement (the X-slam) is no easier to achieve mathematically than a CYGS. To ignore that Nadal achieved a particular NCYGS and instead categorise it as an NCYGS in general and go on to denigrate it on the basis that (according to your method for categorisation) an NCYGS in general is easier to achieve, would be to violate the Principle of Total Evidence, as you would be setting aside a stronger, more specific, piece of evidence in favour of a weaker, less specific, piece of evidence. To do so, especially in the context of probabilistic reasoning, is to reason badly. So your argument does not hold up. Any player achieving a particular NCYGS (which, IN REALITY, is all you can do. you can't achieve one in general) has achieved something that is just as difficult (in a probabilistic) sense as an CYGS, and thus their achievement cannot be denigrated on the basis of your argument.

If you're arguing that a CYGS is more prestigious than an NYCGS for reasons of tradition, or because of how the tennis season is structured around a calendar year, that's perfectly legitimate. But your probabilistic position has been refuted.

For heaven's sake, it is NOT my categorisation. It is something well-established in tennis .

Secondly , IF all 4 were considered the same, yes, mathematically prob is the same , that is obvious. But reality is different.

@ bold part: yes, but you get to "chose" which one to start from , FO,wimby or USO ...in calender slam you don't, you HAVE to start from the AO ...

Again, its very simple. Its like comparing winning against a player once in 6 tries ( calender slam ) (A) vs once in 15 tries ( non-calender ). (B)

While the effort involved in winning that once may probably be the same ( this is what you are pointing at, I know ) , you know you have far lesser chances to accomplish A when compared to B

 

[piece]

For heaven's sake, it is NOT my categorisation. It is something well-established in tennis .

Secondly , IF all 4 were considered the same, yes, mathematically prob is the same , that is obvious. But reality is different.

@ bold part: yes, but you get to "chose" which one to start from , FO,wimby or USO ...in calender slam you don't, you HAVE to start from the AO ...

Again, its very simple. Its like comparing winning against a player once in 6 tries ( calender slam ) (A) vs once in 15 tries ( non-calender ). (B)

While the effort involved in winning that once may probably be the same ( this is what you are pointing at, I know ) , you know you have far lesser chances to accomplish A when compared to B

I'll try putting it another way. If Nadal were to win the next three slams would you say his achievement of 4 in a row was easier than achieving a CYGS? If you do, you're in violation of the Principle of Total Evidence, because the only way you can find his achievement (a permutation of 4 slams in a row) more likely than a CYGS is if ignore the specific, stronger, piece of evidence (that it was FO, W, USO, AO) in favour of a non-specific, weaker, piece of evidence (that it was an NCYGS in general). This is bad reasoning, and it is well recognised as such given that there is a named principle that forbids this kind of reasoning.

 

[abmk]

I'll try putting it another way. If Nadal were to win the next three slams would you say his achievement of 4 in a row was easier than achieving a CYGS? If you do, you're in violation of the Principle of Total Evidence, because the only way you can find his achievement (a permutation of 4 slams in a row) more likely than a CYGS is if ignore the specific, stronger, piece of evidence (that it was FO, W, USO, AO) in favour of a non-specific, weaker, piece of evidence (that it was an NCYGS in general). This is bad reasoning, and it is well recognised as such given that there is a named principle that forbids this kind of reasoning.

yes, I would, NOT because the probability is less or effort involved is less ( I am agreeing with you on this , but you are not getting it), but because

a) he got to choose which slam to start from
b) he had less pressure

 

[piece]

yes, I would, NOT because the probability is less or effort involved is less ( I am agreeing with you on this , but you are not getting it), but because

a) he got to choose which slam to start from
b) he had less pressure

Point a) is in implicit disagreement with what I'm saying, because for it to be true you have to ignore the specific piece of evidence - which is the exact permutation of slams he got (he could not choose which slam to start from to get this exact permutation - this permutation only starts with FO), in favour of a non-specifc, weaker, piece of evidence - that it was an NCYGS in general. Only if you ignore the specific piece of evidence can you say he had a choice which slam to start from, because what he achieved SPECIFICALLY (i.e. that particular ordering of the 4 slams in a row) has to start with the FO. a) is only true if you ignore this and simply categorise his achievement as an NCYGS. This is in violation of the Principle of Total Evidence, as I have stated.

Point b) may well be true, in which case it's arguable that a CYGS is harder than an NCYGS. But that's NOT on the basis of probability

 

[abmk]

Point b) may well be true, in which case it's arguable that a CYGS is harder than an NCYGS. But that's NOT on the basis of probability

may ???? It IS true. It is reality. We have to go by reality, not by probability .

 

[abmk]

Point a) is in implicit disagreement with what I'm saying, because for it to be true you have to ignore the specific piece of evidence - which is the exact permutation of slams he got (he could not choose which slam to start from to get this exact permutation - this permutation only starts with FO), in favour of a non-specifc, weaker, piece of evidence - that it was an NCYGS in general. Only if you ignore the specific piece of evidence can you say he had a choice which slam to start from, because what he achieved SPECIFICALLY (i.e. that particular ordering of the 4 slams in a row) has to start with the FO. a) is only true if you ignore this and simply categorise his achievement as an NCYGS. This is in violation of the Principle of Total Evidence, as I have stated.

Think over my analogy of 1 win in 6 tries ( analogous to calender slam ) vs a player and 1 win in 15 tries over the same player ( analogous to non-calender slam ) . Please respond to that first .

 

[piece]

may ???? It IS true. It is reality. We have to go by reality, not by probability .

Haha ok if you're that adamant about it I'll let you have point b) . But a) is false, as I demonstrated.

And if that last sentence is implying that there is some disconnect between a priori probability and reality then I'm going to have to disagree with you. A priori probability is logical fact - reality cannot be in contravention of logic. For it to be so would be logically impossible.

 

[zapvor]

By that logic, I could claim Federer will always be the undisputed king of tennis due to his beautiful baseline game and variety. :neutral:

lol yea that post was hilarious

 

[piece]

Think over my analogy of 1 win in 6 tries ( analogous to calender slam ) vs a player and 1 win in 15 tries over the same player ( analogous to non-calender slam ) . Please respond to that first .

But I reject that any particular NCYGS has a higher probability in the first place. You're refusing to look at the stronger, specific, evidence instead of the weaker, general, evidence. Any PARTICULAR NCYGS has the same probability as a CYGS, as you have admitted several times, but you keep making the same mistake by then reverting to saying it's still easier to achieve a particular NCYGS than a CYGS because you get more chances. You just don't. That's only true if you look at the NCYGS in general instead of at a particular one. This is bad reasoning. I violates the Principle of Total Evidence. Do you understand the principle? If not, I could try explaining it again if you like.


Your analogy assumes a general interpretation of the NCYGS. Any particular NCYGS is the same as 1 win in 6 tries, not 1 win in fifteen tries. To state otherwise violates the principle of total evidence, as I have explained above.

 

[fruitytennis1]

What does ncya(w/e) stand for now?

 

[abmk]

But I reject that any particular NCYGS has a higher probability in the first place. You're refusing to look at the stronger, specific, evidence instead of the weaker, general, evidence. Any PARTICULAR NCYGS has the same probability as a CYGS, as you have admitted several times, but you keep making the same mistake by then reverting to saying it's still easier to achieve a particular NCYGS than a CYGS because you get more chances. You just don't. That's only true if you look at the NCYGS in general instead of at a particular one. This is bad reasoning. I violates the Principle of Total Evidence. Do you understand the principle? If not, I could try explaining it again if you like.


Your analogy assumes a general interpretation of the NCYGS. Any particular NCYGS is the same as 1 win in 6 tries, not 1 win in fifteen tries. To state otherwise violates the principle of total evidence, as I have explained above.

What you are looking at is posterior probability, not priori probability.

( that is what you are doing when you are fixing a particular non-CYGS )

what are you are doing in essence is you are assuming a player has won the first slam of 4 ( either CYGS or non-CYGS ) and then looking at his chances of winning the next 3, which are identical - correct.

But you have one option in the first slam with regard to CYGS, but you have 3 in the case of non-CYGS.

 

[zapvor]

What does ncya(w/e) stand for now?

you mean ncygs
non calender year grand slam (winning all 4 in same claender year)

 

[NonP]

I disagree with the analogy in bold, as the status of the AO and the amateur/pro separation both had an effect on who youl would play in trying to win either the AO or an amateur/pro slam. The CYGS/NCYGS demarcation is not one that affects who you will play in order to achieve either one. It's not like you're going to play reduced competition for an NCYGS as opposed to a CYGS. With the AO's diminished status, however, there was a negative effect on the competition at that slam, thus further diminishing its status. I would liken the CYGS/NCYGS demarcation more to the slight edge in importance WImbledon holds over the other slams to many people. With the CYGS being analogous to Wimbledon, and the NCYGS being analogous to the other slams. And, in keeping with this analogy, I for one don't think winning wimbledon is a greater achievement than winning the us open (for example), just like I don't think winning a CYGS is a greater achievement than winning a particular NCYGS. I understand why some people do (issues of tradition, prestige etc.) but these reasons, while legitimate, don't sway me, because all I really use in evaluating the greatness of these achievements are their difficulty. And I think it's just as difficult to win the USO as it is to win Wimby, and just as difficult to win a particular NCYGS as it is to win the CYGS.

So basically where we're differing is criteria for greatness of an achievement. I have mine and you have yours.

It wasn't an analogy. The point was that they're all structural/institutional differences that affect the tour as a whole, not that they have the same effect on the competition.

And if difficulty is your only criterion, you need to provide a solid reason of your own that accounts for the additional sociological difficulty that comes with the CYGS. When you say GS X, Y or Z has the same worth as the CYGS, you're arbitrarily adjusting the 12-month time frame to fit the one select NCYGS--that is, you're presupposing that the new "season" starts with the FO, Wimbledon or the USO instead of the AO (or their respective warm-up events). But like I said the tour isn't and historically has not been structured that way. When a Sampras or a Federer pursues a CYGS they do so with the current/traditional time frame in mind, which, as abmk pointed out upthread, puts additional pressure on the player. So far you have provided anything that explains why this practical element of the CYGS should not count except to say you only look at the probabilistic part of the difficulty. But tennis isn't a simple game of probability. It's a complex real-life profession that's subject to the rules and vagaries of its own and the outside world.

There are valid arguments that can be made for downgrading the CYGS, but since you argue that the NCYGS's should have equal worth I'm assuming you do rate the CYGS highly. In that case you need to either account for the practical difficulty of the CYGS or explain why a player's achievements should be evaluated purely on probabilistic grounds. And frankly the latter would be a tough argument for you to make, as you do seem to take into account the competition factor, which itself is a practical matter. That's what I meant by the structural/institutional factors.

 

[powerangle]

when did this thread become a probability class again?

 

[piece]

What you are looking at is posterior probability, not priori probability.

( that is what you are doing when you are fixing a particular non-CYGS )

You are assuming a player has won the first slam of 4 ( either CYGS or non-CYGS ) and then looking at his chances of winning the next 3, which are identical - correct.

But you have one option in the first slam with regard to CYGS, but you have 3 in the case of non-CYGS.

Not that it's particularly important to the argument, but since we're not actually calculating the probability of getting a CYGS or a non-CYGS (we're just looking at how often you get a chance at each one) you might as well call what we're doing an a priori or an a posteriori method. As an example of each, we know a priori that a fair coin has a 50% probability of landing heads. An a posteriori method for determining the probability of a fair coin landing heads would involve tossing a large number of times and comparing the relative frequency of heads and tails. In what we're doing, based on knowledge of the tennis season, we could work out a priori how many chances at getting a CYGS and an NCYGS over a given period of time we get, or we could just observe tennis for a period of time and count as we observe it the relative opportunities given for the two (this is the a posteriori method). I'd still say it's more likely we're using the a priori method however, because if we were using a posteriori probability we'd probably just be cataloging how often each particular 4 slam run had been achieved in history and comparing the frequency and deriving our answer from that.

The reason I said a priori, however, is because it sounded to me like you contrasted reality with probability in general - saying one might not follow the other. I found this absurd because it is logically impossible for reality to invalidate a priori probability (if this is the correct intepretation of probability), but even if a priori probability is not the correct interpretation of probability - and a posteriori is actually the correct interpretation, a posteriori probability merely defines probability as observed frequencies in the world anyway. So it's logically impossible for there to be a disconnect between probability and reality.

Anyway, back to our discussion.

Your last sentence seems like a refusal to admit that you're ignoring the Principle of Total Evidence. You simply can't calculate the number of options you have correctly when you persist in ignoring this principle of reasoning. You need to stop looking at a particular ordering of the 4 slams as an NCYGS in general, because you're ignoring the stronger evidence constituted by the particular permutation. If you reason correctly by reasoning from the specific evidence, you'll see that I'm right.

 

[piece]

It wasn't an analogy. The point was that they're all structural/institutional differences that affect the tour as a whole, not that they have the same effect on the competition.

And if difficulty is your only criterion, you need to provide a solid reason of your own that accounts for the additional sociological difficulty that comes with the CYGS. When you say GS X, Y or Z has the same worth as the CYGS, you're arbitrarily adjusting the 12-month time frame to fit the one select NCYGS--that is, you're presupposing that the new "season" starts with the FO, Wimbledon or the USO instead of the AO (or their respective warm-up events). But like I said the tour isn't and historically has not been structured that way. When a Sampras or a Federer pursues a CYGS they do so with the current/traditional time frame in mind, which, as abmk pointed out upthread, puts additional pressure on the player. So far you have provided anything that explains why this practical element of the CYGS should not count except to say you only look at the probabilistic part of the difficulty. But tennis isn't a simple game of probability. It's a complex real-life profession that's subject to the rules and vagaries of its own and the outside world.

There are valid arguments that can be made for downgrading the CYGS, but since you argue that the NCYGS's should have equal worth I'm assuming you do rate the CYGS highly. In that case you need to either account for the practical difficulty of the CYGS or explain why a player's achievements should be evaluated purely on probabilistic grounds. And frankly the latter would be a tough argument for you to make, as you do seem to take into account the competition factor, which itself is a practical matter. That's what I meant by the structural/institutional factors.

Added pressure on a player to achieve something doesn't make that something more great (to my mind) than something for which there was less pressure to achieve. This is your criterion, and I see no reason why the burden of proof is on me to argue against it and prove my own point. Your beliefs don't enjoy some special default status.

 

[piece]

when did this thread become a probability class again?

Haha yeah sorry. We can't seem to agree so it's going back and forth and back and forth.

 

[NonP]

Added pressure on a player to achieve something doesn't make that something more great (to my mind) than something for which there was less pressure to achieve. This is your criterion, and I see no reason why the burden of proof is on me to argue against it and prove my own point. Your beliefs don't enjoy some special default status.

You still don't get it. As difficulty is your own criterion, you do need to explain why its practical element should not count, if you want to "prove" or validate your own position. It's irrelevant who has the burden of proof here. All you have said to explain your rejection of the structural/institutional factors is that you simply don't think they're important. That's not even a weak argument. It's just your personal preference.

 

[piece]

You still don't get it. As difficulty is your own criterion, you do need to explain why its practical element should not count, if you want to "prove" or validate your own position. It's irrelevant who has the burden of proof here. All you have said to explain your rejection of the structural/institutional factors is that you simply don't think they're important. That's not even a weak argument. It's just your personal preference.

I'll try and explain it another way.

Here's the two opposing positions:

1. The structural/institutional factors are relevant to the importance of the achievement under discussion.

2. The structural/institutional factors are not relevant to the importance of the achievement under discussion.

I reject 1. and favour 2.
You reject 2. and favour 1.

You're right that it's a personal preference. I did try one argument, it was my analogy with the prestige associated with Wimbledon. The cultural factors associated with with Wimbledon's prestige do not make it a greater achievement to win than it would be to win the USO. Same goes for the CYGS.

You seem to think it's reasonable to reject 2. and favour 1. without argument but unreasonable to do the converse. Are people not allowed to have subjective opinions about what makes things great without rigorous supporting argument? After all, I'm not calling anyone stupid or anything for thinking that CYGS is more important than a NCYGS for institutional/structural reasons - I'm not trying to persuade anyone or prove anything. In fact, I stated this before and your most recent post suggests that you didn't remember that I stated this.