Discussion:
A Non-Calendar Grand Slam is Equal to a Calendar Grand Slam
(too old to reply)
Garvin Yee
2021-04-02 09:18:15 UTC
Permalink
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.

If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!

And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
beginning of the year, as it was chosen arbitrarily:


https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Whisper
2021-04-02 11:51:46 UTC
Permalink
   A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam.   Period.
   If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with!  That person is a tennis
Badass!
   And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
Are you autistic?
Whisper
2021-04-02 12:17:53 UTC
Permalink
   A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam.   Period.
   If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with!  That person is a tennis
Badass!
   And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
It doesn't matter when the year starts - January 1 is the same as June
17 or September 28. If the year started 17 June and ended 16 June 365
days later that's fine, that would be called the year and given a number
eg 2021, & January 1 would be in the middle of the year. It means
Wimbledon would be 1st slam of 2021 as it's in July and French open
would be the last slam of the yr - that yr would then be called eg
'2021'. There are still only 4 slams in that new calendar yr starting
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
The Iceberg
2021-04-03 10:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
It doesn't matter when the year starts - January 1 is the same as June
17 or September 28. If the year started 17 June and ended 16 June 365
days later that's fine, that would be called the year and given a number
eg 2021, & January 1 would be in the middle of the year. It means
Wimbledon would be 1st slam of 2021 as it's in July and French open
would be the last slam of the yr - that yr would then be called eg
'2021'. There are still only 4 slams in that new calendar yr starting
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
in Australia and New Zealand it's summer on January 1st, but in USA/Europe it's winter, therefore the year should start at different times depending on where you are in the world and the Grand Slam should revolve around that!
Pelle Svanslös
2021-04-03 13:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Iceberg
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
It doesn't matter when the year starts - January 1 is the same as June
17 or September 28. If the year started 17 June and ended 16 June 365
days later that's fine, that would be called the year and given a number
eg 2021, & January 1 would be in the middle of the year. It means
Wimbledon would be 1st slam of 2021 as it's in July and French open
would be the last slam of the yr - that yr would then be called eg
'2021'. There are still only 4 slams in that new calendar yr starting
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
in Australia and New Zealand it's summer on January 1st, but in USA/Europe it's winter, therefore the year should start at different times depending on where you are in the world and the Grand Slam should revolve around that!
That is brilliant! Because at any point in time there is a January
somewhere, a NCYGS is a CYGS as well!
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
Whisper
2021-04-03 14:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by The Iceberg
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
It doesn't matter when the year starts - January 1 is the same as June
17 or September 28. If the year started 17 June and ended 16 June 365
days later that's fine, that would be called the year and given a number
eg 2021, & January 1 would be in the middle of the year. It means
Wimbledon would be 1st slam of 2021 as it's in July and French open
would be the last slam of the yr - that yr would then be called eg
'2021'. There are still only 4 slams in that new calendar yr starting
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
in Australia and New Zealand it's summer on January 1st, but in
USA/Europe it's winter, therefore the year should start at different
times depending on where you are in the world and the Grand Slam
should revolve around that!
That is brilliant! Because at any point in time there is a January
somewhere, a NCYGS is a CYGS as well!
Where is January today?
The Iceberg
2021-04-05 10:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by The Iceberg
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
It doesn't matter when the year starts - January 1 is the same as June
17 or September 28. If the year started 17 June and ended 16 June 365
days later that's fine, that would be called the year and given a number
eg 2021, & January 1 would be in the middle of the year. It means
Wimbledon would be 1st slam of 2021 as it's in July and French open
would be the last slam of the yr - that yr would then be called eg
'2021'. There are still only 4 slams in that new calendar yr starting
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
in Australia and New Zealand it's summer on January 1st, but in USA/Europe it's winter, therefore the year should start at different times depending on where you are in the world and the Grand Slam should revolve around that!
That is brilliant! Because at any point in time there is a January
somewhere, a NCYGS is a CYGS as well!
on the equator it's like June/July all the time, so you're winning the equivalent of 4 Wimbledons each year as well! :O
TT
2021-04-03 15:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
    A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam.   Period.
    If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with!  That person is a tennis
Badass!
    And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
It doesn't matter when the year starts - January 1 is the same as June
17 or September 28.  If the year started 17 June and ended 16 June 365
days later that's fine, that would be called the year and given a number
eg 2021, & January 1 would be in the middle of the year.  It means
Wimbledon would be 1st slam of 2021 as it's in July and French open
would be the last slam of the yr - that yr would then be called eg
'2021'.  There are still only 4 slams in that new calendar yr starting
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....

It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.

We know that Djokovic at least isn't getting any GOAT bonuses for his
NCYGS. Hell, even his crazy father doesn't mention it.
Gracchus
2021-04-03 15:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
TT
2021-04-03 15:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gracchus
Post by Whisper
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
Point being that should CYGS give one extra points/slams beyond those
four. I think not.

Of course many things can be rare when we start to cherry pick with
arbitrary timelines etc. A statistical anomaly doesn't necessarily make
the achievement greater than the titles won themselves... just more rare.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
TT
2021-04-03 15:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
  > 17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Post by TT
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see
Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
Point being that should CYGS give one extra points/slams beyond those
four. I think not.
Of course many things can be rare when we start to cherry pick with
arbitrary timelines etc. A statistical anomaly doesn't necessarily make
the achievement greater than the titles won themselves... just more rare.
Besides... what's CYGS anyway... besides Community Youth Gang Services?
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Gracchus
2021-04-03 15:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Gracchus
Post by Whisper
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
Point being that should CYGS give one extra points/slams beyond those
four. I think not.
Of course many things can be rare when we start to cherry pick with
arbitrary timelines etc. A statistical anomaly doesn't necessarily make
the achievement greater than the titles won themselves... just more rare.
Technically true. However, in this case we aren't talking about something minute. It's an enormous achievement when you have a whole field of players vying for those same titles. Beyond that, other players will be gunning for you with a vengeance once you close in on the goal. I think anyone, including the "big three" would love to have that feather in their cap. Graf's "Golden Slam year will never be forgotten.
TT
2021-04-03 15:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gracchus
Post by TT
Post by Gracchus
Post by Whisper
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4
slams in one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see
Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
Point being that should CYGS give one extra points/slams beyond
those four. I think not.
Of course many things can be rare when we start to cherry pick
with arbitrary timelines etc. A statistical anomaly doesn't
necessarily make the achievement greater than the titles won
themselves... just more rare.
Technically true. However, in this case we aren't talking about
something minute. It's an enormous achievement when you have a whole
field of players vying for those same titles. Beyond that, other
players will be gunning for you with a vengeance once you close in on
the goal. I think anyone, including the "big three" would love to
have that feather in their cap. Graf's "Golden Slam year will never
be forgotten.
Sure they'd love to have it. Especially slams titles it contains.

Isn't the same what you said true for all kinds of slam records... other
players gunning for you.

I'd definitely place a single slam record (aka Nadal RG, Djok AO, Fed W
records) way above CYGS... CYGS demands only one year/four slams of
excellence... a slam record demands a MUCH longer excellence.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-04-03 15:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Gracchus
Post by TT
Post by Gracchus
Post by Whisper
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4
slams in one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see
Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
Point being that should CYGS give one extra points/slams beyond
those four. I think not.
Of course many things can be rare when we start to cherry pick
with arbitrary timelines etc. A statistical anomaly doesn't
necessarily make the achievement greater than the titles won
themselves... just more rare.
Technically true. However, in this case we aren't talking about
something minute. It's an enormous achievement when you have a whole
field of players vying for those same titles. Beyond that, other
players will be gunning for you with a vengeance once you close in on
the goal. I think anyone, including the "big three" would love to
have that feather in their cap. Graf's "Golden Slam year will never
be forgotten.
Sure they'd love to have it. Especially slams titles it contains.
Isn't the same what you said true for all kinds of slam records... other
players gunning for you.
I'd definitely place a single slam record (aka Nadal RG, Djok AO, Fed W
records) way above CYGS... CYGS demands only one year/four slams of
excellence... a slam record demands a MUCH longer excellence.
Doesn't winning all the slams in 1 year demand a ridiculously high
standard of excellence? Just the mental pressure cooker of getting
close to the calendar slams makes even the greatest turn to jelly - eg
Navratilova v Sukova 1984 AO, Serena v Vinci 2015 USO. If the calendar
slam wasn't on the line they would have won those slams.

Winning the most slams takes a longer period of excellence yes, but you
don't have that pressure to win it every yr.
TT
2021-04-03 16:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Just the mental pressure cooker of getting close to the calendar slams
makes even the greatest turn to jelly
Not necessarily. And it could be quite easy for a young player who
thinks he's going to win everything for the next 10 years. If you
already won 3, the confidence may be off the roof. I'm sure that's
exactly what Budge felt... 'I'm not going to lose, ever'. Went on to win
6 in a row and my have gotten 12 without WW2, turning pro etc.

And, the opposition could be weak in one year. Entire career not so much.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-04-03 16:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Just the mental pressure cooker of getting close to the calendar slams
makes even the greatest turn to jelly
Not necessarily. And it could be quite easy for a young player who
thinks he's going to win everything for the next 10 years. If you
already won 3, the confidence may be off the roof. I'm sure that's
exactly what Budge felt... 'I'm not going to lose, ever'. Went on to win
6 in a row and my have gotten 12 without WW2, turning pro etc.
And, the opposition could be weak in one year. Entire career not so much.
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
MBDunc
2021-04-03 23:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.

But to win four-in-a-row.

Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?

.mikko
TT
2021-04-03 23:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?

As for CYGS and its rarity... it would be more common if players of the
past had played all the slams. Many skipped AO etc.

Also, Surely Djokovic & Federer would have few of CYGS, if not for Nadal
always stopping them at RG...
--
'Keep yappin' man'
TT
2021-04-03 23:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
As for CYGS and its rarity... it would be more common if players of the
past had played all the slams. Many skipped AO etc.
Not to mention that the best players went to pro circuit (and thus
didn't play the slams)
Post by TT
Also, Surely Djokovic & Federer would have few of CYGS, if not for Nadal
always stopping them at RG...
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-04-04 07:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
As for CYGS and its rarity... it would be more common if players of the
past had played all the slams. Many skipped AO etc.
Also, Surely Djokovic & Federer would have few of CYGS, if not for Nadal
always stopping them at RG...
Not necessarily. We all agree the big 3 are so good because they were
all around to push each other to greater heights. If Nadal wasn't in
the picture then the standard would be lesser, resulting in more losses
in other slams.
TT
2021-04-04 10:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
As for CYGS and its rarity... it would be more common if players of
the past had played all the slams. Many skipped AO etc.
Also, Surely Djokovic & Federer would have few of CYGS, if not for
Nadal always stopping them at RG...
Not necessarily.  We all agree the big 3 are so good because they were
all around to push each other to greater heights.  If Nadal wasn't in
the picture then the standard would be lesser, resulting in more losses
in other slams.
Sort of like Federer was losing to everybody before Nadal & Djokovic
came? Oh wait...
--
'Keep yappin' man'
MBDunc
2021-04-04 08:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?

Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?

.mikko
TT
2021-04-04 10:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MBDunc
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?
Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?
.mikko
NCYGS?

Nah, I don't think it has any importance whatsoever.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
MBDunc kirjoitti 4.4.2021 klo 11:12:> On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 2:50:48 AM UTC+3, TT wrote:>> MBDunc kirjoitti 4.4.2021 klo 2:42:>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 7:08:46 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:>>>> I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar>>>> slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an>>>> incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck>>>> too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players>>>> who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.>>>>>> There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.>>>>>> But to win four-in-a-row.>>>>>> Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?>>> Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.>>> Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?>>>>>> .mikko>>>>> No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.>> What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?> > No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?> > Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?> > .mikko> NCYGS?Nah, I don't think it has any importance whatsoever.-- 'Keep yappin' man'
Sure, it's the totally the same whether you complete your slam set over the course of entire career, or you are the one holding all slams at the same time. 🙄

Just think what's the impact on ranking in these two cases and then tell us it's the same?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-04-04 14:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who
"over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?
Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can
have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?
.mikko
NCYGS?
Nah, I don't think it has any importance whatsoever.
Defending all 4 slams at same time has no meaning whatsoever?

You speak with forked tongue.
guypers
2021-04-04 16:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who
"over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?
Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can
have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?
.mikko
NCYGS?
Nah, I don't think it has any importance whatsoever.
Defending all 4 slams at same time has no meaning whatsoever?
You speak with forked tongue.
Greatest in that year, winning 20 years apart shows talent, longevity, fitness, skills etc like Gorgo, Fedexpress, Serena!
Whisper
2021-04-05 01:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by guypers
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who
"over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?
Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can
have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?
.mikko
NCYGS?
Nah, I don't think it has any importance whatsoever.
Defending all 4 slams at same time has no meaning whatsoever?
You speak with forked tongue.
Greatest in that year, winning 20 years apart shows talent, longevity, fitness, skills etc like Gorgo, Fedexpress, Serena!
You forgot the greatest, Rosewall.
guypers
2021-04-05 02:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by guypers
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who
"over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?
Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can
have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?
.mikko
NCYGS?
Nah, I don't think it has any importance whatsoever.
Defending all 4 slams at same time has no meaning whatsoever?
You speak with forked tongue.
Greatest in that year, winning 20 years apart shows talent, longevity, fitness, skills etc like Gorgo, Fedexpress, Serena!
You forgot the greatest, Rosewall.
Kenny is great behind the three, beat Rod twice at WCT
The Iceberg
2021-04-05 10:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by TT
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
.mikko
No, absolutely nothing extra. Even his father Srdjan doesn't do that.
What do you think, he should be given extra 3 slams for winning 4?
No extra but as an additional tie-breaker / to be considered?
Bit similar to Olympic singles gold or additional year-end #1? Can have minor impact but depending on other records can be bigger?
.mikko
NCYGS?
Nah, I don't think it has any importance whatsoever.
all you tewible sexists should stop calling it a NCYGS it's rightly called a "Serena Slam"!
The Iceberg
2021-04-05 10:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
yes Djoker won a "Serena Slam" that was the official title the MSM named it a few years before.
Whisper
2021-04-05 10:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Iceberg
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
yes Djoker won a "Serena Slam" that was the official title the MSM named it a few years before.
Graf won Serena slam in 1994 with 6-0 6-2 win over Sanchez Vicario in AO
final. Serena was 12 yrs old.
Whisper
2021-04-05 10:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by The Iceberg
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
yes Djoker won a "Serena Slam" that was the official title the MSM
named it a few years before.
Graf won Serena slam in 1994 with 6-0 6-2 win over Sanchez Vicario in AO
final.  Serena was 12 yrs old.
Navratilova also won Serena Slam in 1984 when Serena was 2 yrs old.
jdeluise
2021-04-05 19:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by The Iceberg
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won
calendar slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent,
you need an incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you
need some luck too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or
minimize the 5 players who pulled it off. They were all off the
charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who
"over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat
underrated? Laver won GS twice pure and have no question
marks. Laver did it all during all transitions. Djokovic won 4
in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix. Not pure GS,
but still...something extra?
yes Djoker won a "Serena Slam" that was the official title the MSM
named it a few years before.
Graf won Serena slam in 1994 with 6-0 6-2 win over Sanchez Vicario in
AO final.  Serena was 12 yrs old.
Navratilova also won Serena Slam in 1984 when Serena was 2 yrs old.
Jeez what a Karen this Navi is to steal from a Black toddler.
bob
2021-04-05 20:48:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:51:10 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by The Iceberg
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
yes Djoker won a "Serena Slam" that was the official title the MSM
named it a few years before.
Graf won Serena slam in 1994 with 6-0 6-2 win over Sanchez Vicario in AO
final. Serena was 12 yrs old.
Navratilova also won Serena Slam in 1984 when Serena was 2 yrs old.
This kind of naming started with Tiger Slam (when Woods won four-in-a-row 2000-2001)
4 straight is a great achievement, better than 4 of 8 for ex.

but the CYGS has more pressure as you approach it so it is a greater
achievement than any other 4 straight. not really debatable.

it's like kicking a penalty to win the WC or kicking one in a random
league game.

bob
Whisper
2021-04-05 23:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:51:10 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by The Iceberg
Post by MBDunc
Post by Whisper
I can't think of any average players who got lucky and won calendar
slam? To pull it off you need more than sublime talent, you need an
incredibly strong mindset & fighting spirit. Yes you need some luck
too, but I can't think of any way to dismiss or minimize the 5 players
who pulled it off. They were all off the charts incredible.
There are "one slam wonders" and there are players who "over-achieved"?.
But to win four-in-a-row.
Budge: won 6 in-a-row including pure GS. Budge is somewhat underrated?
Laver won GS twice pure and have no question marks. Laver did it all
during all transitions.
Djokovic won 4 in-a-row with two tier 1 all-time greats in the mix.
Not pure GS, but still...something extra?
yes Djoker won a "Serena Slam" that was the official title the MSM
named it a few years before.
Graf won Serena slam in 1994 with 6-0 6-2 win over Sanchez Vicario in AO
final. Serena was 12 yrs old.
Navratilova also won Serena Slam in 1984 when Serena was 2 yrs old.
This kind of naming started with Tiger Slam (when Woods won four-in-a-row 2000-2001)
4 straight is a great achievement, better than 4 of 8 for ex.
but the CYGS has more pressure as you approach it so it is a greater
achievement than any other 4 straight. not really debatable.
it's like kicking a penalty to win the WC or kicking one in a random
league game.
bob
Yeah, or kicking a penalty to lose by 1 goal v to win the WC. Both
count as penalty kicks in a WC final but...

The Iceberg
2021-04-05 10:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Just the mental pressure cooker of getting close to the calendar slams
makes even the greatest turn to jelly
Not necessarily. And it could be quite easy for a young player who
thinks he's going to win everything for the next 10 years. If you
already won 3, the confidence may be off the roof. I'm sure that's
exactly what Budge felt... 'I'm not going to lose, ever'. Went on to win
6 in a row and my have gotten 12 without WW2, turning pro etc.
And, the opposition could be weak in one year. Entire career not so much.
there's the small fact that so few have done it?
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.4.2021 klo 18:34:> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:>> Gracchus kirjoitti 3.4.2021 klo 18:21:>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 8:16:03 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:>>>> 17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.>>> >>>> Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....>>> >>>> It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4>>>> slams in one year really.>>> >>> So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see>>> Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.>>> >>> >> Point being that should CYGS give one extra points/slams beyond>> those four. I think not.>> >> Of course many things can be rare when we start to cherry pick>> with arbitrary timelines etc. A statistical anomaly doesn't>> necessarily make the achievement greater than the titles won>> themselves... just more rare.> > Technically true. However, in this case we aren't talking about> something minute. It's an enormous achievement when you have a whole> field of players vying for those same titles. Beyond that, other> players will be gunning for you with a vengeance once you close in on> the goal. I think anyone, including the "big three" would love to> have that feather in their cap. Graf's "Golden Slam year will never> be forgotten.> Sure they'd love to have it. Especially slams titles it contains.Isn't the same what you said true for all kinds of slam records... otherplayers gunning for you.I'd definitely place a single slam record (aka Nadal RG, Djok AO, Fed Wrecords) way above CYGS... CYGS demands only one year/four slams ofexcellence... a slam record demands a MUCH longer excellence.-- 'Keep yappin' man'
I agree slam records are huge, but slam records can be surpassed. That's the caveat.

Emerson was once AO king, he's now not.

Laver was once the guy with CYGS, and he still is. He will always be.

Djokovic/Nadal/Federer might not be kings at their respective slams.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-04-03 15:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
  > 17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Post by TT
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see
Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
Point being that should CYGS give one extra points/slams beyond those
four. I think not.
Of course many things can be rare when we start to cherry pick with
arbitrary timelines etc. A statistical anomaly doesn't necessarily make
the achievement greater than the titles won themselves... just more rare.
C'mon don't play dumb. Everyone knows slams are what's most important
in tennis and to win them all in 1 tennis season has to mean something
right?
bob
2021-04-05 20:26:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by Whisper
17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.
So few have done it. That's why it's a big deal. Odd that you see Olympic tennis as huge but CYGS as trivial.
"odd" indeed.

bob
Whisper
2021-04-03 15:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Whisper
    A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam.   Period.
    If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it
doesn't matter which Slam they began their run with!  That person is
a tennis
Badass!
    And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
It doesn't matter when the year starts - January 1 is the same as June
17 or September 28.  If the year started 17 June and ended 16 June 365
days later that's fine, that would be called the year and given a
number eg 2021, & January 1 would be in the middle of the year.  It
means Wimbledon would be 1st slam of 2021 as it's in July and French
open would be the last slam of the yr - that yr would then be called
eg '2021'.  There are still only 4 slams in that new calendar yr
starting 17 June, & winning all of them in the year is a 'Grand Slam'.
Not sure if CYGS is worth much - if any....
It seems a bit arbitrary honour. What's the big deal winning 4 slams in
one year really.
You're right. Thanks for the solid arguments and making us realize what
a farce it is.

: )
Whisper
2021-04-02 12:18:47 UTC
Permalink
   A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam.   Period.
   If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with!  That person is a tennis
Badass!
   And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
Why do they have WTF finals at the end of the yr? Why not in August or
April?
undecided
2021-04-02 15:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
I agree, if someone holds all consecutive slams it doesn't matter which one they started with.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by undecided
I agree, if someone holds all consecutive slams it doesn't matter which one they started with.
Are you a fan of Tsitsipas?

Would you rather he wins 4 in a row starting from this year's USO or starting from next year's AO?

If those 4 slams are the only ones he'll win in his entire career.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
The Iceberg
2021-04-03 09:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by undecided
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
I agree, if someone holds all consecutive slams it doesn't matter which one they started with.
so you completely dismiss all tennis history, the well-known by all tennis players accolade of the CYGS and Golden Slam and the actual world calendar then, also the mathematical odds being higher too then?
Whisper
2021-04-03 11:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by undecided
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
I agree, if someone holds all consecutive slams it doesn't matter which one they started with.
Matters in terms of what players achieved in a tennis year. If you win
calendar slam you won all 4 slams in that tennis year.

Look at this;

1969 - Laver won 4 slams

2015 - Djokovic won 2 slams
2016 - Djokovic won 2 slams

Both guys won 4 slams in a row.


no charge
PeteWasLucky
2021-04-02 16:55:10 UTC
Permalink
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand Slam. Period. If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennisBadass! And there is nothing special about January the 1st being thebeginning of the year, as it was chosen arbitrarily: https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.-- https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Non-calendar vs calendar
First has "non", which means:

non-

Used in the sense of no or none, to show lack of or failure to
perform; or in the sense of not, to negate the meaning of the
word to which it is prefixed.nonpayment (?lack of payment,
failure to pay?)nonaggressive (?not aggressive?)
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-04-03 11:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand Slam. Period. If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennisBadass! And there is nothing special about January the 1st being thebeginning of the year, as it was chosen arbitrarily: https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.-- https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Non-calendar vs calendar
non-
Used in the sense of no or none, to show lack of or failure to
perform; or in the sense of not, to negate the meaning of the
word to which it is prefixed.nonpayment (?lack of payment,
failure to pay?)nonaggressive (?not aggressive?)
Yes, it means calendar slam was 'non', *not* achieved etc
bob
2021-04-05 20:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by PeteWasLucky
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand Slam. Period. If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennisBadass! And there is nothing special about January the 1st being thebeginning of the year, as it was chosen arbitrarily: https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.-- https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Non-calendar vs calendar
non-
Used in the sense of no or none, to show lack of or failure to
perform; or in the sense of not, to negate the meaning of the
word to which it is prefixed.nonpayment (?lack of payment,
failure to pay?)nonaggressive (?not aggressive?)
Yes, it means calendar slam was 'non', *not* achieved etc
careful whisp, "non" must have a much deeper more sinister meaning
that waleed's going to spring on us any minute. lol

bob
Brian Lawrence
2021-04-02 17:18:34 UTC
Permalink
   A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam.   Period.
   If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with!  That person is a tennis
Badass!
   And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
The Romans made Ianuarius the first month in 153 BC (AUC 600), when they
changed the time that the consuls were inaugurated. Years were numbered
or counted from the dates of the consuls terms. Ianuarius & Februarius
were added to the end of the existing 10-month Roman Calendar.

The first month had previously been Martius (month of Mars). Only the
first 4 months had names - Aprilis (Aphrodite), Maius (Maia) & Iunius
(Juno). The remaining months were numbered - Quintilis (5th), Sextilis,
September, October & November. Quintilis was later named after Julius
Caesare & August after Augustus. (Ianuarius was named for Juno and
Februarius from februum (a thing used for ritual purification,
reflecting its position as the last month).

It is thought that the changes in 153 BC were initiated by the 2nd King
of Rome, Numa Pompilius.

The year has been defined as starting on Jan 1st for ~2,174 years,
though some parts of the world did not follow the Roman, Julian or
Gregorian calendars.

It seems to me that a great deal of thought went into the changes to
the calendar we use today. Considerable changes were also established
by Julius Caesar in ~54 BC, he was advised by several astronomers such
as Sosigenes of Alexandria.
Gerrit 't Hart
2021-04-03 14:01:14 UTC
Permalink
   A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam.   Period.
   If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with!  That person is a tennis
Badass!
   And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
Does that mean that if a player won 6 GS tournaments in a row he/she
would have won 3 CYGSs?
Max's Hoemom
2021-04-03 15:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
Nope!

Steffi Graf is known as the 1988 Wimbledon Champion... not as the 102nd Wimbledon Champion. The year matters... when they show the list of champions, it will read Steffi, Steffi, Steffi, Steffi in the row belonging to 1988. And in the row containing the year 1993, it will read Seles, Graf, Graf, Graf... makes a world of difference.
bob
2021-04-05 20:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
A non-calendar year Grand Slam is equal to a calendar year Grand
Slam. Period.
If someone has held all 4 Slam titles at the same time, it doesn't
matter which Slam they began their run with! That person is a tennis
Badass!
And there is nothing special about January the 1st being the
https://www.livescience.com/32913-why-does-the-new-year-start-on-january-1st.html#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20using%20the,start%20of%20the%20new%20year.
and kicking a field goal to win the super bowl is the same as kicking
one in practice. sigh.

bob
Loading...