Discussion:
Lenglen
(too old to reply)
Whisper
2021-03-30 10:36:26 UTC
Permalink



What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!

: )
Whisper
2021-03-30 10:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip.  She sipped cognac between games & smoked. I'm
a fan!
: )
This is a good one too;


Pelle Svanslös
2021-03-30 15:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip.  She sipped cognac between games & smoked. I'm
a fan!
"Her second round match with Suzanne Lenglen at the 1921 U.S. National
Championships brought Mallory her greatest celebrity. Mallory "attacked
with a vengeance" and was ahead 2–0 (40–0) when Lenglen began to cough.

Mallory won the first set 6–2 and was up 40–0 on Lenglen's serve in the
first game of the second set when Lenglen began to weep and walked to
the umpire's stand and informed the official that she was ill and could
not continue.

Lenglen avenged the loss by defeating Mallory 6–2, 6–0 in 26 minutes in
the 1922 Wimbledon final,[6] the shortest final in a Grand Slam
tournament on record. Purportedly, after the match Lenglen said "thank
you" to Mallory and coughed very suggestively behind an uplifted hand.
This was to remind Mallory that she – Lenglen – had indeed had whooping
cough in their New York match the previous year. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molla_Mallory

A cough troll too.
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
Max's Hoemom
2021-03-30 15:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
Whisper
2021-03-31 04:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
Garvin Yee
2021-03-31 05:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!

But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!

Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
The Iceberg
2021-03-31 09:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
amazing! claiming a non-year slam === CYGS and almost as good as the Golden Slam = amazing RST TENNIS ANALYSIS! :D think poor Garwin has kill-filed skrip and me cos we call him racist and being a millenial he only want to be able to call others racist, but had to post anyway!
Whisper
2021-03-31 10:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
   The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
   But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
   Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy grail
of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs, slams
overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc. Blame Jehovah.

: )
Garvin Yee
2021-03-31 15:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
    The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
    But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
    Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy grail
of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs, slams
overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc.  Blame Jehovah.
Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.

And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.

Stop spreading misinformation.
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Max's Hoemom
2021-03-31 15:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy grail
of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs, slams
overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc. Blame Jehovah.
Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.
Stop spreading misinformation.
Stop repeating the same nonsense.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-03-31 15:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
    The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
    But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
    Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy grail
of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs, slams
overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc.  Blame Jehovah.
    Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.
It would be interesting to see how the world would react to somebody
winning the CYGS now. Djok's NCYGS didn't do much.

I think the CYGS is maybe a bit "better" but it still is worth 4 slams
and nothing more.
    And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.
Nobody knew who Emerson was when Sampras invented the slam chase. He was
the GOAT, they say.
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
It would be interesting to see how the world would react to somebody winning the CYGS now. Djok's NCYGS didn't do much.
It didn't do much because it's the big 3 era, all of them have massive achievements. And Djokovic had 12 slams at the time, 18 now, yet still 2 behind.

However if both Federer, Nadal and Djokovic end up tied in slam chase, you'll see the ncygs making up for the lack of 1 or even 2 Wimbledons, it's basically a proverbial bonus in 7543. It improves your "mix".
I think the CYGS is maybe a bit "better" but it still is worth 4 slams and nothing more.
It's worth 3 times as much. Simple math.
And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.Nobody knew who Emerson was when Sampras invented the slam chase. He was the GOAT, they say.
He held 3 big records. He still holds two.

• most slams (12)
• best CGS (2, with Laver)
• most Davis Cup (8)



Serena never held an all-time record.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Pelle Svanslös
2021-03-31 15:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
Post by Pelle Svanslös
It would be interesting to see how the world would react to
somebody winning the CYGS now. Djok's NCYGS didn't do much.
It didn't do much because it's the big 3 era, all of them have
massive achievements. And Djokovic had 12 slams at the time, 18 now,
yet still 2 behind.
However if both Federer, Nadal and Djokovic end up tied in slam
chase, you'll see the ncygs making up for the lack of 1 or even 2
Wimbledons, it's basically a proverbial bonus in 7543. It improves
your "mix".
Huh?

Arbitrary nonsense.
Post by *skriptis
Post by Pelle Svanslös
I think the CYGS is maybe a bit "better" but it still is worth 4 slams and nothing more.
It's worth 3 times as much. Simple math.
Don't hesitate.
Post by *skriptis
Post by Pelle Svanslös
And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.Nobody knew who
Emerson was when Sampras invented the slam chase. He was the GOAT,
they say.
He held 3 big records. He still holds two.
• most slams (12) • best CGS (2, with Laver) • most Davis Cup (8)
Yet he wasn't remembered by anybody. Why? His record is from the garden
party tennis era.
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Huh? Arbitrary nonsense.
We'll try it. Assume Djokovic wins 2 Wim and they all end up at 20.

Logically due to 7543, Federer who had 8 Wim titles would be the top dog ahead of Djokovic with 7 Wim. But Djokovic's ncygs would compensate for that and they'd be pretty much seen as equal. If Djokovic really cracked #1 stats then that too might give him some advantage.
Don't hesitate.
You don't trust the math?

You can debate the absolute value of (n)CYGS but their ratio is not up for the debate. It's 3 to 1. Math says it.
His record is from the garden party tennis era.
Tennis had cca 90 years of history when Emerson played.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Pelle Svanslös
2021-04-01 05:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
Huh? Arbitrary nonsense.
We'll try it. Assume Djokovic wins 2 Wim and they all end up at 20.
Logically due to 7543, Federer who had 8 Wim titles would be the top dog ahead of Djokovic with 7 Wim. But Djokovic's ncygs would compensate for that and they'd be pretty much seen as equal. If Djokovic really cracked #1 stats then that too might give him some advantage.
I'm not sure what you mean by compensating. Or what needs to be
compensated for.

A Djok NCYGS "improves his mix" record by a 7,5,4, and a 3. If 7543 is
your thing. Winning them in separate years would do the same. There are
no "proverbial bonuses".
Post by *skriptis
Don't hesitate.
You don't trust the math?
You can debate the absolute value of (n)CYGS but their ratio is not up for the debate. It's 3 to 1. Math says it.
Math might say that a NCYGS is 3x more likely than a CYGS. It does not
say that as a consequence the slams in a CYGS are worth 12 slams. That's
plain hogwash.
Post by *skriptis
His record is from the garden party tennis era.
Tennis had cca 90 years of history when Emerson played.
You know what I meant.
--
“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
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean by compensating. Or what needs to be compensated for.
Laver 7 YE№1 (only 5 undisputed) and 11 slams. Status? Co-goat? Now why is that?
Math might say that a NCYGS is 3x more likely than a CYGS. It does not say that as a consequence the slams in a CYGS are worth 12 slams. That's plain hogwash.
I say CYGS = 3*ncygs because that's the math, but I'm not saying with certainty how much are they worth in slam numbers.

It's only my impression that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in 7543, and CYGS is therefore 18, max value but still bellow the value of 4 titles combined which kinda justifies it.


So the list is:

1. Federer, 103
2. Laver, 91 (55 without bonus)
3. Nadal, 89
4. Djokovic, 87 (81 without bonus)
4. Sampras, 80
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-04-01 07:40:06 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean by compensating. Or what needs to be compensated for.
Laver 7 YE№1 (only 5 undisputed) and 11 slams. Status? Co-goat? Now why is that?
Math might say that a NCYGS is 3x more likely than a CYGS. It does not say that as a consequence the slams in a CYGS are worth 12 slams. That's plain hogwash.
I say CYGS = 3*ncygs because that's the math, but I'm not saying with certainty how much are they worth in slam numbers.
It's only my impression that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in 7543, and CYGS is therefore 18, max value but still bellow the value of 4 titles combined which kinda justifies it.
1. Federer, 103
2. Laver, 91 (55 without bonus)
3. Nadal, 89
4. Djokovic, 87 (81 without bonus)
4. Sampras, 80
Interesting post. Just ducking out to play tennis so I'll think it over
as I'm playing : )
Pelle Svanslös
2021-04-01 08:04:19 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean by compensating. Or what needs to be compensated for.
Laver 7 YE№1 (only 5 undisputed) and 11 slams. Status? Co-goat? Now
why is that?
How should I know. That's your opinion. Neither does this have anything
to do with the NCYGS being a "proverbial bonus" or "improving your mix".
Neither is true.

Not making any sense is not improved by making even less sense.
Math might say that a NCYGS is 3x more likely than a CYGS. It does
not say that as a consequence the slams in a CYGS are worth 12
slams. That's plain hogwash.
I say CYGS = 3*ncygs because that's the math, but I'm not saying with
certainty how much are they worth in slam numbers.
You did say the CYGS was worth 3x the slams. That's preposterous.
It's only my impression that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in
7543,
You're saying that Djok is at 20?
and CYGS is therefore 18, max value but still bellow the value
of 4 titles combined which kinda justifies it.
What are you talking about? The value of CYGS in 1111 is 18 slams? And
that is justified because that is less than its value in 7543?
1. Federer, 103 2. Laver, 91 (55 without bonus) 3. Nadal, 89 4.
Djokovic, 87 (81 without bonus) 4. Sampras, 80
Nonsense.
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
How should I know. That's your opinion. Neither does this have anything to do with the NCYGS being a "proverbial bonus" or "improving your mix". Neither is true.Not making any sense is not improved by making even less sense.
Have you ever heard of Laver?
Where do you rank him?
You did say the CYGS was worth 3x the slams. That's preposterous.
I said it assuming ncygs is worth 1x the slams, then yes, CYGS is 3x. I wasn't yet into determing the exact value of (n)CYGS. I only stated their relative value to each other.

However it's a no brainer that the guy with ncygs will recieve a massive push in case of a 7543 tie, basically as if he was a slam ahead and therefore from that I drew my conclusion that ncygs could be worth 1x slam.
You're saying that Djok is at 20?
If you want to analyze it in slam numbers, not 7543, then I see it as ncygs transmutating into superior Wimbledon mix. So Federer is 20 and 8, Djokovic 18 and proverbial 6-7, instead of 5. Still behind a lot.
What are you talking about? The value of CYGS in 1111 is 18 slams?
No. At this point I engaged in determing (n)cygs value in 7543.
And that is justified because that is less than its value in 7543?
Yes, 19 > 18, and 7 > 6.
All slams > CYGS bonus, Wim > ncygs bonus
So the list is:> > 1. Federer, 103 2. Laver, 91 (55 without bonus) 3. Nadal, 89 4.> Djokovic, 87 (81 without bonus) 4. Sampras, 80 Nonsense.
Excuse me, my mistake.

5. Sampras, 80
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Pelle Svanslös
2021-04-01 10:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
How should I know. That's your opinion. Neither does this have
anything to do with the NCYGS being a "proverbial bonus" or
"improving your mix". Neither is true.Not making any sense is not
improved by making even less sense.
Have you ever heard of Laver? Where do you rank him?
"He's a great player". What else do you need?

If I was forced to put numbers on this, then I would go with slam
counts. In the case of ponies, I'd do some whimsical discounting
depending on the mood of the day.

Laver is where his slam count puts him. He gets a sentimental CYGS footnote.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
You did say the CYGS was worth 3x the slams. That's preposterous.
I said it assuming ncygs is worth 1x the slams, then yes, CYGS is 3x.
I wasn't yet into determing the exact value of (n)CYGS. I only stated
their relative value to each other.
In your previous post you said:
"... I'm not saying with certainty how much are they worth in slam numbers.

It's only my impression that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in
7543, and CYGS is therefore 18,"

That would mean that NCYGS is worth 6 in 1111, CYGS 18 in 1111.
However it's a no brainer that the guy with ncygs will recieve a
massive push in case of a 7543 tie, basically as if he was a slam
ahead and therefore from that I drew my conclusion that ncygs could
be worth 1x slam.
That can never be. If somebody said Djok is at 19 slams, he would be
sent to the loonie bin. His NCYGS doesn't register on 1111 (consequently
not on 7543). It doesn't register anywhere.

If Djok was an American, it might.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
You're saying that Djok is at 20?
If you want to analyze it in slam numbers, not 7543, then I see it as
ncygs transmutating into superior Wimbledon mix. So Federer is 20 and
8, Djokovic 18 and proverbial 6-7, instead of 5. Still behind a lot.
Now you're assuming something unvoiced. Are you comparing pairs

(slam count in 1111, proverbial Wimbledon wins)?

How do you make that comparison? (Mostly rhetoric. This isn't going
anywhere)

Discussing this would be less tedious if you kept context. I'm having to
go back and forth to keep tabs on what you are saying. On top of all the
deciphering I'm having to do.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
What are you talking about? The value of CYGS in 1111 is 18 slams?
No. At this point I engaged in determing (n)cygs value in 7543.
You did say that a NCYGS is worth 6 slams (1111). Hence CYGS= 18 (1111).
Post by Pelle Svanslös
And that is justified because that is less than its value in 7543?
Yes,
That would justify anything. The 7543-value is always larger than the
1111-value.
19 > 18, and 7 > 6. All slams > CYGS bonus, Wim > ncygs bonus
I can't make heads or tails of this.

Let's keep this in 1111. The bottom line is now: nobody adds a bonus for
*CYGS that would register on the 1111-scale. Neither is anybody
interested in "mixes" or "wimbledon mixes". That's why we only count.
That's why 1111 is universally accepted.

If the *CYGS did register on the 1111-scale you would be dealing with
"4=5" type assertions. And ruin the ordering of 1,2,3, ...
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
The Iceberg
2021-04-01 10:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Pelle Svanslös
How should I know. That's your opinion. Neither does this have
anything to do with the NCYGS being a "proverbial bonus" or
"improving your mix". Neither is true.Not making any sense is not
improved by making even less sense.
Have you ever heard of Laver? Where do you rank him?
"He's a great player". What else do you need?
he's not just "great" you fibber, you must be trolling cos you know he's always in the GOAT discussions, even now.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
If I was forced to put numbers on this, then I would go with slam
counts. In the case of ponies, I'd do some whimsical discounting
depending on the mood of the day.
Laver is where his slam count puts him. He gets a sentimental CYGS footnote.
seriously?! you really must be detached from reality then, nobody else calls his CYGSs a "sentimental footnote" as everyone knows Laver mostly because of his CYGSs.
Why not be honest and just tell us why you're trying to detract/demean the CYGS? is it for attention or is it for Serena or what?
Whisper
2021-04-01 11:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Pelle Svanslös
How should I know. That's your opinion. Neither does this have
anything to do with the NCYGS being a "proverbial bonus" or
"improving your mix". Neither is true.Not making any sense is not
improved by making even less sense.
Have you ever heard of Laver? Where do you rank him?
"He's a great player". What else do you need?
If I was forced to put numbers on this, then I would go with slam
counts. In the case of ponies, I'd do some whimsical discounting
depending on the mood of the day.
Laver is where his slam count puts him. He gets a sentimental CYGS footnote.
Laver is a bit more than that if you examine his record. He won
calendar slams in 3 disciplines, amateur era, pro era & open era.
Calendar slam is the pinnacle in tennis dominance. He has winning h2h v
all rivals. He won 202 singles tournaments. He was barred from slams
1963 to 1967, 5 of his peakest yrs.

You're not a trustworthy tennis analyst.
The Iceberg
2021-04-01 12:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Pelle Svanslös
How should I know. That's your opinion. Neither does this have
anything to do with the NCYGS being a "proverbial bonus" or
"improving your mix". Neither is true.Not making any sense is not
improved by making even less sense.
Have you ever heard of Laver? Where do you rank him?
"He's a great player". What else do you need?
If I was forced to put numbers on this, then I would go with slam
counts. In the case of ponies, I'd do some whimsical discounting
depending on the mood of the day.
Laver is where his slam count puts him. He gets a sentimental CYGS footnote.
Laver is a bit more than that if you examine his record. He won
calendar slams in 3 disciplines, amateur era, pro era & open era.
Calendar slam is the pinnacle in tennis dominance. He has winning h2h v
all rivals. He won 202 singles tournaments. He was barred from slams
1963 to 1967, 5 of his peakest yrs.
You're not a trustworthy tennis analyst.
just realised it's Pelle's April Fools joke! nobody who isn't insane and knows anything about tennis could be so dismissive of Laver and his 2 CYGSs! good one Pelle! LOL
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
"He's a great player". What else do you need?If I was forced to put numbers on this, then I would go with slam counts. In the case of ponies, I'd do some whimsical discounting depending on the mood of the day.Laver is where his slam count puts him. He gets a sentimental CYGS footnote.
Most people would disagree with this.

Laver is not undisputed goat in tennis, as big 3 have now won startling number of slams.

But Laver is strong in YE№1, has enough Wimbledons and insane 2 CYGS, 3 if you count pro era, 2 again if you dismiss amateurs, so it's 2 one way or another, he has good h2h vs his rivals and has won on all surfaces.

He checks all the boxes other than 'ceibs' box.

So among big 4, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, the first two to be taken out of the equation, are probably Nadal and Djokovic, not Laver and someone else. Even now.


Plus I've seen him in that clip playing Connors with a wooden racquet. Majestic stuff. 🀩
In your previous post you said:"... I'm not saying with certainty how much are they worth in slam numbers.It's only my impression that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in 7543, and CYGS is therefore 18," That would mean that NCYGS is worth 6 in 1111, CYGS 18 in 1111.
Pelle, there is "7543 score" and there is a "slam count". Yes I used "slam numbers". My bad. If that confused you, sorry. However Whisper wasn't confused. Why is that?

So don't paint it as if I said "slam count" when I didn't. I might have recklessly used "slam numbers" as I was generally pondering the thought of exchanging (n)CYGS value into "slam numbers". And "slam numbers" could be either "slam count" or "7543 score". Clear now?

I guess the math part is clear by now, CYGS = 3*ncygs.


So for the value of (n)CYGS in 7543, I'm willing to go with 6 and 18. The numbers are fascinating as total 7543 is 19, and Wim is 7. It fits neatly. 7(6)543

As for value of (n)CYGS in slam count, not sure, but as I said, either 1 slam for ncygs (and 3 for CYGS) or transmutating ncygs into more Wim titles. So I would e.g. view Djokovic at 19, of perhaps 18 as it is, but with a stronger Wim mix as it is.

Either way, I prefer 7543 approach.
That can never be. If somebody said Djok is at 19 slams, he would be sent to the loonie bin. His NCYGS doesn't register on 1111 (consequently not on 7543). It doesn't register anywhere.If Djok was an American, it might.
Nobody is going to say "Djokovic is at 19" when he clearly isn't at 19. But nobody is saying "Laver is on 17", yet he's universally regarded as greater than Borg who has 11 as well.
Now you're assuming something unvoiced. Are you comparing pairs(slam count in 1111, proverbial Wimbledon wins)?How do you make that comparison? (Mostly rhetoric. This isn't going anywhere)Discussing this would be less tedious if you kept context. I'm having to go back and forth to keep tabs on what you are saying. On top of all the deciphering I'm having to do.
I hope I explained myself to your satisfaction.
Let's keep this in 1111. The bottom line is now: nobody adds a bonus for *CYGS that would register on the 1111-scale. Neither is anybody interested in "mixes" or "wimbledon mixes". That's why we only count. That's why 1111 is universally accepted.If the *CYGS did register on the 1111-scale you would be dealing with "4=5" type assertions. And ruin the ordering of 1,2,3,
We are not going to debate 1111 vs 7543 here. I consider it trolling attempt in this thread.

I was generous enough to include both "7543 score" and "slam count" regarding (n) CYGS bonuses.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Pelle Svanslös
2021-04-01 17:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
"He's a great player". What else do you need?If I was forced to put
numbers on this, then I would go with slam counts. In the case of
ponies, I'd do some whimsical discounting depending on the mood of
the day.Laver is where his slam count puts him. He gets a
sentimental CYGS footnote.
Most people would disagree with this.
I doubt that. I haven't yet seen anybody that would award Laver extra
slams for the CYGS. The same goes for Djok'd NCYGS. If you go out for a
change and say somebody Djok has 19 slams, you'll see raised eyebrows
and hear steps receding down the hallway.
Post by *skriptis
Laver is not undisputed goat in tennis, as big 3 have now won
startling number of slams.
Not even close. All things considered.
Post by *skriptis
But Laver is strong in YE№1, has enough Wimbledons and insane 2 CYGS,
3 if you count pro era, 2 again if you dismiss amateurs, so it's 2
one way or another, he has good h2h vs his rivals and has won on all
surfaces.
He checks all the boxes other than 'ceibs' box.
Read again what you write. "Startling number of slams".
Post by *skriptis
So among big 4, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, the first two to be
taken out of the equation, are probably Nadal and Djokovic, not Laver
and someone else. Even now.
Opinions, opinions.
Post by *skriptis
Plus I've seen him in that clip playing Connors with a wooden
racquet. Majestic stuff. 🤩
I've seen that too. Not too bad.
Post by *skriptis
In your previous post you said:"... I'm not saying with certainty
how much are they worth in slam numbers.It's only my impression
that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in 7543, and CYGS is
therefore 18," That would mean that NCYGS is worth 6 in 1111, CYGS
18 in 1111.
Pelle, there is "7543 score" and there is a "slam count". Yes I used
"slam numbers". My bad. If that confused you, sorry. However Whisper
wasn't confused. Why is that?
I doubt he bothered to read any of it. He's just happy to see anything
that puts the right guys where he wants them.
Post by *skriptis
So don't paint it as if I said "slam count" when I didn't.
The problem is that I don't know what you actually are saying. It's that
convoluted.

I might
Post by *skriptis
have recklessly used "slam numbers" as I was generally pondering the
thought of exchanging (n)CYGS value into "slam numbers". And "slam
numbers" could be either "slam count" or "7543 score". Clear now?
I guess the math part is clear by now, CYGS = 3*ncygs.
That always was and is nonsense. We don't award points according to
probabilities. We count achievements.

What you call "math part" is just an opinion. Which reminds me of Carey:
"Algorithms are opinions". Cough cough.
Post by *skriptis
So for the value of (n)CYGS in 7543, I'm willing to go with 6 and 18.
Nobody cares about 7543.
Post by *skriptis
The numbers are fascinating as total 7543 is 19, and Wim is 7. It
fits neatly. 7(6)543
As for value of (n)CYGS in slam count, not sure, but as I said,
either 1 slam for ncygs (and 3 for CYGS) or transmutating ncygs into
more Wim titles.
It just gets more and more contrived.

Just count. Anything beyond that, expressing other achievements in slam
terms is bound to fail. Yet, that's what you're going to have to do if
you value a CYGS.
Post by *skriptis
So I would e.g. view Djokovic at 19, of perhaps 18
as it is, but with a stronger Wim mix as it is.
Lol.
Post by *skriptis
That can never be. If somebody said Djok is at 19 slams, he would
be sent to the loonie bin. His NCYGS doesn't register on 1111
(consequently not on 7543). It doesn't register anywhere.If Djok
was an American, it might.
Nobody is going to say "Djokovic is at 19" when he clearly isn't at
19.
You just did!
Post by *skriptis
But nobody is saying "Laver is on 17", yet he's universally
regarded as greater than Borg who has 11 as well.
Because of the CYGS? Borg never bothered with the AO. If Laver was a
Swede he wouldn't have either.

Yet another argument for not going back too far. Even the beginning of
the open era is suspect (compared to the present).
Post by *skriptis
Now you're assuming something unvoiced. Are you comparing
pairs(slam count in 1111, proverbial Wimbledon wins)?How do you
make that comparison? (Mostly rhetoric. This isn't going
anywhere)Discussing this would be less tedious if you kept context.
I'm having to go back and forth to keep tabs on what you are
saying. On top of all the deciphering I'm having to do.
I hope I explained myself to your satisfaction.
I got the gist of it before you explained anything. You had two opinions
and a vague notion that they were connected by "logic". I just wanted to
see what the logic was supposed to be. It never surfaced.
Post by *skriptis
Let's keep this in 1111. The bottom line is now: nobody adds a
bonus for *CYGS that would register on the 1111-scale. Neither is
anybody interested in "mixes" or "wimbledon mixes". That's why we
only count. That's why 1111 is universally accepted.If the *CYGS
did register on the 1111-scale you would be dealing with "4=5" type
assertions. And ruin the ordering of 1,2,3,
We are not going to debate 1111 vs 7543 here. I consider it trolling
attempt in this thread.


7543 is just a bad opinion. And valuing *CYGSs is a fools errand.
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
7543 is just a bad opinion. And valuing *CYGSs is a fools errand.
Fine, let's then observe winning percentages instead of CYGS.

LOL



----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
guyan persad
2021-04-01 18:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by *skriptis
"He's a great player". What else do you need?If I was forced to put
numbers on this, then I would go with slam counts. In the case of
ponies, I'd do some whimsical discounting depending on the mood of
the day.Laver is where his slam count puts him. He gets a
sentimental CYGS footnote.
Most people would disagree with this.
I doubt that. I haven't yet seen anybody that would award Laver extra
slams for the CYGS. The same goes for Djok'd NCYGS. If you go out for a
change and say somebody Djok has 19 slams, you'll see raised eyebrows
and hear steps receding down the hallway.
Post by *skriptis
Laver is not undisputed goat in tennis, as big 3 have now won
startling number of slams.
Not even close. All things considered.
Post by *skriptis
But Laver is strong in YE№1, has enough Wimbledons and insane 2 CYGS,
3 if you count pro era, 2 again if you dismiss amateurs, so it's 2
one way or another, he has good h2h vs his rivals and has won on all
surfaces.
He checks all the boxes other than 'ceibs' box.
Read again what you write. "Startling number of slams".
Post by *skriptis
So among big 4, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, the first two to be
taken out of the equation, are probably Nadal and Djokovic, not Laver
and someone else. Even now.
Opinions, opinions.
Doubt Laver can beat Dimitrov!
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by *skriptis
Plus I've seen him in that clip playing Connors with a wooden
racquet. Majestic stuff. 🤩
I've seen that too. Not too bad.
Post by *skriptis
In your previous post you said:"... I'm not saying with certainty
how much are they worth in slam numbers.It's only my impression
that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in 7543, and CYGS is
therefore 18," That would mean that NCYGS is worth 6 in 1111, CYGS
18 in 1111.
Pelle, there is "7543 score" and there is a "slam count". Yes I used
"slam numbers". My bad. If that confused you, sorry. However Whisper
wasn't confused. Why is that?
I doubt he bothered to read any of it. He's just happy to see anything
that puts the right guys where he wants them.
Post by *skriptis
So don't paint it as if I said "slam count" when I didn't.
The problem is that I don't know what you actually are saying. It's that
convoluted.
I might
Post by *skriptis
have recklessly used "slam numbers" as I was generally pondering the
thought of exchanging (n)CYGS value into "slam numbers". And "slam
numbers" could be either "slam count" or "7543 score". Clear now?
I guess the math part is clear by now, CYGS = 3*ncygs.
That always was and is nonsense. We don't award points according to
probabilities. We count achievements.
"Algorithms are opinions". Cough cough.
Post by *skriptis
So for the value of (n)CYGS in 7543, I'm willing to go with 6 and 18.
Nobody cares about 7543.
EXACTLY
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by *skriptis
The numbers are fascinating as total 7543 is 19, and Wim is 7. It
fits neatly. 7(6)543
As for value of (n)CYGS in slam count, not sure, but as I said,
either 1 slam for ncygs (and 3 for CYGS) or transmutating ncygs into
more Wim titles.
It just gets more and more contrived.
Just count. Anything beyond that, expressing other achievements in slam
terms is bound to fail. Yet, that's what you're going to have to do if
you value a CYGS.
Post by *skriptis
So I would e.g. view Djokovic at 19, of perhaps 18
as it is, but with a stronger Wim mix as it is.
Lol.
Post by *skriptis
That can never be. If somebody said Djok is at 19 slams, he would
be sent to the loonie bin. His NCYGS doesn't register on 1111
(consequently not on 7543). It doesn't register anywhere.If Djok
was an American, it might.
Nobody is going to say "Djokovic is at 19" when he clearly isn't at
19.
You just did!
Post by *skriptis
But nobody is saying "Laver is on 17", yet he's universally
regarded as greater than Borg who has 11 as well.
Because of the CYGS? Borg never bothered with the AO. If Laver was a
Swede he wouldn't have either.
Yet another argument for not going back too far. Even the beginning of
the open era is suspect (compared to the present).
Post by *skriptis
Now you're assuming something unvoiced. Are you comparing
pairs(slam count in 1111, proverbial Wimbledon wins)?How do you
make that comparison? (Mostly rhetoric. This isn't going
anywhere)Discussing this would be less tedious if you kept context.
I'm having to go back and forth to keep tabs on what you are
saying. On top of all the deciphering I'm having to do.
I hope I explained myself to your satisfaction.
I got the gist of it before you explained anything. You had two opinions
and a vague notion that they were connected by "logic". I just wanted to
see what the logic was supposed to be. It never surfaced.
Post by *skriptis
Let's keep this in 1111. The bottom line is now: nobody adds a
bonus for *CYGS that would register on the 1111-scale. Neither is
anybody interested in "mixes" or "wimbledon mixes". That's why we
only count. That's why 1111 is universally accepted.If the *CYGS
did register on the 1111-scale you would be dealing with "4=5" type
assertions. And ruin the ordering of 1,2,3,
We are not going to debate 1111 vs 7543 here. I consider it trolling
attempt in this thread.
http://youtu.be/iMmMqfQZkxA
7543 is just a bad opinion. And valuing *CYGSs is a fools errand.
Very bad, lock em away,
Good post!
Post by Pelle Svanslös
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
TT
2021-04-01 18:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
http://youtu.be/iMmMqfQZkxA
Damn!

That was a nice surprise.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
7543 is just a bad opinion. And valuing *CYGSs is a fools errand.
This.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-04-02 02:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by *skriptis
But nobody is saying "Laver is on 17", yet he's universally
regarded as greater than Borg who has 11 as well.
Because of the CYGS? Borg never bothered with the AO. If Laver was a
Swede he wouldn't have either.
Borg said he would have played AO every year if calendar slam was on the
line (AO was played in December in his day, last slam of the yr).
Connors said if that happened he would have followed Borg 'to the ends
of the earth' to stop his calendar slam. Unfortunately Borg kept losing
USO finals.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-04-02 08:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by *skriptis
But nobody is saying "Laver is on 17", yet he's universally
regarded as greater than Borg who has 11 as well.
Because of the CYGS? Borg never bothered with the AO. If Laver was a
Swede he wouldn't have either.
Borg said he would have played AO every year if calendar slam was on the
line (AO was played in December in his day, last slam of the yr).
Connors said if that happened he would have followed Borg 'to the ends
of the earth' to stop his calendar slam.  Unfortunately Borg kept losing
USO finals.
Ok. Point taken. Laver is greater than Borg, but not greater than Emerson!
--
“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
TT
2021-04-02 10:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Borg said he would have played AO every year if calendar slam was on the
line
Links?
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-04-02 11:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Whisper
Borg said he would have played AO every year if calendar slam was on
the line
Links?
Don't believe me?
TT
2021-04-02 12:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by Whisper
Borg said he would have played AO every year if calendar slam was on
the line
Links?
Don't believe me?
Doesn't sound something Borg would say, especially considering he always
skipped the AO.

Sounds more like someone with a need to prop up the CYGS for an online
argument...
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-04-02 14:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by Whisper
Borg said he would have played AO every year if calendar slam was on
the line
Links?
Don't believe me?
Doesn't sound something Borg would say, especially considering he always
skipped the AO.
Sounds more like someone with a need to prop up the CYGS for an online
argument...
lol

I find it astounding long time tennis fans can't fathom the value of a
calendar slam and think it needs 'propping up'. It really is amazing : )

I'll post copies of magazine & book excerpts over the next couple days
just for you. No charge : )
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On 2/04/2021 11:35 pm, TT wrote:> Whisper kirjoitti 2.4.2021 klo 14:52:>> On 2/04/2021 9:49 pm, TT wrote:>>> Whisper kirjoitti 2.4.2021 klo 5:31:>>>> Borg said he would have played AO every year if calendar slam was on >>>> the line>>>>>> Links?>>>>>>>>> Don't believe me?>>>>> > Doesn't sound something Borg would say, especially considering he always > skipped the AO.> > Sounds more like someone with a need to prop up the CYGS for an online > argument...> lolI find it astounding long time tennis fans can't fathom the value of a calendar slam and think it needs 'propping up'. It really is amazing : )I'll post copies of magazine & book excerpts over the next couple days just for you. No charge : )
Yeah, surreal. Propping up CYGS.

Even big 3 couldn't have done it. Yes they stopped each other often, but they couldn't do it even at times when they weren't in the way of each other.

E.g. Federer in 2004, won AO/Wim/USO, but lost to Kuerten at FO. Didn't need Rafa to stop him there.

In 2010 Nadal won FO/Wim/USO, he couldn't win AO as Murray stopped him.

In 2015, Djokovic won AO/Wim/USO, stopped by Wawrinka at FO.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
TT
2021-04-01 12:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
I say CYGS = 3*ncygs because that's the math, but I'm not saying with certainty how much are they worth in slam numbers.
It's only my impression that ncygs is probably 6, a missing link in 7543, and CYGS is therefore 18, max value but still bellow the value of 4 titles combined which kinda justifies it.
So three times according to rarity.

It follows then that Olympics is 16 times the value of a slam.
Post by *skriptis
1. Nadal, 201
2. Federer, 103
3. Laver, 91
4. Djokovic, 87
4. Sampras, 80
Fixed.

Added Nadal's 16x7 for Olympic gold.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
So three times according to rarity.It follows then that Olympics is 16 times the value of a slam.
That's for 11111 only and yeah, it's the maximum value of the Olympic gold in theory, but only if you were to assume that those tournaments/titles are equal to begin with.

To award 16 for the Olympics vs 1 for slam on the basis of rarity, you'd first have to prove they're equal. Are they?

ITF stated that 4 majors are the official championships. No such thing about Olympics. It's just a rather coveted tournament that went on and off during history.

Present day era, it's a tournament with only 64 players, restricted access (all the best can't compete) and only the final is bo5.

Level-vise, arguably it has ATP challenger level rules (excluding the best).

So basically we are talking about ATP125 up to ATP250 level tournament that is a rare and happens once every 4 year. I think the middle ground is to say it's cca equal to one slam at best in 1111 model, and probably mere 2 pts in 7(6)543 at worst.
So the list is:> > 1. Nadal, 201> 2. Federer, 103> 3. Laver, 91 > 4. Djokovic, 87 > 4. Sampras, 80> > > Fixed.Added Nadal's 16x7 for Olympic gold.
Not sure how you came up with this?

1 Olympics = 23.58 slams?

So Marc Rosset is greater than Federer?

It's retard trolling.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-04-01 13:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
So three times according to rarity.It follows then that Olympics is 16 times the value of a slam.
That's for 11111 only and yeah, it's the maximum value of the Olympic gold in theory, but only if you were to assume that those tournaments/titles are equal to begin with.
To award 16 for the Olympics vs 1 for slam on the basis of rarity, you'd first have to prove they're equal. Are they?
ITF stated that 4 majors are the official championships. No such thing about Olympics. It's just a rather coveted tournament that went on and off during history.
Present day era, it's a tournament with only 64 players, restricted access (all the best can't compete) and only the final is bo5.
Level-vise, arguably it has ATP challenger level rules (excluding the best).
So basically we are talking about ATP125 up to ATP250 level tournament that is a rare and happens once every 4 year. I think the middle ground is to say it's cca equal to one slam at best in 1111 model, and probably mere 2 pts in 7(6)543 at worst.
You're filling in the 7543 gaps nicely : )

Let's add '2' for Olympics and '1' for yr-end No.1 and we have a unified
7654321 theory that counts everything important? The calendar grand
slam is the holy grail so the bonus points should be very high to
correctly reflect the status. The stand alone value of the 4 slams is
19 pts, so let's say GS bonus should be higher than that, so 20 pts?
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
I agree with the Olympics and YE№1 as 2 and 1. Let's throw that in. 7654321 it is.


But I also feel 18 vs 6 is actually ok for (n)cygs bonuses. Not only does it feel wrong to deviate from 3 to 1 in (n)CYGS, but with these bonuses Wim as the greatest title still tops ncygs bonus (7 to 6) and sum of 4 actual slams still top CYGS bonus (19 to 18)

It somehow feels right to me.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
TT
2021-04-01 13:49:09 UTC
Permalink
I agree with the Olympics and YE№1 as 2 and 1. Let's throw that in. 7654321 it is.
But I also feel 18 vs 6 is actually ok for (n)cygs bonuses. Not only does it feel wrong to deviate from 3 to 1 in (n)CYGS, but with these bonuses Wim as the greatest title still tops ncygs bonus (7 to 6) and sum of 4 actual slams still top CYGS bonus (19 to 18)
It somehow feels right to me.
You should post your formula to ATP & ITF so that they can adjust
ranking poin
Whisper
2021-04-01 14:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
message:>> So three times according to rarity.It follows then that
Olympics is 16 times the value of a slam.> > > That's for 11111 only
and yeah, it's the maximum value of the Olympic gold in theory, but
only if you were to assume that those tournaments/titles are equal to
begin with.> > To award 16 for the Olympics vs 1 for slam on the
basis of rarity, you'd first have to prove they're equal. Are they?>
Post by *skriptis
ITF stated that 4 majors are the official championships. No such
thing about Olympics. It's just a rather coveted tournament that went
on and off during history.> > Present day era, it's a tournament with
only 64 players, restricted access (all the best can't compete) and
only the final is bo5.> > Level-vise, arguably it has ATP challenger
level rules (excluding the best).> > So basically we are talking
about ATP125 up to ATP250 level tournament that is a rare and happens
once every 4 year. I think the middle ground is to say it's cca equal
to one slam at best in 1111 model, and probably mere 2 pts in 7(6)543
at worst.> > You're filling in the 7543 gaps nicely : )Let's add '2'
for Olympics and '1' for yr-end No.1 and we have a unified 7654321
theory that counts everything important?  The calendar grand slam is
the holy grail so the bonus points should be very high to correctly
reflect the status.  The stand alone value of the 4 slams is 19 pts,
so let's say GS bonus should be higher than that, so 20 pts?
I agree with the Olympics and YE№1 as 2 and 1. Let's throw that in. 7654321 it is.
But I also feel 18 vs 6 is actually ok for (n)cygs bonuses. Not only
does it feel wrong to deviate from 3 to 1 in (n)CYGS, but with these
bonuses Wim as the greatest title still tops ncygs bonus (7 to 6) and
sum of 4 actual slams still top CYGS bonus (19 to 18)
It somehow feels right to me.
You should post your formula to ATP & ITF so that they can adjust
ranking points accordingly.
ATP rankings are for seeding not historical/legacy analysis.
TT
2021-04-01 14:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
message:>> So three times according to rarity.It follows then that
Olympics is 16 times the value of a slam.> > > That's for 11111 only
and yeah, it's the maximum value of the Olympic gold in theory, but
only if you were to assume that those tournaments/titles are equal
to begin with.> > To award 16 for the Olympics vs 1 for slam on the
basis of rarity, you'd first have to prove they're equal. Are they?>
Post by *skriptis
ITF stated that 4 majors are the official championships. No such
thing about Olympics. It's just a rather coveted tournament that
went on and off during history.> > Present day era, it's a
tournament with only 64 players, restricted access (all the best
can't compete) and only the final is bo5.> > Level-vise, arguably it
has ATP challenger level rules (excluding the best).> > So basically
we are talking about ATP125 up to ATP250 level tournament that is a
rare and happens once every 4 year. I think the middle ground is to
say it's cca equal to one slam at best in 1111 model, and probably
mere 2 pts in 7(6)543 at worst.> > You're filling in the 7543 gaps
nicely : )Let's add '2' for Olympics and '1' for yr-end No.1 and we
have a unified 7654321 theory that counts everything important?  The
calendar grand slam is the holy grail so the bonus points should be
very high to correctly reflect the status.  The stand alone value of
the 4 slams is 19 pts, so let's say GS bonus should be higher than
that, so 20 pts?
I agree with the Olympics and YE№1 as 2 and 1. Let's throw that in. 7654321 it is.
But I also feel 18 vs 6 is actually ok for (n)cygs bonuses. Not only
does it feel wrong to deviate from 3 to 1 in (n)CYGS, but with these
bonuses Wim as the greatest title still tops ncygs bonus (7 to 6) and
sum of 4 actual slams still top CYGS bonus (19 to 18)
It somehow feels right to me.
You should post your formula to ATP & ITF so that they can adjust
ranking points accordingly.
ATP rankings are for seeding not historical/legacy analysis.
Well maybe they could adjust price money then. Or start calling AO
half-slam / semi-slam?
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-04-01 14:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
in message:>> So three times according to rarity.It follows then
that Olympics is 16 times the value of a slam.> > > That's for
11111 only and yeah, it's the maximum value of the Olympic gold in
theory, but only if you were to assume that those
tournaments/titles are equal to begin with.> > To award 16 for the
Olympics vs 1 for slam on the basis of rarity, you'd first have to
prove they're equal. Are they?> > ITF stated that 4 majors are the
official championships. No such thing about Olympics. It's just a
rather coveted tournament that went on and off during history.> >
Present day era, it's a tournament with only 64 players, restricted
access (all the best can't compete) and only the final is bo5.> >
Level-vise, arguably it has ATP challenger level rules (excluding
the best).> > So basically we are talking about ATP125 up to ATP250
level tournament that is a rare and happens once every 4 year. I
think the middle ground is to say it's cca equal to one slam at
best in 1111 model, and probably mere 2 pts in 7(6)543 at worst.> >
You're filling in the 7543 gaps nicely : )Let's add '2' for
Olympics and '1' for yr-end No.1 and we have a unified 7654321
theory that counts everything important?  The calendar grand slam
is the holy grail so the bonus points should be very high to
correctly reflect the status.  The stand alone value of the 4 slams
is 19 pts, so let's say GS bonus should be higher than that, so 20
pts?
I agree with the Olympics and YE№1 as 2 and 1. Let's throw that in. 7654321 it is.
But I also feel 18 vs 6 is actually ok for (n)cygs bonuses. Not only
does it feel wrong to deviate from 3 to 1 in (n)CYGS, but with these
bonuses Wim as the greatest title still tops ncygs bonus (7 to 6)
and sum of 4 actual slams still top CYGS bonus (19 to 18)
It somehow feels right to me.
You should post your formula to ATP & ITF so that they can adjust
ranking points accordingly.
ATP rankings are for seeding not historical/legacy analysis.
Well maybe they could adjust price money then. Or start calling AO
half-slam / semi-slam?
Maybe that's why Sampras was half arsed?
Whisper
2021-04-01 13:59:01 UTC
Permalink
I agree with the Olympics and YE№1 as 2 and 1. Let's throw that in. 7654321 it is.
But I also feel 18 vs 6 is actually ok for (n)cygs bonuses. Not only does it feel wrong to deviate from 3 to 1 in (n)CYGS, but with these bonuses Wim as the greatest title still tops ncygs bonus (7 to 6) and sum of 4 actual slams still top CYGS bonus (19 to 18)
It somehow feels right to me.
Sure. Very rare feats, but we elevate these calendar slam winners all
the time so makes sense giving big bonus to reflect reality.

Laver gets big boost, & if we somehow could factor in pro slam results
he'd go way past Federer. Be interesting if we gave pro slam results
same 7543 score to see how it would look - Rosewall & Pancho too w
Whisper
2021-04-01 14:02:11 UTC
Permalink
message:>> So three times according to rarity.It follows then that
Olympics is 16 times the value of a slam.> > > That's for 11111 only
and yeah, it's the maximum value of the Olympic gold in theory, but
only if you were to assume that those tournaments/titles are equal to
begin with.> > To award 16 for the Olympics vs 1 for slam on the
basis of rarity, you'd first have to prove they're equal. Are they?>
Post by *skriptis
ITF stated that 4 majors are the official championships. No such
thing about Olympics. It's just a rather coveted tournament that went
on and off during history.> > Present day era, it's a tournament with
only 64 players, restricted access (all the best can't compete) and
only the final is bo5.> > Level-vise, arguably it has ATP challenger
level rules (excluding the best).> > So basically we are talking
about ATP125 up to ATP250 level tournament that is a rare and happens
once every 4 year. I think the middle ground is to say it's cca equal
to one slam at best in 1111 model, and probably mere 2 pts in 7(6)543
at worst.> > You're filling in the 7543 gaps nicely : )Let's add '2'
for Olympics and '1' for yr-end No.1 and we have a unified 7654321
theory that counts everything important?  The calendar grand slam is
the holy grail so the bonus points should be very high to correctly
reflect the status.  The stand alone value of the 4 slams is 19 pts,
so let's say GS bonus should be higher than that, so 20 pts?
I agree with the Olympics and YE№1 as 2 and 1. Let's throw that in. 7654321 it is.
But I also feel 18 vs 6 is actually ok for (n)cygs bonuses. Not only
does it feel wrong to deviate from 3 to 1 in (n)CYGS, but with these
bonuses Wim as the greatest title still tops ncygs bonus (7 to 6) and
sum of 4 actual slams still top CYGS bonus (19 to 18)
It somehow feels right to me.
Sure.  Very rare feats, but we elevate these calendar slam winners all
the time so makes sense giving big bonus to reflect reality.
Laver gets big boost, & if we somehow could factor in pro slam results
he'd go way past Federer.  Be interesting if we gave pro slam results
same 7543 score to see how it would look - Rosewall & Pancho too would
get big boost.
Don't forget guys Federer cried in Laver's presence several times, Mac
idolized him too. There's a good reason for that.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
I think it's very difficult to do that, however it can be "bypassed" by awarding YE№1a lot more.

Perhaps the best way to deal with open/pro era split is to acknowledge these 20 pts per season which is 7543 and 1 for YE№1.

And then split it. 10 for amateurs, 10 for pros.

In pros, just give 10 pts for YE№1 in pro era (the only thing that matters really and covers all the pro slams and other pro majors and h2h in a given season) and 10 pts for amateur slams, probably 4222 ratio.



It wouldn't hurt
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
It would (rightfully) push Gonzales into tier 1 territory.

2 amateur USO ~ 4 pts
8 YE№1 (5 undisputed) ~ 50 up to 80 pts

Total: 54 up to 84 pts.


You'd have to deal with split/shared YE№1 seasons, but assuming shared season is min 50% it would place Gonzales at minimum 69 pts in 7543.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-04-01 04:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by *skriptis
And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.Nobody knew who
Emerson was when Sampras invented the slam chase. He was the GOAT,
they say.
He held 3 big records. He still holds two.
• most slams (12) • best CGS (2, with Laver) • most Davis Cup (8)
Yet he wasn't remembered by anybody. Why? His record is from the garden
party tennis era.
He is remembered now though. Slams weren't always the focal points for
various reasons (eg big money introduced in early open era), but overall
it always comes back to them. Emerson will never lose his status as 12
time slam champ, 2 time career slammer. How we feel about it is of no
consequence.
The Iceberg
2021-04-01 10:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by *skriptis
And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.Nobody knew who
Emerson was when Sampras invented the slam chase. He was the GOAT,
they say.
He held 3 big records. He still holds two.
• most slams (12) • best CGS (2, with Laver) • most Davis Cup (8)
Yet he wasn't remembered by anybody. Why? His record is from the garden
party tennis era.
He is remembered now though. Slams weren't always the focal points for
various reasons (eg big money introduced in early open era), but overall
it always comes back to them. Emerson will never lose his status as 12
time slam champ, 2 time career slammer. How we feel about it is of no
consequence.
exactly! the stuff Pelle has posted recently about tennis, the more you realise his analysis needs some serious help and clues.
guyan persad
2021-03-31 16:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy grail
of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs, slams
overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc. Blame Jehovah.
Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.
It would be interesting to see how the world would react to somebody
winning the CYGS now. Djok's NCYGS didn't do much.
I think the CYGS is maybe a bit "better" but it still is worth 4 slams
and nothing more.
Post by Garvin Yee
And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.
Nobody knew who Emerson was when Sampras invented the slam chase. He was
the GOAT, they say.
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
Budge, Laver had grand slams before?
Whisper
2021-04-01 04:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
    The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
    But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
    Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy grail
of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs, slams
overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc.  Blame Jehovah.
   Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.
   And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.
   Stop spreading misinformation.
Everything I posted was factual.

By the way has any player ever lost more slam matches than your 'goat'
Serena?
Garvin Yee
2021-04-01 04:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
http://youtu.be/GVzGkE2Bvkc
What a great little clip. She sipped cognac between games & smoked.
I'm a fan!
: )
Stop it. You are giving more ammo to Garvin Yee ;-)
He needs help - firing blanks so far : )
    The only thing blank is between your ears, HOLMES!
    But if you wanna glorify the stone-ages of tennis,
when grandmas ruled the court, and serves were around 40
MPH, in a desperate attempt to discredit Serena, go right
ahead!
    Your analysis of tennis is horrible!
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy
grail of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs,
slams overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc.  Blame Jehovah.
    Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.
    And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.
    Stop spreading misinformation.
Everything I posted was factual.
By the way has any player ever lost more slam matches than your 'goat'
Serena?
Has any else in the Open Era have 18 years between their
first and last Slam titles?

You are a Serena-Hater!
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Whisper
2021-04-01 04:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy
grail of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs,
slams overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc.  Blame Jehovah.
    Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.
    And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.
    Stop spreading misinformation.
Everything I posted was factual.
By the way has any player ever lost more slam matches than your 'goat'
Serena?
    Has any else in the Open Era have 18 years between their
first and last Slam titles?
    You are a Serena-Hater!
No, I give Serena the credit her record warrants.

It's simply a fact she was the most beatable player ever in grand slam
history, losing a whopping 52 times.
Whisper
2021-04-01 04:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
It's not my fault Serena never won the calendar grand slam (holy
grail of tennis), doesn't have the most Wimbledons, USOs, FOs, AOs,
slams overall, doesn't hold No.1 records etc etc.  Blame Jehovah.
    Again, non-Calendar Grand Slam = Calendar GS.
    And Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era.
    Stop spreading misinformation.
Everything I posted was factual.
By the way has any player ever lost more slam matches than your
'goat' Serena?
     Has any else in the Open Era have 18 years between their
first and last Slam titles?
     You are a Serena-Hater!
No, I give Serena the credit her record warrants.
It's simply a fact she was the most beatable player ever in grand slam
history, losing a whopping 52 times.
...and she's not done yet, might get it to 60!
Loading...