Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 09:04 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Gabe32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 502
                     
Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Which do you find more impressive? I hope I am getting the terms correct.

At first I thought a CYGS was much more impressive, but then I got to thinking about it. A CYGS means a player simply dominated 1 year. If someone ever achieves a CYGS on 3 different surfaces it will be interesting to see whether or not that highlights the weakness of the field or just the utter domination by that player.

A a non-calendar year grand slam seems somewhat more impressive. It means that the player is a legitimate threat on any surface for a minimum of 2 seasons. For example Federer and Nadal have had consistently impressive results for more than half a decade on every surface and it took Federer 6 years to complete the career slam and Nadal 5. Maybe in a weaker era they would have achieved the CYGS much sooner (Federer in 07 maybe).

Thoughts?
Gabe32 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 09:14 PM
Registered User
 
finishingmove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 23,607
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

the player could still have been a legitimate threat before and after his CYGS year, whether he won 0 or 3 slams each of those years.

so, an interesting idea, but flawed.

winning a CYGS is definitely harder, and you obviously need to know how to play on all surfaces.

Nole CYGS 2017

Nole CYGS 2018
Copy this signature to join the bandwagon before it's too late.
finishingmove is offline  
post #3 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 09:21 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 190
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Fed would not have won in 07 Nadal is too much for him on FO, unless you remove Nadal in the equation
marvin0211 is offline  
 
post #4 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 09:24 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Gabe32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 502
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin0211 View Post
Fed would not have won in 07 Nadal is too much for him on FO, unless you remove Nadal in the equation
Yeah, that's what I meant. It would probably have to be a real weak field for someone to win a CYGS on 3 surfaces (for example, if Nadal was not around on clay).
Gabe32 is offline  
post #5 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 09:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 190
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

well there are instances maybe that a weak field can make you a CYGS, check Rod Laver and Don Budge competetion.

I am not convince about weak field because I think since it is not global before it is easy to win CYGS than now,
A tennis genius is not enough to win all in 1 year(ex Federer, Sampras), truly tennis becomes global a couple of decades ago but check out after Rod Laver there are only 3 players who accomplished a career slam but not any player did a calendar grandslam.

Other poster said it easy to win a career slam but if its easy why only 3 manage to do it after Rod Laver?

Last edited by marvin0211; 09-15-2010 at 09:49 PM.
marvin0211 is offline  
post #6 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 09:46 PM
Registered User
 
borracho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Age: 39
Posts: 319
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

a player who wins a calender year gs is very likely to be dominant in other calender years as well, so I don't understand your point.
borracho is offline  
post #7 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 09:51 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Gabe32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 502
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

All I am saying is that if someone wins a CYGS in the modern era it is more likely to represent a weak field than an amazing player (though they obviously have to be pretty solid). Federer, the greatest player yet, could not do it. And neither has Nadal.

I think it will be more representative of a transitional period. Like, for example, had someone like Hewitt done it around 2001/2002.

Of course there is the chance/likelihood that they will win more slams.
Gabe32 is offline  
post #8 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 10:04 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 190
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

No it will not be a transition period that a player will win a CYGS, a transition period is when there is no dominant player and a different player wins on each slam
marvin0211 is offline  
post #9 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 10:28 PM
Registered User
 
Fed Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 109
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

At the risk of being on the receiving end of some abuse, I think the Calendar Year Grand Slam could be more a nice thing for a player to say he has done rather than a serious achievement showing how good they are compared to other players. Tennis is not like sports such as football, where there are breaks of several months between seasons that allow teams to rebuild and regroup. Because football has clear breaks between seasons, going through a league undefeated and/or winning all of the trophies available is a genuinely significant achievement. In tennis, the only significant break between calendar years is December. As soon as the World Tour Finals and Davis Cup are out of the way, it's not that long before events like Brisbane and Doha come around. To me, it just seems arbitrary to set particular dates between which winning four grand slams is greatly more significant than winning four grand slams in a row over two calendar years. At the end of the day, the human body is not a machine and players hit form at different times of the year, which is not always on 1st January. The important thing is how long a player dominates, not the exact dates the domination began. For me, the only saving grace of the Calendar Grand Slam comes in the modern era. In part because of there being more surfaces on the tour now, but also because it could be argued that it's easier to win four slams on the bounce. If a player's run began with the US Open, it means he will have won two hard-court slams back to back and over a hard-court "season". This could be a fraction easier than having to win a hard-court slam, then a clay-court slam, then a grass-court slam and then returning to hard-courts.
Fed Fan is offline  
post #10 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 10:38 PM
Registered User
 
oranges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 13,564
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Unless there's some contagious disease that incapacitates all but one in top 50, someone who managed a calendar slam will surely not do it accidentally and just wilt away the next year.
oranges is offline  
post #11 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-15-2010, 11:17 PM
Registered User
 
allpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,327
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

cygs > cgs

"What is the real game?
It is a game in which the heart is entertained,
the game in which you are entertained.
It is the game you will win."

MAHARAJI
allpro is offline  
post #12 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-16-2010, 12:04 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe32 View Post
All I am saying is that if someone wins a CYGS in the modern era it is more likely to represent a weak field than an amazing player (though they obviously have to be pretty solid). Federer, the greatest player yet, could not do it. And neither has Nadal.

I think it will be more representative of a transitional period. Like, for example, had someone like Hewitt done it around 2001/2002.

Of course there is the chance/likelihood that they will win more slams.
Sorry, but you lost me-LOL!! To get a career grand slam in one calender year is a tremendous achievement. Those who have done so have been great players in most of their playing years. To have won the career grand slam in 5-10, or more years is also a great accomplishment but not as impressive as doing it in just one year. Perhaps I have lost you too-LOL!!
thrust is offline  
post #13 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-16-2010, 12:15 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fed Fan View Post
At the risk of being on the receiving end of some abuse, I think the Calendar Year Grand Slam could be more a nice thing for a player to say he has done rather than a serious achievement showing how good they are compared to other players. Tennis is not like sports such as football, where there are breaks of several months between seasons that allow teams to rebuild and regroup. Because football has clear breaks between seasons, going through a league undefeated and/or winning all of the trophies available is a genuinely significant achievement. In tennis, the only significant break between calendar years is December. As soon as the World Tour Finals and Davis Cup are out of the way, it's not that long before events like Brisbane and Doha come around. To me, it just seems arbitrary to set particular dates between which winning four grand slams is greatly more significant than winning four grand slams in a row over two calendar years. At the end of the day, the human body is not a machine and players hit form at different times of the year, which is not always on 1st January. The important thing is how long a player dominates, not the exact dates the domination began. For me, the only saving grace of the Calendar Grand Slam comes in the modern era. In part because of there being more surfaces on the tour now, but also because it could be argued that it's easier to win four slams on the bounce. If a player's run began with the US Open, it means he will have won two hard-court slams back to back and over a hard-court "season". This could be a fraction easier than having to win a hard-court slam, then a clay-court slam, then a grass-court slam and then returning to hard-courts.
NOW I AM TOTALLY CONFUSED AND LAUGHING OUT LOUD! One valid point you make is that it was probably easier for Laver and Budge to win their calender grand slams because 3 of them were on grass. In today's game winning the calender grand slam would be extremely difficult and more of an accomplishment than when Laver did it. But then, one could make arguments against this position too, NO DOUBT!
thrust is offline  
post #14 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-16-2010, 01:03 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Gabe32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 502
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Haha, alright I obviously can be wrong. But Fed Fan kind of said what I meant.

It just seems like longevity is more impressive than a flash in the pan. The fact that Federer took SIX years to complete his GS says something about how good he was.

Imagine someone won 6 slams. The CYGS and then two more over the next year. Compare that to someone who wins 6 over 10 years, with the last one completing his CGS. I think the second guy is more impressive.

It is cool that Federer finally conquered his worst surface, instead of just dominating one random year when the best guys around were JCF and Andy Roddick, you know?
Gabe32 is offline  
post #15 of 22 (permalink) Old 09-16-2010, 01:07 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,339
                     
Re: Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

a calendar year slam is deemed more impressive for "aesthetics" purposes...

consider navratilova's case... in '83-'84, she won 6 straight slams (french '83 to wimbledon '84) but on both those years, neither was a calendar year slam...

now, in that context, which was harder - winning 4 slams in 1 year or winning 6 consecutive slams over a 2-year period but not a calendar slam...

calendar slam is overrated IMO
megadeth is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome