Wawrinka "triple bagels" Safin 6:3 6:3 6:3 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wawrinka "triple bagels" Safin 6:3 6:3 6:3

Bremen
08-31-2007, 06:39 PM
:devil:

edit: in my haste to post this I put double instead of triple...how do I edit it?

Adler
08-31-2007, 06:40 PM
Stan the Unbreakable. keep it up man

jmp
08-31-2007, 06:40 PM
Great win for Stan. :)

Marat... :(

scarecrows
08-31-2007, 06:41 PM
triple bagels man

rofe
08-31-2007, 06:41 PM
That is a shocking result. Well done Stan.

GonzoFed
08-31-2007, 06:41 PM
Keep it up Stan. Good win.

Himura
08-31-2007, 06:41 PM
nice Waw....but it`s sad to see Safin....when I see him I see a Champion but now....not anymore

Bremen
08-31-2007, 06:41 PM
triple bagels man

yeah...oops...can I edit the title or does a mod have to do it??

Beforehand
08-31-2007, 06:42 PM
There really was no other possible place Safin could have gone after the Dancevic match.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 06:42 PM
Stan achieves the triple double! (triple bagel and doubles Safin's overall game total, 18-9)

Delightful bagels and some good play from Stan.

SloKid
08-31-2007, 06:43 PM
Whenever ES switched to that match in the third it seemed Stan was wasting bps, Safin was clinging on, but couldn't get back in.
yeah...oops...can I edit the title or does a mod have to do it??
No need, it was merged with the other one that had the correct title so that one was used. :p

FSRteam
08-31-2007, 06:43 PM
Congratulations wawa!!!

I thought he would have maybe won in 4-5 sets but a straight sets win is just great!!!

:)

rofe
08-31-2007, 06:43 PM
Funny thing is, I thought this was Safin's match to lose.

Jadranka
08-31-2007, 06:43 PM
Well done :yeah:

TheBoiledEgg
08-31-2007, 06:44 PM
Korolev nearly beat him, and broke him lots
and marat loses in a whimper :rolleyes:

just retire marat :o :o

a 5 yr old has a better FH :o

dkw
08-31-2007, 06:44 PM
Triple bagel - get it right!!!

Okay so the US Open is basically over as far as I'm concerned - Safin lost, I'm busy until next Friday, then tickets become too expensive (well to waste on watching Federer that is).

Wake me up for Madrid!

Bremen
08-31-2007, 06:44 PM
nice merge...thanks

How long will Safin be content ranked around 25-30??

Jaap
08-31-2007, 06:44 PM
Now people must realise Safin is now a mediocre player.

rofe
08-31-2007, 06:45 PM
Now people must realise Safin is now a mediocre player.

He is not a mediocre player. He has developed a mediocre mind.

stebs
08-31-2007, 06:45 PM
Good win for Stan and if he played well he was always going to be able to get the job done against Safin.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 06:46 PM
Not ONLY was this a triple bagel, but it was a 'true' triple bagel, the "true" original definition that was devised by Mediter, a score line of 6-3 6-3 6-3... other types of bagels are good 'n all, i.e 6-0 6-0 6-0 or 6-4 6-4 6-4, but they are not PURE bagels.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have just witnessed a true triple bagel.

Jaap
08-31-2007, 06:46 PM
He is not a mediocre player. He has developed a mediocre mind.

Nothing to do with mind, he is just an average player.

rofe
08-31-2007, 06:47 PM
Nothing to do with mind, he is just an average player.

I have watched Stan and Marat may be an average player but he had the skills to beat Stan today.

LeChuck
08-31-2007, 06:47 PM
What a stunning display from Stan :bigclap: . He was awesome today, with his backhand maintaining the high standards that we expect from it, but his serving, forehand and general composure during the crunch moments were also outstanding. I thought he would lose today, but he completely controlled the match from start to the finish, and dictated the majority of the rallies, and I'm delighted for him.
Comisserations to the Safin fans on here.

stebs
08-31-2007, 06:47 PM
He is not a mediocre player. He has developed a mediocre mind.

This was true way back when but how long does Safin have to go on having average results for people to see he isn't a headcase anymore than half the guys out there, he just isn't as good as them at tennis.

rofe
08-31-2007, 06:48 PM
This was true way back when but how long does Safin have to go on having average results for people to see he isn't a headcase anymore than half the guys out there, he just isn't as good as them at tennis.

See my post above.

Krikry
08-31-2007, 06:49 PM
Nothing to do with mind, he is just an average player.

Everything to do with mind, he's not an average player

Drimal
08-31-2007, 06:49 PM
:rolleyes: :help: :rolleyes:

Hard to believe that only 2 years ago he won Australian Open and now he can't get past early rounds in any GS. :o

Get it together Marat! :hug:

stebs
08-31-2007, 06:50 PM
See my post above.

WaWa at his best is better than Marat at his best though in my opinion. Obviously by 'best' I mean the best they can realistically play right now, Safin at his peak was a world #1, I wouldn't discredit that.

Bremen
08-31-2007, 06:51 PM
Not ONLY was this a triple bagel, but it was a 'true' triple bagel, the "true" original definition that was devised by Mediter, a score line of 6-3 6-3 6-3... other types of bagels are good 'n all, i.e 6-0 6-0 6-0 or 6-4 6-4 6-4, but they are not PURE bagels.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have just witnessed a true triple bagel.

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Andre♥
08-31-2007, 06:52 PM
Safin's movement on court has got weaker big time in the last months...

Rosa Luxembourg
08-31-2007, 06:53 PM
Safin has become a disgrace to his own legacy. He is a non factor in any draw anymore and the only ppl who will feel sorry when he goes are the Head ppl. They have been making a lot of money off his broken racquets.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 06:53 PM
Soon the triple bagle tradition will spread to the broadcasts and we'll hear the likes of Mary Carillo refer to a 6-3 set as a 'bagel'.

And why not? They're already referring to majors as slams. There's no logic there either. Not long before this happens too.

rofe
08-31-2007, 06:53 PM
WaWa at his best is better than Marat at his best though in my opinion. Obviously by 'best' I mean the best they can realistically play right now, Safin at his peak was a world #1, I wouldn't discredit that.

What I am trying to say is that Stan has been beset with consistency problems and he may have found his consistency just in time for this match but I find it hard to believe that Safin playing like he did in the 1st round couldn't give more of a fight in this match.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 06:54 PM
Safin has become a disgrace to his own legacy. He is a non factor in any draw anymore and the only ppl who will feel sorry when he goes are the Head ppl. They have been making a lot of money off his broken racquets.

Relax. The guy can't move much anymore. What do you want him to do? Put on a skirt and dance the holly jolly?

Adler
08-31-2007, 06:54 PM
yeah...oops...can I edit the title or does a mod have to do it??
they took the Solomon's solution :)

as for the match... well, I knew Stan could do some damage in the draw and now it's confirmed - that guy has a quarterfinal chance, if only he's able to defeat Moya

stebs
08-31-2007, 06:57 PM
And why not? They're already referring to majors as slams. There's no logic there either. Not long before this happens too.

Slams is not exactly a new thing and just because you had heard it in different context before doesn't mean it's wrong. I have heard about 'slams' since forever.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 06:59 PM
Slams is not exactly a new thing and just because you had heard it in different context before doesn't mean it's wrong. I have heard about 'slams' since forever.

And it all started because of faulty logic. A slam is a slam - a combination of achievements.

goldenlox
08-31-2007, 06:59 PM
Safin's forehand is too wild. Gives away too many points.

Rosa Luxembourg
08-31-2007, 07:00 PM
Relax. The guy can't move much anymore. What do you want him to do? Put on a skirt and dance the holly jolly?


6 letter word starts with R.

stebs
08-31-2007, 07:01 PM
And it all started because of faulty logic. A slam is a slam - a combination of achievements.

Why did it start because of faulty logic? The word is used a shortening of grand slam and a grand slam is the same thing as a major, at least that's how it;s always been to me and it's been clear and easy to understand. If you've learned things differently and are now confused don't blame faulty logic for it.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:02 PM
Why did it start because of faulty logic? The word is used a shortening of grand slam and a grand slam is the same thing as a major, at least that's how it;s always been to me and it's been clear and easy to understand. If you've learned things differently and are now confused don't blame faulty logic for it.

A grand slam is the same thing as a slam and thus is not a major. It is four majors.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:05 PM
I hardly ever hear the slams referred to as majors.

stebs
08-31-2007, 07:05 PM
A grand slam is the same thing as a slam and thus is not a major. It is four majors.

Look at it this way:

The Australian Open is a grand slam tournament.

It is one of the four grand slam tournaments.

Thus, when you win this tournament you can be said to have won a grand slam tournament.

What are your qualms about this? It means two different things, it's not a big deal.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:06 PM
6 letter word starts with R.

Roland?

Roland Barthes?

The great social theorist and philosopher?

Yeah - I love his work too.

He sends his love.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:08 PM
Look at it this way:

The Australian Open is a grand slam tournament.

It is one of the four grand slam tournaments.

Thus, when you win this tournament you can be said to have won a grand slam tournament.

What are your qualms about this? It means two different things, it's not a big deal.

I use the term "grand slam title" and "grand slam tournament" - this implies a title that is a part of a grand slam.

But a grand slam is four majors.

How else am I to interpret "Rod Laver was the last professional to win the Grand Slam"? One thing is not the other. A slam, whether a breakfast, or a grand slam home run in baseball (with four runners scoring, not one) is a combination of achievements.

stebs
08-31-2007, 07:13 PM
I use the term "grand slam title" and "grand slam tournament" - this implies a title that is a part of a grand slam.

But a grand slam is four majors.

How else am I to interpret "Rod Laver was the last professional to win the Grand Slam"? One thing is not the other. A slam, whether a breakfast, or a triple crown in baseball is a combination of achievements.

Something can mean two things. You can interpret the different meanings by looking at context. Furthermore, the original meaning of a word is relevant if you are interested in it but what a word comes to mean is important as well and just because the original meaning has changed it is pointless to refuse to accept what a word comes to mean.

MariaV
08-31-2007, 07:13 PM
Yay, at least he was triple bagelled!!!!!! :banana: :yippee: :woohoo:

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:15 PM
Also.. when people talk of how many majors Sampras or Borg or whoever had won, they actually usually refer to is as.. Borg, winner of 11 slams/grand slams, Sampras, GS titles -14, and the like.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:15 PM
Something can mean two things. You can interpret the different meanings by looking at context. Furthermore, the original meaning of a word is relevant if you are interested in it but what a word comes to mean is important as well and just because the original meaning has changed it is pointless to refuse to accept what a word comes to mean.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28tennis%29): The term Grand Slam, as applied to tennis, was first used by New York Times columnist John Kieran according to Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia by Bud Collins. In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and Wimbledon Championships, speculation arose about his chances in the U.S. Championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable." Crawford, an asthmatic, won two of the first three sets of his finals match against Fred Perry, then tired in the heat and lost the last two sets and the match.

The expression Grand Slam, initially used to describe the winning of the tennis major events in one calendar year, was later incorporated by other sports, notably golf, to describe a similar accomplishment.

***

People should be educated about the simplest of terminology. This includes certain analysts.

I bet Gianni Clerici knows what a Grand Slam is.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:15 PM
Yay, at least he was triple bagelled!!!!!! :banana: :yippee: :woohoo:

That is right! :D

The glass is half full.:cool:

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:16 PM
Yay, at least he was triple bagelled!!!!!! :banana: :yippee: :woohoo:

This we can all agree upon.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:19 PM
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/index.html

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/all-time.html

Oh look, the US Open official website alludes to the fact that the term Grand Slam has more than one meaning, would you believe that! :eek:

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:20 PM
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/index.html

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/all-time.html

Oh look, the US Open official website alludes to the fact that the term Grand Slam has more than one meaning, would you believe that! :eek:

It says: "In tennis, the term Grand Slam refers to the accomplishment of winning all four major championships-the championships of Australia, France, Britain (Wimbledon), and the United States-in the same calendar season. The feat has been achieved six times (by five different players). Grand Slam is commonly misused to describe any one of the four major tournaments."

I accept your apology.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:25 PM
You are being a :retard:

It says that AND it refers to the 4 different tournaments as GRAND SLAM tournaments, hence why the meaning of the word in THIS DAY AND AGE has more than just the one strict meaning. Don't be a dickhead, Cyborg.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:26 PM
You are being a :retard:

It says that AND it refers to the 4 different tournaments as GRAND SLAM tournaments, hence why the meaning of the word in THIS DAY AND AGE has more than just the one strict meaning. Don't be a dickhead, Cyborg.

It says that the term 'grand slam' is misused and it is done so exactly as I've already explained.

Maybe next time you will read the stuff that you link.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:27 PM
The fact that they still have a seperate page alluding to the 4 tournies being the GS tournies suggests that the tennis world has RESIGNED itself to the fact that the term has developed a new meaning that co-exists alongside the original meaning.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:28 PM
The fact that they still have a seperate page alluding to the 4 tournies being the GS tournies suggests that the tennis world has RESIGNED to the fact that the term has developed a new meaning that co-exists alongside the original meaning.

Don't be stubborn. A grand slam tournament is part of a grand slam. How is this not obvious?

It is stated clearly that the meaning of grand slam is associated with winning all the four majors (or grand slam titles, if you will). To this day, this is the proper terminology.

bokehlicious
08-31-2007, 07:30 PM
Everything to do with mind, he's not an average player

:hug: :hug: hope you're not too disappointed Christelle, I know Stan is one of your fave... ;)

Anyway, congrats Stan the Man ! :rocker2:

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:31 PM
You see, the problem with your logic Cyborg is the fact that it is so common for the 'majors' to be referred to as the slams.. the GS tournies. I actually never disputed that the term was misused going by its original meaning. I am arguing the fact that now it is commonplace for the term to be used in other ways, thus new meanings have been forced upon the word, and they are not going to be retracted in all likelyhood.

Here ends my argument.

Rosa Luxembourg
08-31-2007, 07:32 PM
Roland?

Roland Barthes?

The great social theorist and philosopher?

Yeah - I love his work too.

He sends his love.


not impressed.

I guess, I have to explain for some dumb posters. The word I meant was "retire".

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:32 PM
What do you say Safin is listening to on his ipod right now?

I say Devo. He's listening to Devo. Or Messer Chups. I hope it's not Bob Dylan. That can only make things worse.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:34 PM
not impressed.

I guess, I have to explain for some dumb posters. The word I meant was "retire".

Roland Barthes isn't retired. He's been pushing up the daisies for about 20 years.

Boy, I love that we have this love of the man in common. Let's boogie.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:35 PM
Don't be stubborn. A grand slam tournament is part of a grand slam. How is this not obvious?

It is stated clearly that the meaning of grand slam is associated with winning all the four majors (or grand slam titles, if you will). To this day, this is the proper terminology.

I appreciate your stance and I am fully aware of its 'correct' terminology, but as I have stated, the term now has more than one meaning... it is the people who decide this, and an overwhelming amount of people have been using it in a different way for decades. My point is not that i disagree with your opinion, but that I am completely perplexed by why you care so much about how it is used, in other words, you should resign yourself to what has clearly happened in terms of how the term 'Grand Slam' is often now applied, because it doesn't do anybody any harm.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:36 PM
You see, the problem with your logic Cyborg is the fact that it is so common for the 'majors' to be referred to as the slams.. the GS tournies. I actually never disputed that the term was misused going by its original meaning. I am arguing the fact that now it is commonplace for the term to be used in other ways, thus new meanings have been forced upon the word, and they are not going to be retracted in all likelyhood.

Here ends my argument.

As I have already mentioned once, I intend to refer to majors as muffins simply because I believe that it's the right way to go.

I hope it catches on. However I keep forgetting.

I will start.... NOW.

Boy, I bet Federer has at least 5 muffins left in him. Did you hear on the news how Bjorn Borg predicted that Roger would win 16 muffins? Amazing.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:37 PM
I appreciate your stance and I am fully aware of its 'correct' terminology, but as I have stated, the term now has more than one meaning... it is the people who decide this, and an overwhelming amount of people have been using it in a different way for decades. My point is not that i disagree with your opinion, but that I am completely perplexed by why you care so much about how it is used, in other words, you should resign yourself to what has clearly happened in terms of how the term 'Grand Slam' is often now applied, because it doesn't do anybody any harm.

You're right. There is no harm in ignorance. History is for chumps. Bud Collins - up your ass.

CooCooCachoo
08-31-2007, 07:38 PM
Safin got owned :woohoo:

Stani :yeah:

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 07:38 PM
Problem with that is it won't catch on... but the way the term Grand Slams is used has caught on.. with millions. Good luck in your attempts to make muffins the new majors!

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 07:39 PM
Problem with that is it won't catch on... but the way the term Grand Slams is used has caught on.. with millions. Good luck in your attempts to make muffins the new majors!

I will pour lots of money into my campaign. It will flood your mind, nest there and little muffins will come out of your pores. That's how popular it will be.

Billabong
08-31-2007, 07:45 PM
Marat's confidence is absolutely gone... He doesn't trust his game at all anymore, his return game is totally absent.. Stan deserved this one, well done man:)

Meeek
08-31-2007, 08:09 PM
Relax. The guy can't move much anymore. What do you want him to do? Put on a skirt and dance the holly jolly?

:lol: Now that would be entertaining ;)

luxsword
08-31-2007, 08:17 PM
i've only ever een the word "bagel" being used to talk of 6-0 so far... i didn't know it could refer to 6-3 :scratch:

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 08:20 PM
i've only ever een the word "bagel" being used to talk of 6-0 so far... i didn't know it could refer to 6-3 :scratch:

Times are changing my friend. Just accept it.

Merton
08-31-2007, 08:23 PM
Congrats Stan, I am glad he proved me wrong :D Marat's forehand has deteriorated more than I thought, it is clearly a liability at this point.

I♥PsY@Mus!c
08-31-2007, 08:27 PM
Well done Stan!But I was pretty disappointed at Safin,after his win against Frank I thought he would have won more.

Merton
08-31-2007, 08:27 PM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28tennis%29): The term Grand Slam, as applied to tennis, was first used by New York Times columnist John Kieran according to Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia by Bud Collins. In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and Wimbledon Championships, speculation arose about his chances in the U.S. Championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable." Crawford, an asthmatic, won two of the first three sets of his finals match against Fred Perry, then tired in the heat and lost the last two sets and the match.

The expression Grand Slam, initially used to describe the winning of the tennis major events in one calendar year, was later incorporated by other sports, notably golf, to describe a similar accomplishment.

***

People should be educated about the simplest of terminology. This includes certain analysts.

I bet Gianni Clerici knows what a Grand Slam is.

The grand slam contract in bridge is called 7X, that is 7 spades, or hearts, or diamonds, or clubs, or non-trump. It requires winning all tricks in play, so there is an obvious similarity with winning a major, requiring to win all 7 matches. I have no problem with majors called slams.

2moretogo
08-31-2007, 08:50 PM
Safin continues to disappoint, well a little, and Stan continues to play pretty solidly. This quarter is literally wide open now.

Burrow
08-31-2007, 08:51 PM
And I was predicting a straight sets win for Safin if he played any decent, he must have played like a granny :haha:

jcempire
08-31-2007, 08:56 PM
6-3 6-3 6-3

That was unreal.

FedFan_2007
08-31-2007, 09:03 PM
They used to be called Championships.

Australian Championships
French Championships
The Championships
US Championships

Now we just call them Denny's Grand Slam - 2 eggs, 2 bacon, 2 sausages and grits!

FedFan_2007
08-31-2007, 09:03 PM
BTW - I'm tipping Stan def Federer 6-1, 6-2, 6-0 in the final.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 09:06 PM
The grand slam contract in bridge is called 7X, that is 7 spades, or hearts, or diamonds, or clubs, or non-trump. It requires winning all tricks in play, so there is an obvious similarity with winning a major, requiring to win all 7 matches. I have no problem with majors called slams.

They're not slams. They combine to create a slam.

NYCtennisfan
08-31-2007, 09:35 PM
Marat could literally not hit a FH down the line to save his life. Every time he tried to, it sailed 5 feet wide. You can't win with this type of liability.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 09:37 PM
Marat could literally not hit a FH down the line to save his life. Every time he tried to, it sailed 5 feet wide. You can't win with this type of liability.

No forehand, no movement. Yeah - forget it. Marat - you're still a legend, but maybe you should give the senior tour a try.

World Beater
08-31-2007, 09:40 PM
marat is a lot bulkier than he used to be and the operations haven't helped his movement either. He is just so slow, and because of it his footwork is sloppy. Without footwork, you can be an outstanding ball striker but still mistime every shot.

Rogiman
08-31-2007, 09:45 PM
CyBore :zzz:

:retard:

stebs
08-31-2007, 09:49 PM
They're not slams. They combine to create a slam.

With regards to language you seem to refuse to accept change. When a word begins circulating in regular use for a protracted period of time and is not slang it becomes correct because all language is is an accepted code for communication. Whatever the collective 'we' (people using the language) decide is correct. Seeing as slam has become common place for what you call a major it is correct.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 10:00 PM
With regards to language you seem to refuse to accept change. When a word begins circulating in regular use for a protracted period of time and is not slang it becomes correct because all language is is an accepted code for communication. Whatever the collective 'we' (people using the language) decide is correct. Seeing as slam has become common place for what you call a major it is correct.

It's not correct. Just because it's loose slang doesn't mean it's proper terminology. Every respectable website in regards to defining terminology has it right - a major is a major or a grand slam tournament.

Besides the word 'slam' or 'grand slam' is already taken. That's right - it belongs to the achievement of winning four majors consecutively (or in one's career).

When a new species is discovered, scientists do not call it 'cat' or 'dog', because 'cat' and 'dog' are names already taken. They'll call the creature 'muffin head' and it will not magically become 'cat' or 'dog' simply because we think it's conventient.

Rogiman
08-31-2007, 10:06 PM
It's not correct. Just because it's loose slang doesn't mean it's proper terminology. Every respectable website in regards to defining terminology has it right - a major is a major or a grand slam tournament.

Besides the word 'slam' or 'grand slam' is already taken. That's right - it belongs to the achievement of winning four majors consecutively (or in one's career).

When a new species is discovered, scientists do not call it 'cat' or 'dog', because 'cat' and 'dog' are names already taken. They'll call the creature 'muffin head' and it will not magically become 'cat' or 'dog' simply because we think it's conventient.:retard:

When people say Gaudio is a "Slam winner" everyone understands what that means. If someone ever again wins all four in one season we'll say he won "The Slam". It's not like anyone could get confused and think Sampras won The Slam 14 times :retard:

all you're doing is trying to be a smart ass, and for that, here's another :retard:

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 10:13 PM
:retard:

When people say Gaudio is a "Slam winner" everyone understands what that means. If someone ever again wins all four in one season we'll say he won "The Slam". It's not like anyone could get confused and think Sampras won The Slam 14 times :retard:

all you're doing is trying to be a smart ass, and for that, here's another :retard:

It all depends on whether you care about language at all. Whether you think it is okay to pollute it. It's all the same to some.

Sunset of Age
08-31-2007, 10:18 PM
The grand slam contract in bridge is called 7X, that is 7 spades, or hearts, or diamonds, or clubs, or non-trump. It requires winning all tricks in play, so there is an obvious similarity with winning a major, requiring to win all 7 matches. I have no problem with majors called slams.

Yep. To add, in Bridge (the game I play myself, BTW), an 'ordinary' slam is 6X... just to indicate the importance of the addition ' Grand'. (Kieran! :worship:)

Okay back on topic.

When one sees a player so talented and yet so incoherent... what else can one say than... Safin? :sad:
Anyway, well done Stan! Nice to see him doing well. :D

stebs
08-31-2007, 10:19 PM
I don't even know why I'm replying as I knew you would come up with another smartass post that makes no sense and I am sure you'll do the same as a response to this. Oh well.

It's not correct. Just because it's loose slang doesn't mean it's proper terminology. Every respectable website in regards to defining terminology has it right - a major is a major or a grand slam tournament.
It's not loose slang, what gave you that impression? I already told you it wasn't slang but presumably you don't really know what the word means. Slang is informal, non-standard language and what we are discussing has become very standard indeed which is why I argue it is not incorrect.

Yes, sites state that winning the grand slam is all four slams but search tennis terminology in google or whatever search engine you can use and look at a few sites. The AO, RG, Wimbledon and the USO are the four 'grand slams', each one of them is a 'grand slam', ergo when you win one it is prefectly legitimate to say that you have just won a 'grand slam'.

Besides the word 'slam' or 'grand slam' is already taken. That's right - it belongs to the achievement of winning four majors consecutively (or in one's career).
That's not really the way language works. :lol:

When a new species is discovered, scientists do not call it 'cat' or 'dog', because 'cat' and 'dog' are names already taken. They'll call the creature 'muffin head' and it will not magically become 'cat' or 'dog' simply because we think it's conventient.

You have missed the point and this is a useless and brainless analogy.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 10:22 PM
With regards to language you seem to refuse to accept change. When a word begins circulating in regular use for a protracted period of time and is not slang it becomes correct because all language is is an accepted code for communication. Whatever the collective 'we' (people using the language) decide is correct. Seeing as slam has become common place for what you call a major it is correct.

End of debate.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 10:22 PM
Yep. To add, in Bridge (the game I play myself, BTW), an 'ordinary' slam is 6X... just to indicate the importance of the addition ' Grand'. (Kieran! :worship:)

Okay back on topic.

When one sees a player so talented and yet so incoherent... what else can one say than... Safin? :sad:
Anyway, well done Stan! Nice to see him doing well. :D

Explain to me 'the ordinary slam'. I don't play bridge.

Edit: If you mean 'the little slam', that refers to "the winning of twelve of the thirteen tricks of a deal." This is still one capturing a combination of tricks and in no way relates to a tennis major.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 10:28 PM
It's not loose slang, what gave you that impression? I already told you it wasn't slang but presumably you don't really know what the word means. Slang is informal, non-standard language and what we are discussing has become very standard indeed which is why I argue it is not incorrect.

It's not standard? Read the whole thread. No respectable body of tennis respects the use of 'slam' in regards to a major. All of the use is purely slang - that is incorrect, like improper grammar or faulty logic. We all say things that are grammatically incorrect and that's fine, but we shouldn't pretend that they make sense simply because we say them.

Yes, sites state that winning the grand slam is all four slams

What sites say this? Winning the grand slam is winning all four majors or grand slam titles. Not slams.

but search tennis terminology in google or whatever search engine you can use and look at a few sites. The AO, RG, Wimbledon and the USO are the four 'grand slams', each one of them is a 'grand slam', ergo when you win one it is prefectly legitimate to say that you have just won a 'grand slam'.

Tennis terminology supports my point. We have two links already in this thread - both of which indicate that at no point should a major be incorrectly identified as a slam or a grand slam.

That's not really the way language works. :lol:

It's the way terminology works, fortunately for clairity and I like clarity.

You have missed the point and this is a useless and brainless analogy.

You don't have to be smart alecky. I don't mind if you take your time and attempt to present a coherent argument in favour of the use of 'slam' in relation to a major. I would gladly sip some coffee and give you much of my time.

Rogiman
08-31-2007, 10:40 PM
Are you going to start over this tiresome discussion every time 'Slam' is (rightfully) used with respect to "major" ( :retard: ) ?

Obviously, seeing as we're all perfectly happy with the current use of the word this isn't going to change anytime soon. It had been used before you were born and will be in use long after you'll be gone, by fans, players and commentators alike.

Cut it already.

stebs
08-31-2007, 10:43 PM
It's not standard? Read the whole thread. No respectable body of tennis respects the use of 'slam' in regards to a major. All of the use is purely slang - that is improper, like improper grammar or faulty logic. We all say things that are grammatically incorrect and that's fine, but we shouldn't pretend that they make sense simply because we say them.
I am too tired to explain. Go read a dictionary for the meaning of slang and hopefully you'll understand the true meaning of the word because you clearly don't right now.

Tennis terminology supports my point. We have two links already in this thread - both of which indicate that at no point should a major be incorrectly identified as a slam or a grand slam.
You're getting confused as to what I'm saying. Well, either that or you're just trying to be difficult. There is a difference between what is in the lexical field of a particular area of vocabulary and what is orginally correct. That you can't understand this is what exasperates me.


It's the way terminology works, fortunately for clairity and I like clarity.

Terminology is language and no it's not the way it works. How hard is it to understand?

When someone says they're going to Italy for two weeks in the sun because they need a break you don't get confused because you thought they meant they had to go to Italy in order to break service in a tennis match do you?

You don't have to be smart alecky. I don't mind if you take your time and attempt to present a coherent argument in favour of the use of 'slam' in relation to a major. I would gladly sip some coffee and give you much of my time.

I don't prefer the word. Personally I couldn't give two hoots I just stumbled upon the thread and I didn't think there was any need to find such a thing irritating and due to reasons I have mentioned I believe that if you let this irritate you then you will continue to be irritated. Having interchangeable words for the same meaning may seem pointless to you but it is not a bad thing and there is no reason to be so strict with some aspects of language which progress naturally.

Seeing as you were so polite in that small part of your post I'll stop being such a jackass and tell you why I think it makes sense for 'slam' to mean what you believe to be 'major' and 'major' only.

The four 'majors' won together is a feat which is, as you rightly say, known to be winning the grand slam. This has led to the four 'majors' becoming known as the grand slam events. Assuming that context enlightens one as to the meaning of the words in a sentance it is not foolish to shorten the term 'grand slam events' into 'grand slams' and further into 'slams'. If you take that further then rather than saying 'Player X has won a grand slam event' it means the same to say 'Player X has won a slam'. It is unlikely to take a genius to work out which of the two possible meanings the speaker refers to.

As for the slang thing, well, a colloquialism stops being a colloquialism if it becomes widely used and the same goes for slang if it becomes standard which the term 'slam' certainly has.

I don't care about it very much which is why I surprise myself by my continuing argument but I simply see no problem with this simple term.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 10:44 PM
Rogiman, you are the greatest exponent of the :retard: emoticon that this forum has to offer.

:lol:

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 11:08 PM
I am too tired to explain. Go read a dictionary for the meaning of slang and hopefully you'll understand the true meaning of the word because you clearly don't right now.

Slang has several slightly distinct definitions; the one I went by is: Language peculiar to a group; argot or jargon

You're getting confused as to what I'm saying. Well, either that or you're just trying to be difficult. There is a difference between what is in the lexical field of a particular area of vocabulary and what is orginally correct. That you can't understand this is what exasperates me.

Explain to me how what you're saying is lexically correct and originally correct. I fail to see how it is correct either way.

Terminology is language and no it's not the way it works. How hard is it to understand?

Terminology is a system - a precise science of terms. It is, in fact, not very hard to understand, but is very easy to misuse.

When someone says they're going to Italy for two weeks in the sun because they need a break you don't get confused because you thought they meant they had to go to Italy in order to break service in a tennis match do you?

I fail to see a relationship here. Both uses of the word 'break' are completely understandable - systematically speaking. And, even so, I don't mind language that is loose - especially when it is so artistically speaking. Spelling mistakes, for example, don't bother me. But within certain context ignoring terminology should be seen as blatantly careless. As lovers of tennis we should respect the game enough to refer to its particles correctly.

I don't prefer the word. Personally I couldn't give two hoots I just stumbled upon the thread and I didn't think there was any need to find such a thing irritating and due to reasons I have mentioned I believe that if you let this irritate you then you will continue to be irritated. Having interchangeable words for the same meaning may seem pointless to you but it is not a bad thing and there is no reason to be so strict with some aspects of language which progress naturally.

You can say that I'm irritated as much as you like if you feel that it serves some purpose to diminish what it is I am saying. But that has nothing to do with my point, which is that tennis that we respect for its rules and history and if we don't respect these things we really can't say that we give a hoot at all. And I do think that most people who ignore terminology exhibit a certain ignorance, because they show such little interest about its role. For it is not the fact that we use a wrong word to describe something in particular (that's still wrong, but not necessarily logically inconsistent) it's the fact that we use the same word to describe to completely different things. I find this perplexing. I think that most dedicated fans of tennis should as well.

Seeing as you were so polite in that small part of your post I'll stop being such a jackass and tell you why I think it makes sense for 'slam' to mean what you believe to be 'major' and 'major' only.

The four 'majors' won together is a feat which is, as you rightly say, known to be winning the grand slam. This has led to the four 'majors' becoming known as the grand slam events. Assuming that context enlightens one as to the meaning of the words in a sentance it is not foolish to shorten the term 'grand slam events' into 'grand slams' and further into 'slams'. If you take that further then rather than saying 'Player X has won a grand slam event' it means the same to say 'Player X has won a slam'. It is unlikely to take a genius to work out which of the two possible meanings the speaker refers to.

I understand what you are saying here, but this does not change the fact that you have the term 'grand slam' used for two different things: in one case, a major, and in another case, a combination of majors. These things are distinct. One is a subdivision of the other. This is logically inconsistent and this is noted in a previous link provided, interestingly enough, by one of the persons who was so keen on arguing with me.

As for the slang thing, well, a colloquialism stops being a colloquialism if it becomes widely used and the same goes for slang if it becomes standard which the term 'slam' certainly has.

I don't care about it very much which is why I surprise myself by my continuing argument but I simply see no problem with this simple term.

I also understand what you are getting at here. It all really depends on whether one respects tennis enough to consider it a science.

I believe that tennis terminology must be separate of colloquialism. Combine the two and you have chaos. You don't see slang entering legal documents. I think that there is a good reason for this.

Of course, whether you go on utilizing the word 'slam' to mean major doesn't matter to me. I may point out my displeasure with the use, but I cannot stop you from using it. I am, however, more concerned with terminology as far as its use amongst the so-called professionals - the analysts and other members of the media. They, I believe, do have a responsibility to carry out this science. When they don't it undermines the sport.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 11:11 PM
Are you going to start over this tiresome discussion every time 'Slam' is (rightfully) used with respect to "major" ( :retard: ) ?

Obviously, seeing as we're all perfectly happy with the current use of the word this isn't going to change anytime soon. It had been used before you were born and will be in use long after you'll be gone, by fans, players and commentators alike.

Cut it already.

I would gladly cut it, but people seem to be interested enough to want to debate me on this.

MatchFederer
08-31-2007, 11:11 PM
*farts*

rocketassist
08-31-2007, 11:12 PM
Never in doubt. Wawrinka has too much guile for Safin truba.

CyBorg
08-31-2007, 11:15 PM
I've re-read the thread just to see if the accusations of my smart alickness were accurate and I think that I, for the most part, have been pretty grounded. I've made a number of muffin jokes and may have hijacked the thread, but, to my defense, this happened in conjunction with the number of people who wished to continue the conversation.

I don't believe I've used an ad hominem once in this thread. However I'd deflected at least a dozen so far and one poster is on my ignore list so I shudder to think what's in there.

Adieu for now.:)

musefanatic
08-31-2007, 11:19 PM
Well done Stan, Safin was just not up to it, not like Stan isn't a good player either, he is, and well, as was said before Safin=incoherrent.

User id 7816
08-31-2007, 11:39 PM
Not ONLY was this a triple bagel, but it was a 'true' triple bagel, the "true" original definition that was devised by Mediter, a score line of 6-3 6-3 6-3... other types of bagels are good 'n all, i.e 6-0 6-0 6-0 or 6-4 6-4 6-4, but they are not PURE bagels.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have just witnessed a true triple bagel.

:lol: it's like, "I'm purely twice better than you" ~ takes skill to deliver that.

leng jai
08-31-2007, 11:51 PM
What the fuck?

World Beater
08-31-2007, 11:58 PM
What the fuck?

that was my reaction when looking at the scoreline and the content of this thread. Some people really need a life. Such trivial pursuits.

Krikry
09-01-2007, 12:34 AM
marat is a lot bulkier than he used to be and the operations haven't helped his movement either. He is just so slow, and because of it his footwork is sloppy. Without footwork, you can be an outstanding ball striker but still mistime every shot.

He didnt' have any operation for his knee!

HNCS
09-01-2007, 01:43 AM
On cloud 7. :haha: i knew wawrinka would've won. but triple bagel? YAAAAY

User ID 29337
09-01-2007, 02:09 AM
:(

Safin_Lova
09-01-2007, 03:00 AM
Marat better have some luck in the indoor season. He is not a mediacore player with a mediacore mind. I was not expecting this loss. I thought he could do better. Marat better get back to his old self soon.

Regenbogen
09-01-2007, 03:08 AM
What the hell is this bagel thing :help:

*Viva Chile*
09-01-2007, 03:13 AM
Since when the bagels are "3" ?? :retard:

Only for the thread's title this one can be nominated for the "This thread sucks" form. :o

Polikarpov
09-01-2007, 03:14 AM
Safin:smash:

Snowwy
09-01-2007, 03:55 AM
Since when the bagels are "3" ?? :retard:

Only for the thread's title this one can be nominated for the "This thread sucks" form. :o

You dont remember the genius who thought that it was a bagel if the score was the same in each set?

64 64 64 = triple bagel
61 61 61 = triple bagel

GlennMirnyi
09-01-2007, 04:05 AM
This shows how poor Frankie was against this clown.

Safin is an overrated clown, never in doubt.

ChinoRios4Ever
09-01-2007, 04:11 AM
good one Stan the Man :yeah:

Marat :help::help::help:

buddyholly
09-01-2007, 04:17 AM
Bagel has only one meaning: 0

What is everybody talking about bagels for in this match? Does a 3 look like a bagel? I don't think so.


6-0 6-0 6-0 = triple bagle
6-1 6-1 6-1 = triple breadsticks

The way is open for someone to coin phrases for 6-3 and 6-4, but these scores are so ordinary as to probably not deserve their own lexicography.

The_Nadal_effect
09-01-2007, 04:57 AM
What I am trying to say is that Stan has been beset with consistency problems and he may have found his consistency just in time for this match but I find it hard to believe that Safin playing like he did in the 1st round couldn't give more of a fight in this match.

The irony is that had Safin lost the first match, Dancevic might have taken Stan out.

The good news for Safin is that now he has to time to enjoy a plate of spaghetti in peace.

Action Jackson
09-01-2007, 05:41 AM
Well done Stani and now take Gineprick in the next round.

Allez
09-01-2007, 08:01 AM
I'm a fan of Stan's but I think it's safe to say Safin is now finished.

Exodus
09-01-2007, 08:11 AM
safin is finished for sure but i will still root for him as a fan lol

Bremen
09-01-2007, 08:22 AM
safin is finished for sure but i will still root for him as a fan lol

Nothing wrong with that, I'll do the same for Federer no matter where he is in his career.

bayvalle
09-01-2007, 08:33 AM
No offense to the thread, but I believe the term "bagel" in tennis applies only to a completed set where one of the players got zilch, - as in "Player A bagelled Player B in the first set, 6-0." For this purpose, the "6-3 6-3 6-3" scoreline could never be called bagels (based on the "truest" meaning of the term).

Bremen
09-01-2007, 08:53 AM
No offense to the thread, but I believe the term "bagel" in tennis applies only to a completed set where one of the players got zilch, - as in "Player A bagelled Player B in the first set, 6-0." For this purpose, the "6-3 6-3 6-3" scoreline could never be called bagels (based on the "truest" meaning of the term).

Please read the whole thread. Also, spend more time on MTF before jumping to conclusions.

Beat
09-01-2007, 08:53 AM
i'm very sorry for marat … but STAN! YEAHHHH!

rwn
09-01-2007, 09:56 AM
Safin can't move anymore. It's the end of the road for him. He has 2 grand slams, many players wished they had them.

bayvalle
09-01-2007, 10:10 AM
Please read the whole thread. Also, spend more time on MTF before jumping to conclusions.
I will heed your advice, sir.

Action Jackson
09-01-2007, 10:11 AM
safin is finished for sure but i will still root for him as a fan lol

Good thing as well.

Bremen
09-01-2007, 10:24 AM
I will heed your advice, sir.

:wavey:

it will take a while, have fun!

martine2
09-01-2007, 11:16 AM
Stan the man :worship: :bounce:

barbadosan
09-01-2007, 11:37 AM
The theory of non-zero bagels was propounded by the "analytical" poster Mediter, arguing irrefutably :rolleyes:

(Do a search for the original thread)

Mrs. B
09-01-2007, 12:33 PM
bagels, muffins... :toothy: :drool:

well done, Stan! I knew you could do it. :banana:

Marat... :smooch:

Mateya
09-01-2007, 05:12 PM
Safin = the biggest :retard: :retard: :retard: of all time.

What is going on in that head of his? :confused:

With his talent, power and mental toughness (Davis cup edition) I would be winning titles one after another.