Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Calendar Year Grand Slam vs (Career) Grand Slam

Gabe32
09-15-2010, 09:04 PM
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?

finishingmove
09-15-2010, 09:14 PM
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.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 09:21 PM
Fed would not have won in 07 Nadal is too much for him on FO, unless you remove Nadal in the equation

Gabe32
09-15-2010, 09:24 PM
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).

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 09:39 PM
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?

borracho
09-15-2010, 09:46 PM
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.

Gabe32
09-15-2010, 09:51 PM
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.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 10:04 PM
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

Fed Fan
09-15-2010, 10:28 PM
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.

oranges
09-15-2010, 10:38 PM
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.

allpro
09-15-2010, 11:17 PM
cygs > cgs

thrust
09-16-2010, 12:04 AM
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
09-16-2010, 12:15 AM
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!

Gabe32
09-16-2010, 01:03 AM
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?

megadeth
09-16-2010, 01:07 AM
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

oranges
09-16-2010, 01:57 AM
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?

Your attempts to make it sound as if CYGS can happen randomly due mainly to weak field is both such a logical and reality fail that I'm at a loss were to begin to deconstruct it. Perhaps you can answer why do you think Hewitt didn't do it if it was the period conducive to it. Both Federer's and Nadal's slam would certainly be even more impressive if they did it within a season. It requires high level of form througout the year, in addition of course to being able to play that well on all surfaces, and pretty much does away with the luxury of waiting for a good draw to get the one or two you miss.

The bolded part actually makes my brain hurt. By what thought process you could arrive at the option of Federer dominating one random year if he won CYGS? Alternatively, why do you think a career slam necessarily needs to involve domination over the years. In a scenario equally deprived of reality check as your own, it is perfectly feasible for someone to win just four, one a year. You find it more impressive and less flash in a pan if you win them over a period of four or say 12 years?

Fed Fan
09-16-2010, 02:05 AM
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?

I get what you're saying. Although both take a hell of a lot of skill and fitness, longevity is perhaps a separate achievement from total domination over a year or so.

In my original post, I didn't explain as clearly as I should have done what was meant in terms of the period of domination. In a nutshell, winning four grand slams on the trot is arguably a comparable achievement to the Calendar Grand Slam, as tennis is played almost continuously and because the human body does not function as it should because 1st January comes around. Setting dates between which it is better to win four slams back to back seems somewhat arbitrary.

Because humans like to divide things up, megadeth is correct to say that the Calendar Slam has a nice ring to it. That being the case, a better question to ask would be is there really a point to it? At the risk of contradicting myself, maybe the Calendar Slam has taken on a life of its own because of its 'aesthetic' merit and players try to achieve it. That would give the Calendar Slam some status, because players would be trying to peak at the right time etc. But, then again, do players not just take things one slam at a time and try their best at all of them?

I'm not 100% sure, but I do think everything should be open to challenge. It just seems to me that maybe the Calendar Grand Slam is not the unquestionable, undeniable Holy Grail of tennis.

Gabe32
09-16-2010, 04:54 AM
Perhaps you can answer why do you think Hewitt didn't do it if it was the period conducive to it.

The bolded part actually makes my brain hurt. By what thought process you could arrive at the option of Federer dominating one random year if he won CYGS? Alternatively, why do you think a career slam necessarily needs to involve domination over the years. In a scenario equally deprived of reality check as your own, it is perfectly feasible for someone to win just four, one a year. You find it more impressive and less flash in a pan if you win them over a period of four or say 12 years?

Concerning the first part: Hewitt isn't/wasn't that good ever. He COULDN'T do it at his peak around then. If you transported 2007 Fed (or any great all-courter) to around 2002, who could he possibly lose to in the slams? Hewitt? Roddick? JCF? He would most certainly win the CYGS. There was no field then.

Concerning the second part: I think it is insanely unlikely that someone would win a CYGS and then never win another slam again. All I am saying is that if someone ever one a CYGS on 3 surfaces, the field that year had to be pretty weak (not counting that 1 person). I don't think that's controversial.

Topspindoctor
09-16-2010, 04:56 AM
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.

Hewitt was a clown on clay. How exactly would he win a CYGS? I am curious to know.

Gabe32
09-16-2010, 04:57 AM
Hewitt was a clown on clay. How exactly would he win a CYGS? I am curious to know.

Haha, I guess I am not making myself clear. He wouldn't! He was never that good. I don't know how I got to defending Lleyton Hewitt. :confused:

edit: Just noticed you are from Australia. He was good. Just no good on clay, obviously.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-16-2010, 05:45 AM
in 2007 federer threw away 17 break points against nada at RG

he basically gave the title away

anyway, how funny is it that the nadal fans are trying to argue that a career slam is better than a calender slam, the highest prize in tennis

Logical
09-14-2011, 06:56 PM
CalenderYearGoldenSlam>CareerGoldenSlam>CYGS>CGS