Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Apr 7, 8:33 pm, "DavidW" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Raja wrote:
>>> On Apr 7, 6:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> I don't see how winning AO, FO, W, USO is any harder than winning,
>>>> say, FO, W, USO, AO.
>>> Its first of all psychological pressure. Winning all the 4 in the same
>>> year is much more difficult.
>> Psychological pressure is nebulous and different for everyone, and is
mostly
>> imposed from outside - fans, media etc. You can't say that the
difficulty is
>> increased by X amount because of the pressure, and I doubt how much
more there
>> is than is there already in trying to win a GS title. It should not be
counted
>> as part of the difficulty of achieving it. It's just an extra if the
player does
>> feel it and overcomes it.
>>
>>> With every new year you start fresh. And
>>> added to the fact is CYGS is inherently alway superior to NCYGS in
>>> everyones mind.
>> Yes, I don't dispute that. It has prestige compared with the three
sequences of
>> NCYGS in the same way that Wimbledon has prestige compared with the
other three
>> slams.
>>
>>> If you look at the record books and look at 1988 it
>>> says GRAF GRAF GRAF GRAF. It doesnt say the same for Serena or
>>> Navratilova for any year.
>> As I said, it's a neat package for the year, but not harder to do.
>>
>>> Hint: It is much more difficult to completely perfect one year Vs
>>> being semi perfect for 2 years.
>> It's a one in four chance where the sequence starts. You are just lucky
if it
>> starts at the AO.
>
> But the chances of achieving one particular sequence are less than
> those of achieving any one of the other three. Therefore the CYGS (one
> defined sequence) is theoretically three times harder to do than the
> NCYGS (any one of three different sequences).
>
> This topic has been talked to death in RST. Why is it coming back
> again? The only reason I extracted a tennis-related point from
> Knowledge's tripe was to contest the "history making" nature of the
> Serena slam. Playing with fire, I guess.
>
> Joe Ramirez
Yes, you shouldn't have to closely study the record books to see if
someone won a sequence GS - it should be obvious as in Graf's 1988 &
Laver's 1969.
|
