glad u mentioned it... 'the golden slam' is the #1 'great pretension' of the steffi graf fan world.
OK, whatever. Contact me the next time it's done. Let's see how "pretentious" (?) it is.
there WAS no golden slam throughout the history of our sport. '88 was the first year of something that now happens only every 4 years... so while no one prior to '88 won a golden slam, one never existed before! a small thing to overlook.
C'est vrai! And yet prior to 1988, the only Grand Slams were won in non-Olympic years. So even if tennis were in the Olympics, Court, Connolly, Budge and Laver couldn't have won a Golden Slam anyway.
and one must be lucky indeed to happen to hit stride on a year when the olympics just happen to occur.
Aw, how terribly sweet of you. That Stef, ALWAYS just a lucky gal. Well as they say, better to be lucky than good!
i definitely prefer a classic at eastbourne to a dud at wimbledon. i think this issue comes down to who loves TENNIS (ie, the art of the sport and how it is played) and who loves the sheen of status symbols & what the flock gathers around.
I prefer a classic anywhere. As a fan, I understand that Wimbledon does mean more, overall. Maybe in some people's minds a win other than Wimbledon, US, French, or Australia means more. Just like in team sports, a regular season performance may be more satisfying than winning the World Series or Super Bowl. No matter, because it's what you do in the majors that the majority of folks will remember.
I love players who say, "I play every match like its the finals of wimbledon" versus those who say, "I dont really try all year unless it's a slam because thats what people remember." (which current player has basically said that?
) Reason being that only one of those approaches has integrity.
One of the things I loved about that lucky gal (and remember she was ONLY lucky, not good!) Steffi is that she tried hard everytime she walked on court. Now I know she was only lucky to beat Chris Evert for the 8th straight time in that VS of Florida final in 1989 (was that a classic?). Like Miss Evert, the lucky Miss Graf wanted to beat her opponent as badly as she could, no matter the tournament. Both understood the value of competing at the highest level all the time.
there's a world of difference between playing for the history books and playing for greatness. Greatness is an every day affair...it is about every moment, not just the ones when others are looking. But this is an issue the entire globe is struggling with. If they don't have their hype to accompany their moment, they fail to know if the moment had value.
Now it's just me, I'm sure. But I recall watching both Miss Evert and Miss Graf, and neither ever claimed or pretended they were playing for the history books. They were always playing to be the best, to push themselves to be the best. In fact Miss Graf said near the end of her career she never had time to think or ponder her place in history, that was a conversation for others to have, or for her to think about in the future. (Then again, how dare Steffi even think she belonged int he conversation of greatness, she was only "lucky"!)
But back to the original point.... Why O Why couldnt Martina win that slam? Because there was another champion balancing out her career results named chris evert who won a slam every year for 13 years straight.
But Evert certainly didn't beat Martina en route to winning the French in 1983 or the Australian in 1984! How "nice" of others to do the the dirty work in 1983-1984, since Chris was too busy losing 12 consecutive matches to Martina! (me-oww, how mean of me to tell the truth!) So back to the original point, why oh why couldn't Martina win the Grand Slam in 1983, or 1984? Why? I can only conclude she was not as "lucky" as Steffi Graf!
Somehow chris & martina's slam count must be added to one another, so that they each have 36 in order to show the true comparison to graf's 22. Due to significant circumstances, steffi played in a single-champion era whereas chris & martina shared the winnings.
Eww, gross. Martina and Chris morphing into one being! No. I recognize them as two distinct individuals and champions. Their individual records stand on their own. And no, you don't get the combo deal of Chris + Martina = SuperWoman! The true comparison of # of majors won is looking at the actual, real results
(horrors, I want to use actual, real results, not the "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" stuff or some other make believe fantasy world. I must be so mean!!!!!)
These are the kind of calculations that statisticians cant make, and point to how complicated it really is to compare great champions, as each era has its own variables. But it does suggest people should stop over-simplifying to 'slam totals' as a way of measuring a player's worth. Thinking is FUN and should not be hammered down to the default mode of 'paint by numbers'! (Why o why do people hate gray areas that stand in the way of over-simplified results???)
Yes, it really is complicated to compare great champions. Only fools and fans (and pundits) do that. That's part of the fun!!! (Call me crazy but I seem to have a healthier respect for the champions who refuse to indulge in who the greatest is. Funny too, how one Miss "Lucky" Steffi Graf, humble as she may be, never enters that conversation. Only praising her competition. Something Motor mouth Martina could never do!) Yes tennis like life is a multi, techni-colored dream coat of a world. There are more than gray areas, or even paint by the numbers. But then when you have to talk numbers, there are basic rules. Such as 22 is greater than 18, in just picking out two numbers at absolute random