PDA

View Full Version : Why Nobody Mentions The Navratilova Slam?


Nicolás89
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:28 AM
I was bored and looking players career highlights and I found that Martina achieved a slam nobody ever mentions.
1983: Wimbledon, Us Open, Australian Open
1984: Roland Garros

I expect the same recognition Serena's got for her so called slam. :mad:

Keadz
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:33 AM
The Serena slam will be just as obsolete in the future as this record is, no need to worry.

young_gunner913
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Because the Navratilova Slam isn't a catchy name at all. :o Serena Slams is wonderous. :hearts: Navrati-blah-blah-blah Slam sounds dull dull dull. :yawn:

Nicolás89
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:35 AM
Because the Navratilova Slam isn't a catchy name at all. :o Serena Slams is wonderous. :hearts: Navrati-blah-blah-blah Slam sounds dull dull dull. :yawn:

But The Navy Slam sounds much better than Serena slam. :hearts:

Pureracket
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:36 AM
Well, it's because Serena's also an actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, model. Navratilova can only wish to achieve this.

Nicolás89
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:39 AM
Well, it's because Serena's also an actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, model. Navratilova can only wish to achieve this.

The Navy doesn't wish any of these. :shrug:

dynamoRockstarr
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:40 AM
Yes its very dull and Serena's is the last so until sum1 else achieves such a feat and possibly n 1 calendar year.... many will know of the Serena Slam Baby!!!!!

And y use an angry smiley??? Thanks 4 the Navratilova Slam... never knew...

Slammer7
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:50 AM
It's because she didn't know how to sell it. Martina was never, and still isn't media savvy, she was not a good self-promoter the way Serena is.:worship: If she had coined a catchy term before she won the fourth straight slam she would have gotten people to remember it too. Steffi's slam was the "Golden Slam" now isn't that catchy,:yeah: if Nav had done something like that maybe it would have stuck in peoples minds too. She actually won 6 straight slams if I'm not mistaken, but she was not a show-woman and it is a shame at times that Evert is remembered more fondly to the point were some want to brush aside her many post-playing transgressions.:o There's no doubt what she did was amazing and she is one of the greatest players of all time.:worship:

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:51 AM
Because anything that happened before the end of the Graf years is basically BCE to most posters around here. And us aged Navy fans are so old we can't even remember it ourselves. Or maybe we just don't feel the need to mention it every 13 seconds.

Bijoux0021
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:15 AM
It's because she didn't know how to sell it. Martina was never, and still isn't media savvy, she was not a good self-promoter the way Serena is.:worship: If she had coined a catchy term before she won the fourth straight slam she would have gotten people to remember it too. Steffi's slam was the "Golden Slam" now isn't that catchy,:yeah: if Nav had done something like that maybe it would have stuck in peoples minds too. She actually won 6 straight slams if I'm not mistaken, but she was not a show-woman and it is a shame at times that Evert is remembered more fondly to the point were some want to brush aside her many post-playing transgressions.:o There's no doubt what she did was amazing and she is one of the greatest players of all time.:worship:
Actually, it was Tiger Woods who first came up with the catchy name, "Tiger Slam," after he had won four straight slams in golf in a non-calendar year. Not long after that, Serena won her fourth straight slams in tennis and used the catchy name, "Serena Slam."

tennnisfannn
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:18 AM
Didn't martina win a calender slam which is better than a non calender. I would imagine it is just like Myskina will be always called a former FO champion and serena 10 time slam chapion. The greater achievement is most talked about.

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:22 AM
Nope. Martina's was not a calendar slam. (Unless you're talking about doubles, which she did accomplish).

The calendar year winners are Connelly Brinker and Court, with Graf as the only Golden Slam winner.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:22 AM
Didn't martina win a calender slam which is better than a non calender.

No she didn't.
Only three women in history won the Grand Slam : Maureen Connolly, Margaret Court and Steffi Graf.

Slammer7
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Actually, it was Tiger Woods who first came up with the catchy name, "Tiger Slams," after he had won four straight slams in golf in a non-calendar year. Not long after that, Serena had just won her fourth straight slams in tennis and used the catchy name, "Serena Slam."

Yeah I know, and people still remember the "Tiger Slam" so we can be sure people will remember the "Serena Slam" But you have to admit that "Serena Slam" is more alliterative. :yeah:

Didn't martina win a calender slam which is better than a non calender. I would imagine it is just like Myskina will be always called a former FO champion and serena 10 time slam champion. The greater achievement is most talked about.

No, but she came close. She lost in the semis of the U.S. Open to Sukova if I remember my tennis history right. From what many including Martina have said, the crowd was fearcly against her, and this was after she became a U.S citizen.:sad:

2Black
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:38 AM
Didn't Martina actually win 6 slams in a row but 1 was moved to the next year so she didn't get a chance for the calendar year slam. If that's true, I actually think what she did was better than Graf's Golden slam

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 04:33 AM
Well, it's because Serena's also an actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, model. Navratilova can only wish to achieve this.

Really?

Martina had 167 career titles (all time record, men or women) and 18 grand slams. She is not a failed actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, or model.

Serena has 33 career titles and 10 grand slams. Serena can only wish to achieve Martina's tennis feats.

Martina does not need any "catchy" marketing phrases to ensure her reputation as the 'Greatest of All Time.' Serena is not even mentioned in that conversation, cutesy pr ploys notwithstanding.


http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_yahooo.gif

Tennisstar86
Apr 13th, 2009, 04:37 AM
well if you knew anything youd know that Martina got the same criticism Serena gets for it not being in one calender year.....but the accomplishments are the same...Serenas the last person to hold all four and the way things are going, she'll be the last person to do so for awhile.

Tennisstar86
Apr 13th, 2009, 04:41 AM
Didn't Martina actually win 6 slams in a row but 1 was moved to the next year so she didn't get a chance for the calendar year slam. If that's true, I actually think what she did was better than Graf's Golden slam

Martina did not win 6 slams in a row.... Steffi did though..... and made 13 straight slam finals....

Caillou
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:08 AM
Really?

Martina had 167 career titles (all time record, men or women) and 18 grand slams. She is not a failed actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, or model.

Serena has 33 career titles and 10 grand slams. Serena can only wish to achieve Martina's tennis feats.

Martina does not need any "catchy" marketing phrases to ensure her reputation as the 'Greatest of All Time.' Serena is not even mentioned in that conversation, cutesy pr ploys notwithstanding.


http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_yahooo.gif

hmmm...im pretty sure if i went up to any of my friends and asked if they knew who martina navratilova was they would be like wtf..however serena or venus williams, they'd be like those tennis players..serena and venus didn't dedicate themselves to the game like martina did. if they did, they may have been able to accomplish greater things, or not who cares. the point is they aren't martina and they are who they are. i personally, along with many other members of this board are amazed by all they have accomplished depsite their injuries, tragedies, outside interests etc. all three are amazing tennis players and part of the GREAT'S CATEGORY. so shut up and stop trying to put them down.

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:34 AM
hmmm...im pretty sure if i went up to any of my friends and asked if they knew who martina navratilova was they would be like wtf..however serena or venus williams, they'd be like those tennis players

Fortunately, the determination of tennis greats is not based on your friends who apparently know little tennis history.

serena and venus didn't dedicate themselves to the game like martina did. if they did, they may have been able to accomplish greater things, or not who cares.

True. Like all tennis great wannabees, they didn't devote themselves to a goal of accomplishing great things on the court.

the point is they aren't martina and they are who they are. i personally, along with many other members of this board are amazed by all they have accomplished depsite their injuries, tragedies, outside interests etc.

There are legions of tennis pros who also have many injuries, personal tragedies, and outside interests. All those players could say: "I could have been great like Martina if I didn't have injuries, tragedies, or outside interests." However, they and their fans would never make such a callow argument.

Zauber
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:35 AM
hmmm...im pretty sure if i went up to any of my friends and asked if they knew who martina navratilova was they would be like wtf..however serena or venus williams, they'd be like those tennis players..serena and venus didn't dedicate themselves to the game like martina did. if they did, they may have been able to accomplish greater things, or not who cares. the point is they aren't martina and they are who they are. i personally, along with many other members of this board are amazed by all they have accomplished depsite their injuries, tragedies, outside interests etc. all three are amazing tennis players and part of the GREAT'S CATEGORY. so shut up and stop trying to put them down.

typical

Caillou
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:38 AM
Fortunately, the determination of tennis greats is not based on your friends who apparently know little tennis history.



True. Like all tennis great wannabees, they didn't devote themselves to a goal of accomplishing great things on the court.



There are legends of tennis pros who also have many injuries, personal tragedies, and outside interests. All those players could say: "I could have been great like Martina if I didn't have injuries, tragedies, or outside interests." However, they and their fans would never make such a callow argument.

unfortuantly for you, the objective of my argument is to show you your arrogance, as i didn't once stoop to insults. What is true is that you have accomplished not even a fraction of what venus or serena have in their lives. so maybe a true tennis fan wouldn't make such thoughtless comments regarding two of the greatest players that have ever played

Caillou
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:39 AM
typical

oh for sure..wtf?

kiwifan
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:43 AM
Everybody did mention it and actually honored it as a "Grand Slam" at the time, but then Graf did a real one...

..."that's life" :shrug:

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:47 AM
unfortuantly for you, the objective of my argument is to show you your arrogance, as i didn't once stoop to insults. What is true is that you have accomplished not even a fraction of what venus or serena have in their lives. so maybe a true tennis fan wouldn't make such thoughtless comments regarding two of the greatest players that have ever played

It is quite doubtful that anyone on this forum has accomplished a fraction of the tennis success of any of the top 800 tennis professionals. Clearly that doesn't preclude posters from having opinions, otherwise the threads would be empty.

There is nothing insulting in saying that a player who has only 33 career titles is not great compared to one who has 167. It's just a fact.

OsloErik
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:47 AM
It's because she didn't know how to sell it. Martina was never, and still isn't media savvy, she was not a good self-promoter the way Serena is.:worship: If she had coined a catchy term before she won the fourth straight slam she would have gotten people to remember it too. Steffi's slam was the "Golden Slam" now isn't that catchy,:yeah: if Nav had done something like that maybe it would have stuck in peoples minds too. She actually won 6 straight slams if I'm not mistaken, but she was not a show-woman and it is a shame at times that Evert is remembered more fondly to the point were some want to brush aside her many post-playing transgressions.:o There's no doubt what she did was amazing and she is one of the greatest players of all time.:worship:

That's a part of it, but she also didn't have the same assets that Serena did. At the time Navratilova hit the 4 slams in a row mark, she was "the other American" with the funny accent and the lesbianism and the butch haircut. Chris Evert was still a media goddess at the time, and almost nothing Martina Navratilova could do would combat that.

Could she have focused on becoming more media-savvy? Probably. But, ultimately, what Martina Navratilova was and will be best remembered for is her absolute ascetic (word of the day!) devotion to tennis and athleticism as a goal in of itself.

Caillou
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:53 AM
It is quite doubtful that anyone on this forum has accomplished a fraction of the tennis success of any of the top 800 tennis professionals. Clearly that doesn't preclude posters from having opinions, otherwise the threads would be empty.

There is nothing insulting in saying that a player who has only 33 career titles is not great compared to one who has 167. It's just a fact.

That isn't what im saying. you can have an opinion without trying to put another player down (ie. insulting her pursuits aside from tennis). Failed fashion designer? Hmm try no? and as a matter of fact, she is part of the all-time greats conversation.

Tennisstar86
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:54 AM
Fortunately, the determination of tennis greats is not based on your friends who apparently know little tennis history.



True. Like all tennis great wannabees, they didn't devote themselves to a goal of accomplishing great things on the court.



There are legends of tennis pros who also have many injuries, personal tragedies, and outside interests. All those players could say: "I could have been great like Martina if I didn't have injuries, tragedies, or outside interests." However, they and their fans would never make such a callow argument.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but Venus is the same age that Martina was when she had 9 slams....... Serena is even younger.... with the way the game is going at the moment, Serena and Venus could both better Martina(Venus with Wimbledon titles and Serena with 19 slam titles) and they played in a tougher tennis time frame....

Remember Martina won her last slam at 34....and was in her last slam final at 38.... Personally i think Venus has the capability of more longevity than Martina did.

Caillou
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:55 AM
furthermore, maybe serena doesn't wish to have accomplished what martina has. ever think about that? Or i guessyou would know best, some random hater trying to act like they know her best.

madlove
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:55 AM
yawns

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:58 AM
But, ultimately, what Martina Navratilova was and will be best remembered for is her absolute ascetic (word of the day!) devotion to tennis and athleticism as a goal in of itself.

Exactly, and the definition of greatness.

http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_clapping.gif

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 06:10 AM
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but Venus is the same age that Martina was when she had 9 slams....... Serena is even younger.... with the way the game is going at the moment, Serena and Venus could both better Martina(Venus with Wimbledon titles and Serena with 19 slam titles) and they played in a tougher tennis time frame....

Remember Martina won her last slam at 34....and was in her last slam final at 38.... Personally i think Venus has the capability of more longevity than Martina did.

Highly doubtful that Serena with her tendency towards injuries, tragedies, and outside interests will be able to equal Martina's 18 GSs much less 167 career titles. However, Venus with fewer injuries and less distractability, has a better shot re the GS record.

thegreendestiny
Apr 13th, 2009, 06:24 AM
Well, it's because Serena's also an actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, model. Navratilova can only wish to achieve this.

Erm, correction, there's a difference between being a one and attempting to be one...:rolleyes:

Knizzle
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:22 AM
Martina did not win 6 slams in a row.... Steffi did though..... and made 13 straight slam finals....Nav DID win 6 in a row. Wimbledon 83-US Open 84 during the time that the Australian was in December. She won the last 3 majors of 83 and the first three of 84. Sukova stopped her streak in the semis of OZ in 84, when Nav was 2 wins away from the Calendar Slam.

Amalgamate
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:34 AM
Nav DID win 6 in a row. Wimbledon 83-US Open 84 during the time that the Australian was in December. She won the last 3 majors of 83 and the first three of 84. Sukova stopped her streak in the semis of OZ in 84, when Nav was 2 wins away from the Calendar Slam.

Thank you! I was so confused over here :lol: Now it makes sense!

Junex
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:54 AM
Give em then years and they will stop talking about it!

That is of course If Serena will still play tennis in 2020....

Pheobo
Apr 13th, 2009, 09:35 AM
I would imagine a lot of people are perfectly happy not to talk about Navratilova.

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2009, 10:04 AM
Martina did not win 6 slams in a row.... Steffi did though..... and made 13 straight slam finals....

What are you talking about? Martina did win 6 in a row, it was Steffi who only won 5 in a row.

Here's what happened in 1983-84 since there are so many mistakes being mentioned in this thread right now...

In the 1980s up until 1988, the Australian Open was played in December. So the grand slam year went like this: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open.

In 1983, Chris Evert opened the year by winning the French Open. Martina then won Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open to end the year.

She backed that with success in 1984 French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. That gave her 6 consecutive grand slams.

She was chasing her 7th consecutive title and the calendar year grand slam at the 1984 Australian Open in December but lost to Hana Mandlikova in the semis IIRC.

Steffi won the golden Golden Slam in 1988 and won 1989 Australian Open before losing the French to ASV. That was the most consecutive number of slams she won: 5.

Connelly and Court also won 6 in a row. So in that sense, I actually put Navratilova above Graf and in the same achievement as Connelly and Court. It's harder to win 6 in a row than to win 4 in the same calendar year.

Calendar year looks good on paper but doesn't really mean anything else.

Until, somebody else wins 4 in a row, Serena Slam will be special because she's the last to win it and the only one so far - male or female - in the 21st century to win it.

T. Ennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:50 AM
What are you talking about? Martina did win 6 in a row, it was Steffi who only won 5 in a row.

Here's what happened in 1983-84 since there are so many mistakes being mentioned in this thread right now...

In the 1980s up until 1988, the Australian Open was played in December. So the grand slam year went like this: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open.

In 1983, Chris Evert opened the year by winning the French Open. Martina then won Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open to end the year.

She backed that with success in 1984 French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. That gave her 6 consecutive grand slams.

She was chasing her 7th consecutive title and the calendar year grand slam at the 1984 Australian Open in December but lost to Hana Mandlikova in the semis IIRC.

Steffi won the golden Golden Slam in 1988 and won 1989 Australian Open before losing the French to ASV. That was the most consecutive number of slams she won: 5.

Connelly and Court also won 6 in a row. So in that sense, I actually put Navratilova above Graf and in the same achievement as Connelly and Court. It's harder to win 6 in a row than to win 4 in the same calendar year.

Calendar year looks good on paper but doesn't really mean anything else.

Until, somebody else wins 4 in a row, Serena Slam will be special because she's the last to win it and the only one so far - male or female - in the 21st century to win it.

Graf was already a bit bored in 1989, because she had nothing to win anymore after her Golden Slam.
Navratilova's run of 6 slams also included a weak field at the 1983 Australian Open with a 64 person draw.
She lost to Helena sukova in 1984 (0 slams in her career), maybe because of the pressure of winning the Grand Slam.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:56 AM
Because anything that happened before the end of the Graf years is basically BCE to most posters around here. And us aged Navy fans are so old we can't even remember it ourselves. Or maybe we just don't feel the need to mention it every 13 seconds.

well there just wouldn't be enough seconds in the day, because you have to mention lenas bangs or lack of every 7 seconds already :p

debby
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:09 PM
Anyway Navratilova and Graf are the greatest of all time, no competition with the rest of the field, Serena is not even in the same league.

Maybe a very few bring up the Navratilova Slam but a lot of people there (including me) consider Navratilova as pretty equal to Graf, she played so much, she has like 300 titles in singles, doubles, mixed doubles :scared: I really admire her. What a model for tennis, I don't care if she does not know how to use medias as Serena does, she knew better the game.

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:31 PM
serena and venus didn't dedicate themselves to the game like martina did.


Exactly. And that's one of the many reasons why Martian is so much greater than them.


Graf was already a bit bored in 1989, because she had nothing to win anymore after her Golden Slam.
Navratilova's run of 6 slams also included a weak field at the 1983 Australian Open with a 64 person draw.
She lost to Helena sukova in 1984 (0 slams in her career), maybe because of the pressure of winning the Grand Slam.


Maybe Navratilova was already "a bit bored" after winning 6 Slams in a row and that's why she lost to Helena "O Slams" Sukova :rolleyes:


I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but Venus is the same age that Martina was when she had 9 slams....... Serena is even younger.... with the way the game is going at the moment, Serena and Venus could both better Martina(Venus with Wimbledon titles and Serena with 19 slam titles) and they played in a tougher tennis time frame....

Remember Martina won her last slam at 34....and was in her last slam final at 38.... Personally i think Venus has the capability of more longevity than Martina did.


:haha:

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:17 PM
well there just wouldn't be enough seconds in the day, because you have to mention lenas bangs or lack of every 7 seconds already :p

Yes, but Lena's bangs are important.:p

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:19 PM
Graf was already a bit bored in 1989, because she had nothing to win anymore after her Golden Slam.
Navratilova's run of 6 slams also included a weak field at the 1983 Australian Open with a 64 person draw.
She lost to Helena sukova in 1984 (0 slams in her career), maybe because of the pressure of winning the Grand Slam.

Oh yes, it was Helena Sukova. Keep forgetting how she kept beating Martina in Australia.

Anyway, did you watch the 89 French Open final against ASV? Graf had a virus or something and she was ill for that match and it still went to 7-5 in the third. Not to mention the fact that she won the next 3 grand slams. Is this one of those excuses like Steffi's dad's tax problems causing her to slump in the early 90s? :tape: Please!

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:47 PM
Navratilova gets exactly the same recognition as Serena gets. In fact, Navratilova won six slams in a row.

Back in the day, I believe it was the ITF (correct me on the organization if I'm wrong) who offered a million dollar bonus to anyone winning 'The Grand Slam'. They paid Navratilova the money, but there was some delay, because while no one had said so in so many words, there was an assumption that 'The Grand Slam' occurred in the same calendar year. The issue had never come up before that. That's why you occassionally hear or read the phrase 'calendar slam'.

But after that, people were very specific about the fact that the 'Grand Slam' took place in the same calendar year. Serena avoided this controversy by referring to her holding all four trophies at the same time as the 'Serena Slam'.

Is there any functional difference between holding all four slam titles in the same calendar year and not? No really. But traditions are not un-important.

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:47 PM
What are you talking about? Martina did win 6 in a row, it was Steffi who only won 5 in a row.

Here's what happened in 1983-84 since there are so many mistakes being mentioned in this thread right now...

In the 1980s up until 1988, the Australian Open was played in December. So the grand slam year went like this: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open.

In 1983, Chris Evert opened the year by winning the French Open. Martina then won Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open to end the year.

She backed that with success in 1984 French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. That gave her 6 consecutive grand slams.

She was chasing her 7th consecutive title and the calendar year grand slam at the 1984 Australian Open in December but lost to Hana Mandlikova in the semis IIRC.

Steffi won the golden Golden Slam in 1988 and won 1989 Australian Open before losing the French to ASV. That was the most consecutive number of slams she won: 5.

Connelly and Court also won 6 in a row. So in that sense, I actually put Navratilova above Graf and in the same achievement as Connelly and Court. It's harder to win 6 in a row than to win 4 in the same calendar year.

Calendar year looks good on paper but doesn't really mean anything else.


Looks good on paper? What a joke! If it just looks good on paper, why was the ITF shamed by the tennis community into recanting its position that Martina N. had won a "grand slam" between the years 1983-1984? It was quite a controversy, if you don't remember. To defend her reputation after the ITF abandoned her, Martina N. even gave press conferences on the subject. Why would the ITF have succumbed to the public pressure if a calendar-year grand slam just looked good on paper? Must be some paper, huh!

If you want to school anyone on tennis history, perhaps you should begin by getting your own facts straight. I know it looks a lot better to say that Hana Mandlikova put an end to Martina's hopes of a true "calendar-year" grand slam in 1984. But, in actuality, it was Helena Sukova, the less talented czech. Yes, that would be the Sukova that Graf leads in their head to head 21-1. By comparison, Martina's records against Sukova was 26-6. Curiously, Steffi's and Martina's first match vs. Sukova were both in the same year (1983). Steffi never lost to Sukova after that match. Martina would lose to her 6 times, including one match that cost her a "calendar-year" grand slam.

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:55 PM
Navratilova gets exactly the same recognition as Serena gets. In fact, Navratilova won six slams in a row.

Back in the day, I believe it was the ITF (correct me on the organization if I'm wrong) who offered a million dollar bonus to anyone winning 'The Grand Slam'. They paid Navratilova the money, but there was some delay, because while no one had said so in so many words, there was an assumption that 'The Grand Slam' occurred in the same calendar year. The issue had never come up before that. That's why you occassionally hear or read the phrase 'calendar slam'.

But after that, people were very specific about the fact that the 'Grand Slam' took place in the same calendar year. Serena avoided this controversy by referring to her holding all four trophies at the same time as the 'Serena Slam'.

Is there any functional difference between holding all four slam titles in the same calendar year and not? No really. But traditions are not un-important.

Yeah a good post. Tradition is tradition. I mean Wimbledon is Wimbledon but look at the rankings table and it rewards the same amount of points as the Australian, French and US Opens. :shrug:

I mean I don't think anyone in their right mind will argue that 5 consecutive slams is better than 6 consecutive slams all because of the calendar.

Looks good on paper? What a joke! If it just looks good on paper, why was the ITF shamed by the tennis community into recanting its position that Martina N. had won a "grand slam" between the years 1983-1984? It was quite a controversy, if you don't remember. To defend her reputation after the ITF abandoned her, Martina N. even gave press conferences on the subject. Why would the ITF have succumbed to the public pressure if a calendar-year grand slam just looked good on paper? Must be some paper, huh!

If you want to school anyone on tennis history, perhaps you should begin by getting your own facts straight. I know it looks a lot better to say that Hana Mandlikova put an end to Martina's hopes of a true "calendar-year" grand slam in 1984. But, in actuality, it was Helena Sukova, the less talented czech. Yes, that would be the Sukova that Graf leads in their head to head 21-1. By comparison, Martina's records against Sukova was 26-6. Curiously, Steffi's and Martina's first match vs. Sukova were both in the same year (1983). Steffi never lost to Sukova after that match. Martina would lose to her 6 times, including one match that cost her a "calendar-year" grand slam.

One paragraph on a simple mistake that's meaningless to the thread and debate. WTF cares who stopped Navratilova from winning 7 consecutive slams? :help:

Anyway... yes it is just an aesthetic difference. A calendar slam means just that. All grand slams were won in the same calender year. The Grand Slam which historically means to hold all four slams at the same time can happen within the same calendar or out of the same calendar. It's the same thing.

Plus, all things considered, Graf still never won 6 consecutive slams like Connelly and Court. :tape:

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Nav won 6 slams in a row, a better feat than a Grand Slam. As far as I'm concerned, she is the greatest singles player of the open era.





hmmm...im pretty sure if i went up to any of my friends and asked if they knew who martina navratilova was they would be like wtf..however serena or venus williams, they'd be like those tennis players..serena and venus didn't dedicate themselves to the game like martina did. if they did, they may have been able to accomplish greater things, or not who cares. the point is they aren't martina and they are who they are. i personally, along with many other members of this board are amazed by all they have accomplished depsite their injuries, tragedies, outside interests etc. all three are amazing tennis players and part of the GREAT'S CATEGORY. so shut up and stop trying to put them down.

The sisters are fully dedicated to the game or they wouldn't still be playing and winning. Off-court interests and less intense scheduling are necessary to their success, it doesn't mean they are any less dedicated. If they didn't have their outside interests, they wouldn't be achieving what they are now. We have already seen injuries take them down if they try to play too much.

And nobody cares about who some random person off the street would know more. They would probably know Kournikova over Navratilova, doesn't mean anything.



Graf was already a bit bored in 1989, because she had nothing to win anymore after her Golden Slam.
Navratilova's run of 6 slams also included a weak field at the 1983 Australian Open with a 64 person draw.
She lost to Helena sukova in 1984 (0 slams in her career), maybe because of the pressure of winning the Grand Slam.

Graf was bored? LOL. If she was bored why didn't she just lose her SF to Seles, she wasn't too far away from defeat? 1989 was arguably an even better year for her than 1988, I highly doubt she was bored.

Navratilova didn't need "weaker draws". She proved that enough times in her career. 0 slams means nothing either, anyone knows Sukova was a quality player.

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:03 PM
Maybe Navratilova was already "a bit bored" after winning 6 Slams in a row and that's why she lost to Helena "O Slams" Sukova :rolleyes:



Unlike Steffi, Martina was driven to break or set records. She wanted the four majors in a calendar-year quite badly. More than once, she had explicitly stated that that was a goal in her career. It never happened despite all the effort she put into it during her peak years. So, imagine how Martina must have felt when Steffi completed a true "grand slam" one year after winning her first major.

Even if we can't measure how personally devastating that must have been for Martina, this much is clear. In 1984, the tennis community had campaigned against the ITF's position that Martina's four consecutive slams over two years was a true "grand slam." In the end, the ITF recanted, but in theory the ITF appeared to be right to the extent that it seemed foolish to have such accolades in tennis as a "grand slam" if no one ever achieved them. But, here comes Steffi in 1988 and sweeps the majors, becoming the first person in 18 years to win the true "grand slam." That put an end to any claim Martina could have made in the history books to having achieved a grand slam.

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:07 PM
Unlike Steffi, Martina was driven to break or set records. She wanted the four majors in a calendar-year quite badly. More than once, she had explicitly stated that that was a goal in her career. It never happened despite all the effort she put into it during her peak years. So, imagine how Martina must have felt when Steffi completed a true "grand slam" one year after winning her first major.

Even if we can't measure how personally devastating that must have been for Martina, this much is clear. In 1984, the tennis community had campaigned against the ITF's position that Martina's four consecutive slams over two years was a true "grand slam." In the end, the ITF recanted, but in theory the ITF appeared to be right to the extent that it seemed foolish to have such accolades in tennis as a "grand slam" if no one ever achieved them. But, here comes Steffi in 1988 and sweeps the majors, becoming the first person in 18 years to win the true "grand slam." That put an end to any claim Martina could have made in the history books to having achieved a grand slam.
There's no "true" grand slam. It's just in your head.

The Grand Slam means to hold all four slams at the same time - that's the concept they were talking about back in 30s when Don Budge did it.

It's just that back then if a player was that dominant they also went on to win a couple more... like Connelly and Court.

The Grand Slam means to hold all four. That's all it means. Nothing about calendars. I know it'll pain you to admit it and I also know that this is your ultimate issue with this but Serena Williams has also won the Grand Slam, it's just a non-calendar kind. :lol: Deal with it.

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:19 PM
why was the ITF shamed by the tennis community into recanting its position that Martina N. had won a "grand slam" between the years 1983-1984? It was quite a controversy, if you don't remember. To defend her reputation after the ITF abandoned her, Martina N. even gave press conferences on the subject. Why would the ITF have succumbed to the public pressure if a calendar-year grand slam just looked good on paper?I actually don't remember this 'shaming' of the ITF by 'the tennis community' into changing it's position. I just did an internet search and couldn't find any reference to it.

What I did find was a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/sports/sports-of-the-times-a-champion-for-all-seasons.html) that noted that the ITF ruled, in 1982 that 'winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam'.
Even the International Tennis Federation, which should have more respect for history, ruled in 1982 that winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam - and offered a $1 million bonus for it. How could Navratilova disagree when the I.T.F. handed her the bucks? It's not like Navratilova got the money on a technicality. THey called the tune. She danced the dance. Anyway, could you do us a favor and post a link to your sources regarding the ITF being 'shamed'? Thanks in advance. :)
Like the #1 ranking, what's constitutes a 'Grand Slam' in tennis suffers by changing definitions, and circumstances.

Margaret Court's critics cite the weakness of the Australian Open, a title she won eleven times, if I'm not mistaken. Steffi Graf's fans revere 'The Golden Slam'. Yet the 1988 Olympics was a notably weak tournament. Further, Court, King, Evert, Connolly, Goolangong, Bueno all never had a chance to play the Olympocs, at least not at the peak of their powers.

Oh and, thanks for the sig. :devil:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:22 PM
If you want to school anyone on tennis history, perhaps you should begin by getting your own facts straight. I know it looks a lot better to say that Hana Mandlikova put an end to Martina's hopes of a true "calendar-year" grand slam in 1984. But, in actuality, it was Helena Sukova, the less talented czech. Yes, that would be the Sukova that Graf leads in their head to head 21-1. By comparison, Martina's records against Sukova was 26-6. Curiously, Steffi's and Martina's first match vs. Sukova were both in the same year (1983). Steffi never lost to Sukova after that match. Martina would lose to her 6 times, including one match that cost her a "calendar-year" grand slam.


What do these numbers have to do with anything? They only show that Sukova was a bad match-up for Navratilova, and not so much for Graf.

LDTV, you are right, though, that Graf's winning of 4 Slams in one year is the "true Grand Slam" unlike to that what Serena and Martina did.

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:27 PM
I actually don't remember this 'shaming' of the ITF by 'the tennis community' into changing it's position. I just did an internet search and couldn't find any reference to it.

What I did find was a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/sports/sports-of-the-times-a-champion-for-all-seasons.html) that noted that the ITF ruled, in 1982 that 'winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam'.
Even the International Tennis Federation, which should have more respect for history, ruled in 1982 that winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam - and offered a $1 million bonus for it. How could Navratilova disagree when the I.T.F. handed her the bucks? It's not like Navratilova got the money on a technicality. THey called the tune. She danced the dance. Anyway, could you do us a favor and post a link to your sources regarding the ITF being 'shamed'? Thanks in advance. :)
Like the #1 ranking, what's constitutes a 'Grand Slam' in tennis suffers by changing definitions, and circumstances.

Margaret Court's critics cite the weakness of the Australian Open, a title she won eleven times, if I'm not mistaken. Steffi Graf's fans revere 'The Golden Slam'. Yet the 1988 Olympics was a notably weak tournament. Further, Court, King, Evert, Connolly, Goolangong, Bueno all never had a chance to play the Olympocs, at least not at the peak of their powers.

Oh and, thanks for the sig. :devil:
The Golden Grand Slam is completely meaningless.

We're talking about a tournament that's at best a Tier II back in the day.

The only reason why she won it was because they actually brought tennis back to the Olympics in 1984 and it coincided with her peak grand slam year.

It's all about lucky and aesthetics and not about substance.

If we want to talk substance, let's about the 6 consecutive grand slams Navratilova won which incidentally included the biggest winning streak in grand slam tennis matches at around about 45 matches if I remember correctly. Steffi only had a 41 match streak from 88-89.

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:33 PM
What I did find was a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/sports/sports-of-the-times-a-champion-for-all-seasons.html) that noted that the ITF ruled, in 1982 that 'winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam'.Even the International Tennis Federation, which should have more respect for history, ruled in 1982 that winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam - and offered a $1 million bonus for it. How could Navratilova disagree when the I.T.F. handed her the bucks? It's not like Navratilova got the money on a technicality. THey called the tune. She danced the dance. Anyway, could you do us a favor and post a link to your sources regarding the ITF being 'shamed'? Thanks in advance. :)
Like the #1 ranking, what's constitutes a 'Grand Slam' in tennis suffers by changing definitions, and circumstances.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks for posting that. I wonder what he'll say now.

Serena Williams - ITF approved GRAND SLAM champion.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Wcl_lWbgvDQ/R6OtuOXo1LI/AAAAAAAAAck/cOOmCkSpNHU/S240/serenaslam2.jpg

I love it. :D

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:34 PM
One paragraph on a simple mistake that's meaningless to the thread and debate. WTF cares who stopped Navratilova from winning 7 consecutive slams? :help:

Anyway... yes it is just an aesthetic difference. A calendar slam means just that. All grand slams were won in the same calender year. The Grand Slam which historically means to hold all four slams at the same time can happen within the same calendar or out of the same calendar. It's the same thing.


Wrong. It is NOT an aesthetic difference. Here is Bud Collins on the subject of what is a Grand Slam: Meanwhile, whenever I hear or read that Federer has 13 Grand Slams, one behind Pete Sampras's male record, I wince, and wish I could wash the offender's mouth out with laundry soap. You can understand, I hope, that such is loose use, and slights what the legit Slammers have done. Laver would never complain - but I will.

However, you may counter, "Is the definition of a Grand Slam a regulation, chiseled in marble somewhere?"

Sadly, no. But Melbourne Park would be a good place for it: "The road to a Grand Slam starts here."

Until then, repeat after me: "A Grand Slam is the winning all four majors within a calendar year - and only that."

All the while wondering how in hell Laver did it twice.

This excerpt is from an article "Expand Slam" that appeared on the ABC (Australia) website, January 19, 2009.

As to the mistake you made, it may not matter to you, but that doesn't stop it from being a source of curiosity to others. Yes, it was Helena Sukova, and not Hana Mandlikova. And, yes, Martina's head to head vs. Sukova was 26-6, while Steffi's was 21-1. Both played Sukova over 20 times. Martina was 27 when she first played Sukova in 1983; Steffi was 13 when she first played her in 1983. Yes, that's right, 13!

Steffi lost that first match against Sukova, but she never lost to her again. In fact, in Steffi's "grand slam" year, she beat Sukova twice. On the other hand, Martina lost to Sukova 6 times, including one very important match that stopped Martina N. short of a true grand slam. So, if Sukova is the arbiter of greatness here, it seems that Martina failed the Sukova test too.

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:38 PM
However, you may counter, "Is the definition of a Grand Slam a regulation, chiseled in marble somewhere?"

Sadly, no. But Melbourne Park would be a good place for it: "The road to a Grand Slam starts here."

Until then, repeat after me: "A Grand Slam is the winning all four majors within a calendar year - and only that."


Yeah and in the 70s and 80s "The road to a Grand Slam ends here." ??? :confused: Seems like they can't even make up their mind!!

Oh wait, it wasn't even in Melbourne Park. D'oh looks like nothing's chiseled in marble anywhere.

Anyway, ITF approved Grand Slam champion. That's all I'm going to say. :lol:

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:43 PM
People like Bud Collins can lose sleep over the smallest of matters like the exact meaning of the Grand Slam, doesn't change the fact that 6 slams in a row is still a greater achievement than the 'Grand Slam', or that the 'Grand Slam' is no greater achievement than winning 4 slams in a row accross two different seasons.

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:45 PM
:yawn:

Yet six is still more than 5.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:46 PM
Really?

Martina had 167 career titles (all time record, men or women) and 18 grand slams. She is not a failed actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, or model.

Serena has 33 career titles and 10 grand slams. Serena can only wish to achieve Martina's tennis feats.

Martina does not need any "catchy" marketing phrases to ensure her reputation as the 'Greatest of All Time.' Serena is not even mentioned in that conversation, cutesy pr ploys notwithstanding.


http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_yahooo.gifrelevance?

DA FOREHAND
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:49 PM
People like Bud Collins can lose sleep over the smallest of matters like the exact meaning of the Grand Slam, doesn't change the fact that 6 slams in a row is still a greater achievement than the 'Grand Slam', or that the 'Grand Slam' is no greater achievement than winning 4 slams in a row accross two different seasons.

sourmuch?

the grand slam is the greatest mile stone in tennis.. when martina n achieves that she will be recognized as one of the winners of the grand slam

Caillou
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:51 PM
Nav won 6 slams in a row, a better feat than a Grand Slam. As far as I'm concerned, she is the greatest singles player of the open era.







The sisters are fully dedicated to the game or they wouldn't still be playing and winning. Off-court interests and less intense scheduling are necessary to their success, it doesn't mean they are any less dedicated. If they didn't have their outside interests, they wouldn't be achieving what they are now. We have already seen injuries take them down if they try to play too much.

And nobody cares about who some random person off the street would know more. They would probably know Kournikova over Navratilova, doesn't mean anything.




you dont know that...that is based on what you have seen, doesn't mean during those times their continued success would some how negatively affect them. And i think star power has a lot to do with the williams success NOT FOR THEMSELVES, BUT FOR THE SPORT IN GENERAL. this thread is about why is martina's slam isn't talked about. so for those reasons along with the fact that we are in the current generation we don't talk about martina (as much).

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:53 PM
sourmuch?

the grand slam is the greatest mile stone in tennis.. when martina n achieves that she will be recognized as one of the winners of the grand slam

I'm not sour, I love Steffi more than Nav.


But 6 slams in a row is more of an achievement than a 'Grand Slam'.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:57 PM
perhaps... but there's no definition for six in a row

four slams in the same calander year has a name...THE GRAND SLAM..

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Graf has a better h2h with Sukova... and Dementieva has a better head-to-head with Bammer than Serena does.

Citing random head-to-heads proves nothing.

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:06 PM
I actually don't remember this 'shaming' of the ITF by 'the tennis community' into changing it's position. I just did an internet search and couldn't find any reference to it.

What I did find was a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/sports/sports-of-the-times-a-champion-for-all-seasons.html) that noted that the ITF ruled, in 1982 that 'winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam'.
Even the International Tennis Federation, which should have more respect for history, ruled in 1982 that winning any four straight majors constituted a Grand Slam - and offered a $1 million bonus for it. How could Navratilova disagree when the I.T.F. handed her the bucks? It's not like Navratilova got the money on a technicality. THey called the tune. She danced the dance. Anyway, could you do us a favor and post a link to your sources regarding the ITF being 'shamed'? Thanks in advance. :)
Like the #1 ranking, what's constitutes a 'Grand Slam' in tennis suffers by changing definitions, and circumstances.



So, now the standard of truth is whether YOU can find facts to support certain claims. :lol::lol::lol:

The article you cited proves nothing. Always go to the source for the truth! Here are excerpts from the ITF's History of Tennis timeline:

"1933 - Australian Jack Crawford comes within one set of winning all four major titles in the same year. There are mutterings that he is on the verge of a ‘Grand Slam’, a term taken from the card game Bridge.

1938 - The American Donald Budge becomes the first man to win all four major titles in the same year. In describing the achievement, the New York Times tennis correspondent Allison Danzig uses the phrase ‘a Grand Slam in tennis’, thereby entrenching the term in tennis vocabulary.

1953 - Maureen Connolly becomes the first woman to win all four Grand Slam tournaments in a single year while still a teenager. Within two years, her playing career was to end following a riding accident, and she died at 35 from cancer.

1969 - Rod Laver becomes the first – and so far only – man to win a pure ‘open’ Grand Slam, by winning all four major titles in the same year.

1970 - The tiebreak is introduced to Grand Slam tennis, as the US Open adopts the nine-point shootout (sudden death at 4-4). It is marketed under the slogan ‘We cordially invite you to sudden death in the afternoon at Forest Hills.’ That tournament sees Margaret Court complete a pure Grand Slam.

1984 - Clay develops into a temporary indoor surface when Sweden becomes the first country to install a makeshift clay court for a Davis Cup tie. And no ordinary tie – it’s the final, and the visit to Gothenburg’s Scandinavium arena of one of the strongest Davis Cup teams in history: world No. 1 John McEnroe, No. 2 Jimmy Connors, and the world’s best doubles team, McEnroe and Peter Fleming. By Saturday night, Sweden is the champion for the loss of one set, and clay is established as a surface option for indoor ties. Tennis also returns to the Olympic Games as a test event for under-21 players at Los Angeles and is won by Stefan Edberg and Steffi Graf. [No mention made of Martina winning a grand slam. I wonder why?]

1988 - The Australian Open, which suffered a ‘dark age’ in the 1970s and early 80s, moves into the modern era with a new national tennis centre at Flinders Park (later renamed Melbourne Park), characterised by the first tennis stadium with a retractable roof. Steffi Graf beats Chris Evert in the first ‘indoor’ Grand Slam final, to begin a run which would see her win a ‘Golden Slam’ (calendar year Grand Slam plus Olympic gold medal) after tennis also makes a return as a full medal sport at the Olympic Games in Seoul."

Here's the link to that page on the ITF website --- http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp. I've cited all the relevant years. The year 1984 would have been the year Martina would have been recognized by the ITF for winning a "grand slam." Yet, no such recognition appears in their official timeline. There isn't even an entry for the year 1982 in which the ITF tried to change the definition of a true grand slam. In fact, we can infer from their own history that the ITF abides now by the definition of the grand slam that grew out of the tradition started by Don Budge.

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:07 PM
you dont know that...that is based on what you have seen, doesn't mean during those times their continued success would some how negatively affect them. And i think star power has a lot to do with the williams success NOT FOR THEMSELVES, BUT FOR THE SPORT IN GENERAL. this thread is about why is martina's slam isn't talked about. so for those reasons along with the fact that we are in the current generation we don't talk about martina (as much).


Martina does have star power though, she recently finished as the 2nd most popular celebrity in a reality show here, 20 years after she was in her prime.

Again, it doesn't really matter who we talk about more, achievements are the only things which matter in the long run.



perhaps... but there's no definition for six in a row

four slams in the same calander year has a name...THE GRAND SLAM..

So? :lol:

The Grand Slam is just a phrase encouraged by the media. It's still 4 grand slams in a row, whichever way you look at it. Doing it in a calendar year or over two years, there's no difference.

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:18 PM
There's no "true" grand slam. It's just in your head.

The Grand Slam means to hold all four slams at the same time - that's the concept they were talking about back in 30s when Don Budge did it.

It's just that back then if a player was that dominant they also went on to win a couple more... like Connelly and Court.

The Grand Slam means to hold all four. That's all it means. Nothing about calendars. I know it'll pain you to admit it and I also know that this is your ultimate issue with this but Serena Williams has also won the Grand Slam, it's just a non-calendar kind.

Oh Sam...

Here's more from that article by Bud Collins that I posted earlier:

You see, Laver, as well as Aussie Margaret Smith Court and German Steffi Graf - the only Grand Slammers still with us - are victims of careless, really disrespectful, use of language by journalists and commentators.

They throw around "Grand Slam" thoughtlessly. The Australian Open, despite all the trumpeting, is not a Grand Slam. Nor are Wimbledon, the French and U.S. Opens. They are the four majors. A true Grand Slam is winning all four within a calendar year. Alone at that summit: Americans Don Budge (1938) and Maureen Connolly (1953), Laver (1962 and 1969), Court (1970), Graf (1988).

Connecting "Grand Slam" with anyone else or any one championship is confusing to the public, and makes light of the rarest deeds of the Quintessential Quintet - Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, Graf.

--- Expand Slam, Bud Collins, ABC Australia, January 19, 2009. The article also appears on his webiste --- http://www.budcollinstennis.com/?p=441.

Seems Bud doesn't agree with you. And, last I checked, Bud is the author of a book titled The Bud Collins History of Tennis, and you're not. In fact, in that book you didn't write, Bud writes: "Although there is no written rule, a Grand Slam has come to be accepted as winning all four within a calendar year. Each tournament is a major, not a Slam."

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:42 PM
The Grand Slam means to hold all four. That's all it means. Nothing about calendars. I know it'll pain you to admit it and I also know that this is your ultimate issue with this but Serena Williams has also won the Grand Slam, it's just a non-calendar kind. Deal with it.

Oh Sam, something more for you to deal with...

According to the ITF's own official history of the sport, there is no "Serena Slam." There is NO Grand Slam for Serena.

2003 would have been the year that Serena supposedly would have been recognized by the ITF for that achievement. Well, let's take a look at the official timeline and see what it shows.

See timeline at link --- http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp. For 2003, there is NO entry. NONE. NOTHING. NADA.

So, according to the ITF, Serena NEVER completed a Grand Slam --- :lol::lol::lol:

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:51 PM
So, now the standard of truth is whether YOU can find facts to support certain claims. No. The standard by which I asked other people to support THEIR claims is that I first do a little research. Then If I can't find it, I ask them for their sources. To you, I concede, that might seem radical.

And I ask again, can we have a source for this supposed 'shaming' of the ITF? We know the ITF created a defintion in 1982, We know Navratilova met it. We know they paid her.

What we don't know is YOUR source, for YOUR claims, that the 'tennis community' somehow forced the ITF, through 'shaming', to make a change. And no, pointing out that an article doesn't mention something isn't a source. The same source you cite, (I'll cheerfully provide a link (http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp) to YOUR source) while noting that Maureen Connolly won 'all four Grand Slam tournaments in a single year', does not credit HER with winning 'The Grand Slam'. Semantics? No. A couple paragraphs later, we have 'That tournament sees Margaret Court complete a pure Grand Slam'

However, I was asking after your comment about 'the tennis community shaming the ITF ...' etc. why was the ITF shamed by the tennis community into recanting its position that Martina N. had won a "grand slam" between the years 1983-1984? It was quite a controversy, if you don't remember. To defend her reputation after the ITF abandoned her, Martina N. even gave press conferences on the subject. Why would the ITF have succumbed to the public pressure if a calendar-year grand slam just looked good on paper?Let's not lose track of the topic. Did you make that up out of whole cloth?

The ITF made a defintion in 1982. I can't explain when, or why they changed that definition. Maybe you can, and will give us all a source for that change.

(And please, forgive me for not 'vanishing into thin air'. Old habits are hard to break.)

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:29 PM
No. The standard by which I asked other people to support THEIR claims is that I first do a little research. Then If I can't find it, I ask them for their sources.

And I ask again, can we have a source for this supposed 'shaming' of the ITF? We know the ITF created a defintion in 1982, We know Navratilova met it. We know they paid her.

What we don't know is YOUR source, for YOUR claims, that the 'tennis community' somehow forced the ITF, through 'shaming', to make a change. And no, pointing out that an article doesn't mention something isn't a source. The same source you cite, (I'll cheerfully provide a link (http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp) to YOUR source) while noting that Maureen Connolly won 'all four Grand Slam tournaments in a single year', does not credit HER with winning 'The Grand Slam'. Semantics? No. A couple paragraphs later, we have 'That tournament sees Margaret Court complete a pure Grand Slam'

However, I was asking after your comment about 'the tennis community shaming the ITF ...' etc.Let's not lose track of the topic. Did you make that up out of whole cloth?

The ITF made a defintion in 1982. I can't explain when, or why they changed that definition. Maybe you can, and will give us all a source for that change.



I stand by what I said. The ITF recanted its position that Martina had completed a "grand slam" in 1984.

As proof that they recanted their position, a position which you proved they took, I cited the official history of the ITF, which appears on the ITF's own website. One would think that if the ITF had stood by the position they took in the NYT article you cited that there would be an entry in their official history for the "grand slam" that Martina N. completed in 1984. But, there isn't. There isn't even an entry for the year 1982 in which the ITF tried to change the definition of what was a "grand slam."

As to your silly attempts to parse what the ITF history meant by not specifically saying that Connolly won a grand slam, it's pure sophistry. In the entry for 1938, the history says this, "[t]he American Donald Budge becomes the first man to win all four major titles in the same year. In describing the achievement, the New York Times tennis correspondent Allison Danzig uses the phrase ‘a Grand Slam in tennis’, thereby entrenching the term in tennis vocabulary." This entry precedes the one for 1953, the one featuring Connolly. As such, it sets the precedent for how one is supposed to regard any mention in the history of a player winning all four majors in the same year, whether or not the history explicitly says so.

Here's another lesson in hermeneutics for you. If you were to write down a list of the players that are mentioned in the history after 1938, you would see that the only players mentioned are those that have some connection to ITF sanctioned events (e.g., Davis Cup and the Olympics), ITF milestones (e.g., Open Tennis), and the Grand Slam. There are no other associations that get you into this history. Despite her many accomplishments, for instance, Chris Evert is only mentioned with reference to the first leg of Steffi's grand slam, while Martina N. receives no mention in the entire history. Strangely, one of her former coaches does. Why is this important? Because it should have helped you to classify, and therefore to make sense of, Maureen Connolly's appearance in the history. She was not being mentioned in connection with an ITF event like Stefan Edberg. She was not being mentioned in connection with an ITF milestone like Virginia Wade. No, her only connection was a Grand Slam. Connolly would not have appeared in the history otherwise. Hermeneutics trumps semantics everytime.

As to whether or not the ITF was shamed into recanting its position, I was relying on my own recollection of what happened. Clealy, they recanted their position as evidenced by their official history. So, why did they? What I remember is that the first persons to speak out against Martina's ITF "grand slam" were Don Budge (who was still alive at the time) and Rod Laver. To no one's surprise, Margaret Court followed suit. In her defense, Martina answered questions about the subject at more than one press conference.

If I were writing a book on the subject, I would take the trouble now of hunting down the magazine and newspaper articles in which Budge, Laver, and Court were interviewed on the subject and I would also attempt to conduct my own interviews with former officials at the ITF. But, I am not writing a book on the subject. I am responding to a post on a message board from a person who has a track record of making claims that a perfunctory check of the avialable sources often proves to be untrue. See your claims that ESPN paid IW and Miami for coverage. Or, your most recent claim that the prize money for the women at Miami was greater than that for the men because Sony Ericsson thought the women were worth more. Still laughing about that one --- :lol::lol::lol:

And, as far as this discussion is concerned, who cares if they were shamed into doing it or not? It's irrelevant. They did it. Their own official history is ample evidence of that. The only definition of a "grand slam" that their own official history acknowledges is that of having won all four majors in a calendar year. That's why they don't recognize Martina N. or Serena in their own official history of the sport, but they do recognize Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court and Graf. End of Story.

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:26 PM
As to whether or not the ITF was shamed into recanting its position, I was relying on my own recollection of what happened.You could have you were relying on nothing but your own 'recollection' in the first place and saved both of us a lot of typing. Still, it was fun.
If I were writing a book on the subject, I would take the trouble now of hunting down the magazine and newspaper articles in which Budge, Laver, and Court were interviewed on the subject and I would also attempt to conduct my own interviews with former officials at the ITF. But, I am not writing a book on the subject. I am responding to a post on a message board from a person who has a track record of making claims that a perfunctory check of the avialable sources often proves to be untrue. See your claims that ESPN paid IW and Miami for coverage.What claims that ESPN paid IW and Miami for coverage? I do make mistakes, but that doesn't sound like one of mine. I do recall posting about the female champ being paid more than the male champ, but I don't think I posted anything about ESPN paying for coverage. I mostly watch tennis on the internet, so I wouldn't know if ESPN covered it or not. (I think Fox Sports covered those tournaments in my area.)

Kart
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Well, it's because Serena's also an actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, model. Navratilova can only wish to achieve this.

:spit: :worship:

Donny
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Both Serena and Martina won the grand Slam.

Kart
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:42 PM
To answer the thread question: Navratilova retired from being a competitive singles player almost 15 years ago when a large number of posters on this board were still needing their parents' assistance to cross the road.

Serena is a very current force in the WTA singles circuit.

Give it another 15 years and if there's another player around that has a comparable achievement, I expect it'll be Serena that's being under mentioned in places like this.

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:49 PM
Well, it's because Serena's also an actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, model. Navratilova can only wish to achieve this.


Martina had 167 career titles (all time record, men or women) and 18 grand slams. She is not a failed actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, or model.

Serena has 33 career titles and 10 grand slams. Serena can only wish to achieve Martina's tennis feats.

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:50 PM
You could have you were relying on nothing but your own 'recollection' in the first place and saved both of us a lot of typing. Still, it was fun.
What claims that ESPN paid IW and Miami for coverage? I do make mistakes, but that doesn't sound like one of mine. I do recall posting about the female champ being paid more than the male champ, but I don't think I posted anything about ESPN paying for coverage. I mostly watch tennis on the internet, so I wouldn't know if ESPN covered it or not. (I think Fox Sports covered those tournaments in my area.)

Volcana, I do not have the time to look up this post. I could. It is quite easy.

All I would have to do is look up all of my posts. In there, I would find a post in which I cited an article which showed that IW and Miami paid ESPN for coverage, and not the other way around.

I remember the context quite clearly. It was one of the many IW threads. As always, you were arguing that wherever the W Sisters go the television money follows. Coincidentally, that is also what you were trying to argue in that thread you started about the women's prize money at Sony Ericsson. In both cases, you were incorrect.

As to having fun, that's why we are all here. :)

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 08:51 PM
She is not a failed actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, or model.Can't speak to rapper, writer, dancer, author or model.

But as an actress, Serena was adequate. 'Brilliant'? Meryl Streep ain't worried. But an embarassent on screen? No way. If she actually decides to pursue that career, there's probably going to be a succession of small roles, making culminating in a 2nd female lead in an indepent film. But Serena has already had a more successful acting career than 99% of Hollywood actresses get. She's had three or four 'featured' roles, all the result of name recognition. But if you can't at least avoid embarassing yourself, you don't get a second opportunity.

As a fashion designer? Well, the catsuit apparently sold. Donna Karan isn't worried, but again, name recognition is a lot of that business, and she has it.

Actually, I can speak to 'model', a little bit. aAre you talking 'model'? Or 'celebrity model'? Venus is far likelier to have a modeling career than Serena ever will. But the whole, 'on the runway cause people know my name'? Again, Serena has been more than successful.

My guess is you know a little bit about at least some of those businesses. The REAL business, not just what happens to the ultra-top end.n And if you do, you have to admit that Serena has already accomplished more than 99% of aspiring designers, AND 99% of aspiring actresses. But it's tennis that makes her opportunities a fact she's admitted more than once herself. She's simply exploited them.

I'm sure in Russia,one or more of the Russian players have appeared in multiple TV series. Whichever ones happen to have adequate acting talent. I'm sure SOME Chinese tennis players wind up on TV series in China. Whichever ones happen to have adequate acting talent. I'm sure, but I don't know.

I'm sure if Venus Williams or Chris Evert were competitent and screen, and had that ambition, we'd have long since seen them in some TV series too. But, as far as I know, we haven't.

Serena Williams will propbably never be as good an actress, or a designer, as she is a tennis player. But 99% of all the other actresses and designers won't be as good as she is at tennis either. Give Serena her props. If you check out the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1102987/), Serena has an actual career there, not just a bunch of 'herself'.

Martina Navratilova was a far greater tennis player, no doubt. But Serena cast a pretty wide net, and pretty much successfully. Name somebody else who was the #1 tennis players in the world, acknowledged by many as one of the ten bes of all time, And has had featured roles in five TV shows, AND has managed to launch her own fashion line. Seriously.

About the only name you're going to come up with Sonja Henie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Henie), which means we're talking pre-World War II.

You're talking about three very difficult, and competitive, professions. Instead of criticizing, it might be better to marvel at the fact that's she's done as well as she has at the secondaries.

I say all this noting that Martina Navratilova is one of my favorite players, and Serena is just the person who best my all-time fave in four straight slam finals. But fair is fair.

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 09:06 PM
Can't speak to rapper, writer, dancer, author or model.

But as an actress, Serena was adequate. 'Brilliant'? Meryl Streep ain't worried. But an embarassent on screen? No way. If she actually decides to pursue that career, there's probably going to be a succession of small roles, making culminating in a 2nd female lead in an indepent film. But Serena has already had a more successful acting career than 99% of Hollywood actresses get. She's had three or four 'featured' roles, all the result of name recognition. But if you can't at least avoid embarassing yourself, you don't get a second opportunity.

As a fashion designer? Well, the catsuit apparently sold. Donna Karan isn't worried, but again, name recognition is a lot of that business, and she has it.

Actually, I can speak to 'model', a little bit. aAre you talking 'model'? Or 'celebrity model'? Venus is far likelier to have a modeling career than Serena ever will. But the whole, 'on the runway cause people know my name'? Again, Serena has been more than successful.

My guess is you know a little bit about at least some of those businesses. The REAL business, not just what happens to the ultra-top end.n And if you do, you have to admit that Serena has already accomplished more than 99% of aspiring designers, AND 99% of aspiring actresses. But it's tennis that makes her opportunities a fact she's admitted more than once herself. She's simply exploited them.

I'm sure in Russia,one or more of the Russian players have appeared in multiple TV series. Whichever ones happen to have adequate acting talent. I'm sure SOME Chinese tennis players wind up on TV series in China. Whichever ones happen to have adequate acting talent. I'm sure, but I don't know.

I'm sure if Venus Williams or Chris Evert were competitent and screen, and had that ambition, we'd have long since seen them in some TV series too. But, as far as I know, we haven't.

Serena Williams will propbably never be as good an actress, or a designer, as she is a tennis player. But 99% of all the other actresses and designers won't be as good as she is at tennis either. Give Serena her props. If you check out the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1102987/), Serena has an actual career there, not just a bunch of 'herself'.

Martina Navratilova was a far greater tennis player, no doubt. But Serena cast a pretty wide net, and pretty much successfully. Name somebody else who was the #1 tennis players in the world, acknowledged by many as one of the ten bes of all time, And has had featured roles in five TV shows, AND has managed to launch her own fashion line. Seriously.

About the only name you're going to come up with Sonja Henie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Henie), which means we're talking pre-World War II.

You're talking about three very difficult, and competitive, professions. Instead of criticizing, it might be better to marvel at the fact that's she's done as well as she has at the secondaries.

I say all this noting that Martina Navratilova is one of my favorite players, and Serena is just the person who best my all-time fave in four straight slam finals. But fair is fair.

The point is that Martina would never trade her much more phenomenal success in the tennis field (compared to SW) just for Serena's minimal accomplishments in those other fields --- which the original poster was arguing. Martina would clearly rather have her 167 tennis championships rather than Serena's 33, and could give a flying fig about dabbling in other assorted 'careers.'

Vanity Bonfire
Apr 13th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Serena's acting always was, and always will be, crap! Jodie Foster she ain't.

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 09:42 PM
Volcana, I do not have the time to look up this post. I could. It is quite easy. If it were that easy, you'd just do it. I think you've mistaken me for some other poster. I'm sure I've posted many things you find objectionable. But that's not one of them.As always, you were arguing that wherever the W Sisters go the television money follows. Coincidentally, that is also what you were trying to argue in that thread you started about the women's prize money at Sony Ericsson. In both cases, you were incorrect.nah. I was completely correct. As always. Except when I'm wrong. :)

kman
Apr 13th, 2009, 10:15 PM
4 slams in a row is 4 slams in a row.

I don't see why it's more impressive to win AO, FO, WD, UO in that order instead of FO, WD, UO, AO or whatever. Just because one is called "calender slam" or "grand slam" doesn't really make it a bigger achievement in my eyes.

OsloErik
Apr 13th, 2009, 10:22 PM
I don't see why it's more impressive to win AO, FO, WD, UO in that order instead of FO, WD, UO, AO or whatever. Just because one is called "calender slam" or "grand slam" doesn't really make it a bigger achievement in my eyes.

Well, for me, a part of it is going from hard to clay to grass to hard, without any back-to-back of slams. Winning at Melbourne Park, then Roland Garros, then Wimbledon, and then Flushing meadows means you have to transition in and out of the different parts of the season at a very, very high level of play, and that's a difficult thing to do. Winning the US Open and then Australian Open back-to-back is an achievement, but you don't have to transition from one surface to another, really. Back in the 80s, moreso since carpet was a much more significant season, but less so now.

Helen Lawson
Apr 13th, 2009, 10:33 PM
It's statistically harder to do the calendar year grand slam as opposed to 4 in a row. You don't have a choice when to start it with the calendar year. If you blow it in Australia, you have to wait another year.

kiwifan
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:09 PM
The point is that Martina would never trade her much more phenomenal success in the tennis field (compared to SW) just for Serena's minimal accomplishments in those other fields --- which the original poster was arguing. Martina would clearly rather have her 167 tennis championships rather than Serena's 33, and could give a flying fig about dabbling in other assorted 'careers.'

Actually young Martina was more unfocused and more unmotivated and more lazy than Serena's ever been...she almost partied herself out of the pro game.

And then Nancy Lieberman put a foot that Czech ass and changed her life forever.

So left to her own devices Martina would have been a party girl with potential; why wouldn't she embrace to idea of being able to have her cake and eat it too. :devil:

You really don't know if Martina wouldn't trade having the ability to goof around, enjoy life and still win for having to give 103% to fitness and training in order to achieve.

Methinks there is a little bit of envy, Martina wouldn't have minded doing it "Serena style"

That said, 6 Slams in a row >>4 Slams in a row (calendar be damned)

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Well, for me, a part of it is going from hard to clay to grass to hard, without any back-to-back of slams. Winning at Melbourne Park, then Roland Garros, then Wimbledon, and then Flushing meadows means you have to transition in and out of the different parts of the season at a very, very high level of play, and that's a difficult thing to do. Winning the US Open and then Australian Open back-to-back is an achievement, but you don't have to transition from one surface to another, really. Back in the 80s, moreso since carpet was a much more significant season, but less so now.

The AO and USO are hardcourts, but not really the same surface. USO is arguably the fastest surface of the 4 and the AO only a tad faster than clay. Wim + USO are closer in speed and conditions than USO + AO.

Plus since they're 4 months apart it doesn't really matter. Any momentum a player gains is stopped over the off-season.


When Navratilova did it in the 80's, it was still technically 4 surface changes because the USO was on clay or hard, and the AO was on grass.

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:28 PM
Actually young Martina was more unfocused and more unmotivated and more lazy than Serena's ever been...she almost partied herself out of the pro game.


So despite partying away a few years she still was able to win 167 career titles and 18 grand slams. That's even more amazing.

kman
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:41 PM
It's statistically harder to do the calendar year grand slam as opposed to 4 in a row. You don't have a choice when to start it with the calendar year. If you blow it in Australia, you have to wait another year.

I don't think you really choose to start it either way. Getting FO-WD-UO-AO is also statistically harder than just getting "4 in a row in any combination". The AO-FO-WD-UO combination is just romanticized.

EDIT: spelling...

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 12:01 AM
Can't speak to rapper, writer, dancer, author or model.

But as an actress, Serena was adequate. 'Brilliant'? Meryl Streep ain't worried. But an embarassent on screen? No way. If she actually decides to pursue that career, there's probably going to be a succession of small roles, making culminating in a 2nd female lead in an indepent film. But Serena has already had a more successful acting career than 99% of Hollywood actresses get. She's had three or four 'featured' roles, all the result of name recognition. But if you can't at least avoid embarassing yourself, you don't get a second opportunity.

As a fashion designer? Well, the catsuit apparently sold. Donna Karan isn't worried, but again, name recognition is a lot of that business, and she has it.

Now, we are having fun...

You actually think that Serena has had a more successful acting career than 99% of actresses?

I wonder whom you would put in that 99%. At the movie level, I assume that in the top 1% you would put actors such as Streep, Kidman, Winslet, Jolie, Theron and Knightly. Knightly would be the closest in age to Serena. (Now, there's a funny thought: Serena as Cecilia in Atonement.)

So, who would be in the the next 1%? Actors such as Emily Blunt (26), Eva Green (27), who else... You have to be joking if you are comparing Serena to those actresses. She doesn't have their kind of talent or their kind of looks, though I must admit I am laughing at the thought of Serena in the roles that brought these women to prominence. Imagine Serena as Vesper Lynd opposite Craig's Bond. Or, Serena as Emily in The Devil Wears Prada. If Serena uttered the line at the beginning of the film --- "An interest in fashion is crucial," the audience wouldn't be laughing with her, but at her.

Which brings me to Serena's interest in fashion. Serena sells stuff with her name on QVC. That does not a fashion line make. It is just stuff that QVC produces in China or somewhere else that is cheap with her name on it. She may influence the design, but the ultimate product is not completely under her control and management. As such, it is not likely to last much longer than her 15 minutes of fame. Once her career as a tennis player is over, QVC's interest in the brand will likely diminish. On the contrary, real fashion lines outlive their sources or originators to become houses. See Saint-Laurent, Chanel, Balenciaga.

I have no problem with Serena pretending to be a fashion designer or actress, but when her fans take her seriously enough to start saying she is better than 99% of the actors and designers out there they open themselves up to derision.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 12:10 AM
I don't think you really choose to start it either way. Getting FO-WD-UO-AO is also statistically harder than just getting "4 in a row in any combination". The AO-FO-WD-UO combination is just romanticized.

EDIT: spelling...

How do you figure?

You only have one chance every year to complete a calendar-year GRAND SLAM. That's it, one chance. You lose at the AO and it's over.

You have four chances every year to complete a non-calendar year, faux "grand slam." You can start your run at 4 in a row, at the AO, or the FO, or WD, or the UO.

No wonder the calendar-year Grand Slam is romanticized. With those kind of chances, it should be the stuff of legend. Twenty years and counting since the last one.

darrinbaker00
Apr 14th, 2009, 12:21 AM
How do you figure?

You only have one chance every year to complete a calendar-year GRAND SLAM. That's it, one chance. You lose at the AO and it's over.

You have four chances every year to complete a non-calendar year, faux "grand slam." You can start your run at 4 in a row, at the AO, or the FO, or WD, or the UO.

No wonder the calendar-year Grand Slam is romanticized. With those kind of chances, it should be the stuff of legend. Twenty years and counting since the last one.
2009 - 1988 = 20?

:confused: :scratch:

kman
Apr 14th, 2009, 12:24 AM
How do you figure?

You only have one chance every year to complete a calendar-year GRAND SLAM. That's it, one chance. You lose at the AO and it's over.

You have four chances every year to complete a non-calendar year, faux "grand slam." You can start your run at 4 in a row, at the AO, or the FO, or WD, or the UO.

No wonder the calendar-year Grand Slam is romanticized. With those kind of chances, it should be the stuff of legend. Twenty years and counting since the last one.

yes I know but getting Navratilova's combination (WD-UO-AO-FO) is not statistically easier than getting calender (AO-FO-WD-UO). In both cases if you miss one, you have to start over. Yet the latter is considered (wrongly in my opinion) a bigger achievement.

Look at the following statement:

"Calender slam (AO-FO-WD-UO) is statistically harder to get than getting just any 4-in-row combination"

That's what you're saying and the statement is true.

But replace

Calender slam (AO-FO-WD-UO)

with

Navratilova slam (WD-UO-AO-FO)

and the statement is still true.

Navratilova's combination is just not romanticized :)

Caillou
Apr 14th, 2009, 12:28 AM
Martina does have star power though, she recently finished as the 2nd most popular celebrity in a reality show here, 20 years after she was in her prime.

Again, it doesn't really matter who we talk about more, achievements are the only things which matter in the long run.

.

uhm, that really surprises me; however, their star power also carries over to hollywood. Cmon, be real, I dont need to prove to you that the williams are more marketable and possess much more star power that has benfited the womans game. Many other tennis experts have said the same thing, so dont use some useless reality show to try and prove otherwise. Especially since im guessing that was only britain?

Dave.
Apr 14th, 2009, 12:33 AM
uhm, that really surprises me; however, their star power also carries over to hollywood. Cmon, be real, I dont need to prove to you that the williams are more marketable and possess much more star power that has benfited the womans game. Many other tennis experts have said the same thing, so dont use some useless reality show to try and prove otherwise. Especially since im guessing that was only britain?

Where did I say Martina has more star power than the sisters? I never said that. I was merely pointing out that she still is well-known and has some star power because you were suggesting she had none.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 01:09 AM
2009 - 1988 = 20?


I said 20 years and counting. It won't be 21 years until 2009 is over. Nadal could still complete a Grand Slam this year.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but look who is asking... :p

darrinbaker00
Apr 14th, 2009, 01:15 AM
I said 20 years and counting. It won't be 21 years until 2009 is over. Nadal could still complete a Grand Slam this year.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but look who is asking... :p
You backpedal better than an NFL defensive back. ;)

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 01:23 AM
yes I know but getting Navratilova's combination (WD-UO-AO-FO) is not statistically easier than getting calender (AO-FO-WD-UO). In both cases if you miss one, you have to start over. Yet the latter is considered (wrongly in my opinion) a bigger achievement.

Look at the following statement:

"Calender slam (AO-FO-WD-UO) is statistically harder to get than getting just any 4-in-row combination"

That's what you're saying and the statement is true.

But replace

Calender slam (AO-FO-WD-UO)

with

Navratilova slam (WD-UO-AO-FO)

and the statement is still true.

Navratilova's combination is just not romanticized :)

Clever, but not a chance...

The two statements are only statistically identical if in the probabilistic universe containing both statements Navratilova's combination were as fixed in time as the calendar-year combination.

In other words, at the onset of Martina's quest for any four in a row, she would have had to declare that she was not setting out to win a calendar-year Grand Slam, but four in a row, beginning with WD. That declaration would have made both statements identical.

But, she didn't do that. Moreover, the fact that her four in a row happened in just this order does not change the fact that she had four chances in any one year to win any consecutive combination of four in a row.

Donny
Apr 14th, 2009, 01:33 AM
How do you figure?

You only have one chance every year to complete a calendar-year GRAND SLAM. That's it, one chance. You lose at the AO and it's over.

You have four chances every year to complete a non-calendar year, faux "grand slam." You can start your run at 4 in a row, at the AO, or the FO, or WD, or the UO.

No wonder the calendar-year Grand Slam is romanticized. With those kind of chances, it should be the stuff of legend. Twenty years and counting since the last one.

The Serena Slam (RG, then Wimbledon, then the USO, then the AO in sequence) has been done by Martina once, Graf twice, and of course, by Serena.

The Calendar Slam (Ao RG Wimbledon and the USO) has been done three times.

So statistically it is harder, but not by much.

Balltossovic
Apr 14th, 2009, 01:49 AM
I was bored and looking players career highlights and I found that Martina achieved a slam nobody ever mentions.
1983: Wimbledon, Us Open, Australian Open
1984: Roland Garros

I expect the same recognition Serena's got for her so called slam. :mad:
Shouldn't this be AO, WB, then USO:unsure:

I think Serena's was more impressive and is talked about more because she held all four slams at the same time. She was reigning champion of all the slams at the same time:)

Martina was only reigning champ of RG and WB at that time.

kman
Apr 14th, 2009, 01:59 AM
The Serena Slam (RG, then Wimbledon, then the USO, then the AO in sequence) has been done by Martina once, Graf twice, and of course, by Serena.

The Calendar Slam (Ao RG Wimbledon and the USO) has been done three times.

So statistically it is harder, but not by much.

No, that's just pure coincidence. That's not how we calculate "statistically harder" lol :)

Balltossovic
Apr 14th, 2009, 02:04 AM
Nav DID win 6 in a row. Wimbledon 83-US Open 84 during the time that the Australian was in December. She won the last 3 majors of 83 and the first three of 84. Sukova stopped her streak in the semis of OZ in 84, when Nav was 2 wins away from the Calendar Slam.
:eek: Was it really:speakles:

Oops! I didn't know that:unsure:

Donny
Apr 14th, 2009, 02:07 AM
No, that's just pure coincidence. That's not how we calculate "statistically harder" lol :)

What other objective way is there to find out the statistics for this?

kman
Apr 14th, 2009, 02:23 AM
Clever, but not a chance...

The two statements are only statistically identical if in the probabilistic universe containing both statements Navratilova's combination were as fixed in time as the calendar-year combination.

In other words, at the onset of Martina's quest for any four in a row, she would have had to declare that she was not setting out to win a calendar-year Grand Slam, but four in a row, beginning with WD. That declaration would have made both statements identical.

But, she didn't do that. Moreover, the fact that her four in a row happened in just this order does not change the fact that she had four chances in any one year to win any consecutive combination of four in a row.

If you win 4 slams in a row, you win 4 slams in a row and the order only matters if you buy into this absurd idea of one order having more value than the other three others (which I don't). Statistically one order is not harder or easier to achieve than the others. That's why I don't consider an AO-FO-WD-UO achievement more valuable than an WD-UO-AO-FO achievement. Whatever the intentions of the players were "at onset" is not only unknown to me (although I might hazard a guess that their intentions were to win every damn tournament they entered) but also irrelevant.

EDIT: Also, Navratilova's order is as fixed in time as the calender order. It's just not romanticized to the same extent.

spencercarlos
Apr 14th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Didn't martina win a calender slam which is better than a non calender. I would imagine it is just like Myskina will be always called a former FO champion and serena 10 time slam chapion. The greater achievement is most talked about.
No but Navratilova won 6 grand slams in a row between 83-84. Graf won the grand slam in 1988 and won a "Steffi Slam" with 4 straight slams between 1993-1994 as well.

kman
Apr 14th, 2009, 02:36 AM
What other objective way is there to find out the statistics for this?

Good old-fashioned logic ;)

In a deck of cards you know you have the same number of red and black cards. So if you were to randomly pick one card out from the stack, there would be a 50/50 percent chance that the card is black or red. Now if you randomly pick out ten cards and seven of them turns out to be black and only three of them turns out to be red. Does that mean there was stastistically a higher chance of picking a black card than a red? No. It was just pure coincindence that you happened to pick more black cards than red cards.

Anyway, I'm sure you know this and was just brainfarting...

Donny
Apr 14th, 2009, 02:52 AM
Good old-fashioned logic ;)

You said statistics, not probability. Statistically a calendar grand slam is harder.

kman
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:07 AM
lol, I guess I'm the one who's brainfarting. You're right of course. Sorry haha.

It's late here though ;)

I still don't consider AO-FO-WD-UO a bigger achievement than WD-UO-AO-FO but I realize I should be careful about how I use the word 'statistically' lol. What you're saying is that if WD-UO-AO-FO has been won more times tham AO-FO-WD-UO (by sheer happenstance, not by virtue of one being actually harder to win than the other), the latter is statistically harder to win than the former right? I guess that's true but of course that's not what I meant when I said statistically. What's the proper word in English then? Argh, screw it... :lol:

Caillou
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:21 AM
Im sorry to all of those that I have been fighting in this thread, but when a question is asked about martina and people bring up venus and serena, it gets me going. The truth is, I dont know why nobody mentioned it because until now, i had no clue she accomplished that. I truly think it is because some of us are still young and haven't really experienced tennis from those days? But im not an expert. Anyways, sorry dave/bobbynorwich, and I think both martina and the williams' have been EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WTATOUR

spencercarlos
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:35 AM
Im sorry to all of those that I have been fighting in this thread, but when a question is asked about martina and people bring up venus and serena, it gets me going. The truth is, I dont know why nobody mentioned it because until now, i had no clue she accomplished that. I truly think it is because some of us are still young and haven't really experienced tennis from those days? But im not an expert. Anyways, sorry dave/bobbynorwich, and I think both martina and the williams' have been EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WTATOUR
Sure of course Venus belongs so much to this thread. :lol:

Caillou
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:40 AM
Sure of course Venus belongs so much to this thread. :lol:

very witty of you...and not yet she doesn't..SHE CERTAINLY HAS TIME THO

spencercarlos
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:47 AM
very witty of you...and not yet she doesn't..SHE CERTAINLY HAS TIME THO
Certainly the clock is ticking and certainly this year won´t be for Venus. Serena has great chances though.

Pasta-Na
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:50 AM
bc shes such as "a lovely woman" in 2006 Wimbledon WD against yan/zheng. :p

Uranium
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:51 AM
Certainly the clock is ticking and certainly this year won´t be for Venus. Serena has great chances though.

We shall see about that....

Caillou
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:51 AM
We shall see about that....

CMON VEE. PROVE THE HATERS WRONG

Volcana
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:52 AM
Now, we are having fun...

You actually think that Serena has had a more successful acting career than 99% of actresses? I could waste my time on the rest of post, but the foundation is simply too flawed.

The average Actor's Equity actor (that's the union for stage actors), makes about $4000 a year. Not a joke. That's a YEAR. yearly earnings for Screen Actor's Guild actors are roughly comparable. Those are the union actors. That's maybe 10%, at most, of all the people who actually even work in movies in a given year. Most actors never get close to a featured role on a sitcom, much less five of them. ONE of those featured roles pays five time what the average union actor. In a year.

If you wonder why I know these miserable statistics, before I became a website designer, I had designs on being a professional actor. I just wasn't good enough to make it. But I spent fifteen years trying. (I am directing a one-act series right now, but that's a coincidence. It's not my profession anymore.)

So yes, she really is more successful than 99% of the union actors. She gets better roles, and gets paid more. Or perhaps you have some other definition of 'success' in the acting business. If so, what is it?I have no problem with Serena pretending to be a fashion designer or actress, but when her fans take her seriously enough to start saying she is better than 99% of the actors and designers out there they open themselves up to derision.You're making a pretty fundamental mistake. There's a pretty big difference between 'more successful' which is what I said, and 'better', which I did NOT say. But then, fundamental mistakes are something you do well.

And as I said, Serena got those roles because of her success as a tennis player. Because she didn't embarass herself doing the first one, she got more chances.

Take your best shot. I know WAY more about the acting business than you do. I majored in directing in college. I spent fifteen active years in the business, and I still get employed in it, even though I don't do it full time anymore.

C'mon, shoot your mouth off some more. This oughta be fun. Even better, whine like a coward about how you 'can't be bothered'. Turn tail and run. You're good at that too. Or just quit posting in the thread. Another form of running away.

Or you could just try arguing with me about web site development. That would worth a few laughs too.

bobbynorwich
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:55 AM
A calendar year Grand Slam order is only:
AOyr1 FOyr1 WDyr1 UOyr1

But a consecutive non-calendar year Grand Slam can be:
FOyr1 WDyr1 UOyr1 AOyr2
WDyr1 UOyr1 AOyr2 FOyr2
UOyr1 AOyr2 FOyr2 WDyr2

Obviously statistically speaking, it's much harder to achieve a calendar year GS as only one certain order of winning qualifies.

eugreene2
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:08 AM
I don't care what anyone says ... Much props to Graf for 22 slams but I don't think she would have had that many had it not been for the stabbing.

I know ... DEAD HORSE BEATING ... but obviously the guy who stabbed Monica was scared too that Monica would dominate

spencercarlos
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:15 AM
CMON VEE. PROVE THE HATERS WRONG
Ok back to the thread.

All of the achievements are remarkable, Graf got the slam but never won 6 slams in a row and Navratilova the other way around.

Kind of amazing to think that Hingis is the last player who came the closest (just 2 sets away) from getting the Calendar Slam.

bobbynorwich
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:16 AM
I don't care what anyone says ... Much props to Graf for 22 slams but I don't think she would have had that many had it not been for the stabbing.

I know ... DEAD HORSE BEATING ... but obviously the guy who stabbed Monica was scared too that Monica would dominate

That's true, Graf probably wouldn't have made 22 slams if Seles hadn't been stabbed. But Navratilova had the misfortune of going head-to-head with Chris Evert who also took 18 slam titles during her career. Two dominant players in same era ... split the records.

Volcana
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:19 AM
minor technicality.

The players who have achieved the 'Grand Slam' didn't even do it on the same surfaces.

Maureen Connolly -- grass, clay grass, grass
Margaret Court -- grass, clay grass grass
Steffi Graf -- hardcourt, clay, grass, hardcourt

But even the grass Maureen Connolly played on is different than the grass Steffi Graf played on. The clay may be the same, but even that isn't a sure thing. (When did they switch to the mixed of clay form the north and south of France they use now anyway?)

Is grass really the hardest surface to play on? Today's grass? The old grass? Hardcourts are different than grass. But are they, ultimately, slow grass with a true bounce? Or are they fast clay?

Maybe you can't even compare Graf to Court to Connolly to Navratilova to Serena. It's ignoring too many significant factors.

The name that stands alone is Laver, becuase he did it twice, with a significant amount of time between them. At a time when, as it was the pre-Open era, he wasn't allowed to play in the slams. The guy won all four titles in a row, wasn't allowed to play in the slam for six or seven years, and then when they allowed him to play in the slams, won all four of them in a row again.

More informed people than me argue Sampras vs Federer. I'll take Laver.

Caillou
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:27 AM
Ok back to the thread.

All of the achievements are remarkable, Graf got the slam but never won 6 slams in a row and Navratilova the other way around.

Kind of amazing to think that Hingis is the last player who came the closest (just 2 sets away) from getting the Calendar Slam.

of funny, seeing as how you started this argument by going off topic first..whatever and thanks to this person, we finally mentioned that navratilova won the slam! WOOT!

Slammer7
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:29 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/Jamesways/beating-a-dead-horse.gif
:lol::rolls::wavey:

Caillou
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:30 AM
LOL! thanks for that slammer? ahahah

Slammer7
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:33 AM
LOL! thanks for that slammer? ahahah

You're welcome.;)

spencercarlos
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:34 AM
of funny, seeing as how you started this argument by going off topic first..whatever and thanks to this person, we finally mentioned that navratilova won the slam! WOOT!
I have seen several posts on this thread and the only one who mentions Venus is you.. What does Venus has to do in this thread?
What has Venus acomplished in order for her name to be named on this thread?. Ok, now i am off topic.

:wavey:

AnnaMariaMartina
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:49 AM
Well, it's because Serena's also an actress, rapper, writer, dancer, singer, author, fashion designer, model. Navratilova can only wish to achieve this.

1. Serena's acting skills are sub-par. No one has seen her act in anything important.
2. Serena is a lousy rapper.
3. Serena's writing skills are that of a child.
4. Serena dances like a cow on ice.
5. I would pay Serena NOT to sing.
6. Serena has authored nothing of much success.
7. Serena's fashion sense is nonsense.
8. Serena is not in demand as a model.

That is all.

darrinbaker00
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:53 AM
1. Serena's acting skills are sub-par. No one has seen her act in anything important.
2. Serena is a lousy rapper.
3. Serena's writing skills are that of a child.
4. Serena dances like a cow on ice.
5. I would pay Serena NOT to sing.
6. Serena has authored nothing of much success.
7. Serena's fashion sense is nonsense.
8. Serena is not in demand as a model.

That is all.
This post is the Internet equivalent of an old proverb: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of as a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

AnnaMariaMartina
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:58 AM
The average Actor's Equity actor (that's the union for stage actors), makes about $4000 a year. Not a joke. That's a YEAR.

This is where I make a fool out of you.

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4592877-1.html

"Equity members in '97-'98 earned an average of $14,936"

That was about 12 years ago, too.

If you are going to say something, make sure it is educated and informed. Spewing a bunch of crap only makes you look foolish.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:03 AM
hmmm...im pretty sure if i went up to any of my friends and asked if they knew who martina navratilova was they would be like wtf..however serena or venus williams, they'd be like those tennis players..serena and venus didn't dedicate themselves to the game like martina did. if they did, they may have been able to accomplish greater things, or not who cares. the point is they aren't martina and they are who they are. i personally, along with many other members of this board are amazed by all they have accomplished depsite their injuries, tragedies, outside interests etc. all three are amazing tennis players and part of the GREAT'S CATEGORY. so shut up and stop trying to put them down.

How old are your friends?

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:03 AM
1. Serena's acting skills are sub-par. No one has seen her act in anything important.
2. Serena is a lousy rapper.
3. Serena's writing skills are that of a child.
4. Serena dances like a cow on ice.
5. I would pay Serena NOT to sing.
6. Serena has authored nothing of much success.
7. Serena's fashion sense is nonsense.
8. Serena is not in demand as a model.

That is all.

What she said!!! :cool:

Crazy Canuck
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:04 AM
unfortuantly for you, the objective of my argument is to show you your arrogance, as i didn't once stoop to insults. What is true is that you have accomplished not even a fraction of what venus or serena have in their lives. so maybe a true tennis fan wouldn't make such thoughtless comments regarding two of the greatest players that have ever played

Have you "accomplished even a fraction of what Venus and Serena" have?

Crazy Canuck
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:07 AM
That isn't what im saying. you can have an opinion without trying to put another player down (ie. insulting her pursuits aside from tennis).

Because pointing out that none of your 5 friends have ever heard of Navratilova was so complimentary and totally relevant. Rather than trying to dictate how others choose to communicate, why not try practicing what you preach?

Volcana
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:07 AM
This is where I make a fool out of you.

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4592877-1.html

"Equity members in '97-'98 earned an average of $14,936"

That was about 12 years ago, too.

If you are going to say something, make sure it is educated and informed. Spewing a bunch of crap only makes you look foolish.a) Nobody who ever made living on stage gets hurts by being made fool of. That what we DO.

b) I'm going to make a guess. You know people in the business, cause you found that fast. Go ask THEM they ake in a year. Not what they get paid. What they MAKE, after paying Equity fees and agents fees. No way does the average member make 14 grand. It's not even close. It's like a software company saying they pay you fifty thousand a year, but thrity thousand is in company stock. You PAY to join SAG, or Actor's Equity, or AFTRA. And you keep paying. As a business, acting sucks They say, if you can do anything else, do anything else.

Your source is good. Wait, I have my detractors, so let me make this easy for them. Your source is good. You wanna stop there, go right ahead. But if you have frends in the business, and I think you do, ask them. Have a coffee, sit down, and aks them to tell you the real deal. That 14 grand a year figure is a joke. (Equity has a PR department too.)

bobbynorwich
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:08 AM
1. Serena's acting skills are sub-par. No one has seen her act in anything important.
2. Serena is a lousy rapper.
3. Serena's writing skills are that of a child.
4. Serena dances like a cow on ice.
5. I would pay Serena NOT to sing.
6. Serena has authored nothing of much success.
7. Serena's fashion sense is nonsense.
8. Serena is not in demand as a model.

That is all.

AMM, you go girl! http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_pokey.gif

Donny
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:08 AM
This is where I make a fool out of you.

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4592877-1.html

"Equity members in '97-'98 earned an average of $14,936"

That was about 12 years ago, too.

If you are going to say something, make sure it is educated and informed. Spewing a bunch of crap only makes you look foolish.

Some well-known actors—stars—earn well above the minimum; their salaries are many times the figures cited, creating the false impression that all actors are highly paid. For example, of the nearly 100,000 SAG members, only about 50 might be considered stars. The average income that SAG members earn from acting, less than $5,000 a year, is low because employment is sporadic. Therefore, most actors must supplement their incomes by holding jobs in other occupations.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos093.htm

Could it be that volcana got the two groups mixed up?

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your hateful rant.

AnnaMariaMartina
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:10 AM
a0 Nobody who ever made living on stage gets hurts by beig made fool of. That what wwe DO.

b) I'm going to make a guess. You know people in the business, cause you found that fast. Go ask THEM they ake in a year. Not what they get paid. What they MAKE, after paying Equity fees and agents fees. No way does the average member make 14 grand. It's not even close. It's like a software company saying they pay you fifty thousand a year, but thrity thousand is in company stock. You PAY to join SAG, or Actor's Equity, or AFTRA. And you keep paying. As a business, acting sucks They say, if you can do anything else, do anything else.

Your source is good. You wanna stop there, go right ahead. But if you have frends in the business, ask them. The 14 grand a year figure is a joke.

Some make more, many less.

The problem is the "average" comes from the few people making it big and the rest of the people hardly working (12 weeks average a year) or not working at all.

The bigger problem is all the people who join up thinking they have acting skills they don't have, and they become dead weight and drag the average down.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"Median annual earnings of salaried actors were $23,470 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $15,320 and $53,320. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $13,330, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $106,360.

bobbynorwich
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:16 AM
http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/hijacked.gif

and I'm http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_lmaoff.gif.

Volcana
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:18 AM
1. Serena's acting skills are sub-par. No one has seen her act in anything important.What's your definition of 'important', where acting is concerned?

I'm not saying you're wrong, and you'll note I already acknowledged the validity of at least one of your sources, so I'm not dealing from strength. But that's a fairly strong statement. Now, if, as I suspect, you know people in the business, that may be sustainable. But if that's true, you also know that anybody here can jump to IMDB.com. So what would 'important' to you?

A broadway drama? A musical? A movie with a plus 50 million dollar budget? A recurring role on a network TV show?

I'm doing you the courtesy of talking to you like someone who knows something of the business. Please answer that way. You can go back to insulting me in next post. But I'd like an acting business answer in this one.No one has seen her act in anything important.You wrote that. So you aren't disputing Serena has been seen. You;re arguing that nothing she's been seen in is, 'important'. And you may be right. So how are you defining 'important'?

AnnaMariaMartina
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:19 AM
"The median annual income for an actor is $23,400, according to the 2008 National Endowment for the Arts report titled Artists in the Workforce."

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/11/theater/what-wall-street-can-learn-from-actors

pwned