tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 29 Jan 2009 13:39:35
From: Raja
Subject: I will coming with a formula for GOAT shortly
I am thinking I will put it on my website this time. Need a tennis
page there.

This would be based on

1) Calendar year Grand Slam (but three of them are enough which gives
CYGS to Helen Willis and other oldies)
and
2) Near CYGS (which is winning 2 of them and losing in the final of
the third)

I think the points are gonna be 2 for first feat and 1 for second
feat. But this is very initial, so I might mess with the point scheme.
I dont even know who is gonna win this. Its gonna be too close for
many. I will include ATP YEC, WCT YEC and WTA YEC as slams as well.
Also for the pro era (after 1939-67) for men, I will consider Wembley
Pro, French Pro and US pro as the real slams. Also there was a World
Clay court championships that was held until the mid 20s (I am gonna
count that as FO because until 1924 only the French played the French
Championships and that cannot be counted)

So basically you could win 3 of the 5 (4 slams and a YEC) and would
have made a CYGS.

I think this is the fairest way to compare cross eras.






 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 16:56:00
From: Raja
Subject: Re: I will coming with a formula for GOAT shortly
On Jan 29, 6:42=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Raja wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 3:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Raja wrote:
> >>> I am thinking I will put it on my website this time. Need a tennis
> >>> page there.
> >>> This would be based on
> >>> 1) Calendar year Grand Slam (but three of them are enough which gives
> >>> CYGS to Helen Willis and other oldies)
> >>> and
> >>> 2) Near CYGS (which is winning 2 of them and losing in the final of
> >>> the third)
> >>> I think the points are gonna be 2 for first feat and 1 for second
> >>> feat. But this is very initial, so I might mess with the point scheme=
.
> >>> I dont even know who is gonna win this. Its gonna be too close for
> >>> many. I will include ATP YEC, WCT YEC and WTA YEC as slams as well.
> >>> Also for the pro era (after 1939-67) for men, I will consider Wembley
> >>> Pro, French Pro and US pro as the real slams. Also there was a World
> >>> Clay court championships that was held until the mid 20s (I am gonna
> >>> count that as FO because until 1924 only the French played the French
> >>> Championships and that cannot be counted)
> >>> So basically you could win 3 of the 5 (4 slams and a YEC) and would
> >>> have made a CYGS.
> >>> I think this is the fairest way to compare cross eras.
> >> Near cygs doesn't count. One gets all normal points for it anyway.
> >> Besides nearg cygs is not even a career slam.
>
> > Near CYGS I mean you two important tournaments and lose in the final
> > of the third in the same year. That is a big achievement I think. And
> > plus if I only count CYGS there will be a lot of ties.
>
> I'm guessing Lendl is heavy in this dept you homo.

Well, Lendl is great in almost every department. So I guess, yes.



 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 16:55:30
From: Raja
Subject: Re: I will coming with a formula for GOAT shortly
On Jan 29, 6:41=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Raja wrote:
> > I am thinking I will put it on my website this time. Need a tennis
> > page there.
>
> > This would be based on
>
> Can't you find any cocks to suck in your area?

You are once again acting like a dick for no reason.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 11:41:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: I will coming with a formula for GOAT shortly
Raja wrote:
> I am thinking I will put it on my website this time. Need a tennis
> page there.
>
> This would be based on
>


Can't you find any cocks to suck in your area?


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 15:36:45
From: Raja
Subject: Re: I will coming with a formula for GOAT shortly
On Jan 29, 3:55=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Raja wrote:
> > I am thinking I will put it on my website this time. Need a tennis
> > page there.
>
> > This would be based on
>
> > 1) Calendar year Grand Slam (but three of them are enough which gives
> > CYGS to Helen Willis and other oldies)
> > and
> > 2) Near CYGS (which is winning 2 of them and losing in the final of
> > the third)
>
> > I think the points are gonna be 2 for first feat and 1 for second
> > feat. But this is very initial, so I might mess with the point scheme.
> > I dont even know who is gonna win this. Its gonna be too close for
> > many. I will include ATP YEC, WCT YEC and WTA YEC as slams as well.
> > Also for the pro era (after 1939-67) for men, I will consider Wembley
> > Pro, French Pro and US pro as the real slams. Also there was a World
> > Clay court championships that was held until the mid 20s (I am gonna
> > count that as FO because until 1924 only the French played the French
> > Championships and that cannot be counted)
>
> > So basically you could win 3 of the 5 (4 slams and a YEC) and would
> > have made a CYGS.
>
> > I think this is the fairest way to compare cross eras.
>
> Near cygs doesn't count. One gets all normal points for it anyway.
> Besides nearg cygs is not even a career slam.

Near CYGS I mean you two important tournaments and lose in the final
of the third in the same year. That is a big achievement I think. And
plus if I only count CYGS there will be a lot of ties.


>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"



  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 11:42:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: I will coming with a formula for GOAT shortly
Raja wrote:
> On Jan 29, 3:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Raja wrote:
>>> I am thinking I will put it on my website this time. Need a tennis
>>> page there.
>>> This would be based on
>>> 1) Calendar year Grand Slam (but three of them are enough which gives
>>> CYGS to Helen Willis and other oldies)
>>> and
>>> 2) Near CYGS (which is winning 2 of them and losing in the final of
>>> the third)
>>> I think the points are gonna be 2 for first feat and 1 for second
>>> feat. But this is very initial, so I might mess with the point scheme.
>>> I dont even know who is gonna win this. Its gonna be too close for
>>> many. I will include ATP YEC, WCT YEC and WTA YEC as slams as well.
>>> Also for the pro era (after 1939-67) for men, I will consider Wembley
>>> Pro, French Pro and US pro as the real slams. Also there was a World
>>> Clay court championships that was held until the mid 20s (I am gonna
>>> count that as FO because until 1924 only the French played the French
>>> Championships and that cannot be counted)
>>> So basically you could win 3 of the 5 (4 slams and a YEC) and would
>>> have made a CYGS.
>>> I think this is the fairest way to compare cross eras.
>> Near cygs doesn't count. One gets all normal points for it anyway.
>> Besides nearg cygs is not even a career slam.
>
> Near CYGS I mean you two important tournaments and lose in the final
> of the third in the same year. That is a big achievement I think. And
> plus if I only count CYGS there will be a lot of ties.
>
>

I'm guessing Lendl is heavy in this dept you homo.




 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 23:55:08
From: TT
Subject: Re: I will coming with a formula for GOAT shortly
Raja wrote:
> I am thinking I will put it on my website this time. Need a tennis
> page there.
>
> This would be based on
>
> 1) Calendar year Grand Slam (but three of them are enough which gives
> CYGS to Helen Willis and other oldies)
> and
> 2) Near CYGS (which is winning 2 of them and losing in the final of
> the third)
>
> I think the points are gonna be 2 for first feat and 1 for second
> feat. But this is very initial, so I might mess with the point scheme.
> I dont even know who is gonna win this. Its gonna be too close for
> many. I will include ATP YEC, WCT YEC and WTA YEC as slams as well.
> Also for the pro era (after 1939-67) for men, I will consider Wembley
> Pro, French Pro and US pro as the real slams. Also there was a World
> Clay court championships that was held until the mid 20s (I am gonna
> count that as FO because until 1924 only the French played the French
> Championships and that cannot be counted)
>
> So basically you could win 3 of the 5 (4 slams and a YEC) and would
> have made a CYGS.
>
> I think this is the fairest way to compare cross eras.
>
>

Near cygs doesn't count. One gets all normal points for it anyway.
Besides nearg cygs is not even a career slam.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"