Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

With this title, we can continue into Wimbledon and beyond :)

 

Ash Barty is doing us proud at Roland Garros. What a fighter!

Almost made me wish I had Foxtel again..

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I honestly don't get all the negative attitudes toward Novak, maybe it's his Eastern Slavic heritage?   Wife and I couldn't really pick a fave, both he and Roger exemplify everything good in

Hi Keith, No, I grew up and lived in Sydney until recently. I played competition tennis at Eastern suburbs tennis club in Coogee but never made it to A grade.   I had a ton of lessons a

27 minutes ago, wolster said:

With this title, we can continue into Wimbledon and beyond :)

 

Ash Barty is doing us proud at Roland Garros. What a fighter!

Almost made me wish I had Foxtel again..

Wife and I have nothing but the highest regard for Ash , her talent, polite calm demeanour and of course her relentless drive to win.

Get Kayo Wol, for $25 / month one of the best investments I've made!

 

If she can win in 3 sets when her 1st serve is off the boil at a paltry 53% then exciting times ahead watching her career blossom!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Opens are all called Majors, not grand slams.

 

A grand slam is winning these tournaments in a row in the same calender year .

 

Barty is nowhere near a grand slam.

 

The semi final last night between Barty and Anisimova must have been the worst tennis I have ever seen at a semi final major. It was who could make the error first and frankly a choke-athon. 5 games straight,  then lose 6 games straight,  then lose another 3 games straight,  then win 7 games straight - ridiculously bad tennis. 

 

That said,  congrats on reading the French Open final.   Go Barty in the final!!

 

 

Edited by metal beat
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Moderators
6 hours ago, metal beat said:

The Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Opens are all called Majors, not grand slams.

 

A grand slam is winning these tournaments in a row in the same calender year .

 

 

 

 

Of course. I knew that. My bad. Title amended.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, LHC said:

Congratulations Ashleigh, a worthy champion! 👍

 

Yep, it's a late night but well worth sitting up and watching, she played a great match and we now have a new French Open champion..............well done Ashleigh.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only saw her semi and the final. Both opponents struggled against Ash's slice and placement. Since both were very young it is hard to know if they played to their normal level, or whether the occasions were too much. Certainly in the 15mins when Anisimova started hitting freely, looked impressive and it is clear she will go well. Ash seems to have high TennisIQ and should go deep into Wimbledon..fingers crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites


On 08/06/2019 at 6:45 AM, metal beat said:

The Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Opens are all called Majors, not grand slams.

 

A grand slam is winning these tournaments in a row in the same calender year .

 

Barty is nowhere near a grand slam.

 

The semi final last night between Barty and Anisimova must have been the worst tennis I have ever seen at a semi final major. It was who could make the error first and frankly a choke-athon. 5 games straight,  then lose 6 games straight,  then lose another 3 games straight,  then win 7 games straight - ridiculously bad tennis. 

 

That said,  congrats on reading the French Open final.   Go Barty in the final!!

 

 

We're splitting hairs here.

Those four majors are Grand Slam tournaments, winning all of them in same calendar year is referred to as the Golden Slam.

 

Anyway, couldn't be more proud of Ash really. Like Osaka, Ash has got such a lovely personality and a very interesting backstory.

I mean, taking a break from tennis to play professional cricket and then rocketing inside the top 10 while winning Roland Garros along the way? Who does that?

 

Props to Thiem as well for playing two brilliant sets of tennis before finally capitulating to Rafa. Had it not for his suspended match against Novak, I believe he could've pushed Rafa just a little but further.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • wolster changed the title to Grand Slam Tennis Majors
  • Moderators
9 minutes ago, mfdeerhunter said:

We're splitting hairs here.

Those four majors are Grand Slam tournaments, winning all of them in same calendar year is referred to as the Golden Slam.

 

 

Fair point. I have changed the title again to make everybody happy :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mfdeerhunter said:

We're splitting hairs here.

Those four majors are Grand Slam tournaments, winning all of them in same calendar year is referred to as the Golden Slam.

 

 

Please get your facts correct as we are not splitting hairs,  you are completely wrong.

 

4 majors in the same year is called the Grand Slam.

 

4 majors + the Olympic gold medal was made up and called a Golden Slam after Steffi did this feat in 1988.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to  risk being called a contrarian but...

 

I think this is a bit tautulogical :

Grand Slam Tennis Majors

 

You have the tennis majors as Shane has said, there's four of them ... ok.  And if you win them within a calendar year you've won a Grand Slam and as we know only one person has two Grand Slams under his belt, one encompassing the amateur era and one taking in the dawn of the professional era.

You can only have a 'Grand Slam' if you win all the 'Majors' within a calendar year so maybe the topic heading should just be a simple 'Tennis Majors' or 'All Four Tennis Majors' because there's no other 'Majors' except the big four and it's a given that you win four in a year you have a 'Grand Slam', there's no...like, small 'Majors' or middle 'Majors' just those big four and without them you don't have a Grand Slam.

 

I vote for 'Tennis Majors'

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, metal beat said:

 

Please get your facts correct as we are not splitting hairs,  you are completely wrong.

 

4 majors in the same year is called the Grand Slam.

 

4 majors + the Olympic gold medal was made up and called a Golden Slam after Steffi did this feat in 1988.

Wait a minute, sorry, I got the details mixed up.

You're right, the Golden Slam is 4 Grand Slams + the Olympics but the one you're talking about, 4 majors in the same year is the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

 

So, it goes something like this, I think?

Winning all four tournaments in your career but not consecutively or on the same year is the Career Grand Slam. Roger and Rafa has this.

Winning all four tournaments consecutively but not on the same year (e.g. winning the 2015 Wimbledon, 2015 US Open, 2016 Australian Open and the 2016 Roland Garros) is called the Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam. Or the Nole/Serena Slam because Novak and Serena were the last players to have achieved this.

Winning all four tournaments in the same year is the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

 

Eh, who cares really? At least we now have something to cheer for in Ash after years of hoping the likes of Kyrgios and (ugh) Tomic would straighten themselves out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, even in tennis we seem to be driven by dribble with the media itself not knowing the correct term or phrases.

 

  Similar to how we went from albums to vinyl to vinyls :emot-bang:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mfdeerhunter said:

Wait a minute, sorry, I got the details mixed up.

You're right, the Golden Slam is 4 Grand Slams + the Olympics but the one you're talking about, 4 majors in the same year is the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

 

So, it goes something like this, I think?

Winning all four tournaments in your career but not consecutively or on the same year is the Career Grand Slam. Roger and Rafa has this.

Winning all four tournaments consecutively but not on the same year (e.g. winning the 2015 Wimbledon, 2015 US Open, 2016 Australian Open and the 2016 Roland Garros) is called the Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam. Or the Nole/Serena Slam because Novak and Serena were the last players to have achieved this.

Winning all four tournaments in the same year is the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

 

Eh, who cares really? At least we now have something to cheer for in Ash after years of hoping the likes of Kyrgios and (ugh) Tomic would straighten themselves out.

 

No it is not.  Read my previous explanation.  Please give up while you are behind .😉

 

The other examples you state are not correct, just media BS to make it sound good.    Non calender grand slam is made up by the media.

Edited by metal beat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, metal beat said:

 

No it is not.   Please give up while you are behind .

 

The other examples you state are mot correct, just media BS to make it sound good.    Non calender grand slam is made up by the media.

 

Exactly.

It really amazes me how something so simple can be so misunderstood, which is probably the fault of the intellectually challenged commentators.

 

A Grand Slam is winning the four major tournaments ( French, Wimbledon, US open and Australian open in one calendar year)

Any other description or additional qualification is merely drivel.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, metal beat said:

The other examples you state are not correct, just media BS to make it sound good.    Non calendar<(thank me later...actually it's my spellcheck, it's ruthless!) grand slam is made up by the media. 

Absolutely correct.

I remember some of the whinges and the whining from some top ten tennis players of both sexes about the timing of the Aus Open, they wanted it changed so it could be played in a cooler month or moved to a time that wasn't in the New Year holiday period.

The unspoken charge was: Why does Australia even have a Major? Why do I have to come down to this godforsaken place where it's as hot as hell and...

 

That's why it's called a Grand Slam matey, that's why it's a Major matey and that's why it's so farking hard to win it. If you win it then look at the names on the cup...

 

*Actually, without resorting to Google. Who won the last Grand Slam? Did Sampras get one? I've no idea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, rantan said:

French, Wimbledon, US open and Australian open in one calendar year

Apologies for my being pedantic too, but you've not put them in correct chronological order.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nonsynchro said:

Apologies for my being pedantic too, but you've not put them in correct chronological order.

Nevertheless, the message and intent is clear and correctly defined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • wolster changed the title to Tennis Discussion

Who would have thought that a simple tennis discussion would have led to so much debate on the title of this thread?  😂 😁

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Luc said:

Absolutely correct.

I remember some of the whinges and the whining from some top ten tennis players of both sexes about the timing of the Aus Open, they wanted it changed so it could be played in a cooler month or moved to a time that wasn't in the New Year holiday period.

The unspoken charge was: Why does Australia even have a Major? Why do I have to come down to this godforsaken place where it's as hot as hell and...

 

That's why it's called a Grand Slam matey, that's why it's a Major matey and that's why it's so farking hard to win it. If you win it then look at the names on the cup...

 

*Actually, without resorting to Google. Who won the last Grand Slam? Did Sampras get one? I've no idea.

There are only 2 Grand Slam winners in the male category. American Don Budge won one and Rod Laver won 2. Laver could have possibly won more but wasn't allowed to compete for several years due to the fact that he'd turned pro. Only amateurs were allowed to compete. 

Edit: Laver won the last Grand Slam in '69 when the rules were changed to allow professionals to compete.

Edited by mrbuzzardstubble
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mrbuzzardstubble said:

Don Budge

Martin. Did he win it wearing long pants?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mrbuzzardstubble said:

Yes, he did.

Yes. Thought I'd seen pics of it actually. also for some reason I remember Randolph Scott playing tennis in long pants

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mrbuzzardstubble said:

Or maybe Big Bill Tilden.

images - 2019-06-13T223056.349.jpeg

Geez he is a big lad isn't he!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mrbuzzardstubble said:

There are only 2 Grand Slam winners in the male category. American Don Budge won one and Rod Laver won 2. Laver could have possibly won more but wasn't allowed to compete for several years due to the fact that he'd turned pro. Only amateurs were allowed to compete. 

Edit: Laver won the last Grand Slam in '69 when the rules were changed to allow professionals to compete.

Hello Martin, of course it wasn't just Rod Laver as a professional who was not able to play those four slam tournaments, which were then amateur events. A couple of standouts for me is Ken Rosewall and Pancho Gonzales, both of whom dominated the professional ranks for many years and thus regarded as the best in the world for those years, however, they could not compete in the grand slam tournaments until 1968, when the game went open. I am a big fan of Ken Rosewall and a few brief stats about his career show that Ken turned pro at age 23 and he had 4 grand slam tournaments to his name at that time. He was not able to play those slams again until 1968 when he won the French that year, beating Laver in the final. He then went on to win another 3 slam tournaments, the last being the 1972 Australian Open at the age of 37. We will never know, but I often wonder how many grand slam tournament he would have won during that 11 year hiatus.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cheekyboy said:

Hello Martin, of course it wasn't just Rod Laver as a professional who was not able to play those four slam tournaments, which were then amateur events. A couple of standouts for me is Ken Rosewall and Pancho Gonzales, both of whom dominated the professional ranks for many years and thus regarded as the best in the world for those years, however, they could not compete in the grand slam tournaments until 1968, when the game went open. I am a big fan of Ken Rosewall and a few brief stats about his career show that Ken turned pro at age 23 and he had 4 grand slam tournaments to his name at that time. He was not able to play those slams again until 1968 when he won the French that year, beating Laver in the final. He then went on to win another 3 slam tournaments, the last being the 1972 Australian Open at the age of 37. We will never know, but I often wonder how many grand slam tournament he would have won during that 11 year hiatus.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

I saw a lot of that era's players towards the end of their careers in action. Rosewall, Roche, Gonzales, Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith, John Newcombe etc. Unfortunately never got to see Hoad or Laver in action. I even saw Metallica's Lars Ulrich's father Torben play in the N.S.W Open at White City around 1971-1972.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrbuzzardstubble said:

I saw a lot of that era's players towards the end of their careers in action. Rosewall, Roche, Gonzales, Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith, John Newcombe etc. Unfortunately never got to see Hoad or Laver in action. I even saw Metallica's Lars Ulrich's father Torben play in the N.S.W Open at White City around 1971-1972.

Hello Martin,

 

Torben Ulrich was similar to Rosewall in that he played well into his late 30s and early 40s and I was playing Metallica's Black album for someone here only a few days ago, but didn't think of Lars being Torben's son. I was fortunate to see all those players you mentioned above play live, but with the exception of Arthur Ashe. It was a great era of tennis, especially for Australian players and for me, Sedgman and McGregor led the way, followed by Hoad and Rosewall. Emerson and Stolle, Newcombe and Roche..............a few very good doubles combinations there!:)

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

"And let that be a lesson to you all. Nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row."

– after defeating Jimmy Connors at the January 1980 Masters. Gerulaitis had lost their previous 16 matches.  :D

Edited by mrbuzzardstubble
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • wolster changed the title to Tennis Talk

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...