MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r

Slams won starting from 2011: Djokovic: 23Nadal and Federer combined: 17This was never a Big 3 era..mikko

Era start is arbitrary anyway. Yes what you say is true from 2010 onwards but why start at any year?

You have to explain begining.



The other problem how do you define if era is shared? Of course 7 slams beats 6, but if two guys have 7 and 6, it's their era, it's shared. But when it stops being shared?

Does one have to win twice as much as his closest competitor?

Or win as much as everyone else combined?






--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Slams won starting from 2011:
Djokovic: 23
Nadal and Federer combined: 17
This was never a Big 3 era.

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:05:37 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r

Slams won starting from 2011: Djokovic: 23Nadal and Federer combined: 17This was never a Big 3 era..mikko

Era start is arbitrary anyway. Yes what you say is true from 2010 onwards but why start at any year?

You have to explain begining.

The other problem how do you define if era is shared? Of course 7 slams beats 6, but if two guys have 7 and 6, it's their era, it's shared. But when it stops being shared?

Does one have to win twice as much as his closest competitor?

Or win as much as everyone else combined?

This was just a fun poke to everyone.

But officially decade still start from xxx1 rather than xxx0.

This because inherited feature how we track calendar.

It has been logical that decade start from 1980, 1990, 2000...

But officially it starts from 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011....

(note: they might have loosened this definition just for practical purposes)

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:53:45 PM UTC+3, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 16.9.2023 14.53, MBDunc wrote:

Slams won starting from 2011:
Djokovic: 23
Nadal and Federer combined: 17
This was never a Big 3 era.

It was the BOAT era.

I loved former r.s.t member (Lloyd?, maybe someone else) analysis (2007?) than the lone open year when there was no clown era by any means was 1995.

For any other open era year you can dig excuse for your liking but 1995.

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16.9.2023 14.53, MBDunc wrote:

Slams won starting from 2011:
Djokovic: 23
Nadal and Federer combined: 17
This was never a Big 3 era.

It was the BOAT era.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/16/23 5:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:

MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r

Slams won starting from 2011: Djokovic: 23Nadal and Federer combined: 17This was never a Big 3 era..mikko

Era start is arbitrary anyway. Yes what you say is true from 2010 onwards but why start at any year?

Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main
difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary
past custom, all four slams must be won in the same calendar year.

So if no one in the past had made a point of noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.

Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar
year? A sports writer? A player? ???

You have to explain begining.

The other problem how do you define if era is shared? Of course 7 slams beats 6, but if two guys have 7 and 6, it's their era, it's shared. But when it stops being shared?

Does one have to win twice as much as his closest competitor?

Or win as much as everyone else combined?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--Sawfish

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary past custom, all four slams must be won in the same calendar year. So if no one in the past had made a point of

noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.


But calendar year, annual comparisons in general and seasons in sports, all of it is a well established concept.

There's no agenda there, it's just normal way to look at things? Nothing to see or discuss.


OTOH picking a certain year to start measuring Federer or Djokovic era, that's quite arbitrary. But since Mikko was joking, nothing to see either.

Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar year? A sports writer? A player? ???

Crawford was pumping himself in 1933 to win all 4 ITF official championships I believe?

But yeah some journalist I think started using the term Grand Slam and it stuck.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/16/23 10:18 AM, *skriptis wrote:

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary past custom, all four slams must be won in the same calendar year. So if no one in the past had made a point of

noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.

But calendar year, annual comparisons in general and seasons in sports, all of it is a well established concept.

Yes, that is the "existing convention".

There's no agenda there, it's just normal way to look at things? Nothing to see or discuss.

It is, but there is no intrinsic reason to do so that I can see. It
appears that at some point someone, somewhere, got the ball rolling by presenting it as a sort of "neat" coincidence.

Consider the following hypothetical...

A player in 2025 (eg) starts the year by winning the AO, then goes on to
win the French, Wimbledon, the USO. This person is a great, mythological
hero.

Immediately after that run the same player in 2026 loses the AO and
French, and wins Wimbledon, the USO, the 2027 AO, 2027 the French, and
2027 Wimbledon.

In this example we have the absurd idea that the four slams that
occurred in 2025 are of greater importance than the 5 that start with
Wimbledon 2026, include the 2026 USO, 2027 AO, the 2027 French, and the
2027 Wimbledon.

That hypothetical five consecutive slams--which includes 2
Wimbledons--would not be worth as much as the 4 slams that occurred in
2025, if I understand the argument in favor of special value for a CYGS.
On the surface of it this seems intuitively absurd.

So you know what would happen? Brad Gilbert, in his role as TV color commentator, would make up, on the fly, a new category for 5 consecutive
slams. We'd sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and nod,
droolingly, and the CYGS would be pushed back in value to where the
no-CYGS had been, and having a non-CYGS, plus $5, would get you a triple
breve at Starbuck's.

Am I missing something here, skript? I know it's a labored hypothetical,
but that's why RST exists...isn't it?

;^)

OTOH picking a certain year to start measuring Federer or Djokovic era, that's quite arbitrary. But since Mikko was joking, nothing to see either.

Agreed.

Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar year? A sports writer? A player? ???

Crawford was pumping himself in 1933 to win all 4 ITF official championships I believe?

But yeah some journalist I think started using the term Grand Slam and it stuck.

Thanks for the info!



--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--Sawfish

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On 9/16/23 10:18 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary past custom, all four

slams must be won in the same calendar year. So if no one in the past had made a point of noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.>> But calendar year, annual comparisons in general and seasons in sports, all of
it is a well established concept.Yes, that is the "existing convention".>> There's no agenda there, it's just normal way to look at things? Nothing to see or discuss.It is, but there is no intrinsic reason to do so that I can see. It appears that at some
point someone, somewhere, got the ball rolling by presenting it as a sort of "neat" coincidence.Consider the following hypothetical...A player in 2025 (eg) starts the year by winning the AO, then goes on to win the French, Wimbledon, the USO. This person
is a great, mythological hero.Immediately after that run the same player in 2026 loses the AO and French, and wins Wimbledon, the USO, the 2027 AO, 2027 the French, and 2027 Wimbledon.In this example we have the absurd idea that the four slams that
occurred in 2025 are of greater importance than the 5 that start with Wimbledon 2026, include the 2026 USO, 2027 AO, the 2027 French, and the 2027 Wimbledon.That hypothetical five consecutive slams--which includes 2 Wimbledons--would not be worth as much
as the 4 slams that occurred in 2025, if I understand the argument in favor of special value for a CYGS. On the surface of it this seems intuitively absurd.So you know what would happen? Brad Gilbert, in his role as TV color commentator, would make up,
on the fly, a new category for 5 consecutive slams. We'd sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and nod, droolingly, and the CYGS would be pushed back in value to where the no-CYGS had been, and having a non-CYGS, plus $5, would get you a triple
breve at Starbuck's.Am I missing something here, skript? I know it's a labored hypothetical, but that's why RST exists...isn't it?;^)>>> OTOH picking a certain year to start measuring Federer or Djokovic era, that's quite arbitrary. But since Mikko was
joking, nothing to see either.Agreed.>>>>>> Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar year? A sports writer? A player? ???> Crawford was pumping himself in 1933 to win all 4 ITF official championships I believe?>> But yeah some
journalist I think started using the term Grand Slam and it stuck.Thanks for the info!>>-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--Sawfish




I will quote no specific part, I will reply as a whole.


First of all, I believe there's intrisic value in one calendar year as it corresponds with natural cycles, being dormant in winter, blossoming in spring, summer, autumn you get it. After that there's a winter hibernation and from spring we start all over
again?

So that's one cycle.

Of course you could say cycle beings at the summer solstice? Or at any other point.

But in reality, most cultures put start of the year at either winter solstice, or spring equinox.

It's kinda logical and it simplifies things, we get equal blocks of time that we can compare?

Whether it's harvest, conquest, production, sports...


Second part of your question.

Five straight slams from Wimbledon to Wimbledon is an amazing 12 month and 2 weeks period, but those two seasons look like this.

2 slams, Wim, USO
3 slams, AO, FO, Wim.

In first season you did 50% of maximum, in second you did 75%.


It just doesn't look as Impressive when you look at the honours roll and list of all slam winners. OTOH owning one entire seasons, and that season being yours and yours alone stands out a lot more.



But I will concede one point here. 5 straight slam wins is an underrated achievement, and in my book that's 2 non-calendar slams, not one.

Look at Budge situation, consecutive slams?

1937 - Wim (1), US (2)
1938 - Aus (3), French (4), Wim (5), US (6)


Budge naturally achieved non-calendar Grand Slam when he won his 4th. It's unclear how do we call what he did when he won his 5th.

But when he won his 6th, he gets credited with Grand Slam, and his non-calendar Grand Slam gets erased. No more?

I mean check the record books, they claim he can't be credited with non-calendar Grand Slam as those slams are part of his Grand Slam and no double counting is allowed. Ok fine.

But it appears that non-calendar Grand Slam is sort of achievement which you can lose, if you improve it enough?

That's kinda confusing for me.


I would approach it differently, perhaps I would say that non-calendar Grand Slam is the instance of holding all 4 slams at the same time, other than at the last slam in the season which is then Grand Slam.


So I would say Budge has 2 non-calendar Grand Slams and Djokovic has 1.

Laver has 2 Grand Slams and Budge has 1.


In reality it's very confusing.

--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gOS8xNi8yMyAxMTo1MyBBTSwgKnNrcmlwdGlzIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBTYXdmaXNoIDxzYXdm aXNoNjY2QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gV3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZTpyDQo+PiBPbiA5LzE2LzIzIDEw OjE4IEFNLCAqc2tyaXB0aXMgd3JvdGU6PiBTYXdmaXNoIDxzYXdmaXNoNjY2QGdtYWlsLmNv bT4gV3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZTo+PiBNdWNoIG9mIHRoZSBzYW1lIGxvZ2ljIGNhbiBiZSBh cHBsaWVkIHRvIHRoZSBDWUdTIGRlYmF0ZSwgdGhlIG1haW4gZGlmZmVyZW5jZSBiZWluZyB0 aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGFuIGV4aXN0aW5nIGNvbnZlbnRpb24gdGhhdCwgYnkgYXJiaXRyYXJ5 IHBhc3QgY3VzdG9tLCBhbGwgZm91ciBzbGFtcyBtdXN0IGJlIHdvbiBpbiB0aGUgc2FtZSBj YWxlbmRhciB5ZWFyLiBTbyBpZiBubyBvbmUgaW4gdGhlIHBhc3QgaGFkIG1hZGUgYSBwb2lu dCBvZiBub3RpbmcgdGhlIHllYXIgaW4gd2hpY2ggNCBjb25zZWN1dGl2ZSBzbGFtcyB3ZXJl IHdvbiwgdGhlcmUnZCBiZSBubyBkZWJhdGUgdG9kYXkuPj4gQnV0IGNhbGVuZGFyIHllYXIs IGFubnVhbCBjb21wYXJpc29ucyBpbiBnZW5lcmFsIGFuZCBzZWFzb25zIGluIHNwb3J0cywg YWxsIG9mIGl0IGlzIGEgd2VsbCBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCBjb25jZXB0LlllcywgdGhhdCBpcyB0 aGUgImV4aXN0aW5nIGNvbnZlbnRpb24iLj4+IFRoZXJlJ3Mgbm8gYWdlbmRhIHRoZXJlLCBp dCdzIGp1c3Qgbm9ybWFsIHdheSB0byBsb29rIGF0IHRoaW5ncz8gTm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUg b3IgZGlzY3Vzcy5JdCBpcywgYnV0IHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGludHJpbnNpYyByZWFzb24gdG8g ZG8gc28gdGhhdCBJIGNhbiBzZWUuIEl0IGFwcGVhcnMgdGhhdCBhdCBzb21lIHBvaW50IHNv bWVvbmUsIHNvbWV3aGVyZSwgZ290IHRoZSBiYWxsIHJvbGxpbmcgYnkgcHJlc2VudGluZyBp dCBhcyBhIHNvcnQgb2YgIm5lYXQiIGNvaW5jaWRlbmNlLkNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dp bmcgaHlwb3RoZXRpY2FsLi4uQSBwbGF5ZXIgaW4gMjAyNSAoZWcpIHN0YXJ0cyB0aGUgeWVh ciBieSB3aW5uaW5nIHRoZSBBTywgdGhlbiBnb2VzIG9uIHRvIHdpbiB0aGUgRnJlbmNoLCBX aW1ibGVkb24sIHRoZSBVU08uIFRoaXMgcGVyc29uIGlzIGEgZ3JlYXQsIG15dGhvbG9naWNh bCBoZXJvLkltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGFmdGVyIHRoYXQgcnVuIHRoZSBzYW1lIHBsYXllciBpbiAy MDI2IGxvc2VzIHRoZSBBTyBhbmQgRnJlbmNoLCBhbmQgd2lucyBXaW1ibGVkb24sIHRoZSBV U08sIHRoZSAyMDI3IEFPLCAyMDI3IHRoZSBGcmVuY2gsIGFuZCAyMDI3IFdpbWJsZWRvbi5J biB0aGlzIGV4YW1wbGUgd2UgaGF2ZSB0aGUgYWJzdXJkIGlkZWEgdGhhdCB0aGUgZm91ciBz bGFtcyB0aGF0IG9jY3VycmVkIGluIDIwMjUgYXJlIG9mIGdyZWF0ZXIgaW1wb3J0YW5jZSB0 aGFuIHRoZSA1IHRoYXQgc3RhcnQgd2l0aCBXaW1ibGVkb24gMjAyNiwgaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUg MjAyNiBVU08sIDIwMjcgQU8sIHRoZSAyMDI3IEZyZW5jaCwgYW5kIHRoZSAyMDI3IFdpbWJs ZWRvbi5UaGF0IGh5cG90aGV0aWNhbCBmaXZlIGNvbnNlY3V0aXZlIHNsYW1zLS13aGljaCBp bmNsdWRlcyAyIFdpbWJsZWRvbnMtLXdvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSB3b3J0aCBhcyBtdWNoIGFzIHRo ZSA0IHNsYW1zIHRoYXQgb2NjdXJyZWQgaW4gMjAyNSwgaWYgSSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHRoZSBh cmd1bWVudCBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiBzcGVjaWFsIHZhbHVlIGZvciBhIENZR1MuIE9uIHRoZSBz dXJmYWNlIG9mIGl0IHRoaXMgc2VlbXMgaW50dWl0aXZlbHkgYWJzdXJkLlNvIHlvdSBrbm93 IHdoYXQgd291bGQgaGFwcGVuPyBCcmFkIEdpbGJlcnQsIGluIGhpcyByb2xlIGFzIFRWIGNv bG9yIGNvbW1lbnRhdG9yLCB3b3VsZCBtYWtlIHVwLCBvbiB0aGUgZmx5LCBhIG5ldyBjYXRl Z29yeSBmb3IgNSBjb25zZWN1dGl2ZSBzbGFtcy4gV2UnZCBzaXQgd2l0aCBvdXIgY29sbGVj dGl2ZSB0aHVtYnMgdXAgb3VyIGFyc2VzIGFuZCBub2QsIGRyb29saW5nbHksIGFuZCB0aGUg Q1lHUyB3b3VsZCBiZSBwdXNoZWQgYmFjayBpbiB2YWx1ZSB0byB3aGVyZSB0aGUgbm8tQ1lH UyBoYWQgYmVlbiwgYW5kIGhhdmluZyBhIG5vbi1DWUdTLCBwbHVzICQ1LCB3b3VsZCBnZXQg eW91IGEgdHJpcGxlIGJyZXZlIGF0IFN0YXJidWNrJ3MuQW0gSSBtaXNzaW5nIHNvbWV0aGlu ZyBoZXJlLCBza3JpcHQ/IEkga25vdyBpdCdzIGEgbGFib3JlZCBoeXBvdGhldGljYWwsIGJ1 dCB0aGF0J3Mgd2h5IFJTVCBleGlzdHMuLi5pc24ndCBpdD87Xik+Pj4gT1RPSCBwaWNraW5n IGEgY2VydGFpbiB5ZWFyIHRvIHN0YXJ0IG1lYXN1cmluZyBGZWRlcmVyIG9yIERqb2tvdmlj IGVyYSwgdGhhdCdzIHF1aXRlIGFyYml0cmFyeS4gQnV0IHNpbmNlIE1pa2tvIHdhcyBqb2tp bmcsIG5vdGhpbmcgdG8gc2VlIGVpdGhlci5BZ3JlZWQuPj4+Pj4+IE5leHQgcXVlc3Rpb246 IHdobyB0aGUgZnVjayBmaXJzdCBtYWRlIGEgYmlnIGRlYWwgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGNhbGVuZGFy IHllYXI/IEEgc3BvcnRzIHdyaXRlcj8gQSBwbGF5ZXI/ID8/Pz4gQ3Jhd2ZvcmQgd2FzIHB1 bXBpbmcgaGltc2VsZiBpbiAxOTMzIHRvIHdpbiBhbGwgNCBJVEYgb2ZmaWNpYWwgY2hhbXBp b25zaGlwcyBJIGJlbGlldmU/Pj4gQnV0IHllYWggc29tZSBqb3VybmFsaXN0IEkgdGhpbmsg c3RhcnRlZCB1c2luZyB0aGUgdGVybSBHcmFuZCBTbGFtIGFuZCBpdCBzdHVjay5UaGFua3Mg Zm9yIHRoZSBpbmZvIT4+LS0gfn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+Ik1hbiEgSSdkIGdpdmUg bXkgcmlnaHQgYXJtIHRvIGJlIGFtYmlkZXh0cm91cyEiICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLS1TYXdmaXNoDQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+IEkgd2lsbCBxdW90 ZSBubyBzcGVjaWZpYyBwYXJ0LCBJIHdpbGwgcmVwbHkgYXMgYSB3aG9sZS4NCj4NCj4NCj4g Rmlyc3Qgb2YgYWxsLCBJIGJlbGlldmUgdGhlcmUncyBpbnRyaXNpYyB2YWx1ZSBpbiBvbmUg Y2FsZW5kYXIgeWVhciBhcyBpdCBjb3JyZXNwb25kcyB3aXRoIG5hdHVyYWwgY3ljbGVzLCBi ZWluZyBkb3JtYW50IGluIHdpbnRlciwgYmxvc3NvbWluZyBpbiBzcHJpbmcsIHN1bW1lciwg YXV0dW1uIHlvdSBnZXQgaXQuIEFmdGVyIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUncyBhIHdpbnRlciBoaWJlcm5h dGlvbiBhbmQgZnJvbSBzcHJpbmcgd2Ugc3RhcnQgYWxsIG92ZXIgYWdhaW4/DQo+DQo+IFNv IHRoYXQncyBvbmUgY3ljbGUuDQo+DQo+IE9mIGNvdXJzZSB5b3UgY291bGQgc2F5IGN5Y2xl IGJlaW5ncyBhdCB0aGUgc3VtbWVyIHNvbHN0aWNlPyBPciBhdCBhbnkgb3RoZXIgcG9pbnQu DQo+DQo+IEJ1dCBpbiByZWFsaXR5LCBtb3N0IGN1bHR1cmVzIHB1dCBzdGFydCBvZiB0aGUg eWVhciBhdCBlaXRoZXIgd2ludGVyIHNvbHN0aWNlLCBvciBzcHJpbmcgZXF1aW5veC4NCj4N Cj4gSXQncyBraW5kYSBsb2dpY2FsIGFuZCBpdCBzaW1wbGlmaWVzIHRoaW5ncywgd2UgZ2V0 IGVxdWFsIGJsb2NrcyBvZiB0aW1lIHRoYXQgd2UgY2FuIGNvbXBhcmU/DQo+DQo+IFdoZXRo ZXIgaXQncyBoYXJ2ZXN0LCBjb25xdWVzdCwgcHJvZHVjdGlvbiwgc3BvcnRzLi4uDQo+DQo+ DQo+IFNlY29uZCBwYXJ0IG9mIHlvdXIgcXVlc3Rpb24uDQo+DQo+IEZpdmUgc3RyYWlnaHQg c2xhbXMgZnJvbSBXaW1ibGVkb24gdG8gV2ltYmxlZG9uIGlzIGFuIGFtYXppbmcgMTIgbW9u dGggYW5kIDIgd2Vla3MgcGVyaW9kLCBidXQgdGhvc2UgdHdvIHNlYXNvbnMgbG9vayBsaWtl IHRoaXMuDQo+DQo+IDIgc2xhbXMsIFdpbSwgVVNPDQo+IDMgc2xhbXMsIEFPLCBGTywgV2lt Lg0KPg0KPiBJbiBmaXJzdCBzZWFzb24geW91IGRpZCA1MCUgb2YgbWF4aW11bSwgaW4gc2Vj b25kIHlvdSBkaWQgNzUlLg0KDQpUaGVzZSBwZXJjZW50YWdlcyB3b3JrIGlmLCBhbmQgb25s eSBpZiwgb25lIGFjY2VwdHMgdGhlIHByaW1hY3kgb2YgdGhlIA0KY3ljbGUgYm91bmRhcmll cyBvdmVyIHRoZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgY29uc2VjdXRpdmUgc2xhbSB2aWN0b3JpZXMuDQoNCkFk aGVyaW5nIHRvIGFzdHJvbm9taWNhbCBvYnNlcnZhdGlvbnMgaXMgbW9yZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQg dGhhbiBjb3VudGluZyANCnRoZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgY29uc2VjdXRpdmUgbWFqb3Igd2lucyBp biB0aGUgc3BvcnQgdW5kZXIgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4NCg0KSSBkb24ndCBrbm93Li4uc291bmRz IGtpbmRhICpwYWdhbiogdG8gbWUsIHNrcmlwdC0ta2luZGEgbGlrZSBOZXcgQWdlIA0Kbm9u LXNlbnNlLiBOb3QgYXQgYWxsIGNvbXBhdGlibGUgd2l0aCBhIHNwb3J0IHdob3NlIG1vc3Qg ZmFtb3VzIA0KdG91cm5hbWVudCB2ZW51ZSBoYXMgYSBSb3lhbCBCb3guLi4NCg0KO14pDQoN Cj4NCj4NCj4gSXQganVzdCBkb2Vzbid0IGxvb2sgYXMgSW1wcmVzc2l2ZSB3aGVuIHlvdSBs b29rIGF0IHRoZSBob25vdXJzIHJvbGwgYW5kIGxpc3Qgb2YgYWxsIHNsYW0gd2lubmVycy4g T1RPSCBvd25pbmcgb25lIGVudGlyZSBzZWFzb25zLCBhbmQgdGhhdCBzZWFzb24gYmVpbmcg eW91cnMgYW5kIHlvdXJzIGFsb25lIHN0YW5kcyBvdXQgYSBsb3QgbW9yZS4NCj4NCj4NCj4N Cj4gQnV0IEkgd2lsbCBjb25jZWRlIG9uZSBwb2ludCBoZXJlLiA1IHN0cmFpZ2h0IHNsYW0g d2lucyBpcyBhbiB1bmRlcnJhdGVkIGFjaGlldmVtZW50LCBhbmQgaW4gbXkgYm9vayB0aGF0 J3MgMiBub24tY2FsZW5kYXIgc2xhbXMsIG5vdCBvbmUuDQo+DQo+IExvb2sgYXQgQnVkZ2Ug c2l0dWF0aW9uLCBjb25zZWN1dGl2ZSBzbGFtcz8NCj4NCj4gMTkzNyAtIFdpbSAoMSksICBV UyAoMikNCj4gMTkzOCAtIEF1cyAoMyksIEZyZW5jaCAoNCksIFdpbSAoNSksIFVTICg2KQ0K Pg0KPg0KPiBCdWRnZSBuYXR1cmFsbHkgYWNoaWV2ZWQgbm9uLWNhbGVuZGFyIEdyYW5kIFNs YW0gd2hlbiBoZSB3b24gaGlzIDR0aC4gSXQncyB1bmNsZWFyIGhvdyBkbyB3ZSBjYWxsIHdo YXQgaGUgZGlkIHdoZW4gaGUgd29uIGhpcyA1dGguDQo+DQo+IEJ1dCB3aGVuIGhlIHdvbiBo aXMgNnRoLCBoZSBnZXRzIGNyZWRpdGVkIHdpdGggR3JhbmQgU2xhbSwgYW5kIGhpcyBub24t Y2FsZW5kYXIgR3JhbmQgU2xhbSBnZXRzIGVyYXNlZC4gTm8gbW9yZT8NCj4NCj4gSSBtZWFu IGNoZWNrIHRoZSByZWNvcmQgYm9va3MsIHRoZXkgY2xhaW0gaGUgY2FuJ3QgYmUgY3JlZGl0 ZWQgd2l0aCBub24tY2FsZW5kYXIgR3JhbmQgU2xhbSBhcyB0aG9zZSBzbGFtcyBhcmUgcGFy dCBvZiBoaXMgR3JhbmQgU2xhbSBhbmQgbm8gZG91YmxlIGNvdW50aW5nIGlzIGFsbG93ZWQu IE9rIGZpbmUuDQo+DQo+IEJ1dCBpdCBhcHBlYXJzIHRoYXQgbm9uLWNhbGVuZGFyIEdyYW5k IFNsYW0gaXMgc29ydCBvZiBhY2hpZXZlbWVudCB3aGljaCB5b3UgY2FuIGxvc2UsIGlmIHlv dSBpbXByb3ZlIGl0IGVub3VnaD8NCj4NCj4gVGhhdCdzIGtpbmRhIGNvbmZ1c2luZyBmb3Ig bWUuDQo+DQo+DQo+IEkgd291bGQgYXBwcm9hY2ggaXQgZGlmZmVyZW50bHksIHBlcmhhcHMg SSB3b3VsZCBzYXkgdGhhdCBub24tY2FsZW5kYXIgR3JhbmQgU2xhbSBpcyB0aGUgaW5zdGFu Y2Ugb2YgaG9sZGluZyBhbGwgNCBzbGFtcyBhdCB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aW1lLCBvdGhlciB0aGFu IGF0IHRoZSBsYXN0IHNsYW0gaW4gdGhlIHNlYXNvbiB3aGljaCBpcyB0aGVuIEdyYW5kIFNs YW0uDQo+DQo+DQo+IFNvIEkgd291bGQgc2F5IEJ1ZGdlIGhhcyAyIG5vbi1jYWxlbmRhciBH cmFuZCBTbGFtcyBhbmQgRGpva292aWMgaGFzIDEuDQo+DQo+IExhdmVyIGhhcyAyIEdyYW5k IFNsYW1zIGFuZCBCdWRnZSBoYXMgMS4NCj4NCj4NCj4gSW4gcmVhbGl0eSBpdCdzIHZlcnkg Y29uZnVzaW5nLg0KPg0KDQotLSANCn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fg0KIkkgZG9uZSBj cmVhdGVkIG15c2VsZiBhIG1vbnN0ZXIuIg0KDQogIC0tSnVhbiBDYXJsb3MgRmVycmVybw0K fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+DQoNCg==

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On 9/16/23 5:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r>> Slams won starting from 2011: Djokovic: 23Nadal and Federer combined: 17This was never a Big 3 era..mikko>> Era start is arbitrary anyway. Yes what you say

is true from 2010 onwards but why start at any year?Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary past custom, all four slams must be won in the same calendar
year.So if no one in the past had made a point of noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar year? A sports writer? A player? ???>> You have to
explain begining.>>>> The other problem how do you define if era is shared? Of course 7 slams beats 6, but if two guys have 7 and 6, it's their era, it's shared. But when it stops being shared?>> Does one have to win twice as much as his closest
competitor?>> Or win as much as everyone else combined?>>>>>>-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!" --Sawfish

It's a good point.

If I remember correctly cygs was similar to the concept of giving the extra cash/prize to the US open winner when the player does the best in the pre US open stretch.

Then they started to focus on number 4 and created ncygs :)


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 9/16/23 5:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r>> Slams won starting from 2011: Djokovic: 23Nadal and Federer combined: 17This was never a Big 3 era..mikko>
Era start is arbitrary anyway. Yes what you say is true from 2010 onwards but why start at any year?Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary past custom,

all four slams must be won in the same calendar year.So if no one in the past had made a point of noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar year?
A sports writer? A player? ???>> You have to explain begining.>>>> The other problem how do you define if era is shared? Of course 7 slams beats 6, but if two guys have 7 and 6, it's their era, it's shared. But when it stops being shared?>> Does one have
to win twice as much as his closest competitor?>> Or win as much as everyone else combined?>>>>>>-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--SawfishIt's a good point.If I remember correctly cygs was similar to the concept of giving the extra cash/prize to the US open winner when the player does the best in the pre US open stretch.Then they started to focus on number 4 and created
ncygs :)-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html



We've all watched tennis in recent decades, we've all watched great big 3 players and we've all seen how difficult was it for them to come close to doing it.




Also let's never forget Tony Wilding in 1913. He won all 3.

And ITF championships in that era were even bigger than today.

In 1913-1923, they were ITF world championships. 3 on each surfaces.

In 1924-present, they're merely ITF official championships.


Sure it's ancient, and you could say it's the same thing, but still.







--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/09/2023 3:18 am, *skriptis wrote:

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary past custom, all four slams must be won in the same calendar year. So if no one in the past had made a point of

noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.

But calendar year, annual comparisons in general and seasons in sports, all of it is a well established concept.

There's no agenda there, it's just normal way to look at things? Nothing to see or discuss.

OTOH picking a certain year to start measuring Federer or Djokovic era, that's quite arbitrary. But since Mikko was joking, nothing to see either.

Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar year? A sports writer? A player? ???

Crawford was pumping himself in 1933 to win all 4 ITF official championships I believe?

But yeah some journalist I think started using the term Grand Slam and it stuck.

Yes some famous journo 1st quoted it back in 1933 when Jack fell 1 match
short - 'Grand Slam' was taken from bridge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMTcvMDkvMjAyMyA0OjUzIGFtLCAqc2tyaXB0aXMgd3JvdGU6DQo+IFNhd2Zpc2ggPHNh d2Zpc2g2NjZAZ21haWwuY29tPiBXcm90ZSBpbiBtZXNzYWdlOnINCj4+IE9uIDkvMTYvMjMg MTA6MTggQU0sICpza3JpcHRpcyB3cm90ZTo+IFNhd2Zpc2ggPHNhd2Zpc2g2NjZAZ21haWwu Y29tPiBXcm90ZSBpbiBtZXNzYWdlOj4+IE11Y2ggb2YgdGhlIHNhbWUgbG9naWMgY2FuIGJl IGFwcGxpZWQgdG8gdGhlIENZR1MgZGViYXRlLCB0aGUgbWFpbiBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGJlaW5n IHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgYW4gZXhpc3RpbmcgY29udmVudGlvbiB0aGF0LCBieSBhcmJpdHJh cnkgcGFzdCBjdXN0b20sIGFsbCBmb3VyIHNsYW1zIG11c3QgYmUgd29uIGluIHRoZSBzYW1l IGNhbGVuZGFyIHllYXIuIFNvIGlmIG5vIG9uZSBpbiB0aGUgcGFzdCBoYWQgbWFkZSBhIHBv aW50IG9mIG5vdGluZyB0aGUgeWVhciBpbiB3aGljaCA0IGNvbnNlY3V0aXZlIHNsYW1zIHdl cmUgd29uLCB0aGVyZSdkIGJlIG5vIGRlYmF0ZSB0b2RheS4+PiBCdXQgY2FsZW5kYXIgeWVh ciwgYW5udWFsIGNvbXBhcmlzb25zIGluIGdlbmVyYWwgYW5kIHNlYXNvbnMgaW4gc3BvcnRz LCBhbGwgb2YgaXQgaXMgYSB3ZWxsIGVzdGFibGlzaGVkIGNvbmNlcHQuWWVzLCB0aGF0IGlz IHRoZSAiZXhpc3RpbmcgY29udmVudGlvbiIuPj4gVGhlcmUncyBubyBhZ2VuZGEgdGhlcmUs IGl0J3MganVzdCBub3JtYWwgd2F5IHRvIGxvb2sgYXQgdGhpbmdzPyBOb3RoaW5nIHRvIHNl ZSBvciBkaXNjdXNzLkl0IGlzLCBidXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gaW50cmluc2ljIHJlYXNvbiB0 byBkbyBzbyB0aGF0IEkgY2FuIHNlZS4gSXQgYXBwZWFycyB0aGF0IGF0IHNvbWUgcG9pbnQg c29tZW9uZSwgc29tZXdoZXJlLCBnb3QgdGhlIGJhbGwgcm9sbGluZyBieSBwcmVzZW50aW5n IGl0IGFzIGEgc29ydCBvZiAibmVhdCIgY29pbmNpZGVuY2UuQ29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIGZvbGxv d2luZyBoeXBvdGhldGljYWwuLi5BIHBsYXllciBpbiAyMDI1IChlZykgc3RhcnRzIHRoZSB5 ZWFyIGJ5IHdpbm5pbmcgdGhlIEFPLCB0aGVuIGdvZXMgb24gdG8gd2luIHRoZSBGcmVuY2gs IFdpbWJsZWRvbiwgdGhlIFVTTy4gVGhpcyBwZXJzb24gaXMgYSBncmVhdCwgbXl0aG9sb2dp Y2FsIGhlcm8uSW1tZWRpYXRlbHkgYWZ0ZXIgdGhhdCBydW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgcGxheWVyIGlu IDIwMjYgbG9zZXMgdGhlIEFPIGFuZCBGcmVuY2gsIGFuZCB3aW5zIFdpbWJsZWRvbiwgdGhl IFVTTywgdGhlIDIwMjcgQU8sIDIwMjcgdGhlIEZyZW5jaCwgYW5kIDIwMjcgV2ltYmxlZG9u LkluIHRoaXMgZXhhbXBsZSB3ZSBoYXZlIHRoZSBhYnN1cmQgaWRlYSB0aGF0IHRoZSBmb3Vy IHNsYW1zIHRoYXQgb2NjdXJyZWQgaW4gMjAyNSBhcmUgb2YgZ3JlYXRlciBpbXBvcnRhbmNl IHRoYW4gdGhlIDUgdGhhdCBzdGFydCB3aXRoIFdpbWJsZWRvbiAyMDI2LCBpbmNsdWRlIHRo ZSAyMDI2IFVTTywgMjAyNyBBTywgdGhlIDIwMjcgRnJlbmNoLCBhbmQgdGhlIDIwMjcgV2lt YmxlZG9uLlRoYXQgaHlwb3RoZXRpY2FsIGZpdmUgY29uc2VjdXRpdmUgc2xhbXMtLXdoaWNo IGluY2x1ZGVzIDIgV2ltYmxlZG9ucy0td291bGQgbm90IGJlIHdvcnRoIGFzIG11Y2ggYXMg dGhlIDQgc2xhbXMgdGhhdCBvY2N1cnJlZCBpbiAyMDI1LCBpZiBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhl IGFyZ3VtZW50IGluIGZhdm9yIG9mIHNwZWNpYWwgdmFsdWUgZm9yIGEgQ1lHUy4gT24gdGhl IHN1cmZhY2Ugb2YgaXQgdGhpcyBzZWVtcyBpbnR1aXRpdmVseSBhYnN1cmQuU28geW91IGtu b3cgd2hhdCB3b3VsZCBoYXBwZW4/IEJyYWQgR2lsYmVydCwgaW4gaGlzIHJvbGUgYXMgVFYg Y29sb3IgY29tbWVudGF0b3IsIHdvdWxkIG1ha2UgdXAsIG9uIHRoZSBmbHksIGEgbmV3IGNh dGVnb3J5IGZvciA1IGNvbnNlY3V0aXZlIHNsYW1zLiBXZSdkIHNpdCB3aXRoIG91ciBjb2xs ZWN0aXZlIHRodW1icyB1cCBvdXIgYXJzZXMgYW5kIG5vZCwgZHJvb2xpbmdseSwgYW5kIHRo ZSBDWUdTIHdvdWxkIGJlIHB1c2hlZCBiYWNrIGluIHZhbHVlIHRvIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBuby1D WUdTIGhhZCBiZWVuLCBhbmQgaGF2aW5nIGEgbm9uLUNZR1MsIHBsdXMgJDUsIHdvdWxkIGdl dCB5b3UgYSB0cmlwbGUgYnJldmUgYXQgU3RhcmJ1Y2sncy5BbSBJIG1pc3Npbmcgc29tZXRo aW5nIGhlcmUsIHNrcmlwdD8gSSBrbm93IGl0J3MgYSBsYWJvcmVkIGh5cG90aGV0aWNhbCwg YnV0IHRoYXQncyB3aHkgUlNUIGV4aXN0cy4uLmlzbid0IGl0PzteKT4+PiBPVE9IIHBpY2tp bmcgYSBjZXJ0YWluIHllYXIgdG8gc3RhcnQgbWVhc3VyaW5nIEZlZGVyZXIgb3IgRGpva292 aWMgZXJhLCB0aGF0J3MgcXVpdGUgYXJiaXRyYXJ5LiBCdXQgc2luY2UgTWlra28gd2FzIGpv a2luZywgbm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgZWl0aGVyLkFncmVlZC4+Pj4+Pj4gTmV4dCBxdWVzdGlv bjogd2hvIHRoZSBmdWNrIGZpcnN0IG1hZGUgYSBiaWcgZGVhbCBhYm91dCB0aGUgY2FsZW5k YXIgeWVhcj8gQSBzcG9ydHMgd3JpdGVyPyBBIHBsYXllcj8gPz8/PiBDcmF3Zm9yZCB3YXMg cHVtcGluZyBoaW1zZWxmIGluIDE5MzMgdG8gd2luIGFsbCA0IElURiBvZmZpY2lhbCBjaGFt cGlvbnNoaXBzIEkgYmVsaWV2ZT8+PiBCdXQgeWVhaCBzb21lIGpvdXJuYWxpc3QgSSB0aGlu ayBzdGFydGVkIHVzaW5nIHRoZSB0ZXJtIEdyYW5kIFNsYW0gYW5kIGl0IHN0dWNrLlRoYW5r cyBmb3IgdGhlIGluZm8hPj4tLSB+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn4iTWFuISBJJ2QgZ2l2 ZSBteSByaWdodCBhcm0gdG8gYmUgYW1iaWRleHRyb3VzISIgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtLVNhd2Zpc2gNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEkg d2lsbCBxdW90ZSBubyBzcGVjaWZpYyBwYXJ0LCBJIHdpbGwgcmVwbHkgYXMgYSB3aG9sZS4N Cj4gDQo+IA0KPiBGaXJzdCBvZiBhbGwsIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGVyZSdzIGludHJpc2ljIHZh bHVlIGluIG9uZSBjYWxlbmRhciB5ZWFyIGFzIGl0IGNvcnJlc3BvbmRzIHdpdGggbmF0dXJh bCBjeWNsZXMsIGJlaW5nIGRvcm1hbnQgaW4gd2ludGVyLCBibG9zc29taW5nIGluIHNwcmlu Zywgc3VtbWVyLCBhdXR1bW4geW91IGdldCBpdC4gQWZ0ZXIgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSdzIGEgd2lu dGVyIGhpYmVybmF0aW9uIGFuZCBmcm9tIHNwcmluZyB3ZSBzdGFydCBhbGwgb3ZlciBhZ2Fp bj8NCj4gDQo+IFNvIHRoYXQncyBvbmUgY3ljbGUuDQo+IA0KPiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UgeW91IGNv dWxkIHNheSBjeWNsZSBiZWluZ3MgYXQgdGhlIHN1bW1lciBzb2xzdGljZT8gT3IgYXQgYW55 IG90aGVyIHBvaW50Lg0KPiANCj4gQnV0IGluIHJlYWxpdHksIG1vc3QgY3VsdHVyZXMgcHV0 IHN0YXJ0IG9mIHRoZSB5ZWFyIGF0IGVpdGhlciB3aW50ZXIgc29sc3RpY2UsIG9yIHNwcmlu ZyBlcXVpbm94Lg0KPiANCj4gSXQncyBraW5kYSBsb2dpY2FsIGFuZCBpdCBzaW1wbGlmaWVz IHRoaW5ncywgd2UgZ2V0IGVxdWFsIGJsb2NrcyBvZiB0aW1lIHRoYXQgd2UgY2FuIGNvbXBh cmU/DQo+IA0KPiBXaGV0aGVyIGl0J3MgaGFydmVzdCwgY29ucXVlc3QsIHByb2R1Y3Rpb24s IHNwb3J0cy4uLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IFNlY29uZCBwYXJ0IG9mIHlvdXIgcXVlc3Rpb24uDQo+ IA0KPiBGaXZlIHN0cmFpZ2h0IHNsYW1zIGZyb20gV2ltYmxlZG9uIHRvIFdpbWJsZWRvbiBp cyBhbiBhbWF6aW5nIDEyIG1vbnRoIGFuZCAyIHdlZWtzIHBlcmlvZCwgYnV0IHRob3NlIHR3 byBzZWFzb25zIGxvb2sgbGlrZSB0aGlzLg0KPiANCj4gMiBzbGFtcywgV2ltLCBVU08NCj4g MyBzbGFtcywgQU8sIEZPLCBXaW0uDQo+IA0KPiBJbiBmaXJzdCBzZWFzb24geW91IGRpZCA1 MCUgb2YgbWF4aW11bSwgaW4gc2Vjb25kIHlvdSBkaWQgNzUlLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEl0IGp1 c3QgZG9lc24ndCBsb29rIGFzIEltcHJlc3NpdmUgd2hlbiB5b3UgbG9vayBhdCB0aGUgaG9u b3VycyByb2xsIGFuZCBsaXN0IG9mIGFsbCBzbGFtIHdpbm5lcnMuIE9UT0ggb3duaW5nIG9u ZSBlbnRpcmUgc2Vhc29ucywgYW5kIHRoYXQgc2Vhc29uIGJlaW5nIHlvdXJzIGFuZCB5b3Vy cyBhbG9uZSBzdGFuZHMgb3V0IGEgbG90IG1vcmUuDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEJ1dCBJIHdp bGwgY29uY2VkZSBvbmUgcG9pbnQgaGVyZS4gNSBzdHJhaWdodCBzbGFtIHdpbnMgaXMgYW4g dW5kZXJyYXRlZCBhY2hpZXZlbWVudCwgYW5kIGluIG15IGJvb2sgdGhhdCdzIDIgbm9uLWNh bGVuZGFyIHNsYW1zLCBub3Qgb25lLg0KPiANCj4gTG9vayBhdCBCdWRnZSBzaXR1YXRpb24s IGNvbnNlY3V0aXZlIHNsYW1zPw0KPiANCj4gMTkzNyAtIFdpbSAoMSksICBVUyAoMikNCj4g MTkzOCAtIEF1cyAoMyksIEZyZW5jaCAoNCksIFdpbSAoNSksIFVTICg2KQ0KPiANCj4gDQo+ IEJ1ZGdlIG5hdHVyYWxseSBhY2hpZXZlZCBub24tY2FsZW5kYXIgR3JhbmQgU2xhbSB3aGVu IGhlIHdvbiBoaXMgNHRoLiBJdCdzIHVuY2xlYXIgaG93IGRvIHdlIGNhbGwgd2hhdCBoZSBk aWQgd2hlbiBoZSB3b24gaGlzIDV0aC4NCj4gDQo+IEJ1dCB3aGVuIGhlIHdvbiBoaXMgNnRo LCBoZSBnZXRzIGNyZWRpdGVkIHdpdGggR3JhbmQgU2xhbSwgYW5kIGhpcyBub24tY2FsZW5k YXIgR3JhbmQgU2xhbSBnZXRzIGVyYXNlZC4gTm8gbW9yZT8NCj4gDQo+IEkgbWVhbiBjaGVj ayB0aGUgcmVjb3JkIGJvb2tzLCB0aGV5IGNsYWltIGhlIGNhbid0IGJlIGNyZWRpdGVkIHdp dGggbm9uLWNhbGVuZGFyIEdyYW5kIFNsYW0gYXMgdGhvc2Ugc2xhbXMgYXJlIHBhcnQgb2Yg aGlzIEdyYW5kIFNsYW0gYW5kIG5vIGRvdWJsZSBjb3VudGluZyBpcyBhbGxvd2VkLiBPayBm aW5lLg0KPiANCj4gQnV0IGl0IGFwcGVhcnMgdGhhdCBub24tY2FsZW5kYXIgR3JhbmQgU2xh bSBpcyBzb3J0IG9mIGFjaGlldmVtZW50IHdoaWNoIHlvdSBjYW4gbG9zZSwgaWYgeW91IGlt cHJvdmUgaXQgZW5vdWdoPw0KPiANCj4gVGhhdCdzIGtpbmRhIGNvbmZ1c2luZyBmb3IgbWUu DQo+IA0KPiANCj4gSSB3b3VsZCBhcHByb2FjaCBpdCBkaWZmZXJlbnRseSwgcGVyaGFwcyBJ IHdvdWxkIHNheSB0aGF0IG5vbi1jYWxlbmRhciBHcmFuZCBTbGFtIGlzIHRoZSBpbnN0YW5j ZSBvZiBob2xkaW5nIGFsbCA0IHNsYW1zIGF0IHRoZSBzYW1lIHRpbWUsIG90aGVyIHRoYW4g YXQgdGhlIGxhc3Qgc2xhbSBpbiB0aGUgc2Vhc29uIHdoaWNoIGlzIHRoZW4gR3JhbmQgU2xh bS4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBTbyBJIHdvdWxkIHNheSBCdWRnZSBoYXMgMiBub24tY2FsZW5kYXIg R3JhbmQgU2xhbXMgYW5kIERqb2tvdmljIGhhcyAxLg0KPiANCj4gTGF2ZXIgaGFzIDIgR3Jh bmQgU2xhbXMgYW5kIEJ1ZGdlIGhhcyAxLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEluIHJlYWxpdHkgaXQncyB2 ZXJ5IGNvbmZ1c2luZy4NCj4gDQoNCg0KSSB0aGluayB3ZSBzaG91bGRuJ3QgY2FsbCA0IGlu IGEgcm93IGEgJ25vbi1jYWxlbmRhciBncmFuZCBzbGFtJyBiZWNhdXNlIA0KYSAnZ3JhbmQg c2xhbScgbWVhbnMgYWxsIDQgaW4gdGhlIDEgeWVhci4gIFNvIGEgbm9uLWNhbGVuZGFyICdo b2xkaW5nIA0KYWxsIDQgc2xhbXMgaW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgeWVhciAoaWUgY2FsZW5kYXIpJyBk b2Vzbid0IG1ha2Ugc2Vuc2UuICBJbnN0ZWFkIA0Kd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGNhbGwgaXQgJ2hvbGRp bmcgYWxsIDQgc2xhbXMgYXQgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGltZScuICBJdCdzIG5vdCBhcyANCnNleHkg YXMgaGF2aW5nICdncmFuZCBzbGFtJyBpbiB0aGUgYWNoaWV2ZW1lbnQsIGJ1dCBncmFuZCBz bGFtIG1lYW5zIGluIA0KdGhlIHNhbWUgeXIgc28gdGhhdCdzIHByb2JhYmx5IHRoZSBtb3N0 IGxvZ2ljYWwgd2F5IHRvIGdvLg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Djoko's.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Obviously, it was the Djokovic era. He owned the other two Big Three players since 2011 aside from a few matches here and there. It should be obvious to everybody by now but apparently, it isn't.

The problem is that he was never THE big draw. Federer was number one, Nadal was number two. Nothing can ever change that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)