Nole, idi u peršun!

[Ljubitelj tenisa]

Fora koji je kakav kalendarski slem je ocigledno marketinska i apsolutno je nebitna. Novak je uzeo 4 u nizu ostali nisu. Lejver je nebitan jer tada je bilo 2 dve podloge. Sad su 3.

Ali zarad diskusije mislim da jeste isto da li se gleda od Wimbledona do US opena ili od W do Australije.

Mentalno postoji razlika u terminima, fizički ne. Ali samo kada prvi put osvajas. Drugi put je isti đavo jer si savladao i taj pritisak.

[talicni]

jako glupa primjedba sa serenom. ako je ITF priznavao svaku kombinaciju 4 slema kao GS a izmedju `82 i `12. kada je nole bio na pragu istog i onda to ukinuli. kakve veze ima sta je serena uradila nakon tog ukidanja. vec su zvanicno ukinuli bonus i naziv GS krajem 2011. ili pocetkom 2012. a serena je to uradila 2015. sta su trebali ponovo uvesti termin i bonus samo za nju? cinjenica je da je termin GS postojao izmedju ´82. i 11/12. (znaci punih 30 godina moderne ere tenisa) bez obzira kako su osvojena 4 slema i da je to povlacilo veliki novcani bonus. kao i da je to bilo na snazi i dok su fed i rafa bili najblizi ostvarivanju istog a da se promijenilo upravo sa noletovim usponom i njegovom dominacijom turom! a serena je dosla nakon te promjene!

[bojanaBG]

Serena slem je bio i 2002.-2003.

Sent from my MI 6 using Tapatalk

[talicni]

da imala je 2. u svakom slucaju nije nazivan nekalendarskim slemom. kako god ITF sluzbeno nije previo razliku izmedju nacina osvajanja 4 slema u nizu do 2012. godine. a serena slem je valjda zato sto je je serena napravila slem. evo citam da je ona sama tako nazvala svoj slem: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/25/s...l-her-own.html. Serena has chosen to dub her run the Serena Slam, an allusion to Tiger Woods's similar achievement in golf.

na svedskoj vikipediji:
Hon vann fyra av dessa i följd, från Franska öppna 2002 till Australiska öppna 2003, vilket ITF numera erkänner som en "Tennisens Grand Slam", men som hon själv döpte till en "Serena Slam".

[bojanaBG]

Serena slem je zato sto nije u istoj godini, kao sto je i Novak slem.
Da ITF nije pravio razliku, onda bi postojao i Steffi slem, ali on ne postoji jer je bilo u istoj godini...doduse, njen je zlatni slem jer je osvojila te godine i OI

[talicni]

pa ona ga sama nazvala tako. a onda u onom clanku iz 1984. lazu? kao i oni sa vikipedije sto je postavio djoker?

"In 1982 the ITF redefined the Grand Slam as four consecutive victories that could span two calendar years, as Martina’s did, and put up a $1 million bonus for any player who accomplished the feat".

"Most traditionalists insist that the 'Grand Slam' should refer only to winning all four titles in a calendar year, although the constitution of the International Tennis Federation, the sports governing body, spells out that 'players who hold all four of these titles at the same time achieve the Grand Slam'."

This was true until later in 2011, when the ITF edited the description to eliminate all confusion. As it now stands, "The Grand Slam titles are the championships of Australia, France, the United States of America and Wimbledon. Players who hold all four of these titles in one calendar year achieve the 'Grand Slam'."

pa u anglo medijima je vise znacaja pridato tome da je nole konacno kompletirao slemove nego sto je vezao sva 4 a samo da bi se umanjio znacaj istoga. vjerujem da je rodja to ostvario da bi mu se pridavalo mnogo veci znacaj.

[NI]

Kad pricate o GS da dodam.

Svijet nije poceo sa Nadalom. Martina Navratilova je osvojila AO, RG, WIM i USO za redom. I to upravo redom kojim sam pobrojio. I nema GS. AO se igrao u decembru. Da bude sve bolnije za nju, njen niz je bio W 1983, USO 1983, AO 1983, RG 1984, W 1984. i USO 1984. Dakle 6 selmova za redom. (Dvije godine prije Rafinog rodjenja.) U Martinino vrijeme ispravni red je bio RG, W, USO i AO.

Serena je pak osvojila 4 tim redom RG, W, USO i AO. Ali u njeno vrijeme je vazio onaj red kojim je osvojila Martina AO, RG, W i USO.

Imamo apsurd. Da je Martina igrala u Serenino vrijeme imala bi GS a da je Serena igrala u Martinino vrijeme i ona bi imala GS. Apsurd zapravo nije apsurd jer je kalendarska godina jasno definisana.

[talicni]

sve bi to bilo lijepo da je tacno! ali nije!

martina ima priznat GS i dobila je i bonus od milion dolara za isti (u vrijeme kada je nagrada za slem bila oko 100K$)! u to vrijeme priznato od ITFa koji i organizuje slemove! imas cijeli clanak o tome iz tog vremena. ITF je u periodu 82-11/12 priznavao bilo koji redoslijed 4 slema kao GS! tako da ga i serena formalno u stvari ima. ITF koji ih organizuje je i jedini mjerodavan da o tome odlucuje. kasnije su to izmijenili i vratili na staru definiciju koja je vazila prije 82. tako je pisalo i u njihovim pravilnicima. a o tome sam procitao do sada nekoliko clanaka.

https://people.com/archive/martina-n...-vol-21-no-25/

Spoiler

Martina Navratilova Takes the Grand Slam and Nets a Cool Million While She's at It

By JOEL STRATTE-MCCLURE June 25, 1984 12:00 PM

Martina Navratilova had just finished routing Chris Evert Lloyd 6-3, 6-1 in the finals of the French Open. The score was devastating enough, but, as Lloyd gracefully acknowledged, Martina’s victory was also historically significant. By winning the French Open, Navratilova, 27, had become one of only five players in tennis history to win the Grand Slam of tennis: consecutive victories in the world’s four major tournaments, Wimbledon, and the French, U.S. and Australian Opens.

“Je vous aime,” she told the French audience upon accepting the trophy and the $98,550 winner’s check. Then she rushed back to her hotel, threw on an amber silk dress and raced back to Roland Garros Stadium for another ceremony. There, Philippe Chatrier, president of the International Tennis Federation, presented her with a bonus, a small piece of paper imprinted with the words, “One million dollars only.” A delighted Navratilova stuck the check in her alligator purse, noting, “When you win $25,000 at a small tennis tournament they give you a check the size of a house, but when it’s $1 million, it’s the size of a parking ticket.”

A similar ceremony took place a day later and 4,000 miles away in the Philadelphia suburb of Malvern. There, golfer Patty Sheehan picked up a $500,000 bonus for winning two LPGA tournaments over a designated three-week span. Said Sheehan, 27, “It’s nice to have for my retirement.”

It was fitting that Navratilova should mark her achievement on the baked red clay of Roland Garros. Exactly one year earlier she had suffered an unexpected and humiliating fourth-round loss there to Kathy Horvath, ranked only 33rd in the world at the time. Bitter, Martina jettisoned coach Renee Richards and signed up Mike Estep, a onetime player on the men’s tour. Her instructions to Estep were simple: “I want to win the Grand Slam and be the greatest player who ever lived.”

The Grand Slam, which traditionally consists of winning all four major tournaments in one calendar year, has been achieved only by Don Budge in 1938, Maureen Connolly in 1953, Rod Laver in 1962 and 1969, and Margaret

Court in 1970. In 1982 the ITF redefined the Grand Slam as four consecutive victories that could span two calendar years, as Martina’s did, and put up a $1 million bonus for any player who accomplished the feat. Budge, now 68, was on hand for the bonus presentation and exclaimed, “I never thought tennis would come to this. When I did it, I got nothing. But then, my expenses were only $18 per day.”

The money was just icing for Navratilova, who has earned close to $8 million since she defected from Czechoslovakia at the U.S. Open in 1975. In her younger days she squandered large sums in buying binges. Now she is a model of fiscal responsibility. “I’ll send it to my accountant in L.A.,” she declared. “He’ll pay the taxes and bills and invest the rest. I’ll use some of the money to fix up the new town house I bought in Fort Worth.” Part of the money may be channeled into the Martina Navratilova Youth Foundation, which sponsors tennis clinics for foster children across America.

On the night of her victory Navratilova celebrated at a small party for 40 friends at the Crillon Hotel in Paris. By 11:30 she was back in her hotel room resting for the women’s doubles finals the next day. As if two weeks of demanding tennis had been a light workout, Navratilova and partner Pam Shriver took the title over Czechoslovakia’s Hana Mandlikova and West Germany’s Claudia Kohde-Kilsch 5-7, 6-3, 6-2, completing a comparable Grand Slam of women’s doubles. “People may say its boring to have a champ like her,” says tennis designer Ted Tinling, “but historically it’s very exceptional.”

Navratilova’s goal of becoming the greatest player who ever lived is of quite a different order. “If Pam or anyone else starts to beat me, maybe I’ll poison their water on the change-overs,” she jokes. But with few serious challengers on the horizon, the queen of tennis has temporarily lowered her sights. “My next goal is to bankrupt the International Tennis Federation by winning the Grand Slam again.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_...ear_Grand_Slam

Spoiler

Non-calendar year Grand Slam

Controversy over terminology

In 1982, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) began offering a $1 million bonus to any singles player to win four consecutive major titles, no matter the time of completion. Although groups variously identified as the Men's International Professional Tennis Council, "abetted primarily by some British tennis writers",[16] and "European tennis journalists"[17] had advocated for the ITF to change the definition of "Grand Slam", ITF General Secretary David Gray made it clear that this was not going to happen. In a 1983 letter to tennis journalist Paul Fein, Gray clarified:
There seems to be some confusion. The ITF's only initiative in this matter has been the organisation of the offer of a bonus of $1m. to any player who holds all four Grand Slam titles simultaneously [...] In spite of all that we have read on this matter, it has never been my Committee of Management's intention to alter the basis of the classic Grand Slam i.e., the capture of all four titles in a year.

The ITF's plan was to offer the cash bonus for three years, apparently to encourage players to compete in all four major tournaments as much as to reward success at them.[18]

Even before the ITF had announced their bonus, the Grand Slam controversy had taken on a life of its own. Writing in 1982, Neil Amdur claimed, "Now the sport spins nervously under the influence of big dollars and even bigger egos, and tradition has almost gone the way of white balls and long flannels [...] If the four major tournaments want to offer a $1 million incentive for any player in the future who can sweep their titles—and such talks have been rumored—that bonus would be a welcome addition. But changing what the Grand Slam is all about is like a baseball player believing that he 'hit for the cycle' after slugging a single, double and triple in the first game of a doubleheader and a home run in his first time at bat in the second game."[17] Despite seeming clarity from the ITF, some journalists suggested that the sport's organizing body had turned its back on history and changed the "rules" of tennis by redefining a Grand Slam. Such confusion continued for years. For instance, when Steffi Graf completed the Grand Slam in 1988, George Vecsey wrote, "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 [...] But many tennis people, and most writers, and probably most fans, too, did not accept the new rules, and the I.T.F. has dropped the gimmick."[19] Vecsey was only half right: the ITF dropped the "gimmick" of the cash bonus, but it had never changed any rules.

However, the ambiguous way the ITF described the Grand Slam in their Constitution led to journalists continuing to make the same assumption as Vecsey over two decades later. For instance, when Rafael Nadal was on the verge of completing a non-calendar year Grand Slam at the 2011 Australian Open, one writer observed, "Most traditionalists insist that the 'Grand Slam' should refer only to winning all four titles in a calendar year, although the constitution of the International Tennis Federation, the sports governing body, spells out that 'players who hold all four of these titles at the same time achieve the Grand Slam'."[20] This was true until later in 2011, when the ITF edited the description to eliminate all confusion. As it now stands, "The Grand Slam titles are the championships of Australia, France, the United States of America and Wimbledon. Players who hold all four of these titles in one calendar year achieve the 'Grand Slam'."[21]

When Martina Navratilova won the 1984 French Open and became the reigning champion of all four women's singles events, she was the first player to receive the bonus prize in recognition of her achievement. Some media outlets did, indeed, say that she had won a Grand Slam.[22] Others simply noted the ongoing controversy: "Whether the Slam was Grand or Bland or a commercial sham tainted with an asterisk the size of a tennis ball, Martina Navratilova finally did it."[23] Although the ITF recognizes what is now unofficially known as the "non-calendar year Grand Slam" on its Roll of Honour, no subsequent player to win four or more majors in a row—Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, or Novak Djokovic—has received bonus prize money.

Combining the Grand Slam and non-calendar year Grand Slam, the total number of times that players achieved the feat (of being the reigning champion in all four majors) expands to 18.

[NI]

sve bi to bilo lijepo da je tacno! ali nije!

martina ima priznat GS i dobila je i bonus od milion dolara za isti (u vrijeme kada je nagrada za slem bila oko 100K$)! u to vrijeme priznato od ITFa koji i organizuje slemove! imas cijeli clanak o tome iz tog vremena. ITF je u periodu 82-12 priznavao bilo koji redoslijed 4 slema kao GS! tako da ga i serena formalno u stvari ima. ITF koji ih organizuje je i jedini mjerodavan da o tome odlucuje. kasnije su to izmijenili i vratili na staru definiciju koja je vazila prije 82. tako je pisalo i u njihovim pravilnicima. a o tome sam procitao do sada nekoliko clanaka.

https://people.com/archive/martina-n...-vol-21-no-25/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_...ear_Grand_Slam

Ne slazem se sa tumacenjem koje ti pominjes. Od kada ja pratim tenis, debelo prije 1982, kalendarska godina je kriterijum. Milion dolara su velike pare ali ne mijenjaju sustinu. Cetiri za redom su veliki uspjeh ali nije Grand Slem.

Postoje dvije totalne nelogicnosti u objasnjenju koje ti navodisa. Ako Martina ima GS, zasto ga nema Serena? I ona je osvojila cetiri za redom u periodu izmedju 82-12. Drugo, kako moze takvo pravilo da se mijenja? Moze da se mijenja da li se igra TB u zadnjem setu ili ne ali ne i kalendarska godina.

Stvar je poprilicno jasna. Pokusaj dijela teniskog svijeta da izjednaci cetiri za redom sa GS-om je propao. Drugi dio teniskog svijeta to nikada nije prihvatio. S pravom. Serena i Novak mogu da zale zbog toga. Medjutim, nikoga to ne pogadja kao Martinu. I uvijek je pogadjalo. I pored milion dolara, dobar dio teniskog svijeta nije prihvatio njen uspjeh kao GS. To je bilo tako i 1985. i danas. Martina je jos 1985. pricala da se ne osvrce na takve gluposti. Nije pomoglo. Klasicna definicija GS je pobijedila. Doduse, milon dolara je dobra utjesna nagrada.

[talicni]

mozes se ti slagati ili ne ali je to bio SLUZBENI stav jedine mjerodavne organizacije za to, ITFa! i tako je stajalo u njihovom statutu veci dio open ere! i nema ne logicnosti i serena i martina su ga ostvarile i bilo im je priznato! serena je sama svoj slem nazvala serena slem, vjerovatno joj je bolje zvucalo, vezivalo se za njeno ime. jedino sto nije dobila bonus jer se on prestao dodjeljivati ranije, nije ga dobila ni grafova iako je imala kalendarski GS! ako je ITF priznavao bilo koji redoslijed 4 slema u vrijeme kada ga je martina osvojila onda je napravila GS i to nista ne moze da promijeni, pa ni kasnije odluke! ako su neki turniri bili mastersi pa to prestali biti ili nisu bili pa to postali, teniser koji je osvojio turnir dok je bio masters ima masters. ko je osvojio olimpijsku medalju od kada je tenis puni olimpijski sport je olimpijski sampion i sada moze tenis biti pa ne biti puni olimpijski sport (kao sto se vec desavalo) ali ako je neko osvojio OI medalju onda je OI sampion bez obzira ako je tenis prije toga (ili poslije toga) bio izvan olimpijske porodice sportova! a kada smo kod olimpijade, mnogi misle da mnogi olimpijski sportovi nemaju veze sa sportom i nisu sportovi ali jedino mjerodavno tijelo da to odluci je olimpisjki komitet. tako i ITF koji organizuje slemove je jedini mjerodavan da sluzbeno vrjednuje i klasifikuje svoja takmicenja! a sta ti, ja ili dio novinara misli o tome nije, niti ce ikada biti mjerodavnije od njihovog sluzbenog stava. a odluka je sigurno, bar djelomicno, i izmjenjena (nakon 30 godina) pod pritiskom novinara i teniske javnosti (najvise anglosaxonske) slucajno (bas kao sto se ono slucajno desilo moniki u trenutku kada je bila dominantna a mi imali sportske sankcije) bas u periodu kada je nole preuzeo primat i postao izrazito dominantan teniser (suvereno zavladavsi teniskim tronom na kraju 2011. godine koja je jedna od najboljih teniskih godina uopste, uzimajuci u obzir nivo igre i nivo konkurencije u tom trenutku, nole je tukao pik rafu u 6 velikih finala te godine)! a znamo da se iskljucivo zbog slicnog uspjeha lejver od mnogih i dan danas smatra GOATom (pa nije skodilo da se istakne razlika izmedju moguceg noletovog i njegovog uspjeha).

[NI]

mozes se ti slagati ili ne ali je to bio SLUZBENI stav jedine mjerodavne organizacije za to IFAa!

Za tu stvar ITF ne moze biti mjerdovan. Ali cak i da jeste mjerodvan. Pravilo je promijenjeno. Promjenu odrzava i stranica koju si poslao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_...ear_Grand_Slam

Serena je nazvala svoj uspjeh Serena slem zato sto u to vrijeme velika vecina nije prihvatala 4 za redom kao GS. I to je dobar markentski trik. Jeste slem ali nije grand.

[talicni]

ne nego si ti mjerodavan a ko pita one koji organizuju slemove! dok nesto vazi onda i sve ostvareno u tom periodu podlijeze tim pravilima i zakonima. i ako ti se sudi za nesto moze da ti se sudi samo po tada vazecim zakonima. a zasto je pravilo, bar djelomicno, promijenjeno bas u tom trenutku, nakon 30 godina, sam objasnio gore. mogli su ih, da su htjeli, mjenjati i ranije, dok je fed dominirao recimo. seles se dogodilo nesto mnogo gore. ali u svakom slucaju, velike stvari se ne prepustaju slucaju tako lako! (svi znamo recimo da je felps bio daleko brzi od cavica, sto su pokazali i video slimci, ili i nisu? uz to imamo i pravilo da se taster mora dotaci sa obje ruke da se zaustavi vrijeme, sto pobjednik nije uradio. opet, zasluzeno zlato felpsu?

[NI]

ne nego si ti mjerodavan a ko pita one koji organizuju slemove! dok nesto vazi onda i sve ostvareno u tom periodu podlijeze tim pravilima i zakonima. i ako ti se sudi za nesto moze da ti se sudi samo po tada vazecim zakonima. a zasto je pravilo, bar djelomicno, promijenjeno bas u tom trenutku, nakon 30 godina, sam objasnio gore. mogli su ih, da su htjeli, mjenjati i ranije, dok je fed dominirao recimo. seles se dogodilo nesto mnogo gore. ali u svakom slucaju, velike stvari se ne prepustaju slucaju tako lako! (svi znamo recimo da je felps bio daleko brzi od cavica, sto su pokazali i video slimci, ili i nisu? uz to imamo i pravilo da se taster mora dotaci sa obje ruke da se zaustavi vrijeme, sto pobjednik nije uradio. opet, zasluzeno zlato felpsu?

1.
Ja sasvim sigurno kao jedinka nisam mjerodavan. Medjutim, ako milioni ljubitelja misle kao ja onda to ima tezinu... Porediti ovo sa pravom, zakonom itd. je smijesno. Ne radi se istim stvarima. Ne radi se ni o slicnim stvarima.

Serena nije dobila milion. Martina jeste. Da je Serena posla da trazi svoj milion, dobila bi odgovor: "Izmijenjena pravila."

Apsurdno je uopste defenisati sto ce se zvati GS. Kao sto je apsurdno definisati ko ce biti GOAT. To je pitanje onoga sto teniski svijet prihvati.A teniski svijet je nesto jako nedefinisano.

Potuno je prirodno definistai za sto se daju pare.


2.
Za takvu stvra kao sto je GS NIKO ne moze biti mjerodavan.

3.
Za onaj milion koji je dobila Martina, mjerodavan je bio ITF koji je to nazvao nagradom za Grand Slem. Tu staje njihova mjerodavnost.

4.
Postoje dvije stvari koje su razlicite. 4 u kalendarskoj godini i 4 za redom. Niko nikome ne moze zabraniti da zove 4 za redom Grand slem, ni da daje pare za 4 za redom. Ali isto tako, niko ne moze izjednaciti 4 za redom i 4 u kalendarskoj godini.

"Problem" se moze rijesiti sa rangiranjem Grand slemova mali, srednji i ekstra, ili, mozda, karijerni GS, GS i kalendarski GS. Kako god okrenes kalendarski GS ce ostati najvece ostavrenje u tenisu.

[Joker]

Apsurdno je uopste defenisati sto ce se zvati GS.
Ali isto tako, niko ne moze izjednaciti 4 za redom i 4 u kalendarskoj godini.

Mozda jeste apsurdno, ali upravo iz razloga sto razlike nisu toliko velike, koliko je veliko ono zajednicko za sve te varijante grend slemova. A kljucna zajednicka stvar, ujedno i najteza, je da taj junak koji je postigao taj uspjeh ima sva 4 najveca trofeja u svom posjedu istovremeno. To je ono sustinsko i najbitnije, a sad koliko je koja varijanta teza od druge i da li je uopste, to su manje bitne stvari. Moze neko, kad velika trojka prodje, da omunji kalendarski slem, a da mu padne duplo lakse nego sto je Novaku njegov niz. Da ga zapadne slaba konkurencija te godine, dobar zrijeb, sreca sa ranim ispadanjem najjacih rivala.. gomila promjenjivih. Ali 4 u nizu ce uvijek biti 4 u nizu, ma kakva konkurencija bila, jer je dokaz stravicne konzistentnosti tog sportiste.

[NI]

Neko moze insitirati da je kljucno istovremeno, drugi pak da je kljucna kalendarska godina. I jedan i drugi su u pravu. To je pitanje misljenja a ne zakona. Dominantno misljenje se obicno uzima kao norma ali...