'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis!!

[Ulysses]

'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis

Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded” and
"needs some time off".

Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
slot.

However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
in 2012.

"I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.

"I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
and see where I go from here.

"Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
board to see what's important."

Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
in what seemed to be the start of a decline.

He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic’s record-breaking
2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.

However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray – winner of the
Olympics and US Open titles this summer – has emerged as a major
contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.

With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
the Davis Cup.

"Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
how much he valued the tournament.

"For me it’s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being
with them, and that's about it really.

"I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
and it’s always a lot of fun."

https://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/post?hl=en

[TennisGuy]

Are you absolutely stunned as I am Uly? :)

[Ulysses]

BEYOND DEVASTATED!!! I hope this is just P.R. and not indicative of
him really wanting to withdraw from the Asian or indoor swing.

[Joe Ramirez]

Federer would be singing a different tune if he had equaled or
surpassed Djokovic's performance at the U.S. Open. That would have
placed Fed in a strong position in the 2012 points race, enabling him
to push for year-end No. 1 with confidence. But the Djoker
outperformed Fed by two rounds at the USO, and now has a handsome lead
in the race. Federer would have to play a very full fall schedule, and
play very well, just to have chance of catching Djokovic, and even
then it wouldn't be guaranteed. Fed is probably trying to decide if
the prize is worth the potential investment at this point. He does
need a break, and if Basel-level tournaments won't yield him anything
beyond the titles themselves, why not ease off for a while?

[Ulysses]

Excellent post. Fed has 3,000 points to defend in the autumn and
Djoker has very little to defend. Sampras went all-out in the fall
swing to end the year #1 for his sixth straight year but he was 4
years younger than Fed.

It seems like Fed will withdraw from Shanghai but play Basel, Paris
and the WTC. Just a hunch.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

I hope he plays Shanghai to get to that 300th week. That would be much more impressive than YE#1.

[Joe Ramirez]

There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

YE#1 is just a relic of the pre-ATP days when records were not kept properly to calculate true 52-week ranking throughout the year.

[TT]

18.9.2012 1:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
>>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>>
>>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>>

>>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded� and

>>
>>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>>
>>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>>
>>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>>
>>>>>>> slot.
>>
>>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>>
>>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>>
>>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>>
>>>>>>> in 2012.
>>
>>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>>
>>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>>
>>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>>
>>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>>
>>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>>
>>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>>
>>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>>
>>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>>
>>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>>
>>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>>
>>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>>

>>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic�s record-breaking

>>
>>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>>
>>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>>

>>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray � winner of the
>>
>>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer � has emerged as a major

>>
>>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>>
>>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>>
>>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>>
>>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>>
>>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>>
>>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>>

>>>>>>> "For me it�s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>>
>>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>>
>>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>>
>>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>>

>>>>>>> and it�s always a lot of fun."

Well they're wrong. Obviously most are fedfans there, it's a true
cesspit. That's as good a reference as bleacher report...

YE #1 is more important because you can compare that all-time, imo.

[TennisGuy]

On Sep 17, 6:14 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:

> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.

Yes but hasn't he clinched that already?
My understanding is that all he would be going for now is a pretty
number; 300.

[TT]

18.9.2012 1:22, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au kirjoitti:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:14:13 AM UTC+10, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded� and

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> slot.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> in 2012.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic�s record-breaking

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray � winner of the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer � has emerged as a major

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>>>> "For me it�s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>>>> and it�s always a lot of fun."

Well pre-ATP makes almost 100 years of tennis.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 17, 6:34 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> 18.9.2012 1:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
> >>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>
> >>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>

> >>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded” and

>
> >>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>
> >>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>
> >>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>
> >>>>>>> slot.
>
> >>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>
> >>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>
> >>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>
> >>>>>>> in 2012.
>
> >>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>
> >>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>
> >>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>
> >>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>
> >>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>
> >>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>
> >>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>
> >>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>
> >>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>
> >>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>
> >>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>

> >>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic’s record-breaking

>
> >>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>
> >>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>

> >>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray – winner of the
>
> >>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer – has emerged as a major

>
> >>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>
> >>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>
> >>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>
> >>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>
> >>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>
> >>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>

> >>>>>>> "For me it’s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>
> >>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>
> >>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>
> >>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>

> >>>>>>> and it’s always a lot of fun."

LOL. This calls for a DavidW argument about how a thing's prestige is
determined by the prestige actually conferred on it ....

> Obviously most are fedfans there, it's a true
> cesspit. That's as good a reference as bleacher report...

No. The Bleacher Report offers amateur (and usually amateurish) pieces
of punditry masquerading as tennis journalism. The poll that I cited
is a perfectly good unscientific poll, as these things go. It
certainly canvassed the opinions of far more tennis fans than those
who populate RST.

> YE #1 is more important because you can compare that all-time, imo.

That perhaps makes the achievement more useful to you, but not
necessarily more important in general. But hey -- you're entitled to
one vote along with everyone else. :)

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 17, 6:36 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:14 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
> > more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
> > weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>
> Yes but hasn't he clinched that already?

Yes, Fed has. But the question can be asked regardless of the holders
of the records.

[Ali Asoag]

YE#1 is important, but YEC is an exo. Makes no sense ...

[TT]

18.9.2012 1:48, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 17, 6:34 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 18.9.2012 1:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>>
>>>>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>>

>>>>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded� and

>>
>>>>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>>
>>>>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>>
>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>>
>>>>>>>>> slot.
>>
>>>>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>>
>>>>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>>
>>>>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>>
>>>>>>>>> in 2012.
>>
>>>>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>>
>>>>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>>
>>>>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>>
>>>>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>>
>>>>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>>
>>>>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>>
>>>>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>>
>>>>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>>
>>>>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>>
>>>>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>>
>>>>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>>

>>>>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic�s record-breaking

>>
>>>>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>>
>>>>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>>

>>>>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray � winner of the
>>
>>>>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer � has emerged as a major

>>
>>>>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>>
>>>>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>>
>>>>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>>
>>>>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>>
>>>>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>>
>>>>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>>

>>>>>>>>> "For me it�s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>>
>>>>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>>
>>>>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>>
>>>>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>>

>>>>>>>>> and it�s always a lot of fun."

If 80% of posters are fedfans there and every fedfan answers "weeks" is
more important (because fed has that record) - while the vote divides
50-50 between rest... (which makes 90% for "weeks") then the poll
doesn't answer to the actual question but rather to the question how
many fedfans are there.
And of course many don't realize historical (or current) importance of
the question to begin with, judging by the level of debate there...

[pltrgyst]

On 9/17/12 6:14 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:

> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.

You might have noticed that when Ferrero announced his impending
retirement, every article I read mentioned that he was a former #1
ranked player -- but not a single one, or a single tv commentator,
mentioned that he was a year-end #1.

-- Larry

[Ulysses]

"YE#1 is important, but YEC is an exo. Makes no sense."

Makes perfect sense to a Nadaltard since their precious boy never won
it. Of course most "exos" are worth 1500 points to the winner, hmm?

Fed is brilliant in his scheduling. Total weeks at #1 trumps tying
Pete for most year ending #1's and he knows it. He will go all out to
win 7 YEC's and no other player will come close to that in decades.

[TT]

And how is that relevant? I doubt they mentioned his weeks stat either.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

If Federer gets toppled at 299 weeks it will be a bit like Don Bradman's 99.94 and his famous duck! :)

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:14:13 AM UTC+10, Joe Ramirez wrote:

I suspect most of the remaining 10% don't even understand what weeks at no.1 really means - for example they may think that it's based on points accumulated since January 1st.

[vandeleigh...@gmail.com]

10% is still a big number TT, you're not on your own.

[felangey]

> Well they're wrong.

Links? ;)

> Obviously most are fedfans there

...but....like...I thought you maintained that Nadal had a bigger fanbase
than Fed. Inconceivable that they would be outnumbered 9-1 on a neutral
site? Oh man....it's like Whisper II.....the webs we weave! :))

[Ted S.]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez wrote:

>>> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>>> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
>>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>>
>> Well they're wrong.
>
> LOL. This calls for a DavidW argument about how a thing's prestige is
> determined by the prestige actually conferred on it ....

As I've asked before, why is being #1 on December 31 better than being
#1 on August 8, Pluvi�se 3, or Nisan 7?

--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova

[Ted S.]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:47:00 -0400, pltrgyst wrote:

> You might have noticed that when Ferrero announced his impending
> retirement, every article I read mentioned that he was a former #1
> ranked player -- but not a single one, or a single tv commentator,
> mentioned that he was a year-end #1.

That would probably be because he was never a year-end #1.

(The year-end #1 for 2003 was Roddick. Did the articles on his
retirement mention him being YE#1 in 2003?)

[TennisGuy]

Of course I realize that. The poll at TW had nothing to do with Fed.
But we are focusing on Fed in this discussion in this thread.
Thus I asked the question.

[Court_1]

On Sep 17, 3:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:

> Fed is probably trying to decide if
> the prize is worth the potential investment at this point.

And the answer is "no, it is not worth it." For a 31 year old player
to go traipsing around the world with a young family just to chase the
year end number one when he is competing with great players five years
younger?(Djokovic and Murray) Ridiculous IMO. Just rest up and
prepare yourself for the tournaments you wish to play in and compete
at the highest level in and then rest again and prepare yourself for
what is really the only important thing at this stage in your career--
i.e. the slams. Everything else means zilch or very little in
comparison.

This latest USO setback has to be painful for him because he was
playing so well since the USO last year he probably had that
untouchable feeling once again and then reality came calling at the
Olympics and the USO and the reality is he can't compete
"consistently" at the highest levels against players five to six years
younger at the slams like he used to.

It is a bitter pill to swallow for a proud champion for sure. Sure he
can get to the late stages of the slams and even the final on occasion
but he can't win them consistently any longer playing against younger
and hungrier guys. Maybe he could not face that reality before but it
is beginning to sink in? For very competitive people they are always
the last ones to "get it" about themselves and their limitations.

[Joe Ramirez]

Mario Lemieux scored 199 points in the 1988-89 NHL season, and it
still bugs me. :)

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 17, 7:24 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> 18.9.2012 1:48, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 6:34 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >> 18.9.2012 1:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> >>> On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>
> >>>>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>

> >>>>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded” and

>
> >>>>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>
> >>>>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>
> >>>>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>
> >>>>>>>>> slot.
>
> >>>>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>
> >>>>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>
> >>>>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>
> >>>>>>>>> in 2012.
>
> >>>>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>
> >>>>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>
> >>>>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>
> >>>>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>
> >>>>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>
> >>>>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>
> >>>>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>
> >>>>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>
> >>>>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>
> >>>>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>
> >>>>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>

> >>>>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic’s record-breaking

>
> >>>>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>
> >>>>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>

> >>>>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray – winner of the
>
> >>>>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer – has emerged as a major

>
> >>>>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>
> >>>>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>
> >>>>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>
> >>>>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>
> >>>>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>
> >>>>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>

> >>>>>>>>> "For me it’s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>
> >>>>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>
> >>>>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>
> >>>>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>

> >>>>>>>>> and it’s always a lot of fun."

Stop. Since that statement is pure speculation, everything that
follows from it is suspect. Moreover, as with virtually every such
forum, "posters" and "members" are not synonymous. Any member can vote
in a poll whether he or she posts regularly or not.

[TennisGuy]

On Sep 17, 11:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:

> > If Federer gets toppled at 299 weeks it will be a bit like Don Bradman's 99.94 and his famous duck! :)
>
> Mario Lemieux scored 199 points in the 1988-89 NHL season, and it
> still bugs me. :)

It shouldn't have though because even if he had scored 200 points
he was still far off from Gretzky's 215. :)

[Joe Ramirez]

It wasn't failing to break the record that hurt; it was missing the
milestone. Annoyingly, Gretzky remains the only player to have a 200-
point season. It actually won't be as bad if Fed stalls at 299 weeks,
because there's no man with 300 or more.

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 7:12 am, "Ted S." <justacine...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > LOL. This calls for a DavidW argument about how a thing's prestige is
> > determined by the prestige actually conferred on it ....
>
> As I've asked before, why is being #1 on December 31 better than being

> #1 on August 8, Pluviôse 3, or Nisan 7?
>
Precisely. Just like 7543, Whisper has been promoting
YE#1 (and now 'consecutive YE#1') as the ultimate
determinant of GOAThood since that's all that's left
for Sampras. The rabid Fedhaters like TT are always
willing co-conspirators in anything that remotely puts
Fed down.
Since China and India constitute a high %age of the
world population (about 1/3), shouldn't the YE#1 be
computed acco to their calendars? In that case, Fed
has both the 'most consecutive YE#1' and 'most YE#1'
packed up nicely.

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 4:07 am, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:


> YE#1 is important, but YEC is an exo. Makes no sense ...

You got that completely backwards. YE#1 is a lottery
based on which calendar you follow. YEC is the most
'democratic' tournament that neutralizes matchup issues
through its round-robin format and decides the best of the
best through actual matches between them.
No wonder YEC championship earns more points than
the Masters 1000 events and is rated just a notch below
the Slams.

[Patrick Kehoe]

> still bugs me. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And he missed 4 games that season... oh well...

P

[TT]

18.9.2012 5:08, Ted S. kirjoitti:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
>>>> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>>>> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
>>>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>>>
>>> Well they're wrong.
>>
>> LOL. This calls for a DavidW argument about how a thing's prestige is
>> determined by the prestige actually conferred on it ....
>
> As I've asked before, why is being #1 on December 31 better than being
> #1 on August 8, Pluvi�se 3, or Nisan 7?
>

And why is Grand Slam better than non calendar slam... Why does Mac hold
OE record for best year in Win percentage etc etc.

Because tennis schedule is calendar year.

[TT]

18.9.2012 6:27, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 17, 7:24 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 18.9.2012 1:48, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 6:34 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 18.9.2012 1:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded� and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> slot.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in 2012.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic�s record-breaking

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray � winner of the
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer � has emerged as a major

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "For me it�s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> and it�s always a lot of fun."

That's what I thought when you quoted a TW fan poll...

Notice also that the poll-maker did take a stand in his op. That does
influence outcome of the poll, I have noticed.

[Whisper]

I have never considered 'weeks' a meaningful stat. Many weeks are
awarded for 'dead' periods in the calendar. All that matters is who was
No.1 for any particular yr - ie yr-end.

I'm guessing among high IQ types the poll would be reversed.

[Whisper]

On 18/09/2012 8:22 AM, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> YE#1 is just a relic of the pre-ATP days when records were not kept properly to calculate true 52-week ranking throughout the year.
>



Weeks at no.1 would only be meaningful if players actually played 52
weeks every year. If a guy plays 24 weeks, why get credit for 52?
Sounds dumb to me.

[Whisper]

On 18/09/2012 8:34 AM, TT wrote:
> 18.9.2012 1:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:

> Well they're wrong. Obviously most are fedfans there, it's a true

> cesspit. That's as good a reference as bleacher report...
>

> YE #1 is more important because you can compare that all-time, imo.

Correct. Tennis season is based on the calendar yr, so no point being
dumb & asking 'why can't we win calendar slams across 2 yrs', or 'yr end
no.1 is in March'.

[Whisper]

I noticed they never said how many weeks he was No.1.

; )

[Whisper]

"weeks at no.1' means nothing because players get credit for many weeks
no tennis played.

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 4:43 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> On 18/09/2012 8:22 AM, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:14:13 AM UTC+10, Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >> On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>
> >>>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>

> >>>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded” and

>
> >>>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>
> >>>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>
> >>>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>
> >>>>>>>> slot.
>
> >>>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>
> >>>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>
> >>>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>
> >>>>>>>> in 2012.
>
> >>>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>
> >>>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>
> >>>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>
> >>>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>
> >>>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>
> >>>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>
> >>>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>
> >>>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>
> >>>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>
> >>>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>
> >>>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>

> >>>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic’s record-breaking

>
> >>>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>
> >>>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>

> >>>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray – winner of the
>
> >>>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer – has emerged as a major

>
> >>>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>
> >>>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>
> >>>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>
> >>>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>
> >>>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>
> >>>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>

> >>>>>>>> "For me it’s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>
> >>>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>
> >>>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>
> >>>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>

> >>>>>>>> and it’s always a lot of fun."

Accepted. Somebody brought that up. But that will apply
only to those who happened to be #1 at the end of the
tennis season. It will reduce a bunch of weeks for people
like Connors, Lendl, Sampras & Fed and also from Rafa
& Djoker. The net result will show zero change - Fed will
still be #1, Sampras #2 and so on. That's why people
don't bother with the correction for dead weeks.

[Whisper]

It's an artificially inflated & bogus stat.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:50:20 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

The only guy who gets credit for many weeks no tennis played is the guy who is YE#1, as I already explained. So if you have a preference for being #1 on Dec 31 then weeks at #1 already favours this guy. I already explained this.

[Whisper]

Yr-end No.1 is all that matters pal, because it means for the calendar
year you won the points race. Understand? It's not fucking rocket science.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

artificially inflated 296 >> artificially inflated 287 :)

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:10 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

You are the best if you are no.1 for the most number of weeks, not if you happens to be no.1 on Dec 31 and revert to no.2 at the next tournament. THAT is not rocket science.

[Whisper]

Do you understand the concept of 'accumulating most points in a yr'?
That's what yr-end No.1 means.

Are you saying a guy who wins the marathon but didn't take the lead
until 1 minute before the end is somehow bogus?

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:11:07 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

Tennis ranking is not a marathon. It is based on 52 weeks' continuous achievement. Basically, it measures the number of tournaments that a player do well in, weighted by the importance of the tournaments. In the long run, the better player always have more weeks at the top than the lesser player, although the lesser player may often have more YE#1 (because the number of YE#1 is small, the effect of chance happenings is large so you often get results which do not reflect the true situation). Sorry about the kindergarten lecture, you asked for it.

[Joe Ramirez]

Don't remind me. :) And he missed 24 games in 1992-93 while scoring at
a 224-pt./season pace!

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 18, 7:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 8:14 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
> >>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2:58 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> 'Wounded' Federer wants break from tennis
>
> >>>>>>> Roger Federer has admitted to suffering from exhaustion following his
>

> >>>>>>> return to the top of the world rankings, saying he is "wounded” and

>
> >>>>>>> "needs some time off".
>
> >>>>>>> Federer, 31, had a fantastic return to form this season, winning the
>
> >>>>>>> Wimbledon title for a seventh time to retake the world number one
>
> >>>>>>> slot.
>
> >>>>>>> However, he has since suffered defeats in the Olympic final and the
>
> >>>>>>> quarters at the US Open, and the Swiss master believes his body is
>
> >>>>>>> paying the price for a run which has seen him play 69 matches so far
>
> >>>>>>> in 2012.
>
> >>>>>>> "I need a holiday badly," Federer said after leading the Swiss to a
>
> >>>>>>> Davis Cup play-off win over the Netherlands.
>
> >>>>>>> "I'm wounded, tired, and exhausted and need some time off right now
>
> >>>>>>> and see where I go from here.
>
> >>>>>>> "Nothing has been decided for the rest of year, even though there is a
>
> >>>>>>> plan in place, that plan might change. I need to go back to drawing
>
> >>>>>>> board to see what's important."
>
> >>>>>>> Federer has had a remarkable season even by his standards, returning
>
> >>>>>>> to the top of the pile after relinquishing the top spot two years ago
>
> >>>>>>> in what seemed to be the start of a decline.
>
> >>>>>>> He has been helped by the physical struggles of Rafael Nadal and the
>

> >>>>>>> inevitable calm after the storm of Novak Djokovic’s record-breaking

>
> >>>>>>> 2011, but some of Federer's tennis has been magnificent, not least in
>
> >>>>>>> his Wimbledon final win over Andy Murray.
>

> >>>>>>> However, Djokovic is back in form while Andy Murray – winner of the
>
> >>>>>>> Olympics and US Open titles this summer – has emerged as a major

>
> >>>>>>> contender after his well-documented struggles in the big finals.
>
> >>>>>>> With the added competition, not to mention the season-ending World
>
> >>>>>>> Tour Finals in November, Federer admits he is not overly concerned by
>
> >>>>>>> the Davis Cup.
>
> >>>>>>> "Not really a whole lot to be quite honest," Federer said when asked
>
> >>>>>>> how much he valued the tournament.
>

> >>>>>>> "For me it’s more about taking part with my team-mates, I enjoy being

>
> >>>>>>> with them, and that's about it really.
>
> >>>>>>> "I have a good time and my team-mates are all my best friends - I
>
> >>>>>>> don't see them regular basis on tour and we have a great friendship
>

> >>>>>>> and it’s always a lot of fun."

"Never" = since July 2012?

> Many weeks are
> awarded for 'dead' periods in the calendar.

Irrelevant, since the standard is the same for every player.

> All that matters is who was
> No.1 for any particular yr - ie yr-end.
>
> I'm guessing among high IQ types the poll would be reversed.

Would have to be a guess, yes.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 18, 9:11 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> On 18/09/2012 10:44 PM, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:10 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

> >> On 18/09/2012 10:31 PM, phamq...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >> Yr-end No.1 is all that matters pal, because it means for the calendar
>
> >> year you won the points race.  Understand?  It's not fucking rocket science.
>
> > You are the best if you are no.1 for the most number of weeks, not if you happens to be no.1 on Dec 31 and revert to no.2 at the next tournament. THAT is not rocket science.
>
> Do you understand the concept of 'accumulating most points in a  yr'?
> That's what yr-end No.1 means.
>
> Are you saying a guy who wins the marathon but didn't take the lead
> until 1 minute before the end is somehow bogus?

Personally, I don't disagree that year-end No. 1 is also an important
achievement. I respect the calendar year system, which is arbitrary
but traditional. However, total weeks at No. 1 easily trumps years at
No. 1. And a tennis player who is No. 1 for *any* week has "won" an
important race. It's a lifetime achievement, not a mere transitory
position in a larger endeavor. Goolagong achieved the No. 1 ranking
for two weeks 31 years after the fact, thanks to a recalculation, and
it was still a great accomplishment for her!

[arahim]

Federer is 990 points behind Djokovic for the year. He has a strong
record at year end championships. If he wins it without a loss that is
1500 points. Djokovic will be in the other group and in case of a
Federer win will get only a maximum of a 1000 points. So kto keep it
on his racket at the year end Federer needs to outscore Djokovic by
500 points from here to the year end championships. Points from last
year won't matter for the year end number 1.

> It seems like Fed will withdraw from Shanghai but play Basel, Paris

> and the WTC. Just a hunch.- Hide quoted text -

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 18.9.2012 0:48, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
> No. The Bleacher Report offers amateur (and usually amateurish) pieces
> of punditry masquerading as tennis journalism. The poll that I cited
> is a perfectly good unscientific poll, as these things go. It
> certainly canvassed the opinions of far more tennis fans than those
> who populate RST.

Let me guess, had the conclusion been against you, you would have
pointed out it's a self-selected POS in a jiffy?

Since you're in accord with it, it's a "perfectly good unscientific
poll" and you even slip on the turd by claiming numbers actually make it
more credible. Zot, zot. Not good. Not good at all.

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 18.9.2012 12:54, TT wrote:
> 18.9.2012 5:08, Ted S. kirjoitti:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>
>>>>> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>>>>> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
>>>>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>>>>
>>>> Well they're wrong.
>>>
>>> LOL. This calls for a DavidW argument about how a thing's prestige is
>>> determined by the prestige actually conferred on it ....
>>
>> As I've asked before, why is being #1 on December 31 better than being
>> #1 on August 8, Pluvi�se 3, or Nisan 7?
>>
>
> And why is Grand Slam better than non calendar slam...

Exactly. How hard can this be?

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 18, 12:40 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
> On 18.9.2012 0:48, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
>
>
> > No. The Bleacher Report offers amateur (and usually amateurish) pieces
> > of punditry masquerading as tennis journalism. The poll that I cited
> > is a perfectly good unscientific poll, as these things go. It
> > certainly canvassed the opinions of far more tennis fans than those
> > who populate RST.
>
> Let me guess, had the conclusion been against you, you would have
> pointed out it's a self-selected POS in a jiffy?

ALL tennis opinion-gathering is unscientific. Who would pay to conduct
serious research on the subject of how tennis fans feel about some
obscure GOAT metric? No claim about what the masses of tennis fans
believe has a reliable statistical foundation. The difference is that
your claim (which I suppose favors years at No. 1, although in typical
Pelle-say-nothing fashion, you evade the main point) doesn't even have
informal evidence to bolster it. If you'd prefer to ignore all
summaries of opinion that haven't been peer-reviewed, go right ahead.
Perhaps you find Whisper's declarations of the "expert" consensus more
reliable.

> Since you're in accord with it, it's a "perfectly good unscientific
> poll" and you even slip on the turd by claiming numbers actually make it
> more credible. Zot, zot. Not good. Not good at all.

I'll get back to you after I've run that sputum through the universal
translator.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 18.9.2012 18:57, Joe Ramirez wrote:

> On Sep 18, 12:40 pm, Pelle Svansl�s <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>> On 18.9.2012 0:48, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> No. The Bleacher Report offers amateur (and usually amateurish) pieces
>>> of punditry masquerading as tennis journalism. The poll that I cited
>>> is a perfectly good unscientific poll, as these things go. It
>>> certainly canvassed the opinions of far more tennis fans than those
>>> who populate RST.
>>
>> Let me guess, had the conclusion been against you, you would have
>> pointed out it's a self-selected POS in a jiffy?
>
> ALL tennis opinion-gathering is unscientific. Who would pay to conduct
> serious research on the subject of how tennis fans feel about some
> obscure GOAT metric? No claim about what the masses of tennis fans
> believe has a reliable statistical foundation.

So? Whether or not what you say is true, relevant, or anything, a zero
is a zero is a zero no matter how you dress it up.

> The difference is that
> your claim (which I suppose favors years at No. 1, although in typical
> Pelle-say-nothing fashion, you evade the main point)

You got it. I haven't stated anything. Should I?

> doesn't even have
> informal evidence to bolster it. If you'd prefer to ignore all
> summaries of opinion that haven't been peer-reviewed, go right ahead.
> Perhaps you find Whisper's declarations of the "expert" consensus more
> reliable.
>
>> Since you're in accord with it, it's a "perfectly good unscientific
>> poll" and you even slip on the turd by claiming numbers actually make it
>> more credible. Zot, zot. Not good. Not good at all.
>
> I'll get back to you after I've run that sputum through the universal
> translator.

It's perfectly readble.

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[TennisGuy]

On Sep 17, 7:47 pm, pltrgyst <pltrg...@xhost.org> wrote:

> You might have noticed that when Ferrero announced his impending
> retirement, every article I read mentioned that he was a former #1
> ranked player -- but not a single one, or a single tv commentator,
> mentioned that he was a year-end #1.

That's because year-end #1 doesn't sound sexy.
Year-beginning #1, is sexier!

[number_six]

In spring training, every baseball team believes they are a contender.

Similarly, at the beginning of the tennis year, every player can say
"I'm tied for top position in the Race to the O2 Arena!"

Then the grind begins, and reality accumulates one week at a time.

[MBDunc]

tiistai, 18. syyskuuta 2012 14.41.29 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> I have never considered 'weeks' a meaningful stat. Many weeks are
>
> awarded for 'dead' periods in the calendar. All that matters is who was
>
> No.1 for any particular yr - ie yr-end.

for a such meanless stat...you were quite noisy here about 286 vs 285 weeks issue until this Summer...

.mikko

[TT]

It's meaningful, in OE context. Compared to all-time not at all.

Both are important records though... but I think YE is a bit more. Then
again it's not Sampy who holds that...

[felangey]

> Both are important records though... but I think YE is a bit more.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/260114_198936680238319_1005112315_n.jpg

[Whisper]

You failed.

A guy who finishes yr-end no.1 but has only a couple weeks at no.1
during the year is an invalid analysis. You're conflating 2 different
concepts. The rolling No.1 ranking that looks at previous 12 months is
a construct for seeding purposes only. It can never tell us who
accumulated the most points in a tennis season. That can only be known
towards the end of the year. If you're no.1 Jan to May it means nothing
in terms of who accumulated most points in the tennis season. You can't
win the race at halfway mark. You're factoring in results from a
different tennis season altogether - that's bogus.

My marathon analogy applies perfectly to rolling No.1 ranking. If a guy
who only has 4 weeks at no.1 during calendar year, but finishes yr-end
No.1, is lesser than the other guy who was no.1 for 48 weeks during the
year & finished no.2, then the marathon winner who only led for 1km out
of 42 (the last km) is lesser than the guy who finished 2nd but led for
the 1st 41km. The marathon winner is lesser because he only led for a
very short time, right at the end.

That's your position, & I've explained here perfectly why it's brain
dead & retarded. Unless you have something intelligent to say & not
just more Fedfucking bs that convinces no one, please refrain.

[Whisper]

Say what you like, but yr-end no.1 is always the goal. The rolling
ranking is essential, but only for seeding purposes. That's why it was
invented - just to seed the players so we don't get Fed v Rafa in early
rds & Schlomo in final.

[Whisper]

Can you tell me why we need No.1 ranking on a rolling basis, if not for
seeding purposes?

No you can't.

[Whisper]

I've been pretty consistent in endorsing yr-end No.1. It passes all the
logic tests. 'Seeding constructs' have no prestige.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:32:43 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

OK, let's take a concrete example to illustrate my point. Suppose we have 3 players, A, B and C, who won all the majors during two calendar years:

A wins AO and FO in 2021
B wins W and USO in 2021, AO and FO in 2022
C wins W and USO in 2022.

For simplicity let's assume that their performances when not winning were all equal, e.g. reached semis.

Now let's assume that A did slightly better than B in the minor tournaments in 2021 and C did the same in 2022. Then we would have the situation where B won twice the number of majors of A or C, and a NCYS to boot, but won't get any YE#1, while A and C did about half as well as B, but got one YE#1 each.

Now if we count the number of weeks at the top, then A and C would have roughly 26 weeks each and B would have roughly 52 weeks, which more or less reflects their real relative successes.

So as you can see, YE#1 tells you nothing about the relative strength or success of a player, no. of weeks at the top tells you all you need to know.

I challenge you to find a counter-example where it is not so (i.e. where YE#1 is a better indicator than weeks at the top). But I suspect you won't be able to do so, instead will just continue to blindly utter obscenities! :)

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Sep 19, 2:21 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:32:43 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

You suck. You failed. You're a bogan. You are a sniveling fedfucker
and not worth responding to. The entire tennis world agrees with
Whimpy. You are wasting precious bandwidth. You could be gay, too.

[bob]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:

>On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

>> > It seems like Fed will withdraw from Shanghai but play Basel, Paris
>>

>> > and the WTC. Just a hunch.
>>
>> I hope he plays Shanghai to get to that 300th week. That would be much more impressive than YE#1.
>

>There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
>weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.

that fed a popular man....

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:31:41 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>

wrote:

>On 18/09/2012 9:56 PM, ahonkan wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 4:43 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 18/09/2012 8:22 AM, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>

>>>>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>>>

>>>> YE#1 is just a relic of the pre-ATP days when records were not kept properly to calculate true 52-week ranking throughout the year.
>>>
>>> Weeks at no.1 would only be meaningful if players actually played 52
>>> weeks every year. If a guy plays 24 weeks, why get credit for 52?
>>> Sounds dumb to me.
>>
>> Accepted. Somebody brought that up. But that will apply
>> only to those who happened to be #1 at the end of the
>> tennis season. It will reduce a bunch of weeks for people
>> like Connors, Lendl, Sampras & Fed and also from Rafa
>> & Djoker. The net result will show zero change - Fed will
>> still be #1, Sampras #2 and so on. That's why people
>> don't bother with the correction for dead weeks.
>>
>
>
>It's an artificially inflated & bogus stat.

it certainly is. and IMO not a very relevant 1.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:54:04 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>18.9.2012 5:08, Ted S. kirjoitti:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>

>>>>> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>>>>> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most

>>>>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>>>>

>>>> Well they're wrong.
>>>
>>> LOL. This calls for a DavidW argument about how a thing's prestige is
>>> determined by the prestige actually conferred on it ....
>>
>> As I've asked before, why is being #1 on December 31 better than being

>> #1 on August 8, Pluviôse 3, or Nisan 7?
>>
>
>And why is Grand Slam better than non calendar slam... Why does Mac hold
>OE record for best year in Win percentage etc etc.
>
>Because tennis schedule is calendar year.

yeah.

in other sports, the season may not be a calendar year, and may bridge
from 1 year to the next, but in tennis the calendar year is the
closest/ best thing we have to a "season". starts in january, ends in
november. an overly long and poorly scheduled "season", but that's
what we have.

imagine if in NBA somebody tallies up january - december: meaningless.
it's like in tennis the "running total" is for seeding only. YE#1 is
like who "won" the super bowl, nba championship, etc.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:

>On Sep 18, 12:40�pm, Pelle Svansl�s <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>> On 18.9.2012 0:48, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > No. The Bleacher Report offers amateur (and usually amateurish) pieces
>> > of punditry masquerading as tennis journalism. The poll that I cited
>> > is a perfectly good unscientific poll, as these things go. It
>> > certainly canvassed the opinions of far more tennis fans than those
>> > who populate RST.
>>
>> Let me guess, had the conclusion been against you, you would have
>> pointed out it's a self-selected POS in a jiffy?
>
>ALL tennis opinion-gathering is unscientific.

> Who would pay to conduct
>serious research on the subject of how tennis fans feel about some
>obscure GOAT metric?

:-)

> No claim about what the masses of tennis fans
>believe has a reliable statistical foundation. The difference is that
>your claim (which I suppose favors years at No. 1, although in typical
>Pelle-say-nothing fashion, you evade the main point) doesn't even have
>informal evidence to bolster it. If you'd prefer to ignore all
>summaries of opinion that haven't been peer-reviewed, go right ahead.
>Perhaps you find Whisper's declarations of the "expert" consensus more
>reliable.

>> Since you're in accord with it, it's a "perfectly good unscientific
>> poll" and you even slip on the turd by claiming numbers actually make it
>> more credible. Zot, zot. Not good. Not good at all.

>I'll get back to you after I've run that sputum through the universal
>translator.

bob

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

The reason why YE#1 is such a poor measure of achievement is that you can get it with anywhere from one to four slams in a year. Sampras got 3 YE#1 from two-slam years and 3 more from 1-slam years. Federer got 3 of his from three-slam years and two from two-slam years. Lack of serious competition at the very top level means that Sampras could get his #YE1 not once but three times from single slam years. Weeks at the top has no such problem, or at least the problem is much less serious.

[MBDunc]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:39:54 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> YE#1 is like who "won" the super bowl, nba championship, etc. bob

It is a very nice bonus. I rate it high (propably higher than anyone here) but I also rate "weeks as #1" high and related #1 stats high too.

But more than everything : #1 stats are still "bonus" awards. Alone their relative complexity and arguability lessens their real value (like if we have "wrong" #1..or if there is just clear #1...or if #1 is get by luck alone and had not been in player's hands).

Computer rankings are not to blame...as some of those "authorities" based rankings were odd too (pre computer era, ITF player of the year awards etc).

.mikko

[joh]

On 18 sep, 15:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 10:44 PM, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:10 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> >> On 18/09/2012 10:31 PM, phamq...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >> Yr-end No.1 is all that matters pal, because it means for the calendar
>
> >> year you won the points race.  Understand?  It's not fucking rocket science.
>
> > You are the best if you are no.1 for the most number of weeks, not if you happens to be no.1 on Dec 31 and revert to no.2 at the next tournament. THAT is not rocket science.
>

> Do you understand the concept of 'accumulating most points in a  yr'?
> That's what yr-end No.1 means.
>
> Are you saying a guy who wins the marathon but didn't take the lead
> until 1 minute before the end is somehow bogus?

The basic unit of a marathon running is a marathon, the basic unit of
tennis is a match. YE#1 is an artificially inflated stat.
By playing any tournament within sight to get one Sampras put it
higher up the agenda, but in my opinion at the same time diminished
the value.

[Whisper]

Ok, but make it logical. Good luck.

>
> A wins AO and FO in 2021
> B wins W and USO in 2021, AO and FO in 2022
> C wins W and USO in 2022.
>
> For simplicity let's assume that their performances when not winning were all equal, e.g. reached semis.
>
> Now let's assume that A did slightly better than B in the minor tournaments in 2021 and C did the same in 2022. Then we would have the situation where B won twice the number of majors of A or C, and a NCYS to boot, but won't get any YE#1, while A and C did about half as well as B, but got one YE#1 each.

He didn't get twice as many majors in any year though.

>
> Now if we count the number of weeks at the top, then A and C would have roughly 26 weeks each and B would have roughly 52 weeks, which more or less reflects their real relative successes.

The marathon runner who led for 41 of 42 km gets screwed then? Where's
his reward for being the better runner for 98% of the race & 2nd best
for only 2%?

>
> So as you can see, YE#1 tells you nothing about the relative strength or success of a player, no. of weeks at the top tells you all you need to know.

Well the marathon winner who led for 2% shouldn't be rewarded more than
the guy who led 98% of the time.

>
> I challenge you to find a counter-example where it is not so (i.e. where YE#1 is a better indicator than weeks at the top). But I suspect you won't be able to do so, instead will just continue to blindly utter obscenities! :)
>

Lendl was No.1 for at least 6 months in total before he won a slam. Why?

Also why should it be a 12 month rolling system for the ranking, why not
2 yrs, or 5? That way Fed is no.1 until someone passes 17 slams.

The bottom line is the tennis season is based on calendar year. For the
true No.1 we look at who accumulated most points in that season. It's
completely retarded to straddle 2 seasons, or 3 as is the case in golf.

[MBDunc]

Your marathon example has always been very bad analogy and not applicable to tennis year-end #1.

If you want to use Marathon example in tennis look at this: Track & Field annual rankings for athletic events...including Marathon...(1947-> )

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/rankings

.mikko

[Whisper]

Speak english please.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:11:48 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

It's not hard to figure out why 12 months is the best period, but I'll leave it to you to work that one out! Using logic from time to time will be good for you :)

[bob]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Ulysses <uly...@mscomm.com>

fed is following the exact path that i predicted all last and this
year.

but dissing DC is completely self serving, and well, shameful.

bob

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <cfedna6k-L_Yw8XN...@westnet.com.au>,

beav...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
> Weeks at no.1 would only be meaningful if players actually played
> 52 weeks every year. If a guy plays 24 weeks, why get credit for
> 52? Sounds dumb to me.

Well, but no one plays all 52 weeks.

wg

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <k38bes$9ml$1...@dont-email.me>, as...@dprk.kp (TT) wrote:

> If 80% of posters are fedfans there and every fedfan answers
> "weeks" is more important (because fed has that record) - while the
> vote divides 50-50 between rest... (which makes 90% for "weeks")
> then the poll doesn't answer to the actual question but rather to
> the question how many fedfans are there.
> And of course many don't realize historical (or current) importance
> of the question to begin with, judging by the level of debate
> there...

It's actually not just about being a Federer fan. I was a tennis fan long
before Federer - and, crucially, before Sampras. It was Sampras who began
saying that #1 during the year didn't matter, only the year-end #1
mattered. (He said it around the time he lost the #1 ranking for a bit,
IIRC.) Before Sampras and then the advent of the Race although year-end
top ten lists were published, the emphasis was much more on how long you
managed to keep the ranking for - it seemed kind of obvious that being #1
for a continuous few years was the more impressive feat. But that was also
before the #1 ranking was devalued by not counting losses - back then, the
rankings were calculated as average points per tournament based on the
tier of the tournament and the rankings of the opponents you beat. Slams
always counted more, but they didn't have the same emphasis they do today
because the payouts weren't so huge; if you wanted to make real money
playing tennis you had to win a *lot* for a *long time*. You couldn't just
win one Slam and be set for life.

So some of us who are impressed by the number of weeks rather than just
the year-end ranking, it has to do with historical context and the
recognition that the sport's values as expressed in the rankings system
have changed over time.

wg

[bob]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:00:20 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:39:54 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> YE#1 is like who "won" the super bowl, nba championship, etc. bob

>It is a very nice bonus. I rate it high (propably higher than anyone here) but I also rate "weeks as #1" high and related #1 stats high too.

i hate to use the phrase "winning YE#1" and compare it to super bowl
for ex, as YE#1 is the result of winning something else that is
actually tangible. but if we're goign to attempt to pick a season,
calendar is by far the only possible fit for tennis. it is *far* more
important to be YE#1 then to be #1 for 2 wks in june.

>But more than everything : #1 stats are still "bonus" awards. Alone their relative complexity and arguability lessens their real value (like if we have "wrong" #1..or if there is just clear #1...or if #1 is get by luck alone and had not been in player's hands).
>Computer rankings are not to blame...as some of those "authorities" based rankings were odd too (pre computer era, ITF player of the year awards etc).

the computer system is obviously bogus, as evidenced with
serena/azarenka and many more. that's why take it with grain of salt.
but if you do put any value in it, put it in YE.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:47:00 -0400, pltrgyst <pltr...@xhost.org>
wrote:

>On 9/17/12 6:14 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
>> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>

>You might have noticed that when Ferrero announced his impending
>retirement, every article I read mentioned that he was a former #1
>ranked player -- but not a single one, or a single tv commentator,
>mentioned that he was a year-end #1.

well, yeah, you have to tout whatever little creds you have...

bob

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:11:48 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

That's not the counter-example you need. In order to show that YE#1 is a better indicator of performance than weeks at the top, you'd have to show all of the following:

- Lendl was not YE#1 during that period (else, YE#1 is just as bad an indicator as weeks at the top)

- Players who were YE#1 during that period won more points than Lendl (not just slam points, but points from all tournaments)

- Players who were YE#1 during that period had fewer weeks at the top than Lendl. (The latter two clauses will prove that YE#1 is a better indicator than weeks at the top).

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:48:34 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>On 18/09/2012 9:47 AM, pltrgyst wrote:
>> On 9/17/12 6:14 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>
>>> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>>> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
>>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>>
>> You might have noticed that when Ferrero announced his impending
>> retirement, every article I read mentioned that he was a former #1
>> ranked player -- but not a single one, or a single tv commentator,
>> mentioned that he was a year-end #1.
>>

>> -- Larry
>>
>
>
>I noticed they never said how many weeks he was No.1.

lol. yep. the fact he made it was great, how many wks, nobody cared.
and for for jcf, presumably they measured it in hours, not weeks...

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT),
phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:11:07 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

>> On 18/09/2012 10:44 PM, phamqu..@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:10 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

>>
>> >> On 18/09/2012 10:31 PM, phamqu..@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Yr-end No.1 is all that matters pal, because it means for the calendar
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> year you won the points race. Understand? It's not fucking rocket science.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You are the best if you are no.1 for the most number of weeks, not if you happens to be no.1 on Dec 31 and revert to no.2 at the next tournament. THAT is not rocket science.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> Do you understand the concept of 'accumulating most points in a yr'?
>>
>> That's what yr-end No.1 means.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying a guy who wins the marathon but didn't take the lead
>>
>> until 1 minute before the end is somehow bogus?
>
>Tennis ranking is not a marathon. It is based on 52 weeks' continuous achievement. Basically, it measures the number of tournaments that a player do well in, weighted by the importance of the tournaments. In the long run, the better player always have more weeks at the top than the lesser player, although the lesser player may often have more YE#1 (because the number of YE#1 is small, the effect of chance happenings is large so you often get results which do not reflect the true situation). Sorry about the kindergarten lecture, you asked for it.

your post wasn't kindergarten, it was preschool.

you clearly don't understand the meaning of a "season" in sports or
the best approach to a "season" that tennis can have.

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

Yes, I can. The No. 1 ranking exists for the same reason at all times,
whether in June or on December 31. The reason is to satisfy fans'
hunger (and that of players as well, I suppose) to identify the "best"
player, and to have a hierarchy to argue about. Rankings are a
tremendous promotional tool, as every sport understands. The fact that
tennis rankings are *used* for seeding does not mean that they exist
*only* to provide data for seeding.

Why do we in RST argue about GOAT rankings constantly? Why do you,
Whisper, regularly publish (though with less enthusiasm than before)
an all-time rankings list based on 7543? Are you seeding players for a
tournament? When does it begin? And why does golf need rankings?
Seeding isn't necessary at golf tournaments

The WTA announced in 2007 that Goolagong had been No. 1 for two weeks
in the spring of 1976. Two weeks! (Since the rankings were calculated
every two weeks back in those days, Goolagong actually had been No. 1
for the smallest possible unit of time.) And obviously not year-end.
The WTA gave Goolagong a trophy, belatedly, and she said, "I'm very
proud of the achievement. I was on a roll for that stretch in 1976. It
was a great surprise to hear after all these years."

The Aussie "experts" joyfully announced, "Australia has its first
women's tennis No.1 -- more than three decades after the event. Evonne
Goolagong Cawley will today receive a bonus prize when she is
announced as the retrospective holder of the coveted top ranking for a
two-week period in 1976." (Sydney Morning Herald)

Which 1976 tournament was being seeded in 2007?

[Vari L. Cinicke]

On 9/18/2012 4:29 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> tiistai, 18. syyskuuta 2012 14.41.29 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>>
>> I have never considered 'weeks' a meaningful stat. Many weeks are
>>
>> awarded for 'dead' periods in the calendar. All that matters is who was
>>
>> No.1 for any particular yr - ie yr-end.
>
> for a such meanless stat...you were quite noisy here about 286 vs 285 weeks issue until this Summer...
>
> .mikko
>

Give Whisper credit for recognizing when yet another of his Sampras
balloons have been burst. He adapts rather well and is looking forward
to "It means nothing unless you are Greek" phase. ;)

[Paul]

WOUNDED MY ASS!!! HE'S GETTING TOO OLD FOR YOUNG MAN'S
TENNIS!!!

HE'S GONNA TAKE A BREAK....PERMANENTLY!!!

RETIRE NOW, ROGER!!! IT'S INEVITABLE!!!

THANKS BE TO ALLAH!!! TENNIS WILL LOVE YOU FOR IT!!!

[bob]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:42 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>On 18/09/2012 11:23 PM, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:11:07 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Do you understand the concept of 'accumulating most points in a yr'?
>>>
>>> That's what yr-end No.1 means.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying a guy who wins the marathon but didn't take the lead
>>>
>>> until 1 minute before the end is somehow bogus?
>>

>> Tennis ranking is not a marathon. It is based on 52 weeks' continuous achievement. Basically, it measures the number of tournaments that a player do well in, weighted by the importance of the tournaments. In the long run, the better player always have more weeks at the top than the lesser player, although the lesser player may often have more YE#1 (because the number of YE#1 is small, the effect of chance happenings is large so you often get results which do not reflect the true situation). Sorry about the kindergarten lecture, you asked for it.
>>
>
>

>You failed.
>
>A guy who finishes yr-end no.1 but has only a couple weeks at no.1
>during the year is an invalid analysis. You're conflating 2 different
>concepts. The rolling No.1 ranking that looks at previous 12 months is
>a construct for seeding purposes only. It can never tell us who
>accumulated the most points in a tennis season. That can only be known
>towards the end of the year. If you're no.1 Jan to May it means nothing
>in terms of who accumulated most points in the tennis season. You can't
>win the race at halfway mark. You're factoring in results from a
>different tennis season altogether - that's bogus.
>
>My marathon analogy applies perfectly to rolling No.1 ranking. If a guy
>who only has 4 weeks at no.1 during calendar year, but finishes yr-end
>No.1, is lesser than the other guy who was no.1 for 48 weeks during the
>year & finished no.2, then the marathon winner who only led for 1km out
>of 42 (the last km) is lesser than the guy who finished 2nd but led for
>the 1st 41km. The marathon winner is lesser because he only led for a
>very short time, right at the end.
>
>That's your position, & I've explained here perfectly why it's brain
>dead & retarded. Unless you have something intelligent to say & not
>just more Fedfucking bs that convinces no one, please refrain.

excellent concepts. the thing people don't want to grasp (depending on
their bias) is the tennis "season" if you will is broken down by
calendar. it's a bit of a haphazard type season compared to some other
sports, yes, but whether YEC has any value is not important, but
there's a reason we all (even the fedfans) call it year end
championship. it is signifying the tennis year end.

in other sports like usa football, season goes september to february.
so calendar yr is meaningless, the 2012-2013 "season" is how it's
described. but tennis, it's the calendar year for all practical
purposes.

bob

[bob]

ranking isn't about who achieved what during the year. that's what the
slams and other tournaments are for. it is for seeding purposes. the
YE #1 is the only ranking that has any meaning at all in terms of what
you achieved in a tennis "season".

i know it seems kinda weak in tennis but the calendar year is really
the only concept of a tennis "season."

bob

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

If YE#1 was such a good performance indicator as Whisper apparently believes, why doesn't the ATP use it for seeding purposes for ALL tournaments of the following year? So, until we have Whisper and Bob running the ATP, we shall be satisfied that tennis officials and players who make up the ATP all agree with the rest of us that weekly ranking is the best indicator of performance at any time - including at the end of the year, when it is called YE#1.

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:41:35 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>On 18/09/2012 8:14 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:

>> On Sep 17, 6:04 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:34:25 AM UTC+10, Ulysses wrote:
>>>> On Sep 17, 12:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 3:42 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 12:39 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>>>> Are you absolutely stunned as I am Uly? :)
>>>
>>>>>> BEYOND DEVASTATED!!! I hope this is just P.R. and not indicative of
>>>
>>>>>> him really wanting to withdraw from the Asian or indoor swing.
>>>
>>>>> Federer would be singing a different tune if he had equaled or
>>>
>>>>> surpassed Djokovic's performance at the U.S. Open. That would have
>>>
>>>>> placed Fed in a strong position in the 2012 points race, enabling him
>>>
>>>>> to push for year-end No. 1 with confidence. But the Djoker
>>>
>>>>> outperformed Fed by two rounds at the USO, and now has a handsome lead
>>>
>>>>> in the race. Federer would have to play a very full fall schedule, and
>>>
>>>>> play very well, just to have chance of catching Djokovic, and even
>>>
>>>>> then it wouldn't be guaranteed. Fed is probably trying to decide if
>>>
>>>>> the prize is worth the potential investment at this point. He does
>>>
>>>>> need a break, and if Basel-level tournaments won't yield him anything
>>>
>>>>> beyond the titles themselves, why not ease off for a while?
>>>
>>>> Excellent post. Fed has 3,000 points to defend in the autumn and
>>>
>>>> Djoker has very little to defend. Sampras went all-out in the fall
>>>
>>>> swing to end the year #1 for his sixth straight year but he was 4
>>>
>>>> years younger than Fed.
>>>
>>>> It seems like Fed will withdraw from Shanghai but play Basel, Paris
>>>
>>>> and the WTC. Just a hunch.
>>>
>>> I hope he plays Shanghai to get to that 300th week. That would be much more impressive than YE#1.
>>

>> There was a poll on the Tennis Warehouse forum asking which record is
>> more important: most weeks at No. 1 or most year-ends at No. 1. "Most
>> weeks" received more than 90% of the vote.
>>
>
>
>

>I have never considered 'weeks' a meaningful stat. Many weeks are
>awarded for 'dead' periods in the calendar. All that matters is who was
>No.1 for any particular yr - ie yr-end.
>

>I'm guessing among high IQ types the poll would be reversed.

well considering all of high IQ types in RST, the poll stands at 2-0
for reversal! :-)

(man, i hope the others take my post in jest...)

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 19, 3:32 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> My marathon analogy applies perfectly to rolling No.1 ranking.

Completely wrong, as has been pointed out to you many times. Being
ranked No. 1 *at any time* is an achievement in itself; leading a
marathon somewhere along the way is not. Racers who lead a marathon
halfway through do not get trophies. There is no official record for
most times leading a race at the midpoint. After a marathon is over,
no one cares or even remembers for long who was leading at any
particular point.

[bob]

just as value of some slams have changed. so it's a tough pickle, but
since all the johnny come latelies and fedfans have chose to pick
fed's fave's as the highest value, they should sleep with it. like OG.

bob

[bob]

any win or ranking is an achievement. we're trying to rank importance.

the whole thing boils down to if you believe the calendar year really
represents tennis in a "season" as an nba or nfl season would stand.
it's ok if you don't, IMO is a bit of a "weakly defined" season, but
still calendar year is what we have and it's historically the most
relevant to use. make sense too. in that context, YE #1 is truly more
important than 26th wk #1. i think you agree, just want to argue
against.

bob

[bob]

why? this has nothing to do with the argument. it's an achievement
(not performance) indicator of previous year...

bob

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:25:31 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:05:08 -0700 (PDT),
>

If achievement is not based on performance then what is it based on? luck? If so I much prefer performance.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 19, 10:23 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>

No, you are confused. I've already stated that I regard year-end No.1
as important. This means that being No. 1 at the end of the year is
more important than being No. 1 for a week in the middle of June. But
that's not the real issue here, which is whether the record for most
year-ends at No. 1 *in a career* is more or less important than the
record for most total weeks at No.1 in a career.

[ca1houn]

On Monday, September 17, 2012 3:34:40 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

> Well they're wrong. Obviously most are fedfans there, it's a true
>
> cesspit. That's as good a reference as bleacher report...
>
>
>
> YE #1 is more important because you can compare that all-time, imo.

TT let that shit go. Let you tell it, people might start to believe winning Monte Carlo 7 plus time was/is better then having the record for weeks at number one