weeks at #1 silliness
stephenJ
Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
*skriptis
"stephenJ" <sja...@pop.com> wrote in message
news:EbkNn.36022$rU6....@newsfe10.iad...
> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>
> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
What's so silly about them being lesser versions of Safin, unable to hold
onto #1 ranking?
Raja, The Great
Hewitt was twice year end #1, Wilander only once, Becker never.
Roddick was year end #1 once, Becker never
Conclusion: Steve Jaros is a twat
Scall5
>
> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
Isn't the weeks at #1 ranking for Gustavo Kuerten flawed because the dumbass
ATP countdown to #1 that we saw a few years back?
--
Scall5
*skriptis
"Raja, The Great" <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a7e21df-8270-4a85...@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
???
You're retarded.
*skriptis
"Scall5" <nos...@home.net> wrote in message
news:-YOdnVddfM_DSZjR...@insightbb.com...
No, he reached #1 on the last week of 2000 if I am not mistaken. So he never
could have benefited. It's only possible he was robbed ie, that he would
have gotten sooner to the #1 using old system.
MBDunc
> "Scall5" <nos...@home.net> wrote in message
>
> news:-YOdnVddfM_DSZjR...@insightbb.com...
>
>
>
> >news:EbkNn.36022$rU6....@newsfe10.iad...
> >> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>
> >> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> >> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>
> > Isn't the weeks at #1 ranking for Gustavo Kuerten flawed because the
> > dumbass ATP countdown to #1 that we saw a few years back?
> > --
> > Scall5
>
> No, he reached #1 on the last week of 2000 if I am not mistaken. So he never
> could have benefited. It's only possible he was robbed ie, that he would
> have gotten sooner to the #1 using old system.
No, "race" rankings have been washed out of ranking systems years ago
(for example Safin got credit for his #1 weeks a bit afterwards 2000
as then (stupid) race countdown was marketed. (remember when Magnus
Norman was leading the race 2000 and he was touted as #1 at some
media.... ;) ).
There is no shame of Hewitt's #1 weeks. Both years he won a slam and
then capped his year with YEC title. May be he was a bit lucky that
Kuerten got injured 2001 as Kuerten had great year up until USO 2001,
when his hip gave up. That gave room for Hewitt and he took his
chances.
.mikko
*skriptis
"MBDunc" <mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message
news:ddab29c6-e8e6-4406...@r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
On 2 kes�, 06:57, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> "Scall5" <nos...@home.net> wrote in message
>
> news:-YOdnVddfM_DSZjR...@insightbb.com...
>
>
>
> > "stephenJ" <sjar...@pop.com> wrote in message
> >news:EbkNn.36022$rU6....@newsfe10.iad...
> >> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>
> >> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> >> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>
> > Isn't the weeks at #1 ranking for Gustavo Kuerten flawed because the
> > dumbass ATP countdown to #1 that we saw a few years back?
> > --
> > Scall5
>
> No, he reached #1 on the last week of 2000 if I am not mistaken. So he
> never
> could have benefited. It's only possible he was robbed ie, that he would
> have gotten sooner to the #1 using old system.
>No, "race" rankings have been washed out of ranking systems years ago
>(for example Safin got credit for his #1 weeks a bit afterwards 2000
>as then (stupid) race countdown was marketed. (remember when Magnus
>Norman was leading the race 2000 and he was touted as #1 at some
>media.... ;) ).
I am not talking about race points.
I don't know what was was system like in the 90s, did they change it in 2000
(from something to 1000-700-450) when they introduced atp race (200-140-90)
as well. I believe the ratio was different in the 90s.
What I am saying is, I am quite sure Kuerten reached #1 (entry) only after
winning YEC for the first time, just in time to seal year-end #1.
I was paying attention at the time on the "real" rankings as well..not just
race.
So he could not have "robbed" anyone of some extra weeks at #1, because he
reached #1 only after whole 52 weeks have passed, ie, his #1 ranking bas
based entirely on a single (new) ranking system.
MBDunc
> "MBDunc" <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ddab29c6-e8e6-4406...@r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
They did change it significantly with dropping quality points and
moving from best-14 into mandatory events (slams, master series) + 5
optionals. With quality points included the losing finalist had a
chance to be very close to winner's points.
For example this is one more extreme example Sampras got 637p from his
USO title 1993 and the finalist Pioline got 499p . (78% of Sampras'
points).
Also 95 USO final: Sampras got 769p when Agassi got 555p (72%).
.mikko
Whisper
Sure, but we're talking an all time record - not splitting guys ranked
25-30.
Sakari Lund
I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
career slams and 7543.
:-)
Inglourious Basterd
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>
> >Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> >Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>
> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
> career slams and 7543.
>
> :-)
LOL.
Somehow 7543 has been sidelined for some while now, what is the reason
for that I wonder..........?
Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
Superdave
I think Whisper/bob/skriptis will eventually decide that whoever has
the second highest 7543 score AND who has won Rome once is the goat.
The Rome win is enough to put #2 over the top especially if they have beaten
? FO champs !
Yup.
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Iceberg
yes, fair enough to Hewitt, there were times around 2001 when Hewitt,
esp after he won Wimbledon, looked invincible.
Iceberg
> >Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>
> >Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> >Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>
> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
> career slams and 7543.
>
> :-)
how? we all know 6 CONSECUTIVE years at number 1 is THE RECORD to have
- Sampras even says that in his book.
Iceberg
it only been sidelined cos the formula is still open for debate after
Sampras said in his book that consecutive years is an important factor
in determining GOAT status. Thought you Fedfans would be happy, you
kept hollering every other post that it was wrong.
Inglourious Basterd
Well if Pete says it, it must be true!
john
"Iceberg" <iceber...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1c42579f-9592-4764...@e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Gives us the link on where Sampras actually said the above. I certainly
heard
Sampras said Federer was a greater player than him that was even when
Federer
did not have FO in may last year and since then he added 3 more slams.
john
We all know Sampras also said Federer is a greater player than him even
without last year's FO.
TT
Whisper
Sampras also has 6 yr-end No.1's in a row, v 4 for Fed (5 overall).
At this point Sampras is the dominant No.1.
Whisper
Well, he was 2 points from losing to Schalken at Wimbledon 2002 (won 7-5
in 5th), but yes won his other 6 matches in straights.
Superdave
er .... no he is not.
Whisper
If Fed had Sampras' no.1 stats then Fed would be the best. That's how
this game works - we go on facts.
Javier González Nicolini
Well, if we're taking Sampras' word as the decider, I'll leave you
with this chestnut from the gospel of St. Pete:
“What he’s [Federer] done over the past five years has never, ever
been done — and probably will never, ever happen again,” Sampras said
in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Regardless if he
won there or not, he [Federer] goes down as *the greatest ever*. This
just confirms it.”
Javier González Nicolini
> john wrote:
> > "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
This is from the AP:
PARIS - Pete Sampras already figured Roger Federer would go down as
the greatest tennis player in history.
That Federer tied Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slam titles by winning
the French Open on Sunday only reinforced that opinion.
“What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done —
and probably will never, ever happen again,” Sampras said in a
telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Regardless if he won
there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just *confirms*
it.”
(emphasis mine).
Full article here:
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/31153649/ns/sports-tennis/
stephenj
Yes, rajarocker supports my point, yet thinks he's refuting it. Astonishing.
kaennorsing
Total weeks in a row is far more significant than total year *endings*
in a row, simply because you can lose it every week and can't get
lucky for a few weeks at the end of the year. Have to be dominant
throughout.
Looking at the 102 weeks in a row by Sampras and the 237 by Federer it
really is a no brainer who was the more dominant #1. A small child
easily understands, but you...?
TT
> On Jun 2, 7:55 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 12:41 pm, Inglourious Basterd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>>>>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
>>>>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>>>> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
>>>> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
>>>> career slams and 7543.
>>>> :-)
>>> LOL.
>>> Somehow 7543 has been sidelined for some while now, what is the reason
>>> for that I wonder..........?
>>> Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
>>> the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
>> it only been sidelined cos the formula is still open for debate after
>> Sampras said in his book that consecutive years is an important factor
>> in determining GOAT status. Thought you Fedfans would be happy, you
>> kept hollering every other post that it was wrong.
>
> Well, if we're taking Sampras' word as the decider, I'll leave you
> with this chestnut from the gospel of St. Pete:
>
> been done � and probably will never, ever happen again,� Sampras said
> in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. �Regardless if he
> won there or not, he [Federer] goes down as *the greatest ever*. This
I believe Sampras also said that Fed has dominated more than any athlete
in any sport ever...which was totally clueless.
stephenj
the problem is that the points system is borked, so can't be relied on.
PedroDias
And there are so very very many facts to choose amongst...
You are a lot more dishonest than I ever thought you were. And I
thought you were pretty damn dishonest.
TT
>> john wrote:
>>> "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d54f4bbd-f481-4192...@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>>>>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
>>>>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>>>> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
>>>> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
>>>> career slams and 7543.
>>>> :-)
>>>> how? we all know 6 CONSECUTIVE years at number 1 is THE RECORD to have
>>>> - Sampras even says that in his book.
>>> We all know Sampras also said Federer is a greater player than him even
>>> without last year's FO.
>> No, he did not say that.
>
> This is from the AP:
> PARIS - Pete Sampras already figured Roger Federer would go down as
> the greatest tennis player in history.
>
> the French Open on Sunday only reinforced that opinion.
>
> and probably will never, ever happen again,� Sampras said in a
> telephone interview with The Associated Press. �Regardless if he won
> there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just *confirms*
Well that just confirms that Sampras has no clue. Never heard of Tilden etc.
Never ever happen again, that's ridiculous. 14+ majors is a peanuts
record for all time best...if that's what he was talking about.
>
> (emphasis mine).
>
> Full article here:
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/31153649/ns/sports-tennis/
I don't bother since he knows nothing about the sport/sports and records.
PedroDias
> Javier González Nicolini wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 7:55 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 2, 12:41 pm, Inglourious Basterd
>
> >> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
> >>>>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> >>>>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
> >>>> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
> >>>> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
> >>>> career slams and 7543.
> >>>> :-)
> >>> LOL.
> >>> Somehow 7543 has been sidelined for some while now, what is the reason
> >>> for that I wonder..........?
> >>> Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
> >>> the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
> >> it only been sidelined cos the formula is still open for debate after
> >> Sampras said in his book that consecutive years is an important factor
> >> in determining GOAT status. Thought you Fedfans would be happy, you
> >> kept hollering every other post that it was wrong.
>
> > Well, if we're taking Sampras' word as the decider, I'll leave you
> > with this chestnut from the gospel of St. Pete:
>
> > been done — and probably will never, ever happen again,” Sampras said
> > in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Regardless if he
> > won there or not, he [Federer] goes down as *the greatest ever*. This
>
> I believe Sampras also said that Fed has dominated more than any athlete
> in any sport ever...which was totally clueless.
Not totally: he's just not aware of a whole bunch of other sports,
apparently. In any case, if you factor in participation in the sport,
as a way to determine the difficulty of said dominance, Federer is a
very credible contender. Not my choice in this particular category,
but credible.
What *is* true is that Federer has dominated far more than anyone else
in *his* sport, ever, and that by a comfortable margin.
TT
> On 2 jun, 14:57, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2010 9:41 PM, Inglourious Basterd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund<sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ<sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>>>>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
>>>>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>>>> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
>>>> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
>>>> career slams and 7543.
>>>> :-)
>>> LOL.
>>> Somehow 7543 has been sidelined for some while now, what is the reason
>>> for that I wonder..........?
>>> Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
>>> the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
>> Sampras also has 6 yr-end No.1's in a row, v 4 for Fed (5 overall).
>>
>> At this point Sampras is the dominant No.1.
>
> Total weeks in a row is far more significant than total year *endings*
> in a row, simply because you can lose it every week
No. Case in point Nadal getting injured and being able remove feds from
his false position only a year later.
>
> Looking at the 102 weeks in a row by Sampras and the 237 by Federer it
> really is a no brainer who was the more dominant #1. A small child
> easily understands, but you...?
Both are insignificant next to the power of the force, and total weeks
record.
TT
>
> What *is* true is that Federer has dominated far more than anyone else
> in *his* sport, ever, and that by a comfortable margin.
But that's not true.
Tilden dominated more, percentage wise.
Rosewall+Laver did better majors-wise
Nadal dominated more Masters-wise
Many dominated more rival-wise.
PedroDias
> PedroDias wrote:
>
> > What *is* true is that Federer has dominated far more than anyone else
> > in *his* sport, ever, and that by a comfortable margin.
>
> But that's not true.
>
> Tilden dominated more, percentage wise.
> Rosewall+Laver did better majors-wise
> Nadal dominated more Masters-wise
> Many dominated more rival-wise.
But no-one ever dominated more wise-wise. Deal with it.
*skriptis
"john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:j_2dnbaX1-1p0pvR...@westnet.com.au...
So a guy with 14 slams, 7 Wimbledons and 6 years as #1 says a guy with 13
slams, 5 Wimbledon and 4 years as #1 is greater than him?
john
"*skriptis" <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
news:hu5s0b$kid$1...@ss408.t-com.hr...
You can ask Sampras and he said that before the FO last year and of course
now it is
16 slam to 14, 5 years as No.1 with career grand slam better than 14 slam
without
a single FO and 6 years as #1.
>
>
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:6p6dnRm7pOa1yJvR...@westnet.com.au...
Federer is more dominant No.1 than Sampras. Sampras had 4 years in which he
won more than 2 grand slams compare to Federer's 5. Federer won at least 2
grand slam tournaments in 5 years when he finished the year
as No.1.
>
>
john
"TT" <n...@email.org> wrote in message
news:cstNn.15360$if1....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
> Javier Gonz�lez Nicolini wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 8:47 am, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>>> john wrote:
>>>> "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:d54f4bbd-f481-4192...@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>>>>>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
>>>>>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>>>>> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
>>>>> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
>>>>> career slams and 7543.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>> how? we all know 6 CONSECUTIVE years at number 1 is THE RECORD to have
>>>>> - Sampras even says that in his book.
>>>> We all know Sampras also said Federer is a greater player than him even
>>>> without last year's FO.
>>> No, he did not say that.
>>
>> This is from the AP:
>> PARIS - Pete Sampras already figured Roger Federer would go down as
>> the greatest tennis player in history.
>>
>> the French Open on Sunday only reinforced that opinion.
>>
>> and probably will never, ever happen again,� Sampras said in a
>> telephone interview with The Associated Press. �Regardless if he won
>> there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just *confirms*
>
> Well that just confirms that Sampras has no clue. Never heard of Tilden
> etc.
>
> Never ever happen again, that's ridiculous. 14+ majors is a peanuts record
> for all time best...if that's what he was talking about.
>
>
>>
>> (emphasis mine).
>>
>> Full article here:
>> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/31153649/ns/sports-tennis/
>
> I don't bother since he knows nothing about the sport/sports and records.
First you denied the fact that Sampras actually said it and when someone
proove it was true now
come the denial. Sampras know a lot more about the game than almost anyone
here in RST and
he was the one went out to chase the slam record 10 years ago. Now TT here
is telling us a
14 time grand slam champion knows nothing about the sport/sports and records
specially in a
sport he played 15 years as pro.
>
>
> --
> http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=gxQmjqi
Inglourious Basterd
Certainly true.
Even those who posit that Fed is GOAT when all factors are considered
can't realistically say he has dominated "far more" than anyone else.
Raja, The Great
Wrong on all accounts. Federer has been the most dominating in majors.
But that does not mean he dominated the tour far more than anyone.
None of his years compare of McEnroe of 1984 or Jimmy Connors of 1974.
If you go by the length of period of domination, I think Tilden/
Gonzales/Lendl dominated longer. Lendl had 5 years in which he had 90
plus win%. Federer hasnt had 5 such years.
stephenJ
where's the dishonesty? weeks at #1 and year-end #1 are considered to be
notable records by most. Not in the same category with slam wins, and it
really shouldn't be, not at least when comparing top champs, but it is.
--
"The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any
sudden
increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the
Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and
cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
- Georffrey Layman
stephenJ
> On 6/2/2010 1:26 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>>
>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>
>
> 25-30.
It's also a really bad measure for guys near the top. E.g., Lendl and
Connors both have twice as many weeks at #1 than Borg. How borked is that?
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
Javier González Nicolini
I believe Pedro refers to the fact that Whisper will go on facts when
it favors Sampras. When the facts turn for Federer, he disregards
them, disqualifies them, ignores them, and forgets them. Not that the
#1 stats are dishonest.
Patrick Kehoe
> john wrote:
> > "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:d54f4bbd-f481-4192...@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
> >>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> >>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
> >> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
> >> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
> >> career slams and 7543.
>
> >> :-)
>
> >> - Sampras even says that in his book.
>
> > We all know Sampras also said Federer is a greater player than him even
> > without last year's FO.
>
> No, he did not say that.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ That's correct... Sampras said Federer was the all time greatest at
Wimbledon 2009... it's on YouTube.com, the Official Wimbledon video of
the 2009 men's final, the quote was in the New York Times, the Times
of London, etc., etc...
:)))))))
P
*skriptis
"Patrick Kehoe" <pke...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:131495e8-3189-46d2...@40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> :)))))))
So make up your mind already.
bob
>Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>
>Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
>Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
clown era.
bob
bob
>I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
>stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
>career slams and 7543.
>
> :-)
is this 'sarcastic sakari' coming out to play again.....have to
remember beign #1 is the result of achievement. and being yr end #1
far outweights the mid yr's...
bob
bob
<ljub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2 jun, 14:57, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2010 9:41 PM, Inglourious Basterd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund<sakari.l...@welho.com> �wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ<sjar...@pop.com> �wrote:
>> >>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
>>
>> >>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
>> >>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
>>
>> >> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
>> >> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
>> >> career slams and 7543.
>>
>> >> � :-)
>>
>> > LOL.
>>
>> > Somehow 7543 has been sidelined for some while now, what is the reason
>> > for that I wonder..........?
>>
>> > Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
>> > the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
>>
>> Sampras also has 6 yr-end No.1's in a row, v 4 for Fed (5 overall).
>>
>> At this point Sampras is the dominant No.1.
>
>Total weeks in a row is far more significant than total year *endings*
>in a row
nope.
bob
stephenJ
> nope.
>
> bob
year-end #1 is clearly more prestigious than weeks at #1. E.g., better
to be year-end #1 and yet be #1 for 'only' 20 weeks during that calendar
year than to not be year-end #1 but be #1 for say 30 weeks that calendar
year.
--
Happiness is the poetry of womanhood, as clothes are its disguise.
- H. de Balzac
PedroDias
The dishonesty lies in the violent about-face Whispy has done on
virtually every belief about the game of tennis he ever claimed to
hold, purely for the sake of tearing down Federer. I'm not saying that
the various #1 records aren't valid measures - they are. But I feel
mildly nauseated by that little vermin's use of them.
PedroDias
> > bob wrote:
> > nope.
>
> > bob
>
> year-end #1 is clearly more prestigious than weeks at #1. E.g., better
> to be year-end #1 and yet be #1 for 'only' 20 weeks during that calendar
> year than to not be year-end #1 but be #1 for say 30 weeks that calendar
> year.
They measure slightly different things: if you get year-end number one
after switching back and forth at the top, it means the extent of your
dominance is lesser - by definition, since someone else was able to
rise to number one during that year.
Patrick Kehoe
++ Why? I'd want to be #1 more of the year rather than less... if I am
#1 for 30 weeks and my rival is #1 for 20 weeks in a year I KNOW I
have had a better year than he has in terms of being #1 and HE AND I
KNOW IT... so you load up and win in the silly season (the fall) and
scrap out a points lead at the end of the year... doesn't float my
boat...
P
arnab.z@gmail
People are way too confused about YE#1 and weeks at #1.
In YE#1, you are given the #1 player for a calendar year. It's a
special handpicked #1 whose ranking time-window coincides with the
calendar year.
The crucial question is this: Was the #1 ranking conceived as a "race
for the calendar year" kinda concept? The answer is an emphatic no. It
was conceived as a fluid, rolling concept. The #1 ranking is
refreshed, recalculated on a week-by-week basis. This is the original
concept of ranking players. It's rolling, it's fluid, it's refreshed
and updated every week. That's all there is to it. This is a very
powerful, elegant concept where all the players of the tour are
evaluated on a weekly basis.
Where does that leave YE#1? Well, YE#1 seems an artificial concept
where the "race for the calendar year" becomes the central issue. This
treats the players like Formula 1 racing drivers who want to
accumulate the highest number of points at the end of the year to win
the championship.
YE#1 is the Nascarisation of tennis. It's tennis ranking for simple-
minded people who just want to follow a yearly "race for the
championship" with a "championship winner" in the end. The elegance
and fluidity of the original weekly-updated ranking is completely lost
on them.
Whisper
>>> for that I wonder..........?
>>
>>> Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
>>> the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
>>
>> Sampras also has 6 yr-end No.1's in a row, v 4 for Fed (5 overall).
>>
>> At this point Sampras is the dominant No.1.
>
> lucky for a few weeks at the end of the year. Have to be dominant
> throughout.
Complete nonsense. Yr-end No.1 is obviously the top goal as far no.1
rankings go. You get a trophy for it. Good thing guys like you aren't
on the ATP committee - fark imagine that. There'd be trophies for every
obscure Federer stat.
>
> Looking at the 102 weeks in a row by Sampras and the 237 by Federer it
> really is a no brainer who was the more dominant #1. A small child
> easily understands, but you...?
Purely Fedfucker type analysis & of no consequence. Sampras is the all
time No.1 king, Jimbo 2nd.
Whisper
>>
>>>>> Somehow 7543 has been sidelined for some while now, what is the reason
>>>>> for that I wonder..........?
>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
>>>>> the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
>>
>>>> Sampras also has 6 yr-end No.1's in a row, v 4 for Fed (5 overall).
>>
>>>> At this point Sampras is the dominant No.1.
>>
>>
>> If Fed had Sampras' no.1 stats then Fed would be the best. That's how
>> this game works - we go on facts.
>
> And there are so very very many facts to choose amongst...
>
> You are a lot more dishonest than I ever thought you were. And I
> thought you were pretty damn dishonest.
The facts are Sampras has superior Wimbledon, USO & No.1 ranking stats.
It's dishonest denying it.
Sakari Lund
Yes, you really appreciated it when Lindsey Davenport achieved it.
Whisper
I guess Laver is better no.1 than Federer, given he won 4 slams in the 1 yr?
Oh wait - this doesn't apply as it doesn't favor Federer? Did I do good
like a good little Fedfucker?
Whisper
Indeed Fed is the only tier 1 great who was owned by his main rival.
That is unique.
kaennorsing
> kaennorsing wrote:
> > On 2 jun, 14:57, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund<sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:26:26 -0500, stephenJ<sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Andy Roddick has more career weeks at #1 than Boris Becker
> >>>>> Lleyton Hewitt has more weeks at #1 than Mats Wilander, Yvgeny
> >>>>> Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten, combined
> >>>> I think Whisper/bob/skriptis realized yesterday how hugely important
> >>>> stat career weeks at #1 actually is. Possibly more important than
> >>>> career slams and 7543.
> >>>> :-)
> >>> LOL.
> >>> Somehow 7543 has been sidelined for some while now, what is the reason
> >>> for that I wonder..........?
> >>> Nevertheless, Sampras himself will still be pleased that he retains
> >>> the weeks at No 1 record (that is, assuming Nadal wins the FO).
> >> Sampras also has 6 yr-end No.1's in a row, v 4 for Fed (5 overall).
>
> >> At this point Sampras is the dominant No.1.
>
> > in a row, simply because you can lose it every week
>
> his false position only a year later.
Why wasn't he good enough to amount more points and not let Federer
accumulate all those points in the first place? Let me help. It's the
same reason Nadal was #1 and didn't win a title in 6 months.
MBDunc
Haven't you said for years that Mac owned Borg?
.mikko
kaennorsing
The question was dominance as #1. Whimper claimed Sampras is the more
dominant #1 and that is clearly not true - as he lost his #1 position
more often than Federer *and* never accumulated nearly the same lead
while in that position. Pretty simple.
kaennorsing
Excellent post. The idea behind the rolling #1 concept in tennis is to
schedule players fairly in a draw. Or in other words to have the best
chance of having the best performers meet at the end of a tournament -
rather then the beginning.
I've never heard anybody ask "who was #1 at the end of last year?".
They ask "who is #1 right now?".
Whisper
This was an inappropriate occasion to call me dishonest. Facts are facts.
Whisper
wtf....?
I have given Federer his full credit as 7543 king, but clearly he isn't
better at Wimbledon, USO & No.1 stats than Sampras. Your childish
overreaction to facts that don't favor Fed is getting tiresome.
kaennorsing
Rather than Sampras who got owned by dozens of players, Federer got
owned only on his weakest surface by one single player - the possible
GOAT on that surface.
That obvously makes Federer much, much greater than Sampras. Thanks
for pointing it out!
Whisper
Nonsense. The No.1 ranking during the year is there only for seeding
purposes - ie we arbitrarily decided to look at last 12 months to see
who accumulated most points & rank him no.1 in tournaments. That is not
a real no.1 player as it takes into account results from 2 different
tennis years.
The real no.1 for any year is crystallized at the end of the calendar
year.
Whisper
> On Jun 2, 4:52 pm, stephenJ<sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> > bob wrote:
>>> nope.
>>
>>> bob
>>
>> year-end #1 is clearly more prestigious than weeks at #1. E.g., better
>> to be year-end #1 and yet be #1 for 'only' 20 weeks during that calendar
>> year than to not be year-end #1 but be #1 for say 30 weeks that calendar
>> year.
>>
>> --
>> Happiness is the poetry of womanhood, as clothes are its disguise.
>>
>> - H. de Balzac
>
> ++ Why? I'd want to be #1 more of the year rather than less... if I am
> #1 for 30 weeks and my rival is #1 for 20 weeks in a year I KNOW I
> have had a better year than he has in terms of being #1 and HE AND I
> KNOW IT...
You can't possibly be this dumb?
In your 30 weeks at 'no.1' you're counting results from a different
tennis year.
I have a feeling you are this dumb, & that saddens me... : (
kaennorsing
What about this occasion? You're dishonest.
Whisper
You have it completely arse about. The rolling No.1 is an arbitrary,
artificial construct. It's only purpose is to seed players for
tournaments based on recent performance. 12 months was chosen, but it
just easily could have been 6, 9 or 24 months. In any case it isn't
real. Yr-end No.1 is a very real, tangible achievement.
Wimbledon, FO etc are played once per year, not every 3 months or every
2 years. The tennis year is based on the traditional calendar year.
No.1 is decided by most points won in a calendar year. The history
books recognize yr-end No.1, & indeed ATP gives a trophy for it.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
You are right. There are very often much more appropriate occasions.
Superdave
why because you are scared he might be dumber than you are and bump you into
second place?
Whisper
I was going to say Mac was well on the way to completely dominating
Borg, but he had the sense to quit before their slam h2h became
ridiculously lopsided (as in Rafa v Fed).
On the surface Mac won 3 slam finals & lost 1 v Borg.
Borg fans can argue he lost USO final in 5 sets so it was close to 2-2,
but realistically Mac lost the 1st barely 6-8 in the 5th, then won last
3 in a row with each win getting more decisive. The writing was on the
wall.
It's a shame Borg quit as Mac was gearing for an awesome career,
probably woulda won > 14 slams & calendar slam.
*skriptis
Actually some of the players have asked for 24-month rolling ranking....to
prevent stress.
> Wimbledon, FO etc are played once per year, not every 3 months or every 2
> years. The tennis year is based on the traditional calendar year. No.1 is
> decided by most points won in a calendar year. The history books
> recognize yr-end No.1, & indeed ATP gives a trophy for it.
yes, also it's natural..it's all about natural cycles...seasons, years....
Whisper
er, clearly everyone asks 'who was no.1 for that year' - ie yr-end.
Your dumbness is overpowering.
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
beav...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
> >
> > Total weeks in a row is far more significant than total year
> > *endings*
> > in a row, simply because you can lose it every week and can't get
> > lucky for a few weeks at the end of the year. Have to be dominant
> > throughout.
>
>
> Complete nonsense. Yr-end No.1 is obviously the top goal as far
> no.1 rankings go. You get a trophy for it. Good thing guys like
> you aren't on the ATP committee - fark imagine that. There'd be
> trophies for every obscure Federer stat.
>
You get a trophy for becoming number 1 no matter when you do it.
wg
Inglourious Basterd
>
> It's a shame Borg quit as Mac was gearing for an awesome career,
> probably woulda won > 14 slams & calendar slam.
Why would Mac's career have been better if Borg had stayed around?
That makes no sense.
Whisper
er, which players owned Sampras....?
Your irrational Fed-love is causing you to make outright lies now -
pretty fucking sad man.
Superdave
thanks for that wendy !
Whisper
>
> yes, also it's natural..it's all about natural cycles...seasons, years....
>
>
It must be the idiot season in rst.
Whisper
> On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a shame Borg quit as Mac was gearing for an awesome career,
>
> Why would Mac's career have been better if Borg had stayed around?
> That makes no sense.
Mac was gearing for an epic career v Borg - never figured he'd quit.
Took the wind out of his sails. Competing with Lendl/Jimbo wasn't the
same as they were clearly a level down.
Rodjk #613
Obviously Lendl was a level down, as he won more slams, beat Mac more
in slams (7-3) and lead the H2H (21-15). Through the end of 81, he
lead Mac 3-2 in H2H and beat Mac 4 more times in 82.
Obviously, Mac could not see Lendl as a challenge when Borg retired.
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
I will support Whisper in this. I don't think he is dishonest, I think
he is just a troll who really is as ignorant as he appears to be. But
that is not dishonest.
Rodjk #613
stephenj
> On Jun 2, 7:52 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> > bob wrote:
>>> nope.
>>> bob
>> year-end #1 is clearly more prestigious than weeks at #1. E.g., better
>> to be year-end #1 and yet be #1 for 'only' 20 weeks during that calendar
>> year than to not be year-end #1 but be #1 for say 30 weeks that calendar
>> year.
>
> after switching back and forth at the top, it means the extent of your
> dominance is lesser - by definition, since someone else was able to
> rise to number one during that year.
That's true, but 5 years later nobody remembers that. If they remember
anything at all about #1, it's who the year-end #1 was.
E.g., who but an Agassi fan like me remembers that Agassi was #1 for
more weeks during 1995 than Sampras? Nobody, the only thing remembered
is that Sampras was year-end #1.
stephenj
> On Jun 2, 4:52 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> > bob wrote:
>>> nope.
>>> bob
>> year-end #1 is clearly more prestigious than weeks at #1. E.g., better
>> to be year-end #1 and yet be #1 for 'only' 20 weeks during that calendar
>> year than to not be year-end #1 but be #1 for say 30 weeks that calendar
>> year.
>>
>> Happiness is the poetry of womanhood, as clothes are its disguise.
>>
>> - H. de Balzac
>
> ++ Why?
Who knows why? I guess people put special emphasis on transitional
markers, like those between calendar years. But whatever the reason,
it's clear that players value year-end #1 as the most valuable
#1-related prize.
stephenj
> YE#1 is the Nascarisation of tennis. It's tennis ranking for simple-
> minded people who just want to follow a yearly "race for the
> championship" with a "championship winner" in the end. The elegance
> and fluidity of the original weekly-updated ranking is completely lost
> on them.
Perhaps so, and indeed from a match perspective being YE #1 is no
different than being #1 in July, but ... nevertheless YE #1 is indeed
what is most-valued, and not just by 'simple-minded' people, unless you
think all the players who have put forth extra effort to be YE #1, and
they are legion, are/were all dummies.
stephenj
> Wimbledon, FO etc are played once per year, not every 3 months or every
> 2 years. The tennis year is based on the traditional calendar year.
> No.1 is decided by most points won in a calendar year. The history
> books recognize yr-end No.1, & indeed ATP gives a trophy for it.
Yep.
arnab.z@gmail
No.
> The rolling No.1 is an arbitrary,
> artificial construct.
No, it's a well-established concept since 1973, the year when ATP an
algorithm-based rankings system was founded. The concept is almost 4
decades old. It's very, very real.
> It's only purpose is to seed players for
> tournaments based on recent performance.
No, its purpose to determine the best player for the period of last 52
weeks.
> 12 months was chosen, but it
> just easily could have been 6, 9 or 24 months.
How do you know this? Were you there when the system was conceived? Do
you know who came up with the system? Links? Othewise you have no
credibility on this.
> In any case it isn't
> real. Yr-end No.1 is a very real, tangible achievement.
>
Of course it is real. It has been real since 1973. Almost 4 decades.
> Wimbledon, FO etc are played once per year, not every 3 months or every
> 2 years.
Sure.
> The tennis year is based on the traditional calendar year.
The rankings are not about the calendar year or the "tennis year".
They operate on a rolling 52-week basis. They have been like this for
a long time. There was paradigm shift in how rankings are perceived
back in 1973. You need to catch up. You are almost 4 decades late.
Stop living in the 1960s.
> No.1 is decided by most points won in a calendar year.
Correction: the year end #1, that's only one kind of #1. There can
potentially be many different #1 players in the course of the same
calendar year. And they are all legitimate #1s. That's how it works.
The ranking system is a rolling concept.
> The history
> books recognize yr-end No.1, & indeed ATP gives a trophy for it.
You are being idiotic. All the tennis history books recognize all 24
#1 ATP-ranked male tennis players so far and present them in a list.
It doesn't matter whether they achieved their #1 ranking in July or
August or February. They are all considered legitimate #1 players.
stephenj
IIRC, YE #1 always gets a trophy. E.g., if you are YE #1 for 2007 you
get a trophy, and if you are YE #1 in 2009 you also get a trophy for
that year. But if you reach #1 any other time, you just get the trophy 1
time. E.g., if on June 1, 2009 i reach #1 and it's my first time at #1,
i get a trophy. But if lose the ranking and then later reach #1 say on
October 10, 2010 i don't get another trophy for that - unless my new
reign at #1 makes me YE #1.
arnab.z@gmail
Nonsense. I am not an Agassi fan and I remember very well that Agassi
was the #1 player for a good portion of 1995. The #1 ranking also
generates a lot of buzz throughout the year. And no, it's hardly an
issue of who is going to be seeded #1 in the next grand slam. The
media and the fans always talk fervently when there is a chance of a
new player becoming #1, e.g. the media and tennis fans talked about
Federer relinquishing his #1 throne to Nadal right after Wimbledon
1998, they didn't idiotically wait for the year to end. The ATP
updated its rankings and Nadal became the number one player the next
week.
MBDunc
> On 6/3/2010 9:24 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 kesä, 14:13, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On 6/3/2010 3:00 AM, Inglourious Basterd wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 2, 3:14 pm, TT<n...@email.org> wrote:
> >>>> PedroDias wrote:
>
> >>>>> What *is* true is that Federer has dominated far more than anyone else
> >>>>> in *his* sport, ever, and that by a comfortable margin.
>
> >>>> But that's not true.
>
> >>>> Tilden dominated more, percentage wise.
> >>>> Rosewall+Laver did better majors-wise
> >>>> Nadal dominated more Masters-wise
> >>>> Many dominated more rival-wise.
>
> >>>> --http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=gxQmjqi
>
> >>> Certainly true.
>
> >>> Even those who posit that Fed is GOAT when all factors are considered
> >>> can't realistically say he has dominated "far more" than anyone else.
>
> >> Indeed Fed is the only tier 1 great who was owned by his main rival.
> >> That is unique.
>
> > Haven't you said for years that Mac owned Borg?
>
> > .mikko
>
> I was going to say Mac was well on the way to completely dominating
> Borg, but he had the sense to quit before their slam h2h became
> ridiculously lopsided (as in Rafa v Fed).
So out of 4 open era tier1 players (Fed, Sampras, Borg, Laver) two of
those have had a serious troublesome opponent (Borg had Mac, Fed had
Nadal).
a) Does this make Sampras/Laver rivals/opposition look bad as they did
not have a proper, tough rival?
b) Is it unique when it is 50/50?
.mikko
StephenJ
Nobody is saying that #1 at any time of the year doesn't matter. It
does. But it matters in the here-and-now. Years later, that fades, and
if anything about #1 is remembered, it's who the YE #1 was.
StephenJ
> No, its purpose to determine the best player for the period of last 52
> weeks.
Not really. It's a marketing tool and a seeding tool. Those are its
purposes.
Usually, the #1 player has indeed been the best player of the past 52
weeks. They are highly correlated. But not always. E.g., in 1989
Becker was the best player for those 52 weeks but Lendl was YE #1.
This problem seems to arise far more among the women, like when Safina
was #1 with no slam wins.
Whisper
> On Jun 3, 5:53 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> YE#1 is the Nascarisation of tennis. It's tennis ranking for simple-
>>> minded people who just want to follow a yearly "race for the
>>> championship" with a "championship winner" in the end. The elegance
>>> and fluidity of the original weekly-updated ranking is completely lost
>>> on them.
>>
>> You have it completely arse about.
>
> No.
>
>> The rolling No.1 is an arbitrary,
>> artificial construct.
>
> No, it's a well-established concept since 1973, the year when ATP an
> algorithm-based rankings system was founded. The concept is almost 4
> decades old. It's very, very real.
>
>> It's only purpose is to seed players for
>> tournaments based on recent performance.
>
> No, its purpose to determine the best player for the period of last 52
> weeks.
Yes, but why? Clearly for seeding purposes, so we don't get Fed v Rafa
1st rd & Byron Black making finals.
>
>> 12 months was chosen, but it
>> just easily could have been 6, 9 or 24 months.
>
> How do you know this? Were you there when the system was conceived? Do
> you know who came up with the system? Links? Othewise you have no
> credibility on this.
>
>> In any case it isn't
>> real. Yr-end No.1 is a very real, tangible achievement.
>>
>
> Of course it is real. It has been real since 1973. Almost 4 decades.
It's not real as you're counting points from 2 different tennis years.
>
>> Wimbledon, FO etc are played once per year, not every 3 months or every
>> 2 years.
>
> Sure.
>
>> The tennis year is based on the traditional calendar year.
>
> The rankings are not about the calendar year or the "tennis year".
Yes they are. All the players want to be credited as No.1 for a tennis
yr, which means yr-end No.1. The rolling No.1 is just for seeding purposes.
> They operate on a rolling 52-week basis. They have been like this for
> a long time. There was paradigm shift in how rankings are perceived
> back in 1973. You need to catch up. You are almost 4 decades late.
> Stop living in the 1960s.
>
>> No.1 is decided by most points won in a calendar year.
>
> Correction: the year end #1, that's only one kind of #1. There can
> potentially be many different #1 players in the course of the same
> calendar year. And they are all legitimate #1s. That's how it works.
> The ranking system is a rolling concept.
It's a seeding system. The ranking for the year is only known at yr end.
>
>> The history
>> books recognize yr-end No.1,& indeed ATP gives a trophy for it.
>
> You are being idiotic. All the tennis history books recognize all 24
> #1 ATP-ranked male tennis players so far and present them in a list.
> It doesn't matter whether they achieved their #1 ranking in July or
> August or February. They are all considered legitimate #1 players.
Nope. Only 1 guy can be a real No.1 for any year. If 3 guys can credit
for no.1 in any year, then why not 3 Wimbledon champs in any year?
arnab.z@gmail
You have it wrong. All the players put effort to become #1 at some
point of the year. It doesn't matter whether it is in January or in
July or in October. They know very well that ATP rankings are a
rolling concept and it doesn't matter when they became #1. Nobody
would ever question the legitimacy of their #1. They will be #1, even
if it is for a week. They will forever be known as a guy who reached
#1. We have had 24 #1 ranked tennis players so far in the ranking
system, and they achieved their #1 rankings at different times of the
year.
The YE#1 thing is a leftover concept from the 1960s and before, when
there was no rolling computer-based ranking system. That's when tennis
journalists or the tennis governing bodies declared one player to be
the number one player for a certain year.
*skriptis
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24b49df0-dc23-4c4b...@a2g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I don't know why Whisper even bothers...you're completely clueless. It must
be that he finds you amusing on some level....
TT
Lendl, Connors?
>
> a) Does this make Sampras/Laver rivals/opposition look bad as they did
> not have a proper, tough rival?
Loaded question.
> b) Is it unique when it is 50/50?
>
> .mikko
Not 50/50. Borg was not owned by Mac or vice versa. They were pretty equal.
The only you consider as "tier1" and who is "owned" is fed, a fact.
StephenJ
> It's a seeding system. The ranking for the year is only known at yr end.
It also has a marketing purpose, so a tuneup in April can say
"featuring world #3 so-and-so" and the like in its advertisements.
Also, we have to remember that even though YE #1 is clearly most
prestigious, it doesn't do a better job of telling us who was really
"best" over the course of the previous year than does #1 at any other
time. Sometimes it doesn't.
E,g,, Jimbo was #1 from November 8-15, 1982, but Mac was year-end #1
for 1982. Clearly, since Connors actually had a better year than Mac
in 1982, the non-year-end ranking in November was more accurate as an
indicator of "best" than was the YE #1 ranking.
arnab.z@gmail
> > On Jun 3, 8:06 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, its purpose to determine the best player for the period of last 52
> > weeks.
>
> Not really. It's a marketing tool and a seeding tool. Those are its
> purposes.
>
I don't see it that way. Its purpose is to rank players throughout the
year. And whoever becomes #1 is a legit #1.
> Usually, the #1 player has indeed been the best player of the past 52
> weeks. They are highly correlated. But not always. E.g., in 1989
> Becker was the best player for those 52 weeks but Lendl was YE #1.
>
That's a different debate. We are not talking about whether YE#1 is
equivalent to the best player of the calendar year.
> This problem seems to arise far more among the women, like when Safina
> was #1 with no slam wins.
Different debate.