The more "important" record? Weeks at #1 or YE #1s?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Prisoner of Birth, Sep 14, 2012.

?

The more 'important' record?

  1. Most weeks at #1

    89.7%
  2. Most year-end #1s

    10.3%
  1. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Which would you consider the better record to hold, most weeks at #1 or most year-end #1s? I personally think the weeks record is better to hold but I guess one could make a case for YE #1s as well.
     
    #1
  2. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,377
    Jeffrey Archer inspired forum name! I salute you! :)
     
    #2
  3. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Most weeks at #1 and most consecutive weeks at #1 are both far more important than YE #1s, no doubt about it.
     
    #3
  4. TennisMaestro

    TennisMaestro Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    London, UK
    Most weeks as one can clinch YE for 1 week
     
    #4
  5. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,338
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Are you guys saying it's possible to be #2 all the year, and then suddenly clinch YE #1 at the end ?

    Are there any YE #1's that come to mind, that were not dominant in that year ?

    As of now, this year who has had the #1 position for more weeks -- anyone know ?
     
    #5
  6. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Most weeks at #1 is more important, but consecutive weeks are not. It doesn't matter if you are #1 consecutively or not. What matters is how many weeks were you #1 in your entire career that counts.
     
    #6
  7. jones101

    jones101 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,282
    Location:
    Wales
    Yes, that is possible! Especially if the number 2 player did poorly at the YEC and the number 1 won the event the previous year, its a potential 3000 point swing!

    Federer/Djokovic could be in a similar position this year!
     
    #7
  8. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    It can happen, but usually the year end #1 is the one with the best result throughout the whole year. No matter who ended the year as #1, they do rightfully and truthfully deserve it.
     
    #8
  9. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,370
    Clearly Year end Nr. 1. It defines the World Champion for the season. Nobody cares, who is leading the Formula 1 standings in summer. What counts, is the World Championships at the end of the season.
     
    #9
  10. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    Year end rankings matter more than a rolling ranking if only because it provides an evaluation of the performance over only one season.
     
    #10
  11. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Yes it is. That's basically what Roddick did in 2003 (although he was #1 for a couple of weeks in March). He then got it back during the Masters at the very end of the year (by winning one single match, Federer would have been #1 had Roddick lost that one, it was that close) and he kept it until the end of the Australian Open 2004. His total at #1: 13 weeks, most of which came during the winter break... ;)

    Djokovic, obviously, as he was #1 from the start of the year to Wimbledon. And Federer since then.
     
    #11
  12. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    You are correct.
     
    #12
  13. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    Who cares about year end number 1? It is a a measure of who happens to be number 1 at the completely arbitrary time of november.
     
    #13
  14. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    end of year = the finish line. Who cares who is leading the race before the finish line.
     
    #14
  15. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    You are correct.
     
    #15
  16. Satsuma Illini

    Satsuma Illini Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    648
    I've always held the YE #1 in high regard. Along with the Grand slams, WTF, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, I think it is one record a player would cherish if he got it. Wilander and Edberg managed to get that YE #1 but Becker never did. Tough to do.
     
    #16
  17. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,338
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    You have a point there. It is an arbitrary time, sanctioned only by our notion of a year/year-end. To have YE decided by the result of one match seems to devalue it, imo.

    However, on telly prior to a match it is YE rankings that they show. Different people could have been #1 throughout the year, but if I ask you who was the #1 in 1990, I expect one name, and that name basically takes Jan to Dec into account.
     
    #17
  18. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,338
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Consecutive weeks is certainly very impressive esp if it is close to total weeks or held by one person.

    However, if consecutive week's record is, say, half of total weeks, then consecutive loses its value. Since Federer has both, so its not a big deal.

    Was there a #1 player whose consecutive weeks count would have been higher than Fed's but for one week he lost somewhere in between ?
     
    #18
  19. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,310
    That analogy might make sense if we were considering weeks as race leader, not weeks as number 1. Ranking considers the previous 12 months, not just since the start of the year. The start and finish lines are arbitrary and in reality don't exist.
     
    #19
  20. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,338
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Each event has it's finish line which is the title. You are creating an artificial finish line here.

    What this can lead to is a scramble to be #1 at an arbitrary point by maybe going for an extra event (maybe a small one) just to be ahead at that one moment.

    It reminds me of that time after WO when there were threads by people: what if Nole enters some 250 or 125 point event in Timbumktoo to take back the #1 from Federer !
     
    #20
  21. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    In reality the finish line does exist. That's why there is time off in the tennis schedule between the end of one year and the begining of the next. I think you are simply choosing to ignore reality.
     
    #21
  22. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    The purpose of the year end ranking is to evaluate who has performed the best for that season.

    There is no difference in computing the points between the two, simply that the current ranking reflects last season's performance in addition to some of this year's.

    At the season end, all the last year's points expire and as a result the rankings reflect only the performance over the most recent season.

    Hence, this gives us an apples to apples comparison if we want to see who has been more successful for the 2012 season.
     
    #22
  23. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,310
    I think you are simply too stupid to understand reality.
     
    #23
  24. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    I would be interested in seeing your opinion on how to evaluate employee performance and remuneration, which dates to use as cutoffs, whether or not we keep the time spans consistent or whether the timing of performance matters.

    In other words, do we give bonuses based on a rolling 12-month window or do we award them at year-end?
     
    #24
  25. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,310
    Tennis is not a seasonal sport. There is no regular season and there is no playoffs. In reality, year end number 1 holds no more weight than, say, July end number 1.
     
    #25
  26. Paul Murphy

    Paul Murphy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,926
    I'd take number of weeks every time.
     
    #26
  27. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,310
    It doesn't matter. Depending on the bonus structure (I'm assuming % of revenue generated or sales or something), it should even out in the end. I mean, depending on the window, a guy can either do pretty good over 2 of them, or do really well one window and mediocre the next. Regardless of the windows used, his cumulative bonuses will be the same.

    Not the same if you only consider year end number 1, since you're either awarded it or not. Which isn't the case with most bonus structures.

    edit: nm I completely misread your post. It's way too late.

    Year end, July end, doesn't matter. That's my point. It's arbitrary.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
    #27
  28. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    I would to see your reply to who was the most successful player for 1990, 1992, 1998, 1999 etc.

    A natural implication of your claim would seem to be that there are many 'most successful players' for each year, or that a 'most successful player' for a single year does not exist.

    Likewise, it would then imply that for a business (that also does not have a regular season or playoffs) that we could not award bonuses for the best performing employees due to 'arbitrary cut-off dates.'
     
    #28
  29. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,310
    I'm not saying that you can't determine the most successful player for a given year. I'm saying that being the most successful player for a given year is no more significant than being the most successful player over any other window of 12 months.
     
    #29
  30. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    I'll just assume you are drunk right now, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
     
    #30
  31. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    You are just too funny. :lol:
     
    #31
  32. pame

    pame Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,429
    We'll also have to assume similar for you, otherwise how do you rationalise the example given earlier of Roddick ending Year #1, when he was No. 1 for only 13 weeks betwen November 3, 2003 and February 1, 2004, a period which in fact by the calendar year meant he had been no. 1 for only the last 8 of the previous 52 weeks.

    Gustavo Kuerten is also on record ending Year #1 between December 4, 2000 and January 28, 2001

    Yet he had a longer stint of THIRTY weeks at World No 1, but because this happened to fall between April 23, 2001 and November 18, 2001 this period is supposed to have less significance than his EIGHT-week stint between December 4, 2000 and January 28, 2001 because the latter happened to have occurred at the end of the calendar year!!!
     
    #32
  33. Vcore89

    Vcore89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    The synapse
    None, no one else!
     
    #33
  34. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    I will take the number of weeks at the top, any time, every time.

    Or an YE#1, if it was awarded only when the player, who gets it for any particular year, has the most weeks at the #1 from all active players in that year.
     
    #34
  35. fuzzyball

    fuzzyball Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    123
    Kuerten in 2000
     
    #35
  36. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,377
    You should write the ATP an open letter wherein you elaborate on your brilliant theory.
     
    #36
  37. Warmaster

    Warmaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,803
    Jimmy Connors was #1 for 160 consecutive weeks, then lost it to Borg for 1 week, and then he was #1 for another 84 consecutive weeks. So Connors was #1 for 244/245 weeks at that point.
     
    #37
  38. kOaMaster

    kOaMaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,026
    Location:
    Basel/Switzerland
    That is because they start from zero in march. In tennis there is no real "beginning" of the ranking as it goes on and always considers the results over 52 weeks. Therefore the ranking is also always accurate and there are no "lucky number ones leading" as for example the first winner of the 1. Grand Prix in formula one or the first world cup winner in alpine skiing.

    To conclude: Of course #weeks@1 count more - since the YE#1 is just one week as well.
     
    #38
  39. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Thank you, bud.
     
    #39
  40. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,377
    Is it really so difficult to appreciate that YE #1 signifies the most consistent/dominant tennis player? Nobody flukes a YE #1. To denigrate it as some posters have done is to undermine the entire rankings system.
     
    #40
  41. kOaMaster

    kOaMaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,026
    Location:
    Basel/Switzerland
    do you think anybody flukes a week at number one? it's the result of the exact same tournaments, just over another span of time.
     
    #41
  42. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,338
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    I can think of a hypothetical situation where A has several titles, and B has NO titles but plenty of final and semi-final appearances. Yet, B pips A in terms of points.

    (In reality A would have 7 or so titles, and B would have 1-2 titles).

    Now who deserves to be number one. For that matter who is the better player for that year.

    I think this is becoming very subjective, with some people feeling there is a clear finish line, and some feeling it's artificial.

    Joker has more weeks as #1 this year, but who has more titles ?

    Thanks, I was thinking of Connors but was not sure.
     
    #42
  43. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,377
    I also don't think the price of tomatoes in Angola matter to my gas bill. Which is why I didn't mention it just like I didn't mention weeks at number one. What one needs do to accumulate weeks at number one is an integral part of being year end number 1. If you can't see that, there's little hope for you.
     
    #43
  44. kOaMaster

    kOaMaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,026
    Location:
    Basel/Switzerland
    No?
    There is no need to "accumulate" weeks at number one, it's just about having the weeks at the right time. For example it is very likely this year for federer to be the number 1 just the way until the WTF and then lose it to djokovic.
    So Djokovic didn't need to accumulate any weeks of being number one, he needed to accumulate enough points at the right time to be the year end #1.

    Either we talk about different stuff or you don't get what I want.

    PS: I don't like tomatoes.
     
    #44
  45. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    Lmao just look at who voted years end #1.

    Ftr i only pick weeks because its so high right now, so say the record for weeks was only 200 then id say years end. I mean at 300+ weeks your now talking almost 6 years.
     
    #45
  46. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Weeks at #1 is more of a career record.
    Having a bunch of YE #1's can be a career record too though.

    Who ever is #1 at anytime has the best record over the past year, YE is just a special case.



    For 3 years and two players:
    You can have one player with 3 YE #1's and 16 actual weeks at #1.
    Or
    One player with 0 YE #1's with 140 weeks at #1.

    Weeks at #1 will be the decider between the two IMO.
     
    #46
  47. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,405
    Absolutely.

    As someone else mentioned, you could be #2 or even #3 all year and clinch the #1 ranking at the year ending championships and have the year ending #1 for only a matter of a few weeks - while someone else could have held it for 40+ weeks.
     
    #47
  48. Bowtiesarecool

    Bowtiesarecool Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    257
    Location:
    New Smyrna Beach, FL
    Year end #1 is more difficult to obtain, but because of how the ponts change on a weekly basis, it means nothing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
    #48
  49. fuzzyball

    fuzzyball Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    123
    Becker never ended a year at N°1, and it doesn't make his career any worst.
     
    #49
  50. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,370
    I Sampras' case everybody, every media source talked about his record of reaching 6 years ends as Nr. 1, even before he achieved it. He himself invested everything he had, into this goal, which meant a lot to him (and all the tennis people then). I think he skipped the next AO, because he was worn out. When he reached his weeks at Nr. 1 record, nobody talked about it (maybe some posters on the internet). The rolling ranking was initially implemented only for the seeding process. It was always the year end, that counted.
     
    #50

Share This Page