Why number of year end no. 1s is more important than total weeks at no. 1

[Blocker]

Total weeks at number 1 must be adjusted to reflect the weeks where ranking points are not up for grabs. For instance, if after the last tournament of the year, Player X is number 1, he gets to hold the number 1 ranking for x number of weeks until the next tournament which offers points is scheduled. And what about during the year? How many weeks are there in the year where there are no points up for grabs? Are tournaments which offer points played during the Davis Cup? Basically, if you hold the number 1 ranking, the weeks in which there is no competition is basically a gift to you…quite simply the weeks at number 1 are being accumulated whilst there is no competition happening.

As for the year ending number 1, I liken that to the FIFA Drivers Championship. Whilst each grand prix is important, the drivers championship (ie the driver with the most points at the end of the season) is considered the most important.

We have 2 ranking systems which run parallel to each other. The first system is the calendar year ranking, the race to the number 1 position at the end of the year, where whoever finishes number 1 at the end of the calendar year is the tennis equivalent of the world champion, similar to the FIFA Drivers Championship. The second system is what I like to call the revolving door, which captures everything in the preceding 12 months and where results from more than 12 months ago fall off the computer. At the end of the final event of the year, these 2 systems are at an equilibrium. Like I already said, this latter ranking can reward players for weeks at number 1 even where there has been no competition. Imagine the total weeks rewarded for no competition over a 6 or 7 year period? The weeks start to add up. The former is more important as it is a race and takes into account the results for that year only.

****s may argue against this all they like but there’s no denying that weeks at number 1 can be artificially inflated due to the no-tournament-that-week factor.

 

[Jeffrey573639]

Sigh French Open can't come quick enough

 

[Bobby Jr]

If that is the case, and there certainly is a case for it, then - by the same token - winning all four majors in a non-calendar series should have no more significance than winning them over a longer period of years in a career slam scenario. Achieving the calendar slam alone should make someone worthy of immediate legendary status..

The way you see the non-calendar slam written about here you'd think it was 99.9% as legendary as the calendar slam.

 

[batz]

Total weeks at number 1 must be adjusted to reflect the weeks where ranking points are not up for grabs. For instance, if after the last tournament of the year, Player X is number 1, he gets to hold the number 1 ranking for x number of weeks until the next tournament which offers points is scheduled. And what about during the year? How many weeks are there in the year where there are no points up for grabs? Are tournaments which offer points played during the Davis Cup? Basically, if you hold the number 1 ranking, the weeks in which there is no competition is basically a gift to you…quite simply the weeks at number 1 are being accumulated whilst there is no competition happening.

As for the year ending number 1, I liken that to the FIFA Drivers Championship. Whilst each grand prix is important, the drivers championship (ie the driver with the most points at the end of the season) is considered the most important.

We have 2 ranking systems which run parallel to each other. The first system is the calendar year ranking, the race to the number 1 position at the end of the year, where whoever finishes number 1 at the end of the calendar year is the tennis equivalent of the world champion, similar to the FIFA Drivers Championship. The second system is what I like to call the revolving door, which captures everything in the preceding 12 months and where results from more than 12 months ago fall off the computer. At the end of the final event of the year, these 2 systems are at an equilibrium. Like I already said, this latter ranking can reward players for weeks at number 1 even where there has been no competition. Imagine the total weeks rewarded for no competition over a 6 or 7 year period? The weeks start to add up. The former is more important as it is a race and takes into account the results for that year only.

****s may argue against this all they like but there’s no denying that weeks at number 1 can be artificially inflated due to the no-tournament-that-week factor.

Let's say you're right. What conclusions can we draw from it?

Is this is a Pete Sampras/Roger Federer thing? Because if it is, then your assertion being true doesn't change the fact that 17 > 14 and career slam > no career slam. Please don't accuse me of ****ism - I don't have a dog in that fight.

 

[zagor]

snip

Because that's the only record Sampras has left over Fed?

 

[Bobby Jr]

....doesn't change the fact that 17 > 14 and career slam > no career slam...

You forgot the year ending championships: 6 > 5

...and Masters series tournaments wins 21 > 11

 

[batz]

You forgot the year ending championships: 6 > 5

...and Masters series tournaments wins 21 > 11

Didn't think they were necessary after the first 2

 

[NatF]

Finally the ****s have nothing to say, so they resort to condacending comments.

Fact, year end no. 1 greater than weeks at no. 1 for reasons stated in my op.

As for WTF, yea Sampras won all his when the final was BO5, thank you

Sampras 6 years in a row world champion.

Federer 5 times world champion.

And prisoner, STFU, you're the world's biggest ****.

Who cares if it's BO5 or not? In BO3 there's more chance for an upset. It's not necessarily a mark against Federer than some of his titles were won under those circumstances.

Perhaps year end #1's are better than total weeks, but I'd say consecutive weeks at #1 are just as impressive IMO. Being the best player of the year for 6 years straight is hugely impressive though.

 

[Beryl]

I think Messi in the Marussia will win the FIFA Drivers Championship this year.

 

[Magnetite]

You'd have to do a calculation, to figure out how many free weeks at #1 each has, and compare it that way.

YE #1's are great, and I'm glad Sampras has 1 record still in his bag.

Total weeks at #1 is also great.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Didn't think they were necessary after the first 2

They weren't, but when you've got someone on the canvas what's the harm in hitting them a few more times?

 

[Bobby Jr]

...As for WTF, yea Sampras won all his when the final was BO5, thank you

If that sort of logic is allowed here then Sampras won all his Wimbledons when it was a surface where 1/10th of the amount of players compared to today had any chance at all of winning. It may as well have been a gimmie for him half the time. Weak grass era. :lol::lol:

 

[Warmaster]

Total weeks is more important. It shows you were the best player in the world in the past year (=rolling 52-week ranking) and not just the best player at 1 specific point in time (end of the year)

Your inflation theory is sketchy at best, but if you want to go there..The only time the # weeks get 'inflated' is when you're YE #1 and get almost 2 months for free.

 

[dudeski]

Because that's the only record Sampras has left over Fed?

Exactly. Samprastards are really trying hard lately.

 

[tudwell]

I don't think your analysis really works. The end of the year is the longest time where there is no play. Sampras ending six years at number one should get more "inflationary" weeks than Federer ending five. And I think these "inflationary" weeks probably even out pretty well to a certain percentage of overall weeks, especially with the broad sample sizes of Federer and Sampras. And honestly I don't think it matters unless the person was close to losing the number one ranking and the "inflationary" weeks merely put off their demise.

I agree that year-end number one is more important than weeks at number one, but weeks at number one play their role too. And I don't think it's wise to ignore total weeks at number one during the year in which one finished number one - especially if they start and finish the year number one but drop it along the way. (This stat is less important for a person first big season at number one. Djokovic, for example, had an incredible season in 2011 but didn't get the number one ranking until June.)

 

[heninfan99]

Fed & Sampras should do an EXO with wood racquets & gut. #1 wks vs. #1 years. Settle this the old fashioned way.

 

[forzamilan90]

All I have to say is look at how many consecutive weeks Sampras was number 1, then Fed...nuff said.

 

[JMR]

Total weeks at number 1 must be adjusted to reflect the weeks where ranking points are not up for grabs. For instance, if after the last tournament of the year, Player X is number 1, he gets to hold the number 1 ranking for x number of weeks until the next tournament which offers points is scheduled. And what about during the year? How many weeks are there in the year where there are no points up for grabs? Are tournaments which offer points played during the Davis Cup? Basically, if you hold the number 1 ranking, the weeks in which there is no competition is basically a gift to you…quite simply the weeks at number 1 are being accumulated whilst there is no competition happening.

All that is irrelevant, because everyone uses the same counting method. All players benefit from the same alleged inflationary system -- if they are good enough to reach No. 1, that is. The absolute number of weeks is not what matters; it's the relative numbers that determine legacy standing. Federer has about 6 percent more weeks at No. 1 than Sampras. Whether the exact figures are 302 vs. 285 or 106 vs. 100 is a detail.

 

[joeri888]

Total weeks at number 1 must be adjusted to reflect the weeks where ranking points are not up for grabs. For instance, if after the last tournament of the year, Player X is number 1, he gets to hold the number 1 ranking for x number of weeks until the next tournament which offers points is scheduled. And what about during the year? How many weeks are there in the year where there are no points up for grabs? Are tournaments which offer points played during the Davis Cup? Basically, if you hold the number 1 ranking, the weeks in which there is no competition is basically a gift to you…quite simply the weeks at number 1 are being accumulated whilst there is no competition happening.

You are basically saying that Federer's weeks at no. 1 are even more impressive, because he was the no. 1 from first week of november till first week of january 1 time LESS than Sampras, making those weeks irrelevant as you seem to suggest.

Clowns are gonna clown.

 

[pvaudio]

I stopped reading after you said "FIFA Driver's Championship". Seriously?

 

[Ellipses]

You weren't doing too badly until you made it clear that you started this thread just as a shot to Federer fans.

The thing is, this whole "weeks with no points up for grabs" thing applies to every player, not just Federer. I.e. Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, etc. all had the exact same advantage as Federer - so no advantage at all.

 

[powerangle]

OP....Sampras is the one that got MORE inflationary weeks at #1 than Fed. Sampras ended the year #1 six times...so he got an extra two months worth of "free" weeks at #1 than Fed....yet Fed STILL ended up with more weeks at #1 than Sampras.

 

[Blocker]

My OP didn't mention Sampras. Forget that it's Sampras, forget that it's Federer. For argument's sake, use players X and Y.

If player X finished the year number 1 in the world for 10 straight years, all by the barest possible margins, whereby he spent most of the year at number 2 only to grab the number 1 ranking at the final event of the year, only to lose it after the first event of the following year, and so on and so on, and so therefore spent in total 40 weeks at number 1 due to the no play factor (ie 4 weeks by 10 years), and after he retires player Y dominates the year and finishes number 1, having spent the last 45 weeks of that year as number 1, and then retires, after having been on the tour for 10 years, who would you say has had the more impressive record as far as being number 1 is concerned? One player had more weeks at number 1 but less year ending number ones, and vice versa.

You have to view the year as a championship in itself, consisting of several tournaments which offer points, some more than others. In fact, you shouldn't have to see it as that, it is that.If you finish the year at number 1 you are the world champion of tennis.

And that's why the year end number 1 ranking is more important than number of weeks at number 1.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Yes, but in tennis the end of the year could as well be in september (or any other month) given how the ranking system work. Then, in your example, player X would be number 1 for a few week at the beginning of each season, and player Y would be the number 1 at the end of each season AND during most of it. Well, Y is better.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

My OP didn't mention Sampras. Forget that it's Sampras, forget that it's Federer. For argument's sake, use players X and Y.

If player X finished the year number 1 in the world for 10 straight years, all by the barest possible margins, whereby he spent most of the year at number 2 only to grab the number 1 ranking at the final event of the year, only to lose it after the first event of the following year, and so on and so on, and so therefore spent in total 40 weeks at number 1 due to the no play factor (ie 4 weeks by 10 years), and after he retires player Y dominates the year and finishes number 1, having spent the last 45 weeks of that year as number 1, and then retires, after having been on the tour for 10 years, who would you say has had the more impressive record as far as being number 1 is concerned? One player had more weeks at number 1 but less year ending number ones, and vice versa.

You have to view the year as a championship in itself, consisting of several tournaments which offer points, some more than others. In fact, you shouldn't have to see it as that, it is that.If you finish the year at number 1 you are the world champion of tennis.

And that's why the year end number 1 ranking is more important than number of weeks at number 1.

That's a pretty stupid scenario. If the first guy was number 1 only at the end of the year and the second guy couldn't get to number 1 until after the first guy retired, who was the guy that was number 1 for the whole of the year when the first guy was finishing #1? Whoever that was, that's the guy that was dominant. Not the two guys you mentioned.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Total weeks is more important. It shows you were the best player in the world in the past year (=rolling 52-week ranking) and not just the best player at 1 specific point in time (end of the year)

Your inflation theory is sketchy at best, but if you want to go there..The only time the # weeks get 'inflated' is when you're YE #1 and get almost 2 months for free.

This pretty much says it all.
Theoretically, a player could pick up the #1 ranking somewhere in September and drop it again halfway January, and do so six times in concession. This fact alone shows that the total #s of weeks spent at the top of the rankings is a far more important accomplishment.

Like I said - theoretically, and I know very well that such wasn't the case with Sampras. Perhaps it's time to stop with all these silly butt-hurt ******* contest comparisons and just conclude that both Sampras' and Fed's accomplishments are fantastic and rightfully put both of them somewhere on top of the list of possible GOAT candidates?

 

[jorel]

Sigh French Open can't come quick enough

yes,,,one argument for Fed being greater
than Sampras

isnt it wonderful how we can have these discussions

 

[Cup8489]

My OP didn't mention Sampras. Forget that it's Sampras, forget that it's Federer. For argument's sake, use players X and Y.

If player X finished the year number 1 in the world for 10 straight years, all by the barest possible margins, whereby he spent most of the year at number 2 only to grab the number 1 ranking at the final event of the year, only to lose it after the first event of the following year, and so on and so on, and so therefore spent in total 40 weeks at number 1 due to the no play factor (ie 4 weeks by 10 years), and after he retires player Y dominates the year and finishes number 1, having spent the last 45 weeks of that year as number 1, and then retires, after having been on the tour for 10 years, who would you say has had the more impressive record as far as being number 1 is concerned? One player had more weeks at number 1 but less year ending number ones, and vice versa.

You have to view the year as a championship in itself, consisting of several tournaments which offer points, some more than others. In fact, you shouldn't have to see it as that, it is that.If you finish the year at number 1 you are the world champion of tennis.

And that's why the year end number 1 ranking is more important than number of weeks at number 1.

So, what you're saying is that if a guy is completely unable to dominate for any real stretch of time for 10 years, but another guy cleans up and holds the ranking for the vast majority of the time but is unable to finish YE#1, you'd consider the former to be better?

**** logic, I will never get it. And no, that would not mean the former was better. There's simply no argument in that scenario that he would be. That's like if Nadal won the first 3 majors of the year, but didn't do well in the masters and then got injured on the practice court immediately following wimbledon; Djokovic could then feasibly finish YE#1, but EVERYONE would know that the real YE#1 should be Nadal, because if you've won 3 of 4 majors in a year, you are the best player that year, PERIOD>

 

[Goosehead]

i dont think it matters who or when someone was no1 rank..

lets face it..its an amazing feat anyhow, anyway, anywhere (the who?)..lets not forget only 25 men have been world no1 rank since the official rankings were started up in 1973.

so pistol pete has his 6 in a row, and the fedster has his most wks at no1..

cue tennis chat wars until someone..if ever, breaks those records.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Another Sampras Jock Sniffer, desperately trying to hold on to the dream. LOL!

 

[mariecon]

Another Sampras Jock Sniffer, desperately trying to hold on to the dream. LOL!

:lol: :lol: let them have it. It's the only record of Pete's that's still standing.:twisted:

 

[Blocker]

If Manchester United finished off the second half of season 2012/13 better than anyone else, but still finish 2nd overall, and at the half way mark of season 2013/14 are top, how many premiership trophies is it awarded in that 12 month stretch? Answer: none, notwithstanding it has been the best performed team in that 12 month period. They only award the trophy to that team which finishes first at the end of the season.

In tennis, the world championship of tennis is awarded at the end of the season. That's why the year end number 1 ranking race was brought in a few years ago. When is the WTF held you ****nuts? End of the season, yea. Why don't we just have a WTF every 3 months to award the top 8 at the time for the previous 12 months? Let's also have a WTF for the April to March top 8, a WTF for the the July to June top 8 and a WTF for the October to September top 8. See how ridiculous this sounds? It's the end of the season that really matters.

I'm not suggesting that being number 1 at any time isn't important, but I stand by my op, being number 1 at the end of the calendar year is far more important because that's when the world champion is crowned and that's usually when the race to number 1 is usually intensified.

And just on achievements, any half decent player can win 7 matches in a row on one surface in a fixed draw to win a slam. You can have 4 slam winners in a year. It's been proven many times, see 2012. But only one player every year can finish the year the number one ranked player in the world and be the world champion. The ranking system rewards the year end champion for a whole season, which includes the slams, masters, playing against many different players, in many different conditions in many different cities and on different surfaces over the course of a whole calendar year, as opposed to a slam winner who just has to win 7 matches. So don't be too quick to dismiss the year end ranking as no big deal, simply because it is not a record your idol holds.

 

[Cosmic_Colin]

OP....Sampras is the one that got MORE inflationary weeks at #1 than Fed. Sampras ended the year #1 six times...so he got an extra two months worth of "free" weeks at #1 than Fed....yet Fed STILL ended up with more weeks at #1 than Sampras.

Yes, I was about to post the same thing!

The year end is just an arbitrary point to look at the rankings. Why not any other time of year?

If we removed these 'inflationary' weeks from all players, Sampras would lose more than Federer. We'd be left with real, genuine weeks where the #1 ranking needed to be defended... and Federer wins.

Thread defeated.

 

[TopFH]

FIFA Drivers Championship

I had no idea that the FIFA was organizing driving championships. I think C.Ronaldo would definitely beat Messi there.

 

[Goosehead]

Another Sampras Jock Sniffer, desperately trying to hold on to the dream. LOL!

who is.. you need to quote people if you are gonna come out with sicko stuff like that.

 

[Goosehead]

Yes, I was about to post the same thing!

The year end is just an arbitrary point to look at the rankings. Why not any other time of year?

If we removed these 'inflationary' weeks from all players, Sampras would lose more than Federer. We'd be left with real, genuine weeks where the #1 ranking needed to be defended... and Federer wins.

Thread defeated.

fwahahahahahahaa:twisted:

so really we can take off sampras's 'free' weeks at no1 :twisted:

all those six lots of two months at the end of every no1 finish season..lets knock a few weeks off sampras then

 

[powerangle]

If Manchester United finished off the second half of season 2012/13 better than anyone else, but still finish 2nd overall, and at the half way mark of season 2013/14 are top, how many premiership trophies is it awarded in that 12 month stretch? Answer: none, notwithstanding it has been the best performed team in that 12 month period. They only award the trophy to that team which finishes first at the end of the season.

In tennis, the world championship of tennis is awarded at the end of the season. That's why the year end number 1 ranking race was brought in a few years ago. When is the WTF held you ****nuts? End of the season, yea. Why don't we just have a WTF every 3 months to award the top 8 at the time for the previous 12 months? Let's also have a WTF for the April to March top 8, a WTF for the the July to June top 8 and a WTF for the October to September top 8. See how ridiculous this sounds? It's the end of the season that really matters.

I'm not suggesting that being number 1 at any time isn't important, but I stand by my op, being number 1 at the end of the calendar year is far more important because that's when the world champion is crowned and that's usually when the race to number 1 is usually intensified.

And just on achievements, any half decent player can win 7 matches in a row on one surface in a fixed draw to win a slam. You can have 4 slam winners in a year. It's been proven many times, see 2012. But only one player every year can finish the year the number one ranked player in the world and be the world champion. The ranking system rewards the year end champion for a whole season, which includes the slams, masters, playing against many different players, in many different conditions in many different cities and on different surfaces over the course of a whole calendar year, as opposed to a slam winner who just has to win 7 matches. So don't be too quick to dismiss the year end ranking as no big deal, simply because it is not a record your idol holds.

Who said that the year-end #1 is no big deal? Of course it is a meaningful achievement. And great for Sampras to hold the record. We're just saying it is not necessarily MORE important than total weeks at #1.

And you're trying to compare tennis to other sports. AFAIK, FIFA doesn't use a rolling 52-week system for ranking, do they?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

If Manchester United finished off the second half of season 2012/13 better than anyone else, but still finish 2nd overall, and at the half way mark of season 2013/14 are top, how many premiership trophies is it awarded in that 12 month stretch? Answer: none, notwithstanding it has been the best performed team in that 12 month period. They only award the trophy to that team which finishes first at the end of the season.

In tennis, the world championship of tennis is awarded at the end of the season. That's why the year end number 1 ranking race was brought in a few years ago. When is the WTF held you ****nuts? End of the season, yea. Why don't we just have a WTF every 3 months to award the top 8 at the time for the previous 12 months? Let's also have a WTF for the April to March top 8, a WTF for the the July to June top 8 and a WTF for the October to September top 8. See how ridiculous this sounds? It's the end of the season that really matters.

I'm not suggesting that being number 1 at any time isn't important, but I stand by my op, being number 1 at the end of the calendar year is far more important because that's when the world champion is crowned and that's usually when the race to number 1 is usually intensified.

And just on achievements, any half decent player can win 7 matches in a row on one surface in a fixed draw to win a slam. You can have 4 slam winners in a year. It's been proven many times, see 2012. But only one player every year can finish the year the number one ranked player in the world and be the world champion. The ranking system rewards the year end champion for a whole season, which includes the slams, masters, playing against many different players, in many different conditions in many different cities and on different surfaces over the course of a whole calendar year, as opposed to a slam winner who just has to win 7 matches. So don't be too quick to dismiss the year end ranking as no big deal, simply because it is not a record your idol holds.

 

[David Brent]

If Manchester United finished off the second half of season 2012/13 better than anyone else, but still finish 2nd overall, and at the half way mark of season 2013/14 are top, how many premiership trophies is it awarded in that 12 month stretch? Answer: none, notwithstanding it has been the best performed team in that 12 month period. They only award the trophy to that team which finishes first at the end of the season.

In tennis, the world championship of tennis is awarded at the end of the season. That's why the year end number 1 ranking race was brought in a few years ago. When is the WTF held you ****nuts? End of the season, yea. Why don't we just have a WTF every 3 months to award the top 8 at the time for the previous 12 months? Let's also have a WTF for the April to March top 8, a WTF for the the July to June top 8 and a WTF for the October to September top 8. See how ridiculous this sounds? It's the end of the season that really matters.

I'm not suggesting that being number 1 at any time isn't important, but I stand by my op, being number 1 at the end of the calendar year is far more important because that's when the world champion is crowned and that's usually when the race to number 1 is usually intensified.

And just on achievements, any half decent player can win 7 matches in a row on one surface in a fixed draw to win a slam. You can have 4 slam winners in a year. It's been proven many times, see 2012. But only one player every year can finish the year the number one ranked player in the world and be the world champion. The ranking system rewards the year end champion for a whole season, which includes the slams, masters, playing against many different players, in many different conditions in many different cities and on different surfaces over the course of a whole calendar year, as opposed to a slam winner who just has to win 7 matches. So don't be too quick to dismiss the year end ranking as no big deal, simply because it is not a record your idol holds.

Just to point out to any non-English Premier League followers, each season the league resets, with each team starting with 0 points. It is completely incomparable to the tennis season as it is not a rolling calender. This comparison is flawed in every possible way.

I struggle to see how being no.1 at the end of a particular "swing" is any less impressive than being YE no.1.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Just to point out to any non-English Premier League followers, each season the league resets, with each team starting with 0 points. It is completely incomparable to the tennis season as it is not a rolling calender. This comparison is flawed in every possible way.

I struggle to see how being no.1 at the end of a particular "swing" is any less impressive than being YE no.1.

Like someone said earlier, Blocker is a Sampras jock-sniffer desperately holding on to the dream :lol:

 

[THE FIGHTER]

both are irrelevant stats. IMHO. winning majors on 3 different surfaces in the same year is obviously the end all be all. a lot of good players have year end no. 1 rankings and multiple weeks at number one. but winning slams on 3 surfaces in the same year? no one in history has done that, except the very best.