Originally Posted by pc1
Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.
Let's say another player wins Wimbledon but loses in the first round of the US Open. Both won one of two majors played.
Who had the better record? Obviously the former.
Unfortunately, there is only enough glory for one player in each major.
Runnerups are just that; a failure to win.
When we compile achievement records, it looks cheesy to list the runnerup totals, as if there are not enough championship achievements to fill out the list.
I understand that points are given for tournament results less than victories, and these points count for the season.
But the season total is ONE event, albeit a composite of many events.
We should list the season total as one victory, and not list the tournament standings unless there is an absolute win.