View Single Post
Old 05-17-2013, 11:27 AM   #57
jg153040
Legend
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyrick View Post
This seems to be an overloaded metric to me. Double-counting. Especially in the modern era of ATP rankings where players defend points. If you win the big tournaments consistently, you will be number one and you will consistently be number one. Because you will have enough points (and a large enough point margin) to do so.
True, but not always the case. Remeber Serena vs Wozniacki? Serena was holder of 3 slams at the time I think. But Wozniacki was still nr.1
The best and nr.1 isn't necessary the same. There are 2 metrics. Slams won and rankings. It's like there are 2 seperate Atp races. One for who is the best at PEAK PLAY (slams) and one who is the best at CONSISTENCY (weeks nr.1).

I mean this is how I see it. Federer said Wozniacki can't be the best with no slams won. That is why my system slams won + weeks nr.1 solves this problem.
__________________
A bet against a champion is a bad bet!
jg153040 is offline   Reply With Quote