Muster first became world number 1 on the 12th February 1996. At that point, the computer had 4th rounds exits at the 1995 US Open and the 1996 Australian Open and a missing Wimbledon from 1995, yet such was the extent of his clay-court dominance that it made up for all that. But Muster's tournament win at the Essen Masters on indoor carpet was also a big factor in him eventually getting to number 1. Muster was number 1 fair and square for the 6 weeks that he held that ranking. He earned it.
You make it sound like every single computer #1 can never be a weaker #1. In that case who are the weaker #1s, after all they all were computer #1s, LOL! You also make it sound like every single computer #1 has to be accepted by everyone as the true #1, not be disputed at all, which is completely unreasonable. The ranking system since then has been changed btw, and in part because of the ways Muster, Rios, and Kafelnikov (and possibly also Moya) all reached #1. All those guys are still considered weaker #1s in history today, and for the record I regard Rios and Kafelnikov as weaker #1s than Muster so I am not saying Muster is the worst.
Which rather shows how Muster played and won so many events that it made up for any lack of rankings points from poorer finishes in slam events and missing Wimbledon. Sampras and Agassi did not have Muster's workrate.
Getting to #1 by getting on the tour treadmill sounds alot like Safina or Jankovic, and that didnt make them respected #1s. The major difference between Muster and them is he atleast has a slam, and dominates a single surface, but on the other side his results were actually far less diverse than theirs are.
To call Muster a "weak number 1" is utterly ridiculous. People feared playing him at that time, and a lot of tennis fans have either forgotten, brought into the "clay-court specialist" criticisms of the time, or just look at his 6 weeks at number 1 and think "that's not very long, he must have been a weak number 1".
You say tennis fans, as if fans are the only ones that hold this view. For your information the majority of tennis experts and top players at the time also referred to Muster as a relatively weak #1, and still consider him one of the weaker #1s. You know people like John McEnroe, Fred Stolle, Mary Carillo, Nick Bolletieri, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Jim Courier, the writers of TENNIS Magazine and other major tennis publications.
Other top guys only feared playing him on clay, and yes indeed everyone was petrified of playing him on clay. None of them feared playing him on hard courts or any other surface. Lower ranked guys looked at him on other surfaces as good shot of an "upset".
When Muster was number 1, he had the best overall results from the previous 52 weeks. It's that simple.
That is like saying when Safina was number 1 she had the best overall results from the previous 52 weeks, it's that simple, and expecting no criticism from anyone, LOL! That would have been like expecting nobody to say Kafelnikov was a weak #1 when he ended 1998 ranked low down in the top 10, won the Australian Open, then lost 1st round in 6 straight events, and somehow climbed all the way to #1. Or expecting nobody to complain about when slamless Rios reached #1. Doesnt work like that.
When he was number 1, he had almost total clay-court domination, a Masters title on indoor carpet and two fourth round losses at the hardcourt slams.
and that is still not good enough given the overall results Sampras, Agassi, and even Becker had over the last 12 months. Under todays ranking system for men it would have been impossible for Muster to get to #1 as more priority is given to the Slams and various Masters events, and there are only so many smaller event points you can rack up to add to those on clay. The French Open, Monte Carlo, Rome, and the 500 events Muster would win on clay would still never make up the points he would trail those others in the counting non-clay events.
