#1 players since 1973

[RF-18]

Since 1973, when the ATP invented the computerized rankings, ''only'' 25 players have been ranked number one.

I think this is huge. We have to treat the #1 ranking much better. Truly special for these players on this list, to have been #1 amongst so few. Getting to #1 for the first time equates a slam. That is the dream.

Congrats to these players!


Date Reached Total Weeks
1 Romania Ilie Năstase August 23, 1973 40
2 Australia John Newcombe June 3, 1974 8
3 United States Jimmy Connors July 29, 1974 268
4 Sweden Björn Borg August 23, 1977 109
5 United States John McEnroe March 3, 1980 170
6 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl February 28, 1983 270
7 Sweden Mats Wilander September 12, 1988 20
8 Sweden Stefan Edberg August 13, 1990 72
9 Germany Boris Becker January 28, 1991 12
10 United States Jim Courier February 10, 1992 58
11 United States Pete Sampras April 12, 1993 286
12 United States Andre Agassi April 10, 1995 101
13 Austria Thomas Muster February 12, 1996 6
14 Chile Marcelo Ríos March 30, 1998 6
15 Spain Carlos Moyá March 15, 1999 2
16 Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov May 3, 1999 6
17 Australia Patrick Rafter July 26, 1999 1
18 Russia Marat Safin November 20, 2000 9
19 Brazil Gustavo Kuerten December 4, 2000 43
20 Australia Lleyton Hewitt November 19, 2001 80
21 Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero September 8, 2003 8
22 United States Andy Roddick November 3, 2003 13
23 Switzerland Roger Federer February 2, 2004 302
24 Spain Rafael Nadal August 18, 2008 141
25 Serbia Novak Djokovic July 4, 2011 144

 

[spirit95]

Fed's consecutive weeks record is truly staggering and will never be broken.

 

[AngieB]

Since 1973, when the ATP invented the computerized rankings, ''only'' 25 players have been ranked number one.

I think this is huge. We have to treat the #1 ranking much better. Truly special for these players on this list, to have been #1 amongst so few. Getting to #1 for the first time equates a slam. That is the dream.

#No. Being #1 doesn't equate to a grand slam win at #Wimbledon. #Ever.

(1) #1 ranked player about every 1.6 years on average is "special"?

#Try again. You keep attempting push your, "#1 > grand slam" agenda in multiple threads. This one will die similarly.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[RF-18]

(1) #1 ranked player about every 1.6 years on average is "special"?

#Try again.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

Point is it is rare to achieve the #1 ranking for a player, wich this list since 1973 shows.

Will you see Cilic and Wawrinka achieve the #1 ranking, despite their slam?

 

[vanioMan]

(1) #1 ranked player about every 1.6 years on average is "special"?

#Try again.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

Angie.... Aaangie... you can't say he never tried...

 

[veroniquem]

Ranking has become much more sophisticated though. It took them a lonnnnnnnnnng time to find a fair and balanced system. Not saying it's prefect but compared to the 70s... The ranking system was not all that trustworthy back then.

 

[KG1965]

Monsters & Co. - Aliens vs predators

Since 1973, when the ATP invented the computerized rankings, ''only'' 25 players have been ranked number one.

I think this is huge. We have to treat the #1 ranking much better. Truly special for these players on this list, to have been #1 amongst so few. Getting to #1 for the first time equates a slam. That is the dream.

Congrats to these players!


Date Reached Total Weeks
1 Romania Ilie Năstase August 23, 1973 40
2 Australia John Newcombe June 3, 1974 8
3 United States Jimmy Connors July 29, 1974 268
4 Sweden Björn Borg August 23, 1977 109
5 United States John McEnroe March 3, 1980 170
6 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl February 28, 1983 270
7 Sweden Mats Wilander September 12, 1988 20
8 Sweden Stefan Edberg August 13, 1990 72
9 Germany Boris Becker January 28, 1991 12
10 United States Jim Courier February 10, 1992 58
11 United States Pete Sampras April 12, 1993 286
12 United States Andre Agassi April 10, 1995 101
13 Austria Thomas Muster February 12, 1996 6
14 Chile Marcelo Ríos March 30, 1998 6
15 Spain Carlos Moyá March 15, 1999 2
16 Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov May 3, 1999 6
17 Australia Patrick Rafter July 26, 1999 1
18 Russia Marat Safin November 20, 2000 9
19 Brazil Gustavo Kuerten December 4, 2000 43
20 Australia Lleyton Hewitt November 19, 2001 80
21 Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero September 8, 2003 8
22 United States Andy Roddick November 3, 2003 13
23 Switzerland Roger Federer February 2, 2004 302
24 Spain Rafael Nadal August 18, 2008 141
25 Serbia Novak Djokovic July 4, 2011 144

ALIENS
3 United States Jimmy Connors July 29, 1974 268
6 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl February 28, 1983 270
11 United States Pete Sampras April 12, 1993 286
23 Switzerland Roger Federer February 2, 2004 302

MONSTERS
4 Sweden Björn Borg August 23, 1977 109
5 United States John McEnroe March 3, 1980 170
12 United States Andre Agassi April 10, 1995 101
24 Spain Rafael Nadal August 18, 2008 141
25 Serbia Novak Djokovic July 4, 2011 144

PREDATORS
Nastase, Newcombe, ...

 

[RF-18]

Angie.... Aaangie... you can't say he never tried...

Tried with what exactly?

 

[vanioMan]

Tried with what exactly?

Rolling Stones, mate. Using a quote from one of their famous songs to deride Mrs. Hashtag.

 

[AngieB]

#ITF-sanctioned grand slam events have and always will be greater than any weekly-ranking in tennis history. The amount of history revisionism by those born in the 1980's to present is startling. The thirst is real.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[vanioMan]

####

K.

(no hate, just highlighted the important part)

 

[RF-18]

#ITF-sanctioned grand slam events have and always will be greater than any weekly-ranking in tennis history. The amount of history revisionism by those born in the 1980's to present is startling. The thirst is real.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

I think achieving the #1 ranking for the first time, is very special, in my eyes it is like winning a slam. Winning a slam, and reaching the #1 spot for the first time, is many players big dream.

And as this list shows, it is very hard to be #1. Ask Vilas who won multiple slams, but never was #1. Murray has two slams, one OG, but seems like he will never be #1.

Anyways, I don't want to discuss this further. I know wich path you are gonna go after this. Same repetetive discussing. Let us have our opinions.

NOTE: I'm not talking about weeks at number one, that a certain number of weeks equates a slam - no, I'm talking about for the first time in your career becoming #1.

 

[AngieB]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=531008&highlight=Angieb

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[vanioMan]

###

k.

________

 

[jm1980]

"revisionism by those born in the 1980's" :lol:

How about crap written by those born in the 2000s pretending they were born in the 40s?

 

[RF-18]

k.

________

:lol::lol:

 

[Mainad]

Since 1973, when the ATP invented the computerized rankings, ''only'' 25 players have been ranked number one.

I think this is huge. We have to treat the #1 ranking much better. Truly special for these players on this list, to have been #1 amongst so few. Getting to #1 for the first time equates a slam. That is the dream.

Marcelo....is that you? :wink:

 

[jm1980]

Marcelo....is that you? :wink:

He's the only male player to reach #1 and never win a Slam, right?

 

[Mainad]

He's the only male player to reach #1 and never win a Slam, right?

That's right.

 

[RF-18]

Marcelo....is that you? :wink:

Nope, that's not me

But anyways.. Murray, with his accomplishments, has never been number 1, Vilas, with his accomplishments, never became #1. There is plenty of examples.

Winning slams does not guarantee you a #1 spot. There is so much you have to do, in order to achieve that special feat.

 

[Phalagoo]

25 Serbia Novak Djokovic July 4, 2011 144

Are you going to update your OP each week to update this number?

 

[RF-18]

Are you going to update your OP each week to update this number?

Yeah, I'm gonna count the days too. 144 + 5 days

 

[Mainad]

Nope, that's not me

But anyways.. Murray, with his accomplishments, has never been number 1, Vilas, with his accomplishments, never became #1. There is plenty of examples.

Winning slams does not guarantee you a #1 spot. There is so much you have to do, in order to achieve that special feat.

Since the start of computerised ATP rankings in 1973:

Multiple Slam winners who never achieved the number #1 ranking:

1. Guillermo Vilas (4 Slams)
2. Sergi Bruguera (2 Slams)
3. Johan Kriek (2 Slams)
4. Andy Murray (2 Slams)

Single Slam winners who achieved the number #1 ranking:

1. Thomas Muster (1996)
2. Carlos Moya (1999)
3. Juan Carlos Ferrero (2003)
4. Andy Roddick (2003-4)

Players who achieved the number #1 ranking without winning a Slam:

1. Ivan Lendl (1983, did not win his first Slam until 1984).
2. Marcelo Rios (1998, never won a Slam).

 

[TMF]

#ITF-sanctioned grand slam events have and always will be greater than any weekly-ranking in tennis history. The amount of history revisionism by those born in the 1980's to present is startling. The thirst is real.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

Borna Coric disagree.

This young talent have openly stated that his goal is to reach #1.

 

[TMF]

Marcelo....is that you? :wink:

That's right.

Down talk about the #1 ranking all you want but who cares since all know your boy(Murray) have never reached #1. If Murray had 200 weeks, you would value the ranking even more than the overhype Gold Medal.

 

[AngieB]

Borna Coric disagree.

This young talent have openly stated that his goal is to reach #1.

I'm sure the well-known and historic legend you've referenced will somehow change the hearts and minds of tennis fans everywhere, #MrWiki. I'm sure.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[Mainad]

Down talk about the #1 ranking all you want but who cares since all know your boy(Murray) have never reached #1. If Murray had 200 weeks, you would value the ranking even more than the overhype Gold Medal.

What are you talking about? Of course, I value the number #1 ranking over the Olympic Gold medal. Who doesn't? But a number #1 ranking without a Slam to back it up is a hollow achievement. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it!
Federer and Serena certainly knew it when they both publicly made fun of Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina for being world #1 without being able to win a Slam to back it up.

So give up trying to suggest otherwise and stop attacking me for pointing out the obvious and trying to turn everything into an attack on Murray just because you dislike him and know that I support him!

 

[GabeT]

What are you talking about? Of course, I value the number #1 ranking over the Olympic Gold medal. Who doesn't? But a number #1 ranking without a Slam to back it up is a hollow achievement. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it!

Nothing hollow about it. So no, not everyone "knows it". Of course it's much better to win Slams AND be #1 but being at the top of the ranking is something so few players will ever achieve that it is a very real and valuable accomplishment.

 

[Mainad]

Nothing hollow about it. So no, not everyone "knows it". Of course it's much better to win Slams AND be #1 but being at the top of the ranking is something so few players will ever achieve that it is a very real and valuable accomplishment.

You have it the wrong way round. It's much better to be #1 AND win Slams!

But if you would be happy to be called the world's best player without being able to win any of the world's best tournaments...fine! But, as I just said, Federer once openly criticised Jankovic for being in that position and Serena Williams similarly poked fun at Safina for being called #1 while it was Serena who was winning the Slams. Wozniacki got endless stick on here for having been #1 two years on the trot whilst it was other players who won all the Slams!

Ask any player if they had just 2 choices, whether it would be to become #1 without winning a Slam or winning a Slam without being #1 and it would be very interesting to see what they would say!

 

[KG1965]

Big difference

Since the start of computerised ATP rankings in 1973:

Multiple Slam winners who never achieved the number #1 ranking:

1. Guillermo Vilas (4 Slams)
2. Sergi Bruguera (2 Slams)
3. Johan Kriek (2 Slams)
4. Andy Murray (2 Slams)

Single Slam winners who achieved the number #1 ranking:

1. Thomas Muster (1996)
2. Carlos Moya (1999)
3. Juan Carlos Ferrero (2003)
4. Andy Roddick (2003-4)

Players who achieved the number #1 ranking without winning a Slam:

1. Ivan Lendl (1983, did not win his first Slam until 1984).
2. Marcelo Rios (1998, never won a Slam).

a slam is a slam .
World number one ATP means the first of a circuit with 100 tournaments .
The difference is abysmal .
Often it coincides one is number one ranking and win a slam , but it can not be so because a players can not win a slam but winning 10 tournaments , including for example Master1000 4 , 4 and 2 Master500 Master250 .

 

[KG1965]

Murray would be a great if it was number one at the end of year

Down talk about the #1 ranking all you want but who cares since all know your boy(Murray) have never reached #1. If Murray had 200 weeks, you would value the ranking even more than the overhype Gold Medal.

The Wimbledon title four times better than Olympic gold .
The title in Flushing M. 4 times better than Olympic gold .

If it had been number one was, 2 times at year-end would be among the great .
So no .

The number one means , and so .

 

[KG1965]

Though choice

You have it the wrong way round. It's much better to be #1 AND win Slams!

But if you would be happy to be called the world's best player without being able to win any of the world's best tournaments...fine! But, as I just said, Federer once openly criticised Jankovic for being in that position and Serena Williams similarly poked fun at Safina for being called #1 while it was Serena who was winning the Slams. Wozniacki got endless stick on here for having been #1 two years on the trot whilst it was other players who won all the Slams!

Ask any player if they had just 2 choices, whether it would be to become #1 without winning a Slam or winning a Slam without being #1 and it would be very interesting to see what they would say!

Tough choice .
Winning a slam against the number one in the world .
Great feeling of course but is in a case that the other does not entered the story ( Rios and Cilic and Wawrinka and Kriek for example ) .
If you win a slam is not a business, if you become number one in my opinion it is more difficult but it depends how long .
Different if you win you are number one or two majors a year .
If you win three different domains or slam two years without winning majors ( eg losing three finals but winning two majors and 10 ATP Finals Master1000 ) .

 

[Kirijax]

If I were a tennis player, my goal would be to win a Grand Slam title. ANY Grand Slam title. The No. 1 ranking would be nice, but I'd rather have a GS trophy sitting on my mantle than a commemorative glass trophy or silver plate congratulating my brief stay at No. 1.

I wonder how many on here feel the same way. If you were a tennis player, which would be your first and foremost goal?

 

[Supertegwyn]

It's not 1961 any more Angie. The game has evolved, just like the players and the strings and the balls.

You don't have to live in the past.

 

[KG1965]

I won Wimbledon and you, Steve ? I am the number one in the world , in the world .

If I were a tennis player, my goal would be to win a Grand Slam title. ANY Grand Slam title. The No. 1 ranking would be nice, but I'd rather have a GS trophy sitting on my mantle than a commemorative glass trophy or silver plate congratulating my brief stay at No. 1.

I wonder how many on here feel the same way. If you were a tennis player, which would be your first and foremost goal?

Skipping past where such Vilas would trade both the Australian Open for ( late ), the No. 1 of 1977. It also Roland Garros .

But let's forget the past .

My dream would be to win at Wimbledon . But I would not be the best if I had won . And even if I had made the coupled with the US Open .
But I would not be the same as the number one .

The best is the number one in the world .
Being the best in the world but not for one or 10 weeks , it would be random ( perhaps ) .
Number one at the end of a year.

For example in 2016. In 2016 the number one in the world .
This would have preferred .

 

[GabeT]

You have it the wrong way round. It's much better to be #1 AND win Slams!

But if you would be happy to be called the world's best player without being able to win any of the world's best tournaments...fine! But, as I just said, Federer once openly criticised Jankovic for being in that position and Serena Williams similarly poked fun at Safina for being called #1 while it was Serena who was winning the Slams.

Federer won both multiple times so he is in a position to criticize others. Has Murray or Cilic, who I think need reached number 1 despite winning Slams, ever criticized another player for being a Slamless #1? Would be very surprised if they did.

Maybe its been only my experience, but I find a lot of this debate something only very hardcore fans understand. I play tennis with a large group of people, most of whom don't understand the histories Slams or their relative importance. Yes, all have heard of Wimbledon, but they also know there are other tournaments and none have this Slam fixation I see in this board. But every single one of them understands the concept of world number 1.

 

[Mainad]

Federer won both multiple times so he is in a position to criticize others. Has Murray or Cilic, who I think need reached number 1 despite winning Slams, ever criticized another player for being a Slamless #1? Would be very surprised if they did.

The only players I have ever heard comment about it were Federer and Serena, the 2 players who have won the most Slams amongst currently active players.

Maybe its been only my experience, but I find a lot of this debate something only very hardcore fans understand. I play tennis with a large group of people, most of whom don't understand the histories Slams or their relative importance. Yes, all have heard of Wimbledon, but they also know there are other tournaments and none have this Slam fixation I see in this board. But every single one of them understands the concept of world number 1.

Ask your tennis colleagues what they would choose if they had the choice of either winning a Grand Slam like Wimbledon or becoming world #1 without winning any! :wink:

 

[Earnest One]

I think achieving the #1 ranking for the first time, is very special, in my eyes it is like winning a slam. Winning a slam, and reaching the #1 spot for the first time, is many players big dream.

And as this list shows, it is very hard to be #1. Ask Vilas who won multiple slams, but never was #1. Murray has two slams, one OG, but seems like he will never be #1.

Anyways, I don't want to discuss this further. I know wich path you are gonna go after this. Same repetetive discussing. Let us have our opinions.

NOTE: I'm not talking about weeks at number one, that a certain number of weeks equates a slam - no, I'm talking about for the first time in your career becoming #1.

I agree. In many ways, it equates IN THE PLAYERS" MINDS as being as good as a major--as it unfolds. These guys are introduced before each match. To be introduced as the #1 player in the world has got to be HUGE.

This part is clear. The problem is when the player fails to win a major or fails to uphold the ranking "long enough". Then it becomes a hollow and might even become self-defeating. But getting there--getting to #1 in the world and having the world know it and walking around the first week with that label... It is a massive accomplishment. Psychologically, I think it equates to winning a major IF the guy knows that he can beat anyone and, better, has shown that he can.

Your point concerns the act of getting there, the process leading up to it and living in that moment. It's a big deal and highly underrated. I don't know the details of the ranking system(s) long ago but players who've held the #1 ranking for a year or more are legends.

Everyone wants to be #1; the key assumption in your mind is that the glory moments of winning majors either happened or are coming soon.

 

[TMF]

What are you talking about? Of course, I value the number #1 ranking over the Olympic Gold medal. Who doesn't? But a number #1 ranking without a Slam to back it up is a hollow achievement. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it!
Federer and Serena certainly knew it when they both publicly made fun of Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina for being world #1 without being able to win a Slam to back it up.

Being #1 without a slam is a hollow then winning slams without being #1 is also a hollow. You can't have it both way....you, me and everybody knows it !

Jankovic and Safina biggest hole is not having a slam but Murray's biggest hole is never reached #1. Missing one of the two are equally incomplete. Please be open-minded.

So give up trying to suggest otherwise and stop attacking me for pointing out the obvious and trying to turn everything into an attack on Murray just because you dislike him and know that I support him!

Strawman so no comment.

 

[jm1980]

If you were a tennis player, which would be your first and foremost goal?

Let's ask young Novak Djokovic (1:05 mark)

https://youtu.be/tdOS0zCsJsg?t=1m05s

 

[tennisaddict]

Since the start of computerised ATP rankings in 1973:

Multiple Slam winners who never achieved the number #1 ranking:

1. Guillermo Vilas (4 Slams)
2. Sergi Bruguera (2 Slams)
3. Johan Kriek (2 Slams)
4. Andy Murray (2 Slams)

Single Slam winners who achieved the number #1 ranking:

1. Thomas Muster (1996)
2. Carlos Moya (1999)
3. Juan Carlos Ferrero (2003)
4. Andy Roddick (2003-4)

Players who achieved the number #1 ranking without winning a Slam:

1. Ivan Lendl (1983, did not win his first Slam until 1984).
2. Marcelo Rios (1998, never won a Slam).

It is horrendous the lengths you go to diminish the World No 1 achievement. We know why. Because Murray does not have it and does not look like he will ever achieve that.

Do not bring Safina or Jankovic or Wozniacki into the picture. WTA is not same as ATP.

There is only 1 player since 1973 that has reached No 1 without winning slams.

So, there is no freakin need to qualify that one needs to have both world no 1 and slams. It is apparent to the whole world that you need to win several tournaments including majors today for one to become world No 1.

Like someone else said , if reaching No 1 without a slam is hollow , same is winning a slam and not reaching No.1

The list of players who won a major and not reached No 1 is HUGE. So, stop with this childish argument.

 

[jg153040]

Of course being nr.1 is more impressive than a slam. Look at those guys who weren't nr.1 and won slams. Vilas, Murray, Delpo, Wawrinka, Cilic...

When you have to deal with all time greats, they will lose a slam so there is window to win slams, but there is almost no window for nr.1 if a couple of greats are playing.

Also it's not the same to be ranked nr.1 just a few weeks versus 150-300 weeks. A huge difference.

There is a huge difference between winning a few slams and winning a lot of them, like there is a huge difference between 30 weeks nr.1 and 300 weeks nr.1.

People pretend like all nr.1 achievements are equal. No, it's not simply just reaching or not reaching nr.1. Reaching nr.1 is of course great achievement on its own, but staying there for years is a huge difference.

 

[jg153040]

It is horrendous the lengths you go to diminish the World No 1 achievement. We know why. Because Murray does not have it and does not look like he will ever achieve that.

Do not bring Safina or Jankovic or Wozniacki into the picture. WTA is not same as ATP.

There is only 1 player since 1973 that has reached No 1 without winning slams.

So, there is no freakin need to qualify that one needs to have both world no 1 and slams. It is apparent to the whole world that you need to win several tournaments including majors today for one to become world No 1.

Like someone else said , if reaching No 1 without a slam is hollow , same is winning a slam and not reaching No.1

The list of players who won a major and not reached No 1 is HUGE. So, stop with this childish argument.

What bothers me is not that they just dismiss nr.1 achievement, but that they pretend that just reaching nr.1 is the same as being nr.1 for years.

Even if Murray reaches nr.1 for a few weeks, he will still be light years behind people who have 100+ weeks.

The difference between a few weeks nr.1 and 300 weeks nr.1 is the same as the difference between 1 slam and 10 slams.

 

[tennisaddict]

What bothers me is not that they just dismiss nr.1 achievement, but that they pretend that just reaching nr.1 is the same as being nr.1 for years.

Even if Murray reaches nr.1 for a few weeks, he will still be light years behind people who have 100+ weeks.

The difference between a few weeks nr.1 and 300 weeks nr.1 is the same as the difference between 1 slam and 10 slams.

Agree. I would put every 20 weeks at No 1 equal to 1 major.

 

[jg153040]

What are you talking about? Of course, I value the number #1 ranking over the Olympic Gold medal. Who doesn't? But a number #1 ranking without a Slam to back it up is a hollow achievement. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it!
Federer and Serena certainly knew it when they both publicly made fun of Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina for being world #1 without being able to win a Slam to back it up.

So give up trying to suggest otherwise and stop attacking me for pointing out the obvious and trying to turn everything into an attack on Murray just because you dislike him and know that I support him!

Ok, you are just making stuff up. Who out of all time greats have 100+ weeks nr.1 and didn't win a slam?

People who have tons of weeks nr.1 were never slam-less.

Also, just like being nr.1 without a slam is bad, it's also bad winning a slam and never be nr.1.

Also, do you realize that weeks nr.1 matter a lot? Sure, a slam-less guy with a few weeks nr.1 won't be ranked high, but if a slam-less guy is nr.1 for 100+ weeks, that would be considered amazing achievement. Only a few people in history have 100+ weeks nr.1.

If you have 150 weeks nr.1 even without a slam, you would be considered amazing player. But, that can't happen in reality, because nr.1 is consistency + domination all together.

 

[TMF]

Murray fans ===> Weeks at #1 is not important

Nadal fans ===> WTF is a glorified exhibition

 

[Mainad]

It is horrendous the lengths you go to diminish the World No 1 achievement. We know why. Because Murray does not have it and does not look like he will ever achieve that.

Change the record for goodness sakes. Do you really think being called the best player in the world without being able to win one of the world's best tournaments is worth the computer paper it is printed on?

Murray has got nothing to do with this. If Murray had been world #1 for 103 weeks without ever winning a Slam I wouldn't hesitate to say exactly the same and point out its hollowness.

Do not bring Safina or Jankovic or Wozniacki into the picture. WTA is not same as ATP.

The principle is exactly the same. Three players who received the number #1 ranking whilst other players were winning the Slams and all 3 were ridiculed for it!

There is only 1 player since 1973 that has reached No 1 without winning slams.

Yes, and he is constantly compared unfavourably to all the other #1s isn't he?

So, there is no freakin need to qualify that one needs to have both world no 1 and slams. It is apparent to the whole world that you need to win several tournaments including majors today for one to become world No 1.

Exactly. So why are you wasting both our time by trying to argue that being #1 without a Slam is every bit as worthy as being #1 with one?

Like someone else said , if reaching No 1 without a slam is hollow , same is winning a slam and not reaching No.1

Well, no. Nobody ridicules Vilas, Bruguera, Murray, Del Potro, Cilic or Wawrinka for winning Slams without being #1. They are just lauded for winning Slams.

The list of players who won a major and not reached No 1 is HUGE. So, stop with this childish argument.

Exactly. Many players have won a Slam without being #1 and nobody criticises them for it. Players like Rios, on the other hand, have a difficult time trying to live down the fact that they called themselves the best players in the world without being able to win any of the best tournaments. That's just fact and you should stop throwing out childish arguments to try and prove otherwise just because it annoys you that Murray won Slams and Rios didn't!

 

[jg153040]

Agree. I would put every 20 weeks at No 1 equal to 1 major.

Yeah. People just want to dismiss weeks nr.1 and they can't just do that. Even 20 weeks, that is almost half a year being nr.1.

That slams are most important and nothing but the slams, that wasn't in history.
It started because Pete Sampras proclaimed himself the goat with American press based on slams. Of course Americans are great at marketing, so it was a great ploy to make them feel amazing, because Pete was their guy and everybody wants that their guy is the best.

Before Pete, there was 3 slam era. And even before that, Laver won 11 slams, but is still considered above Nadal, Sampras and Borg.

So, this, that slams are everything is just modern marketing, which started with Pete.

In every sport being nr.1 is a huge deal. So, people shouldn't be brainwashed based on that marketing thing that slams are everything.

Wimbledon and nr.1 ranking was always huge. In Laver era, they didn't even count slams. Nobody knew how many they won.

This artificial hype started with Pete.

 

[Mainad]

Ok, you are just making stuff up. Who out of all time greats have 100+ weeks nr.1 and didn't win a slam?

People who have tons of weeks nr.1 were never slam-less.

Also, just like being nr.1 without a slam is bad, it's also bad winning a slam and never be nr.1.

Also, do you realize that weeks nr.1 matter a lot? Sure, a slam-less guy with a few weeks nr.1 won't be ranked high, but if a slam-less guy is nr.1 for 100+ weeks, that would be considered amazing achievement. Only a few people in history have 100+ weeks nr.1.

If you have 150 weeks nr.1 even without a slam, you would be considered amazing player. But, that can't happen in reality, because nr.1 is consistency + domination all together.

For the 10 thousandth friggin' time, will you listen to what I actually said? Of course the number #1 ranking is important and all the best players usually achieve it and all the best players achieve it by winning the best tournaments in order to achieve it. No arguments! But there have been cases in both the ATP and WTA, rare as they may be, where players have secured this ranking without winning Slams and all of them have been criticised for it. That's my point. Being number #1 for 150 weeks without a Slam would indeed be amazing but it would also risk bringing the number #1 ranking into disrepute. After all, what exactly would it mean to call a player the best in the world for over 2 years when other lower ranked players were busy winning the most important events in the sport?

 

[RF-18]

I agree. In many ways, it equates IN THE PLAYERS" MINDS as being as good as a major--as it unfolds. These guys are introduced before each match. To be introduced as the #1 player in the world has got to be HUGE.

This part is clear. The problem is when the player fails to win a major or fails to uphold the ranking "long enough". Then it becomes a hollow and might even become self-defeating. But getting there--getting to #1 in the world and having the world know it and walking around the first week with that label... It is a massive accomplishment. Psychologically, I think it equates to winning a major IF the guy knows that he can beat anyone and, better, has shown that he can.

Your point concerns the act of getting there, the process leading up to it and living in that moment. It's a big deal and highly underrated. I don't know the details of the ranking system(s) long ago but players who've held the #1 ranking for a year or more are legends.

Everyone wants to be #1; the key assumption in your mind is that the glory moments of winning majors either happened or are coming soon.

Good post. That's my thoughts exactly.