BGod
G.O.A.T.
As has been mentioned by many here, the weeks at #1 is very circumstantial, some believe it should be largely discounted but I believe in the law of averages and despite long reigns by Lendl, Sampras and Federer somewhat distorting the overall numbers I think it's more or less a general metric that you can consider when doing rankings.
HOWEVER there are some obvious disparities and since the rankings came out in 1973 what are the biggest anomalies to you?
In the Poll you vote for TWO
As I think this will generate more discussion and I think there's serious conversation for more than 1.
Boris Becker with just 12 weeks
As a 6-time Slam champion often slotted somewhere in the Top 10, this is the best argument of how a great player can be denigrated because their best achievements coincide with better consistency from another all-timer. In this case it was namely Lendl who stole as some would claim numerous weeks from Becker's resume. In total, 6 players with 4 or less Slams had more weeks at the #1 spot than Becker while contemporary Edberg with the same amount had 60 more.
Lleyton Hewitt with 80 weeks
On the other extreme we have Hewitt who not only garnered 80 weeks overall but 75 consecutively, a mark only bested by 5 other players. This of course occured during his 2 year peak where he won 1 Slam in each year but also captured the WTF and had 5 deep runs at the Masters both years too. This came in what many refer to as a transitional era where simply put no other players was able to manage the same consistency with Sampras on the decline, clay court specialists vulturing there and the biggest challengers being Agassi, Ferrero, Kuerten, Kafelnikov(01) and Safin (02).
Stan Wawrinka with 0
Yes, we know the Big 3 and Andy Murray stood in the way of this by context but no 2-time Slam Champion since the rankings came out in 1973 has failed to be ranked #1 let alone a 3-time Champion. Meanwhile 12 men who won a career 3 Slams or less and the many times on top of that when a player holding 1 Slam was able to garner the ranking got #1. So in the historical context it's certainly loony.
Gustavo Kuerten's 43
It's less about Kuerten's YE in 2000 and more about him actually holding it for 43 weeks despite never making it past the quarters of any Slam except 1 (which he did on 3 occasions). Indeed out of the 26 players who have made #1, all of them except Kuerten and Rios made deep runs to the final four in multiple Slams including Thomas Muster who made 2 AO semifinals. Kuerten's #1 came in a perfect storm no doubt but the margins were close between Safin and Agassi so the fact he held it for nearly a calendar year just goes to show how opportune his victories really were (including in Cincinnati)
Marcel Rios
When you're the only man of 26 to be ranked #1 without ever winning a Slam, it's weird. However Rios held it for 4 weeks after making the AO final and accomplishing the Sunshine Double as the 5th and 6th hardest tournaments to win. He then got another 2 weeks after winning Rome and making French Open quarter run and Sampras dropping the ball in Cincinnati. To me, this isn't that bad considering it was just 6 weeks and really had Rios reeling off a lot of points in that interim. However the fact he never won a Slam makes him very lucky in this regard as a total 22 Slam champions never got that honor.
Mats Wilander's 20
Becker's 12 weeks despite 6 Slams has been mentioned but Wilander's 20 with 7 is just as bad if not worse considering when he captured the #1 and for what. Unlike the many gents who only got the #1 due to the right concentration of winning, Wilander needed to capture 3 Slams to garner the #1 and was only able to hold it for exactly those 20 weeks and never again. He lost it shortly after the start of 89 when he failed to defend his AO title losing in the 2nd round but he still held 2 Slams and 2 Masters while Lendl upgraded his previous year's SF to a win he would drop slightly at the French from QF to 4th. Lendl's amassed secondary titles however was simply too much as when he took the mantle from Wilander he held on to it for 80 weeks despite only winning 1 more Major.
Jimmy Connors' 268
By now many should know Connors accumulated a great deal of lower tier tournaments equivalent to 250 level today. Some of these tournaments only had 4 rounds and of course Bo3. This partly explains why Connors racked up so many weeks at #1. Although winning his 2nd Slam of 1974 at Wimbledon and holding on to the ranking through 1975 where he made all 3 Finals of Slams played, the continued streak that stretched to 160 until shortly before the US Open in 77. It was this streak that Federer broke winning 3/4 Slams in 3 seasons. Connors meanwhile never replicated his 74 escapades and in 76-77 he skipped the French, making the QF at Wimbledon and winning USO in 76 and back to back finals in 77. Borg in 76 went QF-W-F and won the WCT Final along with winning Boston and making the Philadelphia final. In 77, Borg took the #1 briefly before being upset at the USO and losing it to Connors who held it for another 84 weeks. This despite Borg's 1978 being vastly superior to Connors. While Vilas won 2 Slams himself in 77 making another final ending the year #2. It's interesting to note about Borg his longest reign at 46 weeks came in 1980 shortly after defending his Wimbledon in the epic final. Connors would somehow keep adding 17 weeks between late 1982 to mid 1983.
HOWEVER there are some obvious disparities and since the rankings came out in 1973 what are the biggest anomalies to you?
In the Poll you vote for TWO
As I think this will generate more discussion and I think there's serious conversation for more than 1.
Boris Becker with just 12 weeks
As a 6-time Slam champion often slotted somewhere in the Top 10, this is the best argument of how a great player can be denigrated because their best achievements coincide with better consistency from another all-timer. In this case it was namely Lendl who stole as some would claim numerous weeks from Becker's resume. In total, 6 players with 4 or less Slams had more weeks at the #1 spot than Becker while contemporary Edberg with the same amount had 60 more.
Lleyton Hewitt with 80 weeks
On the other extreme we have Hewitt who not only garnered 80 weeks overall but 75 consecutively, a mark only bested by 5 other players. This of course occured during his 2 year peak where he won 1 Slam in each year but also captured the WTF and had 5 deep runs at the Masters both years too. This came in what many refer to as a transitional era where simply put no other players was able to manage the same consistency with Sampras on the decline, clay court specialists vulturing there and the biggest challengers being Agassi, Ferrero, Kuerten, Kafelnikov(01) and Safin (02).
Stan Wawrinka with 0
Yes, we know the Big 3 and Andy Murray stood in the way of this by context but no 2-time Slam Champion since the rankings came out in 1973 has failed to be ranked #1 let alone a 3-time Champion. Meanwhile 12 men who won a career 3 Slams or less and the many times on top of that when a player holding 1 Slam was able to garner the ranking got #1. So in the historical context it's certainly loony.
Gustavo Kuerten's 43
It's less about Kuerten's YE in 2000 and more about him actually holding it for 43 weeks despite never making it past the quarters of any Slam except 1 (which he did on 3 occasions). Indeed out of the 26 players who have made #1, all of them except Kuerten and Rios made deep runs to the final four in multiple Slams including Thomas Muster who made 2 AO semifinals. Kuerten's #1 came in a perfect storm no doubt but the margins were close between Safin and Agassi so the fact he held it for nearly a calendar year just goes to show how opportune his victories really were (including in Cincinnati)
Marcel Rios
When you're the only man of 26 to be ranked #1 without ever winning a Slam, it's weird. However Rios held it for 4 weeks after making the AO final and accomplishing the Sunshine Double as the 5th and 6th hardest tournaments to win. He then got another 2 weeks after winning Rome and making French Open quarter run and Sampras dropping the ball in Cincinnati. To me, this isn't that bad considering it was just 6 weeks and really had Rios reeling off a lot of points in that interim. However the fact he never won a Slam makes him very lucky in this regard as a total 22 Slam champions never got that honor.
Mats Wilander's 20
Becker's 12 weeks despite 6 Slams has been mentioned but Wilander's 20 with 7 is just as bad if not worse considering when he captured the #1 and for what. Unlike the many gents who only got the #1 due to the right concentration of winning, Wilander needed to capture 3 Slams to garner the #1 and was only able to hold it for exactly those 20 weeks and never again. He lost it shortly after the start of 89 when he failed to defend his AO title losing in the 2nd round but he still held 2 Slams and 2 Masters while Lendl upgraded his previous year's SF to a win he would drop slightly at the French from QF to 4th. Lendl's amassed secondary titles however was simply too much as when he took the mantle from Wilander he held on to it for 80 weeks despite only winning 1 more Major.
Jimmy Connors' 268
By now many should know Connors accumulated a great deal of lower tier tournaments equivalent to 250 level today. Some of these tournaments only had 4 rounds and of course Bo3. This partly explains why Connors racked up so many weeks at #1. Although winning his 2nd Slam of 1974 at Wimbledon and holding on to the ranking through 1975 where he made all 3 Finals of Slams played, the continued streak that stretched to 160 until shortly before the US Open in 77. It was this streak that Federer broke winning 3/4 Slams in 3 seasons. Connors meanwhile never replicated his 74 escapades and in 76-77 he skipped the French, making the QF at Wimbledon and winning USO in 76 and back to back finals in 77. Borg in 76 went QF-W-F and won the WCT Final along with winning Boston and making the Philadelphia final. In 77, Borg took the #1 briefly before being upset at the USO and losing it to Connors who held it for another 84 weeks. This despite Borg's 1978 being vastly superior to Connors. While Vilas won 2 Slams himself in 77 making another final ending the year #2. It's interesting to note about Borg his longest reign at 46 weeks came in 1980 shortly after defending his Wimbledon in the epic final. Connors would somehow keep adding 17 weeks between late 1982 to mid 1983.
