Do weeks as no. 1 REALLY matter?

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
not surprised the mods got rid of the Guardian article thread comparing Federer to Nadal :rolleyes:

it was just too much for TT!

I'm gutted they did. There were 13 pages and I'd only read 4 before it was deleted, just as I was really getting into it. :(
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I think it was more a certain poster trying to get away with saying, "Federer and Djokovic are better on clay than hard court" then providing no other defense other than "it's my opinion".

Your sig mate- which esteemed poster on here said that?! :)
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I think it was more a certain poster trying to get away with saying, "Federer and Djokovic are better on clay than hard court" then providing no other defense other than "it's my opinion".

I rolled my eyes at that. Of course, the underlying objective behind that statement is obvious. Overall threads like this should go where they belong...kudos to TTW
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Your sig mate- which esteemed poster on here said that?! :)

objectivity - thought that was obvious ;)

The last few pages were him trying to defend that silly position. He should really change his name to something more fitting - perhaps something along the lines of cow pat :lol:
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Luckily, I have recorded every single absurd claim that objectivity has posted in that thread.

Being a collector of absurd posts and all.

The irony in that is just amazing!

And you must a huge stockpile now, since there have been a few gems. ;)
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
objectivity - thought that was obvious ;)

The last few pages were him trying to defend that silly position. He should really change his name to something more fitting - perhaps something along the lines of cow pat :lol:

Haha thanks for clearing that up. But there are so many objective Nadal fans on here that you can understand my being a little confused. :wink:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I rolled my eyes at that. Of course, the underlying objective behind that statement is obvious. Overall threads like this should go where they belong...kudos to TTW

Indeed, boost Nadal's legacy on clay and diminish his rivals elsewhere.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Haha thanks for clearing that up. But there are so many objective Nadal fans on here that you can understand my being a little confused. :wink:

Ah yes you're right :lol: The VB has a high proportion of dung beetle tier posters in their midst.
 
The irony in that is just amazing!

And you must a huge stockpile now, since there have been a few gems. ;)

Yes.

Throughout the years there have been some really, really classical examples in the "Gems" department.

It provides a good laugh and a thought about the human nature.

That way we allways have something really entertaining to talk about, when making breaks.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Just like what this thread is intended to do.

Not sure if there's any sport where being the best player or team in the world is not celebrated as one of the crowning achievements. Only on this forum is there any doubt about this.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Not sure if there's any sport where being the best player or team in the world is not celebrated as one of the crowning achievements. Only on this forum is there any doubt about this.

To be fair though, he's saying if a player has 2 majors and another 6, but the player with 2 has more weeks #1 do these weeks really translate into success in the big tournaments?

I think not, I'd rather have 6 majors instead of 2 even if it means I never reach #1. But that's just me...
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Not sure if there's any sport where being the best player or team in the world is not celebrated as one of the crowning achievements. Only on this forum is there any doubt about this.

It just shows that Federer's success drives some people insane, and they need to rationalize and bring Federer down in every way possible to sleep well at night. 302 weeks is freakin' insane. There is no other way to put it, that is a huge amount of tennis to be on top of the tennis world, considering how demanding the sport is, with the travelling, the training, the matches, the injuries, the media commitments, and trying to balance it all with a private life. Federer earned each and every one of his 302 weeks at the top, by being the best in the world.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
To be fair though, he's saying if a player has 2 majors and another 6, but the player with 2 has more weeks #1 do these weeks really translate into success in the big tournaments?

I think not, I'd rather have 6 majors instead of 2 even if it means I never reach #1. But that's just me...

I rather have 1000 weeks nr.1 than winning 6 majors. But that is just me.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
To be fair though, he's saying if a player has 2 majors and another 6, but the player with 2 has more weeks #1 do these weeks really translate into success in the big tournaments?

I think not, I'd rather have 6 majors instead of 2 even if it means I never reach #1. But that's just me...

Of course, but when you get to a certain status in the game to really enter the top echelon it is my opinion that you need to of been the best player in the world for a long time. As you move down the tiers it matters less.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
It just shows that Federer's success drives some people insane, and they need to rationalize and bring Federer down in every way possible to sleep well at night. 302 weeks is freakin' insane. There is no other way to put it, that is a huge amount of tennis to be on top of the tennis world, considering how demanding the sport is, with the travelling, the training, the matches, the injuries, the media commitments, and trying to balance it all with a private life. Federer earned each and every one of his 302 weeks at the top, by being the best in the world.

Yeah. I actually thought Sampras record was already insane. Also his consecutive 6 years ending nr.1.

I was so sad when Fed missed the record for one week. Because I considered it a huge achievement and actually though Fed was too good to end up with less weeks nr.1 than Fed. Thank god for 2012. Because it would be crazy if Pete without being good on clay and way less dominant than Fed would end up with more weeks.

What bugs me is that fans are biased and don't see how insane this is. Those armchair critics that never picked up a racket.

I admire some of insane Rafa records even if I'm Fed fan. For example 9 wins in one slam or 10 straight years winning a major.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Of course, but when you get to a certain status in the game to really enter the top echelon it is my opinion that you need to of been the best player in the world for a long time. As you move down the tiers it matters less.

Well nothing for you to worry about, Fed's 302 weeks will stand for a VERY long time. Don't see anyone getting past it.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Yeah. I actually thought Sampras record was already insane. Also his consecutive 6 years ending nr.1.

I was so sad when Fed missed the record for one week. Because I considered it a huge achievement and actually though Fed was too good to end up with less weeks nr.1 than Fed. Thank god for 2012. Because it would be crazy if Pete without being good on clay and way less dominant than Fed would end up with more weeks.

What bugs me is that fans are biased and don't see how insane this is. Those armchair critics that never picked up a racket.

I admire some of insane Rafa records even if I'm Fed fan. For example 9 wins in one slam or 10 straight years winning a major.

Records like these are meant to be broken. But they should also be respected, regardless of who creates them.
 
the nice thing about academia, is that academics usually can just agree to disagree. problem with lesser educated folks, is that everything becomes personal and ad-hominem.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
^^ Fairly sure that when 'academics' write nonsense it still gets torn apart by their peers.
 
^^ Fairly sure that when 'academics' write nonsense it still gets torn apart by their peers.

of course it will. but it is at least civil.

and nobody will bother to "tear apart" another person if that person explicitly stated that its just an opinion and isn't a causal statement, and further qualified that statement by stating that he has no strong evidence.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
That's over 19 years ranked #1 :lol:

If you were ranked #1 for that long and still won less than 6 majors you'd look like a complete choker and dead set idiot.

But, I would be very rich. No, the field wood look like idiots. They win slams and can't become nr.1.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
^^ Fairly sure that when 'academics' write nonsense it still gets torn apart by their peers.

Yeah, and with academics, it's not a matter of opinion. It'c actually evidence that guides them. They aren't just making stuff up and disagreeing on everything. They disagree mostly on new non proven theories. They don't disagree about proven facts.

At least that kind of thinking makes progress.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Well what can I say, sh*t field with a sh*t leader :lol:

Is that the reason Nadal skips majors because if you lose you are sh*t ?

Only in TTW, runner ups and being No. 1 are sh*t.

Losing early or skipping tournament is courageous and need appreciated.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
please! :rolleyes:

students do what each particular professor wants in order to get the highest grade possible; ignorant or not.

No, some say screw it and become tennis players.

Blake rejected Harvard. He said, no I'm not playing their game.

And he made more money than all of those professors combined. He made almost eight million with prize money alone.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Is that the reason Nadal skips majors because if you lose you are sh*t ?

Only in TTW, runner ups and being No. 1 are sh*t.

Losing early or skipping tournament is courageous and need appreciated.

No the field is sh*t if they let a guy stay #1 for nearly 20 years since that #1 isn't even capable of winning more than 5 slams.

LOL I know logic fails most of you but please try not to be so ridiculous...
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
So if a guy is not winning a major, he should lose early so he doesn't make it to number 1 ? Because if he does so, he is labelled a choker.

No, if he's #1 for nearly 20 years, he should be good enough to win more than 5 majors. If he loses early he will not be #1 for so long and will then be known as a journeyman.

Hard to comprehend for you, I know...
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
No, if he's #1 for nearly 20 years, he should be good enough to win more than 5 majors.

Because you say so ? Why do you assume a correlation ?

There have been major winners who have not been No. 1 and there have been no.1 who have not been major winners.

Forget about all that. Why is being major runner up or being a number 1 shabby for someone who does not win a major ?

You think it is worse of to be a Berdych or Rios and it is better to be someone like Fognini ?
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
No, some say screw it and become tennis players.

Blake rejected Harvard. He said, no I'm not playing their game.

And he made more money than all of those professors combined. He made almost eight million with prize money alone.

Really? He made more than Michael Porter alone? :lol:

Do you even have a bachelor? :confused:
 

Revenant

Banned
Grand Slam titles come first, then weeks at No.1 follows. I'd rank year-end No.1 as the more important achievement than weeks st No.1 though.

Interesting. You didn't feel that way when Sampras held both the records. Now that Federer broke the record for weeks at #1, you think the YE#1 record is more important. LOL!

Number of year end number 1 can be deceptive. A person can have a total of 4 weeks at number 1 spot, and ended up with 4 year-end number 1. Overall, weeks are better indication of dominance.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Because you say so ? Why do you assume a correlation ?

There have been major winners who have not been No. 1 and there have been no.1 who have not been major winners.

Forget about all that. Why is being major runner up or being a number 1 shabby for someone who does not win a major ?

You think it is worse of to be a Berdych or Rios and it is better to be someone like Fognini ?

Because common sense says so.

Btw, where did I say it was "shabby" to not win a major and be #1? Where did I ever say you're better off losing early? If you can't read, you shouldn't enter a discussion.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Interesting. You didn't feel that way when Sampras held both the records. Now that Federer broke the record for weeks at #1, you think the YE#1 record is more important. LOL!

You seem to enjoy bringing up posts from the past. So tell me, which previously banned poster are you? :lol:
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Interesting. You didn't feel that way when Sampras held both the records. Now that Federer broke the record for weeks at #1, you think the YE#1 record is more important. LOL!

Reading comprehension failed. I only said weeks at No.1 is a better indication of dominance, but I still think year-end No.1 is the more historically important record.

Stop embarassing yourself, please. :oops:
 

Revenant

Banned
You seem to enjoy bringing up posts from the past. So tell me, which previously banned poster are you? :lol:

I am simply smart enough to use the search function. I searched for posts helloworld made with the keywords "weeks year end better" and I came up with that post. It's easy. Even you should be able to manage it.
 

Revenant

Banned
Reading comprehension failed. I only said weeks at No.1 is a better indication of dominance, but I still think year-end No.1 is the more historically important record.

Stop embarassing yourself, please. :oops:

The thread title was: "which is more important: no of weeks at no.1,or no. or years end at no. 1"

Link: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3341579

You responded with:
Number of year end number 1 can be deceptive. A person can have a total of 4 weeks at number 1 spot, and ended up with 4 year-end number 1. Overall, weeks are better indication of dominance.

LOL!
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I am simply smart enough to use the search function. I searched for posts helloworld made with the keywords "weeks year end better" and I came up with that post. It's easy. Even you should be able to manage it.

Nah, I doubt you have any intelligence. You've been banned before and by the looks of it, you haven't learned your lesson. It's ok though, only a matter of time till the mods get onto you :lol:
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Because common sense says so.

Btw, where did I say it was "shabby" to not win a major and be #1? Where did I ever say you're better off losing early? If you can't read, you shouldn't enter a discussion.

I don't see why there is even a debate. Fed has most majors AND weeks nr.1.
He leads in both categories.

People make it seem like Fed is some slamless equivalent of Wozniacki.
 

victorcruz

Hall of Fame
In the grand scheme of things, I'd much rather my favorite player win a slam or 2 than hold #1 all year long.

If Rafa wants to be #2 for the rest of his career, I won't mind as long as he is not hanging around till 33 losing in slam Finals trying to get #18. He should have 18 with time to spare by then. Vamos! :D
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
In the grand scheme of things, I'd much rather my favorite player win a slam or 2 than hold #1 all year long.

If Rafa wants to be #2 for the rest of his career, I won't mind as long as he is not hanging around till 33 losing in slam Finals trying to get #18. He should have 18 with time to spare by then. Vamos! :D

That's why rankings are additional indicator of greatness. Exactly. People can slack off and only show up for slams.

Fed is always playing, going deep and he should be rewarded for that.
 
Top