I don't get the hype about weeks at no.1/YE No. 1

L

Love Life and Rafa

New User
What's so special about YE #1 and weeks at no. 1?.

I just don't get the hype.

For sure, there's the "being best of the entire sports" for so many week achievement, that's true. But seriously, how is being #1 really that big of an achievement when the #2 guy might in reality be just a few points off from the #1.

Hypothetical scenario here for 200 weeks of play in the ATP calendar:

A guy, suppose Mr. X is #1 in the ATP rankings for 100 weeks while another guy, Mr. Y, is #2 for all these same weeks, always very close to the Mr. X but not quite good enough to make it to #1.

Now after these 100 weeks are over, another new player Mr. Z comes in and starts dominating the sport, at the same time Mr. X declines BIG TIME and never stays in the top 5 again. Yet. Mr. Y who is only mid-way through his prime doesn't decline a lot, and still gives tough competition Mr. Z but is once again, like he was previously with Mr. X never quite good enough to displace Mr. Z (maybe a few weeks here and there, but overall among the 100 weeks that follow, he only leads for 20 weeks and the rest of the weeks he's at number 2.).

So here we have a scenario where among the same 200 weeks played:

Amount of times spent as #1
Mr. X : 100 weeks.
Mr. Y: 30 weeks.
Mr. Z: 70 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #2
Mr. X: 5 weeks.
Mr. Y: 170 weeks.
Mr. Z: 30 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #3
Mr. X: 15 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 5 weeks.

Amount of spent as #4 or lower
Mr. X: 80 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 95 weeks.



So basically you have a scenario in which three guys were at the pinaccle of the sport for 200 weeks but among these Mr. Y racked up the most slams (he racked up slams during both the era of Mr. X and Mr. Z), was in the top 2 for all of these 200 weeks, when Mr.X/Mr.Z performed much worse except for the periods during which they #1. Yet Mr. Y has significantly lower #1's than Mr. X and Mr. Z.


Now, let's assume that this 200 weeks constituted their entire tennis career. Basically it might be achievements for Mr. X and Mr. Z to have more time as #1 than Mr. Y. But care to explain to me how they are better than Mr. Y based on this factor (weeks at #1) alone, when it is clear that it is Mr. Y who performed the best among them (without falling apart) during this entire stretch of 200 weeks.
 
^^ This too.

Also, with respect to OP, I would like to point out, in case it is not that obvious:

For these 200 weeks, Mr. Y was significantly better than Mr. X during the last 100 weeks and significantly better than Mr. Z for the first 100 weeks. Yet they were only just better than Mr. Y during the other half.

So, what does having lesser #1 signify in this case, other than the fact that the players with the highest peak (but not necessarily highest consistency - the thing which tennis is all about) end up getting the #1 and it is not a complete stat when comparing players?
 
You don't get the hype about being the world's best player for an extended period of time?

:rolleyes:
 
NatF said:
You don't get the hype about being the world's best player for an extended period of time?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not quite what I meant.

I just don't get the hype of using world number 1 in comparing careers when it might not be an actual indicator of substantial achievement, as explained in the OP. (Mr. Y pwns Mr. X and Mr. Z in consistency despite having MUCH lower weeks at #1's).
 
#weeks and YE number ranking are just other ways to measure greatness. It must be incredibly difficult to maintain #1 ranking for more than a year.
 
Love said:
Not quite what I meant.

I just don't get the hype of using world number 1 in comparing careers when it might not be an actual indicator of substantial achievement, as explained in the OP. (Mr. Y pwns Mr. X and Mr. Z in consistency despite having MUCH lower weeks at #1's).
Click to expand...

Weeks at 1 is a substantial achievement by itself. It means you were the best player across 52 weeks and in the context of your era it means you were the best player if you notch up enough of them.

Your hypothetical doesn't mean much in reality. Weeks at #1 will be scrutinized like any other tennis stat when comparing players.
 
It means a lot but certainly not nearly as much as Grand Slams.

If we're arguing having 0 weeks at #1 and 2 slams than 100 weeks at #1 with 0 slams, I would rather be richer and #1 for 100 weeks without a slam. But this is not the case if you have 10+ slams as money is not a big issue because you are already a millionaire. In terms of legacy, it doesn't matter as much because everyone is chasing the slams.
 
NatF said:
Weeks at 1 is a substantial achievement by itself. It means you were the best player across 52 weeks and in the context of your era it means you were the best player if you notch up enough of them.

Your hypothetical doesn't mean much in reality. Weeks at #1 will be scrutinized like any other tennis stat when comparing players.
Click to expand...

What I mean to say, if we're attaching so much importance to weeks at no.1, than why not to weeks at no.2 and no.3 etc.
Or else this might be biased towards people with higher peaks for a certain range, than towards people with higher consistency for an even larger time-frame, as demonstrated in the OP.


LazyNinja19 said:
But you are the OP. :? :D
Click to expand...

I meant, Opening Post not Opening Poster :)
 
Love said:
What I mean to say, if we're attaching so much importance to weeks at no.1, than why not to weeks at no.2 and no.3 etc.
Or else this might be biased towards people with higher peaks for a certain range, than towards people with higher consistency for an even larger time-frame, as demonstrated in the OP.
Click to expand...

Because being #1 is much better than being #2, it's why we attach more importance to winning a slam rather than finishing runner up.

Being #1 requires consistency, that's why Federer had a shot this year despite his peak play not being enough to get it done in general.
 
NatF said:
Because being #1 is much better than being #2, it's why we attach more importance to winning a slam rather than finishing runner up.

Being #1 requires consistency, that's why Federer had a shot this year despite his peak play not being enough to get it done in general.
Click to expand...

But do consider and answer the OP please.

Do you consider Mr. Y inferior to Mr. X and Mr. Z just because he was a close second to each of them in turn (one half) throughout their 200 week career?. Or do you consider him to be superior because he stayed in top 2 for all these 200 weeks, while the other two were nowhere to be seen competing in the top echelon after dominating for nearly 100 weeks each?
 
Love said:
But do consider and answer the OP please.

Do you consider Mr. Y inferior to Mr. X and Mr. Z just because he was a close second to each of them in turn (one half) throughout their 200 week career?. Or do you consider him to be superior because he stayed in top 2 for all these 200 weeks, while the other two were nowhere to be seen competing in the top echelon after dominating for nearly 100 weeks each?
Click to expand...

I'd look at their other achievements to separate them in reality. Such as the rate those majors were won etc...

I'd say X ~> Y > Z unless Y has a significant lead in slams. I think your scenario is more to do with longevity. Obviously for a 2 year period X was more consistent or more dominant etc...than Y. Yet at some point X fell off quite rapidly.

I'd need more information.
 
NatF said:
I'd look at their other achievements to separate them in reality. Such as the rate those majors were won etc...

I'd say X ~> Y > Z unless Y has a significant lead in slams. I think your scenario is more to do with longevity. Obviously for a 2 year period X was more consistent or more dominant etc...than Y. Yet at some point X fell off quite rapidly.

I'd need more information.
Click to expand...


Funny you should think that. :)

In case you didn't read fully, I clearly stated that for the 100 weeks that X was #1 and Y was #2, the difference between them was not that huge (points were close).

And the next 100 weeks Y continued to be in top 2 with a short stint at number 1 (20 weeks), while X fell off the radar rapidly.

Also, I stated Y racked up more slams in this 200 week career of theirs.

Does this change your mind in the slightest?.
 
Love said:
Funny you should think that. :)

In case you didn't read fully, I clearly stated that for the 100 weeks that X was #1 and Y was #2, the difference between them was not that huge (points were close).

And the next 100 weeks Y continued to be in top 2 with a short stint at number 1 (20 weeks), while X fell off the radar rapidly.

Also, I stated Y racked up more slams in this 200 week career of theirs.

Does this change your mind in the slightest?.
Click to expand...

I guess Y would be greater but X would be better at his best.
 
The bottom line is Nadal wasn't good enough to stay long enough at #1. To be the best you have to consistently beating against the field, and right now Nole is the best, Roger is 2nd and Nadal is 3rd.
 
NatF said:
I guess Y would be greater but X would be better at his best.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Good to see a reasonable tennis fan.

And this was exactly what I'm getting at :)

"Y would be greater" in your own words, despite having only about 1/4th of the weeks at no.1 while playing in the same era as X. (200 week tennis career).

This is the reason why I think the weeks at no.1 get too much hyped by the tennis society in general.

Can you show me a scenario where a person winning 4 times the number of slams as another person in the same era, would not be considered greater than this second person? :)
 
TMF said:
The bottom line is Nadal wasn't good enough to stay long enough at #1. To be the best you have to consistently beating against the field, and right now Nole is the best, Roger is 2nd and Nadal is 3rd.
Click to expand...

The point that I made in this thread stands though.

If we attach importance to weeks at number 1 while comparing tennis careers, then weeks at number 2 and 3 should also be considered (albeit, might be given lesser weight), because being world number 1 does not present the whole picture of competition/consistency etc.
 
Love said:
Thanks. Good to see a reasonable tennis fan.

And this was exactly what I'm getting at :)

"Y would be greater" in your own words, despite having only about 1/4th of the weeks at no.1 while playing in the same era as X. (200 week tennis career).

This is the reason why I think the weeks at no.1 get too much hyped by the tennis society in general.

Can you show me a scenario where a person winning 4 times the number of slams as another person in the same era, would not be considered greater than this second person? :)
Click to expand...

The point was that you said Y was very close to X for all that time. If he was that close then I would evaluate those weeks at #1 a bit differently. The fact is your scenario is very unlikely and therefore no baring on the real world where being #1 is generally significantly better than being #2.
 
#1 identifies the player with the best accumulation of consistently good results over the last 52 weeks. So it is a meaningful achievement and measure.

In your scenario, Mr Y, although very good over a long period of time, was just not able to have *the best* accumulation of results over 52 weeks for very long, seeing as he was eclipsed in that respect first by Mr X, and then by Mr Z.

However #1 is not and cannot be the only measure of greatness, since it measures sustained excellence, but not peak excellence. Peak excellence is measured by slam wins - occasions where a player was better than the field over the course of two weeks.

So the two have to be taken together. In your example, you say Mr Y racked up the most slams, so he would have that achievement to his credit.

This just all demonstrates how incredibly remarkable it would be for a player to lead in both categories (#1 weeks and slam wins), since this means leading in both sustained excellence and also in peak excellence.
 
NatF said:
The point was that you said Y was very close to X for all that time. If he was that close then I would evaluate those weeks at #1 a bit differently. The fact is your scenario is very unlikely and therefore no baring on the real world where being #1 is generally significantly better than being #2.
Click to expand...

In that case, as people don't usually take into account the points difference between #1 and #2 and if taken into account, like you say, this would real to difference in evaluation - why can't we measure players by the overall average points garnered throughout their careers taking into account for any inflations over the course of years by changing of the points system?.

This would definitely be more insightful than claiming a player is greater on the basis of weeks at #1.


And yes, I do understand that my scenario is not realistic, but then again, I wanted to demonstrate the utter uselessness of using weeks at no.1 in comparing tennis career. Real life might not show such high variances, but it still applies. Point in case being Marcelo Rios, who achieved no.1 without a slam, so we can't consider him to be greater than slam winners who don't have no.1.
 
Love said:
The point that I made in this thread stands though.

If we attach importance to weeks at number 1 while comparing tennis careers, then weeks at number 2 and 3 should also be considered (albeit, might be given lesser weight), because being world number 1 does not present the whole picture of competition/consistency etc.
Click to expand...

Funny how Nadal fans value Federer Olympic Silver Medal next to nothing as if he's a complete failure until he wins the Gold. And now being second place in the ranking is a big deal.:?


Ranked #1 does present consistency and dominant. Competition is subjective.

Federer spent most of his 302 weeks at #1 when he was a multi-slam winners in 52-week span. Meanwhile Nadal spent a lot of times at #2 when he was a 1 slam a year. When he was #1, most of that time was when he's a multi-slam winners in 52-week span.
 
OrangePower said:
#1 identifies the player with the best accumulation of consistently good results over the last 52 weeks. So it is a meaningful achievement and measure.

In your scenario, Mr Y, although very good over a long period of time, was just not able to have *the best* accumulation of results over 52 weeks for very long, seeing as he was eclipsed in that respect first by Mr X, and then by Mr Z.

However #1 is not and cannot be the only measure of greatness, since it measures sustained excellence, but not peak excellence. Peak excellence is measured by slam wins - occasions where a player was better than the field over the course of two weeks.

So the two have to be taken together. In your example, you say Mr Y racked up the most slams, so he would have that achievement to his credit.

This just all demonstrates how incredibly remarkable it would be for a player to lead in both categories (#1 weeks and slam wins), since this means leading in both sustained excellence and also in peak excellence.
Click to expand...

Good post.

My gripe, isn't using weeks at no.1 in determining player greatness. It surely is a remarkable achievement.

It's not using weeks at no.2 and weeks at no.3 also. (esp. when the difference between no.1 and these might not be that high).

Or as explained in my previous post, some other method, such as points gained throughout the season.
 
TMF said:
Funny how Nadal fans value Federer Olympic Silver Medal next to nothing as if he's a complete failure until he wins the Gold. And now being second place in the ranking is a big deal.:?


Ranked #1 does present consistency and dominant. Competition is subjective.

Federer spent most of his 302 weeks at #1 when he was a multi-slam winners in 52-week span. Meanwhile Nadal spent a lot of times at #2 when he was a 1 slam a year. When he was #1, most of that time was when he's a multi-slam winners in 52-week span.
Click to expand...

Please point it out to me where I used "Federer" or "Nadal" in this entire thread.

I'm just debating the supposed "value" given to weeks at world no.1 while measuring player careers.
 
Love said:
What's so special about YE #1 and weeks at no. 1?.

I just don't get the hype.

For sure, there's the "being best of the entire sports" for so many week achievement, that's true. But seriously, how is being #1 really that big of an achievement when the #2 guy might in reality be just a few points off from the #1.
Click to expand...

Same reason why winning a slam is still an achievement if you beat your opponent by the slimmest of margins, say just one additional break of serve or one TB or by winning fewer overall points than the opponent ? Do you say what is the big deal about winning the slam when the opponent was a couple of points away from winning it ?
 
sbengte said:
Same reason why winning a slam is still an achievement if you beat your opponent by the slimmest of margins, say just one additional break of serve or one TB or by winning fewer overall points than the opponent ? Do you say what is the big deal about winning the slam when the opponent was a couple of points away from winning it ?
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, my friend.

Also, we do use slam finals reached while comparing player careers, sometimes. But we never use weeks at #2.
 
Love said:
Please point it out to me where I used "Federer" or "Nadal" in this entire thread.

I'm just debating the supposed "value" given to weeks at world no.1 while measuring player careers.
Click to expand...


Then give us an example of two players with a similar career achievements but one has vastly greater numbers in weeks at #1 and YE #1.
 
Let's start a petition to stop the OP from reproducing.

There's really no reason why this guy (or girl), should be allowed to take responsibility for another human being. In fact, he/she should NOT be allowed to pass on any genes to the next generation.

Such a public display of pure idiocy needs to be punished severely.

The one upside I can see after reading this thread is that the OP, very likely may not be able to find the right hole (assuming the OP is a guy). In that case we are lucky.
 
Last edited:
Magnetite said:
Let's start a petition to stop the OP from reproducing.

There's really no reason why this guy (or girl), should be allowed to take responsibility for another human being. In fact, he/she should NOT be allowed to pass on any genes to the next generation.

Such a public display of pure idiocy needs to be punished severely.

The one upside I can see after reading this thread is that the OP, very likely may not be able to find the hole. In that case we are lucky.
Click to expand...

Huh? :confused:

:(
 
Love said:
Apples and oranges, my friend.
Click to expand...

Not really. The purpose of a match or a tournament is to determine who the best player is. It doesn't matter if he turns out to be the best just by virtue of a couple of points or games here and there (especially if it is due to a lucky draw, lucky line calls, you name it...) . So also the ranking system. There could be 10 different reasons why #1 player X is a few point ahead of #2 player Y but the bottomline is that X is #1.

Also, we do use slam finals reached while comparing player careers, sometimes. But we never use weeks at #2.
Click to expand...

Who says that ? For eg. When you talk of Nadal's greatness, the fact that he has been the greatest no.2 of all time (max time spend at no.2) doesn't go unaccounted for. Everyone knows it.
 
Stupid post man.

How on earth is being the #1 player in the world irrelevant?

It makes no sense. Every professional player wants to be the #1 player in the world, in any sport (unless they are resigned to the fact that they can't achieve it).

It needs no discussion. What a completely ridiculous notion.

You need help.
 
Majors and WTF alone don't tell the whole story. Kafelnikov and Hewitt will be regarded the same otherwise.

Tennis is played in so many different continents and countries. One cannot make every event a grand slam or WTF, however they all are important and add up to the achievements. Hence whoever gets most points at the end of the year, is hailed for dominance and consistency across all surfaces, across different player fields , across a good amount of time.

You can win 1 major each for 9 years, yet no where near number 1 , which means you are just good at that one tournament by means of surface mastery, yet when it comes to well-rounded resume you fall short.
 
Love said:
Good post.

My gripe, isn't using weeks at no.1 in determining player greatness. It surely is a remarkable achievement.

It's not using weeks at no.2 and weeks at no.3 also. (esp. when the difference between no.1 and these might not be that high).

Or as explained in my previous post, some other method, such as points gained throughout the season.
Click to expand...

Agreed that #2, #3 are also meaningful.

And they do get taken into account, although informally. For example, we might say that a player is a "perennial top 5 player", "one of the big four", etc.

Also I agree that having some additional metrics that make use of ranking points would be interesting and useful, e.g.:

- Per season, % of points a player has relative to the sum total for the top 10.

- Total career ranking points, or something similar.
 
The extent to which some Rafa fans go to discredit achievements in which Nadal is not at the top of the list.... :neutral:

MichaelNadal!! Where are you?! I need an objective Rafa fan! :)
 
Last edited:
"Weeks at number one" and "YE#1" are incomplete historical tennis statistic which should not be used while comparing generational champions because it only dates to 1973. It omits 5 years of the Open Era and over 80+ years of tennis history prior to the Open Era. People who attempt to use these statistics to prop their All-Time favorites are just majoring in minors.

To date and as throughout history, ITHOF inclusion for former players has focused upon "Grand Slam Event Wins" and "Career Achievements" (which are limited to Davis/Fed Cup and Olympic Medalists). Other achievements are listed in a small paragraph narrative, unhighlighed.

http://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/chris-evert

When assessing tennis history, you must avoid traveling down Minor Highway because the ITHOF does not major in minors and neither should you! We should embrace traveling down Major Highway where the rest stops are consistent and the road is well traveled, more easier to navigate and with less construction work.

We really need to be discussing how to shift the narrative and begin majoring in majors instead of majoring in minors. You kids need to get it together!


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
 
SpinToWin said:
The extent to which some Rafa fans go to discredit achievements in which Nadal is not at the top of the list.... :neutral:

MichealNadal!! Where are you?! I need an objective Rafa fan! :)
Click to expand...


He's the lone picket at the gates for sure...
 
Well, yeah, Rafa should get consideration for having the second most weeks ever ranked in the top 2 (and not currently that far behind Fed in that regard). It is an incredible achievement.

Of course being #1 is more important and he does have less than half of Fed's number.

In fact it is in keeping with his overall resumé being slanted towards clay. Rafa's insane ability on the dirt allows him to stay in the top 2 or 3 almost entirely based off his clay points and RG has kept him winning at least a Major a year. Not that he is not very good on grass (historically at least) or outdoor hard.
 
Not a surprise that Nadal and Serena fans continue to belittle the important of the ranking which experts place heavily in goat determination.


Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Rafael Nadal 141
7. Novak Djokovic 119
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80


Most weeks at #1
Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Chris Evert 260
4 Serena Williams 212
5 Martina Hingis 209
6 Monica Seles 178
7 Justine Henin 117
8 Lindsay Davenport 98
9 Caroline Wozniacki* 67
10 Victoria Azarenka* 51
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BeatlesFan
New York Times article: Djoker is #1, Like it Or Not
Replies
0
Views
795
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
S
The Legend of Abcdefg and the Z ****s
Replies
8
Views
926
King No1e
King No1e
B
Why number of year end no. 1s is more important than total weeks at no. 1
Replies
40
Views
7K
THE FIGHTER
THE FIGHTER
H
  • Poll Poll
which is more important: no of weeks at no.1,or no. or years end at no. 1
Replies
15
Views
1K
gj011
gj011
F
Weeks at No. 1 can be misleading as between two players in the same era
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Turning Pro
Turning Pro
Back
Top