Is getting the record for most year end number ones a monumental achievement?
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
Slowtwitcher
Legend
Depends on circumstances. For example finishing #1 and not winning a Slam that year makes the #1 pretty hollow.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Generally, I think it's a big accomplishment. But I think that they should not have had a year-end ranking for 2020 - having a ranking for the year that includes points from the previous year is a big no-no. So, if Djokovic were to finish as #1 on one more occasion, I think the achievement would ring pretty hollow. For me, he would be tied with Sampras, not ahead of him.
I almost never put asterisks in my documents of tennis results. But I do have one for the men's year-end rankings for 2020. I think the only other ones are for the Australian Open not being played in 1986 and for the "2020 Olympics" being held in 2021 (that one may soon change to "canceled" of course).
I almost never put asterisks in my documents of tennis results. But I do have one for the men's year-end rankings for 2020. I think the only other ones are for the Australian Open not being played in 1986 and for the "2020 Olympics" being held in 2021 (that one may soon change to "canceled" of course).
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
PETE’s achievement of six consecutive YE No 1’s is indeed monumental and unlikely to be equalled any time soon.
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
I see the weeks at No.1 as really more important since the YE No.1 is often double counting the weeks at No.1.
Said in another way, if Djokovic, my favorite, were to have a choice between 3 fewer YE no. 1 and say 50 more weeks at No. 1, I'd take the latter. On the other hand he really likes it, so why not both?
Said in another way, if Djokovic, my favorite, were to have a choice between 3 fewer YE no. 1 and say 50 more weeks at No. 1, I'd take the latter. On the other hand he really likes it, so why not both?
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Weeks at number one is right up there, second only to slam count in the general sense, the question really does this achievement carry some weight in on itself.
JaoSousa
Hall of Fame
Obviously it is monumental. I think weeks at #1 are a better reflection though.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Yes.
RaulRamirez
Legend
I can't define "monumental", and just look at lots of factors as objectively as I can.
It's pretty big, though, and I've always favored YE#1 a bit more than weeks at 1. Given that for most (not all), the mythical OE Goat comes down to the Big 3, holding both weeks and most YE#1 among them (already) adds a lot to Novak's case.
It's pretty big, though, and I've always favored YE#1 a bit more than weeks at 1. Given that for most (not all), the mythical OE Goat comes down to the Big 3, holding both weeks and most YE#1 among them (already) adds a lot to Novak's case.
LoveTheGreatOne
Semi-Pro
Not much because of seasons like 2016 murray, 2014 djokovic, 2020 djoko etc
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
If course. It's huge. It's not so much the achievement which is an issue, imo. It's what we can conclude about the state of the game from the winners.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
It's a nice achievement, but the way the ranking works in tennis weeks at #1 is more important. In Formula 1, for instance, ending the year is what matters, in tennis, it's the same at any point of the year.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I'd say yes
ZanderGoga
Semi-Pro
Not any more, really. The accolade has been significantly cheapened by the huge decline in the top end talent and depth of pool in pro tennis overall. A year end #1 and a couple calendar year slams is about equivalent to what one slam would have been in the boom and post-boom eras. Unless that slam was a Wimbledon or a US Open, in which case, pretty much only a calendar slam in the modern era is an equivalent achievement.
Tennis is dead as a doornail and its competitors are a joke.
Tennis is dead as a doornail and its competitors are a joke.
D
Deleted member 780630
Guest
Depends on how it's done. Not all YE #1s are equal, and if someone racks up a bunch of weak years like Sampras in 1998 or Djokodal these last few years, that cheapens the value a bit.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course it is. Unfortunately.
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
Interesting that Laver recently touted the strength of tennis now compared to his time and earlier times. More international, etc. So, I guess I will believe him over you. No offense.
Of course as long as that player is not Djok. If it is him then it is an *
FlamingCheeto
Hall of Fame
It's awesome but for a fact Djoker and Fed would give up that title easily for one more french open AND similarly
Nadal would give all that up for one more Australian open. facts.
Nadal would give all that up for one more Australian open. facts.
I don’t see tennis as an event in which the calendar plays a big role. Unlike football, where it doesn’t matter who’s the #1 in the division in the middle of the season, it’s all about who ends as the champion. In tennis I don’t care about YE1, I care about time spent at the #1 position. In the same way I don’t give much more weight to a CYGS compared to 4 GS won in a different order.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't use the word "monumental," but it's a very significant milestone. Pete's 6 years in a row as YE #1 is severely underrated. Novak's achievement is a big deal... VERY big! Six years YE #1 cements his legacy.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Yes, it may be a lot if recency bias but always been surprised how Sampras’ YE1 domination got so little press as the Big 3 began passing him on Slams. It’s incredible what Sampras did and incredible the consistency it requires
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Yes. But slightly behind ‘Most weeks at #1’ and well behind ‘Total Slam titles’.
duaneeo
Legend
Even when Nadal and Djokovic had 2-3 less slams than Pete, many of their fans said they were greater because they had won the CGS. Pete's monumental achievement of having 6 consecutive YE#1s wasn't considered so monumental.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
No, it's not.
T
TheNachoMan
Guest
All the usual suspects voted no
Similar threads
