Most Weeks as Number 1 - The Only Conclusive Proof of Consistency

[NonP]

Year End #1 is a stronger indicator of consistency and dominance than weeks as #1.

This is correct but how does that help your boy's case here when he still lags behind the other Big 3 and Pistol? This is where the OE big shots stand (the real rankings aka mine, not the fake ATP ones):

Connors - 3 (1974, 1976, 1982)
Borg - 5 (1976-80)
McEnroe - 3 (1981, 1983-84)
Lendl - 3 (1985-87)
Sampras - 7 (1993-99)
Federer - 6 (2003-07, 2009)
Nadal - 5 (2008, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2019)
Djokovic - 7 (2011-12, 2014-15, 2018, 2020-21)

Djoker also has a strong case for '16 (arguably won by Murray), but I'm willing to let that slide cuz of the pandemic inflation. That still leaves us with 7 for Pete and Nole each and 6 for Fred vs. 5 for Bull. Maybe not as lopsided as the weeks as #1, but still significant.

Another thing (or two) that hurts your boy: he failed to defend his #1 ranking even once and 2 of his top spots ('17 and '19) were won by the slimmest of margins, as opposed to multiple times with room to spare by the other GOOEs (sans Jimbo and Mac to a lesser extent). Of course you're free to argue a #1 ranking is a #1 ranking, but since we're debating dominance it's really hard to brush aside that fact altogether.

Where Rafa truly excels is in longevity, his 10 consecutive yrs w/a Slam W as his strongest selling point. In terms of dominance, though, he's a notch below the top echelon of GOATs.

 

[Rosstour]

Guess how much we care after 21? nadal isn’t Federer, who never made up for failing epicly on the big stage

ask Fed fans, hiding behind one number isn't sustainable.

 

[DIMI_D]

The most relevant stat of consistency and one that will not be broken for decades

Enough said

Djokovic - 368
Federer - 310
Sampras - 286
Lendl - 270
Connors - 368
Nadal - 209

Borg has 11 slams and 109 weeks at number 1 vs Lendl 8 slams and connors 8 slams with both having 159 and 161 weeks more than Borg not one legit list of GOAT players of all time would put Lendl or Connors above Borg no way you would trade slams for number of weeks. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise…. If nadal is 2 slams clear makes zero difference how many extra weeks Djoker has it won’t make up for that kind of gap

 

[ArcspacE]

Borg has 11 slams and 109 weeks at number 1 vs Lendl 8 slams and connors 8 slams with both having 159 and 161 weeks more than Borg not one legit list of GOAT players of all time would put Lendl or Connors above Borg no way you would trade slams for number of weeks. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise…. If nadal is 2 slams clear makes zero difference how many extra weeks Djoker has it won’t make up for that kind of gap

Cool story, bro

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The most relevant stat of consistency and one that will not be broken for decades

Enough said

Djokovic - 368
Federer - 310
Sampras - 286
Lendl - 270
Connors - 368
Nadal - 209

So Connors is GOAT together with Djokovic?

 

[DIMI_D]

Cool story, bro

Hahahaha truth hurts! Nice comeback bro

 

[ArcspacE]

Hahahaha truth hurts! Nice comeback bro

The only truth is 368 and counting

Own it

 

[Amritia]

Basing anything on rankings is stupid.

Even the points allocation is absurd.

Slam gets 2000 points, Masters 1000. But everyone knows slams are worth way more than 2x Masters.

Who would swap 1 slam away for 2 Masters?

 

[NonP]

Borg has 11 slams and 109 weeks at number 1 vs Lendl 8 slams and connors 8 slams with both having 159 and 161 weeks more than Borg not one legit list of GOAT players of all time would put Lendl or Connors above Borg no way you would trade slams for number of weeks. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise…. If nadal is 2 slams clear makes zero difference how many extra weeks Djoker has it won’t make up for that kind of gap

Pretty much every tennis historian agrees that Borg was da man for far longer than 109 weeks. His actual reign was roughly double that, and while I've got my issues with the Tennis Base rankings (or any ranking system, really) its 167 weeks for Borg is much closer to the mark:

All-time weeks at #1 (including pre-Open era)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_ranked_male_tennis_players I converted years at #1 pre-1973 to weeks. 1 year = 52 weeks 1 year disputed by two players = 26 weeks 1 year disputed by three players = 17 weeks Here's an estimate of the all-time most weeks at #1: 1) William Renshaw...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

That's why I say y'all should pay more attention to the YE rankings instead. Nobody gave a crap about the weekly #s until recently, and while the ATP/WTA has ironed out many of the kinks every tennis junkie understands that these "official" rankings are there not only to provide an accurate standing for the players but also to get 'em not to slack off during the yearly grind and to generate nonstop interest in the tour.

Which brings us to....

Basing anything on rankings is stupid.

Even the points allocation is absurd.

Slam gets 2000 points, Masters 1000. But everyone knows slams are worth way more than 2x Masters.

Who would swap 1 slam away for 2 Masters?

Right, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single pro who wouldn't swap all his Masters/500s/250s for an extra Slam. Ergo 21 > 20, 14, 11 or whatever, right?

Except that the Slam race itself is another modern phenomenon and historically the YE #1 ranking has been a more important barometer. That's where Bull falls short of his fellow GOATs. Going by total #s his 5 is good enough for membership (if on the weakish side a la Borg's), but not again when you look at the yearly distribution which shows his failure to defend his throne even once.

Now the obvious retort is that he had to deal with not one but two fellow GOATs at the same time, and it's undeniable that his competition has been heavier at the top than during Borg's, Pistol's or Fred's dominance. But what about Djoker, then? After all he defended his #1 ranking not once, not twice but three separate times, no? What makes you think his great predecessors wouldn't have done just as well vs. a similar level of opposition, given Pete's and Fed's fast-court mastery or Borg's unrivaled kingship on clay and grass and his stellar indoor resume unlike Bull's? To try to explain this away by pointing to Fedovic is like qualifying Rafa's relatively lackluster Wimbledon record with the same excuse: it might make sense for one or two outings, but not when we're talking his whole career when Murray of all people managed to sneak in a #1 season in '16.

Of course you could argue, just like I have granted on several occasions, that much of the tour is built for fast-court players and that makes Nadal's (or Borg's, for that matter) accomplishments even more impressive. But that's really a case for his longevity/(surface) versatility. Dominance is no doubt an important metric of GOATness and here Rafa does take a back seat to several of his peers.

 

[Hitman]

The most relevant stat of consistency and one that will not be broken for decades

Enough said

Djokovic - 368
Federer - 310
Sampras - 286
Lendl - 270
Connors - 268
Nadal - 209

I never thought Djokovic would get that many weeks at number one, incredible he is still going and only 9 weeks away from catching Graf now.

 

[Autodidactic player]

ask Fed fans, hiding behind one number isn't sustainable.

I remember reading that one player was so consistent that he went almost 14 1/2 years between the first time he was number 1 and the last time. If only I could remember his name.

 

[ArcspacE]

Basing anything on rankings is stupid.

Even the points allocation is absurd.

Slam gets 2000 points, Masters 1000. But everyone knows slams are worth way more than 2x Masters.

Who would swap 1 slam away for 2 Masters?

Cool story, bro

 

[DIMI_D]

The only truth is 368 and counting

Own it

The only truth is 21 and counting bro

 

[DIMI_D]

Pretty much every tennis historian agrees that Borg was da man for far longer than 109 weeks. His actual reign was roughly double that, and while I've got my issues with the Tennis Base rankings (or any ranking system, really) its 167 weeks for Borg is much closer to the mark:

All-time weeks at #1 (including pre-Open era)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_ranked_male_tennis_players I converted years at #1 pre-1973 to weeks. 1 year = 52 weeks 1 year disputed by two players = 26 weeks 1 year disputed by three players = 17 weeks Here's an estimate of the all-time most weeks at #1: 1) William Renshaw...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

That's why I say y'all should pay more attention to the YE rankings instead. Nobody gave a crap about the weekly #s until recently, and while the ATP/WTA has ironed out many of the kinks every tennis junkie understands that these "official" rankings are there not only to provide an accurate standing for the players but also to get 'em not to slack off during the yearly grind and to generate nonstop interest in the tour.

Which brings us to....



Right, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single pro who wouldn't swap all his Masters/500s/250s for an extra Slam. Ergo 21 > 20, 14, 11 or whatever, right?

Except that the Slam race itself is another modern phenomenon and historically the YE #1 ranking has been a more important barometer. That's where Bull falls short of his fellow GOATs. Going by total #s his 5 is good enough for membership (if on the weakish side a la Borg's), but not again when you look at the yearly distribution which shows his failure to defend his throne even once.

Now the obvious retort is that he had to deal with not one but two fellow GOATs at the same time, and it's undeniable that his competition has been heavier at the top than during Borg's, Pistol's or Fred's dominance. But what about Djoker, then? After all he defended his #1 ranking not once, not twice but three separate times, no? What makes you think his great predecessors wouldn't have done just as well vs. a similar level of opposition, given Pete's and Fed's fast-court mastery or Borg's unrivaled kingship on clay and grass and his stellar indoor resume unlike Bull's? To try to explain this away by pointing to Fedovic is like qualifying Rafa's relatively lackluster Wimbledon record with the same excuse: it might make sense for one or two outings, but not when we're talking his whole career when Murray of all people managed to sneak in a #1 season in '16.

Of course you could argue, just like I have granted on several occasions, that much of the tour is built for fast-court players and that makes Nadal's (or Borg's, for that matter) accomplishments even more impressive. But that's really a case for his longevity/(surface) versatility. Dominance is no doubt an important metric of GOATness and here Rafa does take a back seat to several of his peers.

Very valid points.. I know Borg is understated due to the ranking system of the time was pretty flawed and he did retire at 26 of his own fruition so will always be understated here. Although regardless my point is still valid 11 vs 8 of connors and Lendl supersedes by far the weeks number and back in those days yea YE NO1 was more valued anyway.

ameitia is very right in saying even at this point we have a barometer and it’s slams in our current era and no way 2 masters is worth a slam for example. Masters are seen as warmup tournaments for slams, basically they are the equivalent to preseason cups if we playing team sports..

With nadal one slam ahead of Djoker - Djoker is def still in the debate and so is Fed to a lesser extent due to them having other things like weeks etc over Rafa but 2 slam gap will supersede all of that by quite a bit.. Fed really only has weeks and tour finals over Rafa hopefully rafa gets YENO1 again this year as well and some more weeks as well under his belt

 

[GabeT]

Yes but then how is it "the only conclusive proof of consistency" when you can have 15 weeks at number 1 without any consistency.

To have 15 weeks at number 1 simply means that for 15 weeks you had the best record of any tennis player for the prior 52 weeks. Doesn’t mean you had the highest level in play during those 15 weeks.

whether that measures consistency or not I’ll leave to others to decide

 

[Hitman]

To have 15 weeks at number 1 simply means that for 15 weeks you had the best record of any tennis player for the prior 52 weeks. Doesn’t mean you had the highest level in play during those 15 weeks.

whether that measures consistency or not I’ll leave to others to decide

It will take an absolutely insane player to overhaul Djokovic's number one record, and his year ending number one record. Whoever does it will probably be some sort of super GOAT in the future, but it will be a massive hurdle to overcome, as it seems Djokovic is STILL adding more weeks on. I thought he lost it back in February, I look back at what is happening a few months later, and he is piling on even more weeks. It could be an insurmountable number for many generations.

 

[thrust]

Fact IS that +159 is far more impressive than +1

 

[DSH]

Djokovic has spent a combined total of 3+ years more than Nadal as being the most consistent player ever

Excluding clay pusher events which barely last 2 months of the ATP calendar - this proved beyond all reasonable doubt who the more complete player ever is

Why do you pretend to be a fan of the Bulgarian if in reality your idol is the Serbian?
Be honest and change your avatar image.

 

[Hitman]

Fact IS that +159 is far more impressive than +1

The actual fact is, that one record is very much in contention, until both retire, unless you are telling me Djokovic can never play in a slam again (stranger things have happened), and the other record is untouchable and put to rest as long as Djokovic plays.

 

[DSH]

Weeks at #1 don’t matter because Novak holds that record.

It does matter a lot and his record is monumental.
I am not going to deny it like other Nadal followers, and I think that unless Alcaraz fulfills his full potential and does not have one or two rivals that make life impossible for him on the court, Djokovic's record will take several decades to be broken.
Of course, the weeks as number 1 in the world are below the Grand Slam titles in importance and prestige.

 

[ChaelAZ]

The most irrelevant stat of consistency and one that will not be broken for decades

Enough said

Fixed.

 

[Beerus]

It does matter and a lot and his record is monumental, I am not going to deny it like other Nadal followers, and I think that unless Alcaraz fulfills his full potential and does not have one or two rivals that make life impossible for him on the court, Djokovic's record will take several decades to be broken.
Of course, the weeks as number 1 in the world are below the Grand Slam titles in importance and prestige.

That's good. How Nadal fans view the weeks at #1 reveals how relevant their opinions should be.

 

[ArcspacE]

Why do you pretend to be a fan of the Bulgarian if in reality your idol is the Serbian?
Be honest and change your avatar image.

I’m a fan of honest players

 

[DSH]

I’m a fan of honest players

And Djokovic is?

 

[ArcspacE]

And Djokovic is?

Pillar of integrity

 

[PMChambers]

Nadal was No.2 through much of Federers reign. He was No.2 through most of Djokovic reign. He also had a significant but much shorter reign of his own.
Isn't he the epitome of consistency?

In general the big stat always going to be Majors and Masters. He may not be GOAT but he's in the convo. You can discuss Fed & Djok as potential GOATs without negating Nadal.

End of the day Nadal as achieved what he achieved and done what he's done. So live with it. I'm sure he does. He might not be the GOAT but it's definitely not cut and dry and trying to denigrate his achievements is more if an issue with the denegrator not the achiever.

 

[NonP]

More proof I really am better than all U jokers combined. Remember when y'all were gushing/moaning about Djoker possibly dominating the tour for 2-3 more yrs on end? Here's what I said then:

Novak may overcompensate for his real or perceived lack of popularity vs. Fedal, but I don't buy that, all things considered, Novak has been overcompensated in his late career for his early struggles vs. his rivals... provided that this HC season is the beginning of NextGen 2.0's takeover. That's what I meant when I added the caveat earlier. To me his "freebies" so far aren't excessive given his late resurgence after his breakout '08 season and Muzz and Stan following suit soon after, but if Alex, Stef, Shap, Felix and their peers keep sucking I'll probably have to revisit my current stance.

I don't see that happening, though, and here's why. You might recall moi observing that Novak now shares 7 years as #1 with Pistol, but if we concede that he's the co-#1 with Rafa for '13 (I still don't) then we're looking at the previously unthinkable possibility of Djoker overtaking Gonzales as the sole leader with NINE (disputed) yrs as the world's best. And if that does come to pass I do think it'll be next to impossible to argue Novak hasn't been compensated enough. But does that sound like a safe bet now? I don't, with Novak rarely looking his best all season and Med announcing his arrival with an emphatic performance at Flushing. And my CB tells me Alex and Tsits ain't far behind.

In short history will be doing its evening out again. As I keep pointing out the 60% mark in GW has been a reliable barometer of excellence throughout tennis history, and despite what the peanut gallery would have us believe about "evolution" a player of Med's or Alex's height ain't staying on top for long. And history also tells us nobody dominates the tour more than 8 years. We'll find out soon enough, no?

And that was before all this hype around Alcaraz. Now when will you plebs realize I'm right about everything and be grateful that I'm still around to dispense my wisdom free of charge? Nobody can break free of more than a century of tradition, and while this season ain't over yet it does look like Novak will fall short of surpassing Gonzales' largely undisputed 7 (straight!) years as #1, let alone Gorgo's disputed 10 years at the top (even with '13, '16 and '19 Nole tops out at 10). That Djoker is the only modern GOAT who can be said to have dominated the field as long as Gonzales is indeed a big feather in his cap, but I say an even greater testament to the still underappreciated GOAThood of Big Pancho who had to overcome such legends as Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall and Laver for his unrivaled 10-year reign (1952-61) at the pinnacle of his game.

All of which is an apt segue into....

Very valid points.. I know Borg is understated due to the ranking system of the time was pretty flawed and he did retire at 26 of his own fruition so will always be understated here. Although regardless my point is still valid 11 vs 8 of connors and Lendl supersedes by far the weeks number and back in those days yea YE NO1 was more valued anyway.

ameitia is very right in saying even at this point we have a barometer and it’s slams in our current era and no way 2 masters is worth a slam for example. Masters are seen as warmup tournaments for slams, basically they are the equivalent to preseason cups if we playing team sports..

With nadal one slam ahead of Djoker - Djoker is def still in the debate and so is Fed to a lesser extent due to them having other things like weeks etc over Rafa but 2 slam gap will supersede all of that by quite a bit.. Fed really only has weeks and tour finals over Rafa hopefully rafa gets YENO1 again this year as well and some more weeks as well under his belt

FYI you're talking to an ecumenist who considers all those GOOEs legit GOAT contenders cuz they all can claim at least one big achievement by themselves. Of course at gunpoint I'd put Borg over Jimbo, Mac and Ivan, but that's a choice I prefer not to make.

No argument from moi on YE rankings > weeks. And totally agree that Masters and other smaller events are mere warm-ups for the Slams which happens to be the same point I've made a zillion times. FWIW I consider the Big 3 more or less equal, but what hurts Rafa's case in my book perhaps even more than his failure to defend his #1 ranking is his lackluster indoor record, which is comparable to Pistol's struggles on clay in sticking out like a sore thumb. Not bad, mind you, but a GOAT should be able to conquer all surfaces/conditions and that's where Bull and Pete suffer vs. their peers.

Of course your guy still has some time to correct that, but I'd like to see him really make a splash this or next indoor season. Just one YEC would feel like a fluke to me, especially given the recent champs and the unfortunate downgrading of indoor tennis and the disgraceful watering down of DC as inevitable results of our hyper-focus on the majors.

 

[KidCharlemagne98]

This is correct but how does that help your boy's case here when he still lags behind the other Big 3 and Pistol? This is where the OE big shots stand (the real rankings aka mine, not the fake ATP ones):

Connors - 3 (1974, 1976, 1982)
Borg - 5 (1976-80)
McEnroe - 3 (1981, 1983-84)
Lendl - 3 (1985-87)
Sampras - 7 (1993-99)
Federer - 6 (2003-07, 2009)
Nadal - 5 (2008, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2019)
Djokovic - 7 (2011-12, 2014-15, 2018, 2020-21)

Djoker also has a strong case for '16 (arguably won by Murray), but I'm willing to let that slide cuz of the pandemic inflation. That still leaves us with 7 for Pete and Nole each and 6 for Fred vs. 5 for Bull. Maybe not as lopsided as the weeks as #1, but still significant.

Another thing (or two) that hurts your boy: he failed to defend his #1 ranking even once and 2 of his top spots ('17 and '19) were won by the slimmest of margins, as opposed to multiple times with room to spare by the other GOOEs (sans Jimbo and Mac to a lesser extent). Of course you're free to argue a #1 ranking is a #1 ranking, but since we're debating dominance it's really hard to brush aside that fact altogether.

Where Rafa truly excels is in longevity, his 10 consecutive yrs w/a Slam W as his strongest selling point. In terms of dominance, though, he's a notch below the top echelon of GOATs.

Intéressant. Who is the number one of the year in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 2000, 2001, 2002 ?

 

[clayqueen]

Most Weeks as Number 1 - The Only Conclusive Proof of Consistency

No. Djokovic has not been the best player since after Paris last year - 36 weeks in total and he still holds the #1 ranking.

 

[Tenacity]

Most Weeks as Number 1 - The Only Conclusive Proof of Consistency

No. Djokovic has not been the best player since after Paris last year - 36 weeks in total and he still holds the #1 ranking.

What are you talking about? Just how bad this post is

 

[mahatma]

Most Weeks as Number 1 - The Only Conclusive Proof of Consistency

No. Djokovic has not been the best player since after Paris last year - 36 weeks in total and he still holds the #1 ranking.

Haha. posts like this make your day. Good going for keeping it so light hearted here.

 

[darthrafa]

i never have a doubt that djoker is the most successful OAT
but if ppl still want to say who is GOAT, i would repeat that it is meaningless coz it does not have objective criteria
put djoker aside first
borg's three back to back double at fo and wimby against rafa's 14 fo
which one is more difficult?
i think borg's shall be the answer
but does it mean borg is greater than rafa?
it sounds not right
so what is the point when u have your choice with your own criteria to fight against with anyone's choice with different criteria?
well
u may say it is a discussion forum
but i just see ppl repeating what they are saying, not discussing

 

[NonP]

Intéressant. Who is the number one of the year in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 2000, 2001, 2002 ?

Most of the more recent ATP rankings are OK, actually. FYI the tour became more or less standardized beginning in '90 when the Grand Prix/WCT were merged into the ATP whose average ranking system was replaced by a best-of, and further in '00 when the 14 best-of events were expanded to 18 (now you know why '90s guys used to play fewer events) and then in '09 when 8 of the 9 Masters became mandatory.

But since you asked:

Wilander - 1 (1988)
Becker - 1 (1989)
Edberg - 2 (1990, 1991)
Courier - 1 (1992)
Kuerten - 1 (2000)
Hewitt - 2 (2001, 2002)

The one big discrepancy here is Boris over Ivan for '89: more Slams, superior H2H, and undefeated DC record (in 7 rubbers). Easy call.

While I'm at it lemme quote that earlier list with a correction:

Connors - 3 (1974, 1976, 1982)
Borg - 4 (1977-80)
McEnroe - 3 (1981, 1983-84)
Lendl - 3 (1985-87)
Sampras - 7 (1993-99)
Federer - 6 (2003-07, 2009)
Nadal - 5 (2008, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2019)
Djokovic - 7 (2011-12, 2014-15, 2018, 2020-21)

Gave '76 to both Connors and Borg by mistake and Jimbo takes it in a squeaker, hence 4 seasons in total for the Ice Man.

And here are the remaining #1 studs of the OE:

Laver - 3 (1968-70)
Newcombe - 1 (1971)
Smith - 1 (1972)
Năstase - 1 (1973)
Ashe - 1 (1975)
Murray - 1 (2016)

You're welcome.

 

[ewiewp]

The most relevant stat of consistency and one that will not be broken for decades

Enough said

Djokovic - 368
Federer - 310
Sampras - 286
Lendl - 270
Connors - 268
Nadal - 209

But in 70s-90s, ranking fluctuated more and there were more upsets at early rounds:
1. They used best of 9 system instead of current best of 13.
2. There were bonus points if you beat higher ranked players such as top 10.
3. Fewer number of seeds, for example 16 seeds instead of 32 now.
4. Polarized surfaces and higher degree of surface specialization. ie you might bump into strong player at early rounds.

Weekly #1 is better for comparing same era player.
Year end #1 is better to compare different eras including pre open Era with no official weekly ranking.

 

[KidCharlemagne98]

Most of the more recent ATP rankings are OK, actually. FYI the tour became more or less standardized beginning in '90 when the Grand Prix/WCT were merged into the ATP whose average ranking system was replaced by a best-of, and further in '00 when the 14 best-of events were expanded to 18 (now you know why '90s guys used to play fewer events) and then in '09 when 8 of the 9 Masters became mandatory.

But since you asked:

Wilander - 1 (1988)
Becker - 1 (1989)
Edberg - 2 (1990, 1991)
Courier - 1 (1992)
Kuerten - 1 (2000)
Hewitt - 2 (2001, 2002)

The one big discrepancy here is Boris over Ivan for '89: more Slams, superior H2H, and undefeated DC record (in 7 rubbers). Easy call.

While I'm at it lemme quote that earlier list with a correction:



Gave '76 to both Connors and Borg by mistake and Jimbo takes it in a squeaker, hence 4 seasons in total for the Ice Man.

And here are the remaining #1 studs of the OE:

Laver - 3 (1968-70)
Newcombe - 1 (1971)
Smith - 1 (1972)
Năstase - 1 (1973)
Ashe - 1 (1975)
Murray - 1 (2016)

You're welcome.

I like your list so it’s the real one.

Thanks.

 

[PSNELKE]

Kind of a crap proof considering Nadal missed 9 majors since 2004. The injury prone fella has more major titles than the super consistent 100000 week number one lol

 

[Winner]

Mad Lad is consistently dominating?

 

[mahatma]

Kind of a crap proof considering Nadal missed 9 majors since 2004. The injury prone fella has more major titles than the super consistent 100000 week number one lol

And there is a list of big titles which is dominated by world #1. Ofcourse though your life revolves around only slams. Why even bother checking rankings.

 

[DSH]

Mad Lad is consistently dominating?

Dominating in the post COVID era.

 

[thrust]

Kind of a crap proof considering Nadal missed 9 majors since 2004. The injury prone fella has more major titles than the super consistent 100000 week number one lol

Part of being a great athlete is to not get seriously injured often. Perhaps it was Rafa's game style that caused his injuries. If so, that is his fault, NOT Roger or Novak's.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

#1 Ranking for me personally has never been hugely important. It's a great thing to achieve, but it isn't the be all, end all for me...nor the determining factor in who's greater. The rankings system has changed so wildly from era to era, it's useless to compare. The rankings system of the 90s was far different than the one in place by the mid 2000s, which was different than today. To say nothing of the 80s (when the ATP Tour itself was vastly different), and the crazy 70s (when CPUs were ancient and you had several different Pro Tours that everyone was playing)

Even if two of my all time fave male players (Agassi, Nadal), had the record for "Most weeks at #1", it still wouldn't matter too much to me. And as has been proven this year, the formula is a MESS (Djokovic played what, 2 matches into late Feb, and still had the #1 ranking; Meddy seemingly flip flops #1 and #2 depending on what tourney he plays that week). The whole thing is a mess

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Kind of a crap proof considering Nadal missed 9 majors since 2004. The injury prone fella has more major titles than the super consistent 100000 week number one lol

And they know this, which is why threads like this are created. They can't use total GS count, or even Slams "off clay" (as both Nadal and Novak have 8 Slams a piece off their fav surface)....so they go to weeks at #1. They know Nadal has had a huge injury history, missed many Slams and many times didn't even finish a season due to injury (2012, 2014, 2022 just off the top of my head). So they go to a stat where Novak "dominates" Nadal and makes that THE undisputed parameter by which to they both should be judged

 

[thrust]

#1 Ranking for me personally has never been hugely important. It's a great thing to achieve, but it isn't the be all, end all for me...nor the determining factor in who's greater. The rankings system has changed so wildly from era to era, it's useless to compare. The rankings system of the 90s was far different than the one in place by the mid 2000s, which was different than today. To say nothing of the 80s (when the ATP Tour itself was vastly different), and the crazy 70s (when CPUs were ancient and you had several different Pro Tours that everyone was playing)

Even if two of my all time fave male players (Agassi, Nadal), had the record for "Most weeks at #1", it still wouldn't matter too much to me. And as has been proven this year, the formula is a MESS (Djokovic played what, 2 matches into late Feb, and still had the #1 ranking; Meddy seemingly flip flops #1 and #2 depending on what tourney he plays that week). The whole thing is a mess

As ridiculous as the ranking system has been, since they started the present system it is the same for everyone, therefore, whoever is #1 deserves his ranking.