Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

[eldanger25]

He was in Brazil. What do you expect him to say?

I actually think 750 points for the Olympics is a fair compromise by the ATP. The Olympics and Davis Cup are the only events with ranking points where a highly ranked player can be excluded based purely on nationality rather than results. If you've got eight French guys in the Top 50, and only two Italians, it's unfair to the French guys outside the Olympic team quota to be overtaken too much in the rankings by lower ranked guys from other countries. Same for Davis Cup.

None of this impacts that the Olympics and DC are more valuable to players and historians than Masters events - it isn't surprising to me that Fed is playing DC this year and shooting for Rio in 2016.

Anyway, here's a Bloomberg article from this year -when Roger pulled out of Madrid - noting that Fed "frequently" tells reporters he'll be at Rio 2016: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-out-of-madrid-to-be-with-pregnant-wife.html

 

[Mayonnaise]

I actually think 750 points for the Olympics is a fair compromise by the ATP. The Olympics and Davis Cup are the only events with ranking points where a highly ranked player can be excluded based purely on nationality rather than results. If you've got eight French guys in the Top 50, and only two Italians, it's unfair to the French guys outside the Olympic team quota to be overtaken too much in the rankings by lower ranked guys from other countries. Same for Davis Cup.

None of this impacts that the Olympics and DC are more valuable to players and historians than Masters events - it isn't surprising to me that Fed is playing DC this year and shooting for Rio in 2016.

Anyway, here's a Bloomberg article from this year -when Roger pulled out of Madrid - noting that Fed "frequently" tells reporters he'll be at Rio 2016: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-out-of-madrid-to-be-with-pregnant-wife.html

It would probably elevate the Olympics if no points were offered for it. Making it completely a patriotic/prestige thing.

 

[eldanger25]

It would probably elevate the Olympics if no points were offered for it. Making it completely a patriotic/prestige thing.

You might be right - I could see that.

 

[eldanger25]

I don't think any kid grows up dreaming of winning olympic gold in tennis - and if they do, i'm sure it's because they're are bored of dreaming about wimby/french/aussie/us/wtf etc etc….nothing will ever surpass wimby

I agree that the slams are bigger dreams, but I think Olympic gold is gonna be at least valued as much as the YEC down the line, if not more.

You've got a generation of future greats watching how fired up Nadal, Murray, Serena, Federer, Novak etc. get at the event. Nadal-Novak 2008, Fed-Del Potro 2012, Murray-Fed 2012, Serena v. the field, etc.

Maybe it replaces Davis Cup as the venue for tennis patriotism, but I think it'll be a bigger goal than any besides the four slams. Just a hunch.

 

[eldanger25]

I just think the ATP schedule works so hard to try and get it right, and olympics are always a few weeks out here and there every 4 years, it is just too far removed to make it that important i feel. Plus, how does the Olympics pic players for the event? is it a limit of two per country? what happens to guys when you're from spain and miss out even though you may be ranked top 20?

Yeah, I think that's why a 750 point value on the tour is solid, so as not to penalize deep countries like Spain etc. who can only send a few guys.

But I think getting a shot at Olympic gold - just like showcasing yourself to get picked for Davis Cup back in the old days (and to an extent now) - will be part of the hustle for plenty of guys on tour.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

MY favorite pro is better than anybody!..I need to say this!..my life depends on it!

Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles

Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls

Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

Despite Federer has one year #1 less than Sampras, he was much more dominant than Sampras, and more consistent on every surfaces. Sampras never had a 90+ winning percentage in a year while FEderer has 3.

And don't forget Federer has 44% more whitening power than Sampras while 4 out of 5 dentists recommended Federer to their patients in a taste test.


Did both players play the very same opponents? No.

Is an arbitrary 'apples to oranges' standard being used to compare the two records? Yes.

Thread fail.



That is all.




__________________

 

[DRII]

You and I disagree on the value of the YEC - I think it's among the most important non-slam titles in this era (though I agree with you that you couldn't automatically assume its strength in the 70s, and it really wasn't until the 1977 edition or so when you knew the top 2-3 guys of a given year would be there bar injury, year after year).

I also think another event where you can lose and still win - Davis Cup - is very important, and I rate Nadal's accomplishments (particularly 2004 and 2011) and Sampras's (particularly 1995) higher than Federer and others. I'd imagine most objective folks would do the same, given its history and importance to the sport - even if they prefer other players to Nadal or Sampras.

I also think in 20-30 years, and from then on, the Olympic Gold will be considered more prestigious than either. I think Federer, Djokovic, etc. know this as well as anyone, and are gonna make hard runs at gold in Rio.

So there you have it - since this thread has devolved into a proxy war between Nadal, Federer, and Sampras fans - everybody's got something, Open Era wise: Fed has the most slams and YECs, Pete has the most YE #1s, Nadal has the most RGs, the lone Olympic gold medal among the three, and the best Davis Cup resume of all three.

Just rep your player - don't sh*t all over events (YEC, DC, Olympics) that were around before your guy made his mark and will still be standing long after all three of these guys will have retired to limp around golf courses with steak and scotch bellies.

good post, however i did not shet all over the YEC.

i said its relative significance is only lower than that of the slams, Singles Olympics Gold., and the most coveted M.S. tourneys.

i also said its a hole in Nadal's resume.

and thank you for reminded everyone how important Davis Cup was at one point (with players actually skipping slams to play DC). Obviously now, it does not rank as high. if i was really trying to be a Nadal fanboy or Federer-hater i would bring up DC much more, but i don't...

 

[SoBad]

i already showed you the definition i used, the generally understood definition. if you could follow context, it wouldn't have to be explained to you!

again, since you need things repeated: YEC/WTF = elite exhibtionary event (Triple E)!

deal with it...

just in case you don't have a thesaurus handy:

synonyms:

(public) display, show, showing, presentation, demonstration, exposition, showcase, exhibit

Yes, it is an exhibition event designed to provide top-ranked players an opportunity to relax at the conclusion of the season and entertain the public in a friendly round-robin format to kick off the holiday season. People get confused because ATP actually started awarding points for this holiday show (as if points matter when the season is over!!:lol. Traditionally, there were no points, but apparently this change was called for in the 1990s after the players got into the habit of skipping the event or showing up drunk/stoned for their matches.

 

[TMF]

Jimmy Connors was ranked number one in 1975 and 1978, not impressive years for him.

Lendl had an unimpressive 1989 year, yet he was ranked nº 1 andMc Enroe had a lousy 1982 when he was still top of the ATP ranks

ATP ranks value 52 weeks, not just majors.

Lendl didn't have a bad 1989 year since I can name numerous YE #1s that are not as impressive has his. He still had a 90 percent winning season and won 10 titles.


Agree with Mac in 1982. His YE #1 that year was worse than Sampras in 1998.

 

[DRII]

Yes, it is an exhibition event designed to provide top-ranked players an opportunity to relax at the conclusion of the season and entertain the public in a friendly round-robin format to kick off the holiday season. People get confused because ATP actually started awarding points for this holiday show (as if points matter when the season is over!!:lol. Traditionally, there were no points, but apparently this change was called for in the 1990s after the players got into the habit of skipping the event or showing up drunk/stoned for their matches.

really :shock:

i knew the WTF was much about political jockeying between the ITF and ATP and a way to reward and coddle the top players at the end of the year, which they mostly deserve. But, i didn't know it went as far as you suggest...

 

[kiki]

Lendl didn't have a bad 1989 year since I can name numerous YE #1s that are not as impressive has his. He still had a 90 percent winning season and won 10 titles.


Agree with Mac in 1982. His YE #1 that year was worse than Sampras in 1998.

I didn´t say it was bad.For 95% of the ATP, it would be their best ever year.For a player of his stature, it was a disappointing year.Lendl is one of the most self exigent players I have seen ( like all champions)

 

[kiki]

good post, however i did not shet all over the YEC.

i said its relative significance is only lower than that of the slams, Singles Olympics Gold., and the most coveted M.S. tourneys.

i also said its a hole in Nadal's resume.

and thank you for reminded everyone how important Davis Cup was at one point (with players actually skipping slams to play DC). Obviously now, it does not rank as high. if i was really trying to be a Nadal fanboy or Federer-hater i would bring up DC much more, but i don't...

Olimpics are so overrated here.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Olimpics are so overrated by Nadal fans

Fixed that for you

 

[DRII]

Fixed that for you

your demigod rates the Olympics very highly!

deal with it

 

[Mayonnaise]

your demigod rates the Olympics very highly!

deal with it

1. He never said Olympics > Masters

2. It doesn't matter what he rates them. The ATP rates them below Masters.

 

[jg153040]

i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating my opinion. it just that hypocrisy annoys me! if your going to only go by stats and strict ATP classification, then don't dare try to bring in subjective/qualitative criteria! many of these posters, mostly fedephants or Nadal-haters, try to have it both ways :twisted:

like i've said before, Federer is the relative GOAT in my book cemented by his 2012 performance. Nadal is very close, but not quite there yet overall IMO...

I'm not trying to convince you, I was just curious what your opinion is, because even after your posts, I still didn't know.

I don't think it's hypocrisy. I think Fed fans are baited into those subjective arguments by Fed haters. Maybe because they are insecure for whatever reasons. I do it for fun.

But to be fair, this thread wasn't subjective at all. Sampras needed way less achievements than Fed to gain nr.1 ranking. That is a fact, it's not subjective at all.

It's impossible to go only by ATP. Because there aren't h2h trophies or goat trophies. Or points for total weeks nr.1 or streaks. So of course it's partly subjective to call Fed goat, I agree. He has the records, that is objective and a fact. But interpreting those facts is subjective, I know. But it's not all subjective like some people think. Fed still has numbers.

I think Fed has best case for goat right now. But this is still not 100%. Part of this is based on subjectivity but only a small part. Because it's impossible to compare eras with 100% objectivity. BUT, that doesn't mean that we have 0% objectivity and 100% subjectivity. Big part why Fed has best case for goat is based on objectivity, but of course small part is still subjective, we can't get around that.

Maybe you are bothered when some fans say that it's 100% objective. And I agree here with you.

And I proposed a solution to end Fedal wars. Let them both be goats. Lefty and righty category. Since lefties have the edge and it's not 100% fair to compare like this. So, both sides win. Ironically both sides rejected me. They just want to fight, they don't want reality.

 

[furryballs]

tennis in the olympics is like soccer(football).it doesnt hold too much weight.

 

[fed_rulz]

slams (or any other legitimate tournament) aren't played in overall RR format, which is only for entertainment (ie for the spectacle) purposes! huge difference!

Damn, are you telling me that the so-called group stages in the recently concluded FIFA world cup were just exhibition matches?? Crap, I sure spent a lot of time watching an illegitimate tournament.

 

[TMF]

tennis in the olympics is like soccer(football).it doesnt hold too much weight.

Soccer has the World Cup and tennis has the World Tour Final.

Enough said.

 

[bullfan]

Soccer has the World Cup and tennis has the World Tour Final.

Enough said.

Big difference, when 1 is played every year versus the other played once every 4 years.

 

[TMF]

Big difference, when 1 is played every year versus the other played once every 4 years.

The biggest tournament in soccer is the World Cup.

The biggest tournament in tennis is Wimbledon.

The biggest event for gymnastics, track & field or swimming is the Olympics.


Got it now ?

 

[bullfan]

The biggest tournament in soccer is the World Cup.

The biggest tournament in tennis is Wimbledon.

The biggest event for gymnastics, track & field or swimming is the Olympics.


Got it now ?

Bad analogy..... And Wimbledon is equal to all other GS titles, they all count for 1.

 

[TMF]

Bad analogy..... And Wimbledon is equal to all other GS titles, they all count for 1.

When given a choice, most pro players and tennis fans would pick Wimbledon over any other tournaments. Wimbledon is the holy grail in tennis.

 

[jg153040]

Bad analogy..... And Wimbledon is equal to all other GS titles, they all count for 1.

Yeah and WTF is just an exhibition and Olympic gold and Davis cup are the measure for greatness.

Sure.

Hey, maybe FO is worth more than any other slam, since it's the hardest to win.

 

[jg153040]

The biggest tournament in soccer is the World Cup.

The biggest tournament in tennis is Wimbledon.

The biggest event for gymnastics, track & field or swimming is the Olympics.


Got it now ?

True, but this is only in the real world, not here .

 

[DRII]

Damn, are you telling me that the so-called group stages in the recently concluded FIFA world cup were just exhibition matches?? Crap, I sure spent a lot of time watching an illegitimate tournament.

again, i suggest you try and comprehend the difference and distinction between a team sport (like boring soccer) and an individual sport like tennis!

your comparison is rather meaningless.

 

[DRII]

Soccer has the World Cup and tennis has the World Tour Final.

Enough said.

you really need to read SoBad's post #232...

 

[bullfan]

Yeah and WTF is just an exhibition and Olympic gold and Davis cup are the measure for greatness.

Sure.

Hey, maybe FO is worth more than any other slam, since it's the hardest to win.

Rolling, rolling, rolling.....

FO is worth 1 GS,
AO is worth 1 GS,
W is worth 1 GS, and
USO is worth 1 GS.....

So simple, and yet so misunderstood!

 

[Mayonnaise]

you really need to read SoBad's post #232...

You actually take his posts seriously? :lol:

 

[Mayonnaise]

Rolling, rolling, rolling.....

FO is worth 1 GS,
AO is worth 1 GS,
W is worth 1 GS, and
USO is worth 1 GS.....

So simple, and yet so misunderstood!

Agreed. And 1500 > 1000 > 750. So easy.

 

[bullfan]

When given a choice, most pro players and tennis fans would pick Wimbledon over any other tournaments. Wimbledon is the holy grail in tennis.

Seems like you haven't listened to the speeches post win..... No matter the tournament, they've always dreamed of winning.....yada yada yada....

It's called bring PC.

I don't hear any player saying I consider this slam inferior to W....

 

[jg153040]

Rolling, rolling, rolling.....

FO is worth 1 GS,
AO is worth 1 GS,
W is worth 1 GS, and
USO is worth 1 GS.....

So simple, and yet so misunderstood!

You are only saying this because you are Nadal fan.

Ask any objective person and most will say W is the holy grail.

 

[bullfan]

You are only saying this because you are Nadal fan.

Ask any objective person and most will say W is the holy grail.

I think you meant subjective.....

Just like I subjectively think Wimbledon is quaint and historic!

But that a true test is winning on surfaces folks play on most....

Grass and Clay are traditional courts.... Hard court is new.

Yet most play on clay or hard court. So, one could argue the competition is stronger there, due the amount of time played on the courts. Of course, that doesn't mean the GS count any more, as each GS equals 1.... Being a HC player gives one the best opportunities for percentage successs....

 

[mightyrick]

You are only saying this because you are Nadal fan.

Ask any objective person and most will say W is the holy grail.

That is absolutely not true. That is what any biased person would say. The original 3 majors all started in the late 1800s. They are all romanticized and all have immense history. None of them are the "holy grail". That is complete nonsense.

All I can say about Wimbledon is this. For this sport to have a grass slam tournament without even one MS1000 event is a travesty. It is an ultra short season. A complete joke compared to the HC and Clay season.

In the HC and Clay seasons, players get lots of practice on those surfaces before the slam takes place. Even a few MS1000s.

On grass, players get one small warmup tournament? Then straight into Wimbledon? After having played several tournaments on the polar opposite surface? Nobody gets any real time to get accustomed to grass. Nobody gets any real practice. It is absolutely horrible.

I won't say a Wimbledon is worth less than any other slam, but I will say that Wimbledon is more likely than any tournament to serve up either huge upsets or have a single player consistently mow over the entire field (no pun intended). The surface just doesn't have enough tournaments to make it fair for the players.

 

[DRII]

Agreed. And 1500 > 1000 > 750. So easy.

the ATP's perspective is only yours and NatF's bible/dictate.

others can think for themselves and form their own opinions

 

[jg153040]

That is absolutely not true. That is what any biased person would say. The original 3 majors all started in the late 1800s. They are all romanticized and all have immense history. None of them are the "holy grail". That is complete nonsense.

All I can say about Wimbledon is this. For this sport to have a grass slam tournament without even one MS1000 event is a travesty. It is an ultra short season. A complete joke compared to the HC and Clay season.

In the HC and Clay seasons, players get lots of practice on those surfaces before the slam takes place. Even a few MS1000s.

On grass, players get one small warmup tournament? Then straight into Wimbledon? After having played several tournaments on the polar opposite surface? Nobody gets any real time to get accustomed to grass. Nobody gets any real practice. It is absolutely horrible.

I won't say a Wimbledon is worth less than any other slam, but I will say that Wimbledon is more likely than any tournament to serve up either huge upsets or have a single player consistently mow over the entire field (no pun intended). The surface just doesn't have enough tournaments to make it fair for the players.

Who is your favourite player? Can you tell me?

 

[NatF]

the ATP's perspective is only yours and NatF's bible/dictate.

others can think for themselves and form their own opinions

Yes you're free to form an opinion as moronic as it may be and even espouse that view on the internet if you wish.

Everyone else knows that exhibitions tournaments don't grant ranking points :lol:

 

[Mayonnaise]

the ATP's perspective is only yours and NatF's bible/dictate.

others can think for themselves and form their own opinions

You are entitled to your opinion. But you're not entitled to your facts. The WTF is not an exhibition, and that is a fact.

 

[jg153040]

I think you meant subjective.....

Just like I subjectively think Wimbledon is quaint and historic!

But that a true test is winning on surfaces folks play on most....

Grass and Clay are traditional courts.... Hard court is new.

Yet most play on clay or hard court. So, one could argue the competition is stronger there, due the amount of time played on the courts. Of course, that doesn't mean the GS count any more, as each GS equals 1.... Being a HC player gives one the best opportunities for percentage successs....

Hey it is what it is. You need to accept reality. I didn't make the rules. It's reality, it's not that I want it to be so. I didn't just decided that W is the most important. It was since I started to watch tennis.

You do know that what we want or believe or fans of what player we are is irrelevant to the truth?

You really need to know the difference between something believing to be true or wanting to be true and actually being true.

But hey go ahead believing that stats that favor your player are the most important ones.

 

[DRII]

WTF/YEC = Elite Exhibitionary Event, where you can lose but still win.

start dealing...

 

[mightyrick]

Who is your favourite player? Can you tell me?

My favorite players were Safin, Agassi, and Roddick. I was always a fan of empassioned players who would talk almost unfiltered to the media, to the umpires, to their opponents, and to their fans.

I don't currently have a favorite player. When Roddick retired, there was nobody else.

I guess Gulbis is also a passionate, unfiltered player... but there's something about him that bothers me. I'm not sure what it is.

 

[jg153040]

WTF/YEC = Elite Exhibitionary Event, where you can lose but still win.

start dealing...

Well fine, in that case Federer exhibited most skills here.

I feel pretty, I feel pretty .

 

[DRII]

My favorite players were Safin, Agassi, and Roddick. I was always a fan of empassioned players who would talk almost unfiltered to the media, to the umpires, to their opponents, and to their fans.

I don't currently have a favorite player. When Roddick retired, there was nobody else.

I guess Gulbis is also a passionate, unfiltered player... but there's something about him that bothers me. I'm not sure what it is.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[jg153040]

My favorite players were Safin, Agassi, and Roddick. I was always a fan of empassioned players who would talk almost unfiltered to the media, to the umpires, to their opponents, and to their fans.

I don't currently have a favorite player. When Roddick retired, there was nobody else.

I guess Gulbis is also a passionate, unfiltered player... but there's something about him that bothers me. I'm not sure what it is.

So, yo don't have any favorite players? No wonder your life is so empty, so you need to trash Fed all the time out of boredom .

Go ahead, I don't mind, I just wanted to see your reasons.

 

[Mayonnaise]

So, yo don't have any favorite players? No wonder your life is so empty, so you need to trash Fed all the time out of boredom .

Go ahead, I don't mind, I just wanted to see your reasons.

Federer single-handed destroyed the careers of a few of his favorite players.

 

[Mayonnaise]

WTF/YEC = Elite Exhibitionary Event, where you can lose but still win.

start dealing...

Masters > Olympics. The ATP says so. Deal 8)

 

[jg153040]

Federer single-handed destroyed the careers of a few of his favorite players.

Yeah, that too. And what a coincidence that he was devaluing grass while none of his favorite players won W .

No wonder he says HC has the most competition. Safin and Roddick only won on HC.

 

[DRII]

Yeah, that too. And what a coincidence that he was devaluing grass while none of his favorite players won W .

No wonder he says HC has the most competition. Safin and Roddick only won on HC.

Agassi has won Wimby, guy

or is that another attempt at sarcasm by you?

 

[mightyrick]

So, yo don't have any favorite players? No wonder your life is so empty, so you need to trash Fed all the time out of boredom .

Go ahead, I don't mind, I just wanted to see your reasons.

You guys take this way, way too seriously. You realize that we're talking about a tennis player, right? A swiss guy who hits a ball with a woven racquet for a living.

I don't "trash Fed". I think he's actually developed into a great person and a great player. I think the same of Nadal. Djokovic is also finally maturing and coming into his own. I think all of these guys are great.

What is incredible is that you guys think I "trash Fed" just because I don't believe he's the greatest ever. GOAT is a place I reserve for Pancho Gonzales. It's all or nothing with a lot of you Federer/Nadal/Djokovic fans on this board.

I cannot believe people get so irate when we're talking about being amongst the top five players in tennis history. Really?

 

[mightyrick]

Yeah, that too. And what a coincidence that he was devaluing grass while none of his favorite players won W .

No wonder he says HC has the most competition. Safin and Roddick only won on HC.

BTW, you completely misinterpreted my post as a trashing of Federer. Which is not unlike a lot of your Federer fans.

To be clear. I actually think tennis was better when there was a full grass season.

But if you are going to have a grass slam, then have a full grass season. You have to give players a chance to play a couple of 250s/500s and a couple of MS1000s on a surface before the slam comes.