[POLL] Is it better to become number 1 without ever winning a slam, or to win a slam without ever being number 1?

Which is better

  • Number 1 without ever winning a slam

    Votes: 27 18.8%

  • Winning a slam without ever being number 1

    Votes: 113 78.5%

  • There is no difference between the two scenarios

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • Total voters
    144
Winner Sinner

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Since there is a lot of debate about the Zverev case these days, the question arises spontaneously;

Is it better to win a slam without ever wearing the crown, or to wear the crown without ever winning a slam?

At first glance, one might say it is better to win a slam, also because someone could rightly object that a number 1 without a slam, Rios style, is a king without a crown
images


But on the other side of the coin, there are numbers that never lie.
Well, since the computerized system to determine the rankings has existed, only 29 players have had the privilege of becoming number 1 even for just one week, while in the same period of time I don't have the exact data but surely the winners of at least one slam have been n times more, ergo, statistically it is much more difficult to reach the top of the ranking rather than winning a slam.
 
Mostly you can't be number 1 even if you are very lucky because it's a year long ranking and it will average out.

There are what only 29 number 1s in history of tennis and all of them are capable of winning a slam although Rios never did.

There are 58 different champions in open era in Grand slam singles .


29 is exactly half of 58. It's almost impossible to luck out for a whole year becoming number 1 but if you are that lucky then probably the slam winners during that time also aren't great either.
 
This question takes way too much time from us but it's not even relevant as their has been just 1 world number 1 who is slamless. Slams has highest weight in rankings so every number 1 performed well at Grand slams.

The reverse is not true at all that every slam winner was close to becoming number 1.
 
Gastón Gaudio vs. Marcelo Ríos debate.

I'd side with Gaudio here. His victory against Coria in 2005 was epic. Even Cilic in his USO Slam run was more impressive than Ríos.

Let's not forget the legendary Ruud was close to being #1, had Raz lost his 5 sets match with Tiafoe at the USO 2022.
 
Would you rather be Hana Mandlikova...who won 4 majors in her career and only ever got to #3 (competing against Evert/Navratilova)? Even saying would you rather be Sabatini or Novotna vs Option 2?

or be Karolina Pliskova, Dinara Safina or Jelena Jankovic?

I dunno how many people would pick option 2. Unless we are picking a major winner like...ok Maybe Majoli or someone like that.....
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Mostly you can't be number 1 even if you are very lucky because it's a year long ranking and it will average out.

There are what only 29 number 1s in history of tennis and all of them are capable of winning a slam although Rios never did.

There are 58 different champions in open era in Grand slam singles .


29 is exactly half of 58. It's almost impossible to luck out for a whole year becoming number 1 but if you are that lucky then probably the slam winners during that time also aren't great either.
Click to expand...
Yes, in a scenario where you become number 1 without having won a slam, it necessarily means that in those 52 weeks there has been a great leveling of values, even if the Zverev-Alcaraz case regarding number 2, shows that in the span of 52 weeks you can also position yourself better in the rankings despite having won zero slams against the 2 won by the rival who succeeds you in the rankings.
I think it is an exceptional case but it exists.

In any case you did not answer the question.
If you were a tennis player, which of the two scenarios would you like to avoid, or vice versa, obtain.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
29 different number 1s

58 different slam winners

@Pheasant
Click to expand...
Good point. And I've said for a long time that I value weeks at #1 the most. So me personally, I'd take being ranked #1 in the world over 1 tournament win. This thought comes from the old days when players really focused on being world #1 instead of piling up slams. Now granted, slams were always extremely important. But world #1 was massive.

Let's look at Lendl's 1982 season. He hit world #1 that year. But for some reason, people crap on that year, because he didn't win a slam title. But here's what he did that year:
106-9, .922 record overall
4-0, 1.000 vs world #1 that year
9-1, .900 vs top-5
15-5 in finals that year
record-breaking 2,028,850.00 in prize money that year(2nd highest total of his career, losing out to his 1989 season when he had 2.34 million in prize money).

edit: Lendl didn't hit world #1 until early-1983. However, it was because he was so killer in 1982 that he got there.
 
Winner Sinner said:
Yes, in a scenario where you become number 1 without having won a slam, it necessarily means that in those 52 weeks there has been a great leveling of values, even if the Zverev-Alcaraz case regarding number 2, shows that in the span of 52 weeks you can also position yourself better in the rankings despite having won zero slams against the 2 won by the rival who succeeds you in the rankings.
I think it is an exceptional case but it exists.

In any case you did not answer the question.
If you were a tennis player, which of the two scenarios would you like to avoid, or vice versa, obtain.
Click to expand...
If I was tennis player, I would like to become number 1.

Zverev and raz both have around 7500 pts right now is that correct? They would be practically number 1s in year 2000. When Kuerten ended year at number 1, safin was for short period.

So if they go around 9000 pts then that is good enough mark for me. Personally I consider 10k plus as strong 11k plus very strong and 12k plus as all time years.
 
Pheasant said:
Good point. And I've said for a long time that I value weeks at #1 the most. So me personally, I'd take being ranked #1 in the world over 1 tournament win. This thought comes from the old days when players really focused on being world #1 instead of piling up slams. Now granted, slams were always extremely important. But world #1 was massive.

Let's look at Lendl's 1982 season. He hit world #1 that year. But for some reason, people crap on that year, because he didn't win a slam title. But here's what he did that year:
106-9, .922 record overall
4-0, 1.000 vs world #1 that year
9-1, .900 vs top-5
15-5 in finals that year
record-breaking 2,028,850.00 in prize money that year(2nd highest total of his career, losing out to his 1989 season when he had 2.34 million in prize money).
Click to expand...
This is mind boggling. 9-1 vs top 5 wow.
 
If I really have to choose, I would go for being #1. About 20-30 years after the career ends, I would rather say that I was once ranked as the best tennis player in the world to my grandkids rather than say I won 1 random AO or other Slam.
 
Think winning a Slam, even if never #1, carries more kudos whereas being #1 without one tends to attract scorn (see Serena's jibe at Safina in her "Are You Looking At My Titles" video).

Wawrinka won 3 Slams without ever being ranked higher than #3 but that never seemed to do his reputation any harm.
 
socallefty said:
If you really have to choose, I would go for being #1. About 20-30 years after the career ends, I would rather say that I was once ranked as the best tennis player in the world to my grandkids rather than say I won 1 random AO or other Slam.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be something of a regret that never completely happened but still great to be number 1.

Almost every player has such regret so it's not bad at all. At least you were best player for that time.
 
A player can get hot for two weeks and win a major but to become number 1, they have to have at least a calendar year of going deep in tournaments and winning 250, 500, 1000 events.
 
Last edited:
nolefam_2024 said:
Is it true that McEnroe switched rackets before 1984 season and flipped the h2h on lendl ? I think he switched to graphite in 84. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
He switched to that Dunlop racket in 1983, then later snapped Lendl's record 66-indoor match winning streak later that same year. Of course, this momentum carried over into 1984 big time.
 
If we think about it, in some ways Alcaraz was lucky that Sinner, dominating the rankings in the last 52 weeks, took away many points from other players, while he, being ahead 3-0 in the h2h of the last 52 weeks, took nothing away from him.

If it weren't for Sinner, Alcaraz, despite having won Roland Garros and Wimbledon, could have been in the rankings not only behind Zverev, but also behind Medvedev and perhaps Fritz himself.
Obviously without Sinner all those players could have won at least one slam.
The fact remains that Alcaraz's last 52 weeks risk being a one-off, two slams won, 3-0 in the h2h against his strongest rival, and yet since last November he has always remained third in the rankings, even with a not excessively high score.
This happens when you have scored about 80% of your total points in 3 tournaments.
And before Roland Garros, I don't think it will happen, but there is room for him to be surpassed by Fritz too.
We'll have to see how the two will come out of this Indian Wells.
 
Winner Sinner said:
If we think about it, in some ways Alcaraz was lucky that Sinner, dominating the rankings in the last 52 weeks, took away many points from other players, while he, being ahead 3-0 in the h2h of the last 52 weeks, took nothing away from him.

If it weren't for Sinner, Alcaraz, despite having won Roland Garros and Wimbledon, could have been in the rankings not only behind Zverev, but also behind Medvedev and perhaps Fritz himself.
Obviously without Sinner all those players could have won at least one slam.
The fact remains that Alcaraz's last 52 weeks risk being a one-off, two slams won, 3-0 in the h2h against his strongest rival, and yet since last November he has always remained third in the rankings, even with a not excessively high score.
This happens when you have scored about 80% of your total points in 3 tournaments.
And before Roland Garros, I don't think it will happen, but there is room for him to be surpassed by Fritz too.
We'll have to see how the two will come out of this Indian Wells.
Click to expand...
I don't think raz is lucky at all. He is actually unlucky focusing on Olympics and screwing up the US open summer series. He sacrificed it playing both singles and doubles in an event that gives 0 pts. Otherwise he would have been ranked at number 2 definitely.
 
Mainad said:
Think winning a Slam, even if never #1, carries more kudos whereas being #1 without one tends to attract scorn (see Serena's jibe at Safina in her "Are You Looking At My Titles" video).

Wawrinka won 3 Slams without ever being ranked higher than #3 but that never seemed to do his reputation any harm.
Click to expand...
It's normal that it didn't damage his reputation, precisely because everyone knew he had 3/4 monsters in front of him.

Wawrinka was seen as the underdog.
 
Winner Sinner said:
It's normal that it didn't damage his reputation, precisely because everyone knew he had 3/4 monsters in front of him.

Wawrinka was seen as the underdog.
Click to expand...
That is just because fans don't like to think for themselves. He was ranked behind raonic in a year where fedal were almost gone and Djokovic was demotivated for half the year

That is 2016.

Wawrinka never deserved to be near number 1 based on how bad he was in consistency department. That's why I put him at number 10 in players born in 2000s behind both Hewitt and Safin who have a less slam.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
I don't think raz is lucky at all. He is actually unlucky focusing on Olympics and screwing up the US open summer series. He sacrificed it playing both singles and doubles in an event that gives 0 pts. Otherwise he would have been ranked at number 2 definitely.
Click to expand...
Alcaraz also had a big decline in 2023 when there were no Olympics.

Probably the Olympics cost him a certain competitiveness in the North American triptych Montreal (where he did not participate), Cincinnati and US Open, but in the autumn season he has no excuses, considering that between Laver Cup and Beijing he seemed to have found his best form.

However, note the differences, Djokovic in 2021 after winning Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon, goes to the Olympics, plays singles, doubles and mixed doubles, then goes to the US Open although worn out he still reaches the final.
Then he also has time to win Bercy.
 
Winner Sinner said:
Alcaraz also had a big decline in 2023 when there were no Olympics.

Probably the Olympics cost him a certain competitiveness in the North American triptych Montreal (where he did not participate), Cincinnati and US Open, but in the autumn season he has no excuses, considering that between Laver Cup and Beijing he seemed to have found his best form.

However, note the differences, Djokovic in 2021 after winning Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon, goes to the Olympics, plays singles, doubles and mixed doubles, then goes to the US Open although worn out he still reaches the final.
Then he also has time to win Bercy.
Click to expand...
Agreed but he got zero pts for Olympics. He could have rested and then you see how many pts he dropped in usopen series? Around 1700 pts. That is big drop.
 
Pheasant said:
Good point. And I've said for a long time that I value weeks at #1 the most. So me personally, I'd take being ranked #1 in the world over 1 tournament win. This thought comes from the old days when players really focused on being world #1 instead of piling up slams. Now granted, slams were always extremely important. But world #1 was massive.

Let's look at Lendl's 1982 season. He hit world #1 that year. But for some reason, people crap on that year, because he didn't win a slam title. But here's what he did that year:
106-9, .922 record overall
4-0, 1.000 vs world #1 that year
9-1, .900 vs top-5
15-5 in finals that year
record-breaking 2,028,850.00 in prize money that year(2nd highest total of his career, losing out to his 1989 season when he had 2.34 million in prize money).

edit: Lendl didn't hit world #1 until early-1983. However, it was because he was so killer in 1982 that he got there.
Click to expand...
As your later edit showed, Lendl didn't reach number 1 that year.

The ATP rankings then made no sense. McEnroe ended 1982 at the top of the rankings despite his best tournament win being no more that 1 Masters 1000 equivalent and he made 1 slam final. He won 1/3rd of the tournaments of Lendl that year. Lendl won the WTF and the WCT Finals and made the US Open final.
 
timnz said:
As your later edit showed, Lendl didn't reach number 1 that year.

The ATP rankings then made no sense. McEnroe ended 1982 at the top of the rankings despite his best tournament win being no more that 1 Masters 1000 equivalent and he made 1 slam final. He won 1/3rd of the tournaments of Lendl that year. Lendl won the WTF and the WCT Finals and made the US Open final.
Click to expand...
What was wrong with rankings in 1982?
 
While it's certainly possible to make a case that getting to no. 1 is more difficult than winning a single slam, I'd think that the acute sense of frustration experienced by non-slam-winning no. 1s (e.g., Rios, Safina) would be something I'd wish to avoid. It's as though Dante invented a special circle just for this tiny group. Your legacy of achieving no. 1 always includes the sad fact that you did it without winning a slam. Even the "tell your grandkids" experience could be tainted: "Yes, I was officially ranked as the no. 1 tennis player in the world at that time!"

"Wow!! So what did you win as a tennis player, Grandpa?! The U.S. Open? Maybe even Wimbledon?!"

"Er, nothing you've ever heard of, most likely. That was 40 years ago; let's change the subject."
 
MichaelNadal said:
I can see arguments for both. Personal preference really
Click to expand...
Like Andy Roddick says , there is a lot of wasted breath on this topic but there is literally a single case where a player became number 1 but didn't win a grand slam.

People act like this is daily occurrence.

Other way around though, there are far too many low quality slam winners.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Agreed but he got zero pts for Olympics. He could have rested and then you see how many pts he dropped in usopen series? Around 1700 pts. That is big drop.
Click to expand...
For me the Olympics were more than physical, also because at 21, and before the Roland Garros-Wimbledon-Olympics triptych he hadn't played much, he suffered them mentally.

You could see it in the Cincinnati vs Monfils match where he broke his racket out of pure frustration (not a reaction like him), but also in the match with VdZ at the US Open, very nervous with his box.
Ferrero admitted it, after the Olympics it was as if he wanted to temporarily disconnect from tennis, ergo, his head wasn't there.
The Laver Cup environment regenerated him.
 
I think it depends on the amount of time spent at number one. If I were top dog for like a whole year or more, uber consistent in every tournament, only lost to the very best players in the last couple rounds of majors and cleaned up everywhere else... Yeah, I might take that over one single slam-winning run. But if it's just one short stint at number one and still no major, that feels like more of a fluke – a bit of lucky timing on the leaderboard.
 
tudwell said:
I think it depends on the amount of time spent at number one. If I were top dog for like a whole year or more, uber consistent in every tournament, only lost to the very best players in the last couple rounds of majors and cleaned up everywhere else... Yeah, I might take that over one single slam-winning run. But if it's just one short stint at number one and still no major, that feels like more of a fluke – a bit of lucky timing on the leaderboard.
Click to expand...
Wrong lucky timing can also give slams
 
JMR said:
Your legacy of achieving no. 1 always includes the sad fact that you did it without winning a slam.
Click to expand...
The players who won only 1 Slam get derided as ‘One Slam wonders’ also especially if they didn’t get anywhere close to #1 in the world. There are a lot more of them on the ATP side who get less respect than Rios.

You don’t get full respect if you don’t win multiple Slams and become #1 during your career. So it’s just a personal preference whether you want to choose one Slam or becoming #1 without a Slam - tennis history will say you had a mixed record in your career.
 
Last edited:
nolefam_2024 said:
Wrong lucky timing can also give slams
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but at the end of the day you take home the trophy. I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a tennis player. Would I be happier to retire with two weeks at number one and no major or one major and no weeks at number one? I think the latter because I'll always have the glory of that one winning run, while being world number one is something a bit more abstract and indirect. But obviously reasonable people can differ. And again, if I were number one for like 50+ weeks and genuinely felt like the world's best player even though I somehow fell short at the majors every time, that changes things. I'd probably take that over one fluke slam run.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Mostly you can't be number 1 even if you are very lucky because it's a year long ranking and it will average out.

There are what only 29 number 1s in history of tennis and all of them are capable of winning a slam although Rios never did.

There are 58 different champions in open era in Grand slam singles .


29 is exactly half of 58. It's almost impossible to luck out for a whole year becoming number 1 but if you are that lucky then probably the slam winners during that time also aren't great either.
Click to expand...
pretty much this!
rios was no1 for only 6 weeks. and it was never YE#1 who never won a slam. but it is many slam winners who won just a couple of tournaments or never was top5. if i remember correctly so one WTA player won only one title and it was some slam.

fined her, beside that title she was only once in R3 at some slam. her highest ranking was no 80.

Chris O'Neil (tennis) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

EDIT
only no1 means that you are the best in the world in that moment. it is officially. nobody thought that cilic or potro was best in the world when they won slams. even muzza become best when he become no1 not before despite slams titles. and to be the best is the ultimate goal of all sportsman.
 
Last edited:
GoatNo1 said:
pretty much this!
rios was no1 for only 6 weeks. and it as never YE#1 who never won a slam. but it is many slam winners who won just a couple of tournaments or never was top5. if i remember correctly so one WTA player won only one title and it was some slam.

ined her, beside that title she was only once in R3 at some slam. her highest ranking was no 80.

Chris O'Neil (tennis) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
You already have Emma raducanu who is almost finished as a top player and her title is a slam.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
What was wrong with rankings in 1982?
Click to expand...
There are a couple of things that I remember from watching matches then.

1. All tournaments were given the same weight. I.e, a Masters event= WTF=slam=500 event = 250 event.
2. rankings were based on the average points that you'd earn per tourney, meaning that if you went to the semi and lost in every tourney, whether it's 10 tourneys or 20, your ranking would be the same. I.e, you sometimes could be penalized if you played extra tourneys while gassed(see Lendl in 1982 vs Mac). Given that Lendl played about 30 more matches than Mac, he really got screwed by this rule.
3. I remember that bonus points were awarded for playing a higher ranked player. This is kind of like mixing in ELO into the rankings. This always made sense to me; even as a kid.

Looking back now, I see that Mac's worst tourney was 1 QF. The rest were all semis, finals, or titles. Lendl had multiple R16 and earlier exists. So the average distance that he went in a tourney was lower than Mac's. That said, Lendl got robbed that year. But I will take it!

For the most part, the rankings worked. 1982 just happens to be one of the few years where it failed miserably, IMHO.
 
Pheasant said:
There are a couple of things that I remember from watching matches then.

1. All tournaments were given the same weight. I.e, a Masters event= WTF=slam=500 event = 250 event.
2. rankings were based on the average points that you'd earn per tourney, meaning that if you went to the semi and lost in every tourney, whether it's 10 tourneys or 20, your ranking would be the same. I.e, you sometimes could be penalized if you played extra tourneys while gassed(see Lendl in 1982 vs Mac). Given that Lendl played about 30 more matches than Mac, he really got screwed by this rule.
3. I remember that bonus points were awarded for playing a higher ranked player. This is kind of like mixing in ELO into the rankings. This always made sense to me; even as a kid.

Looking back now, I see that Mac's worst tourney was 1 QF. The rest were all semis, finals, or titles. Lendl had multiple R16 and earlier exists. So the average distance that he went in a tourney was lower than Mac's. That said, Lendl got robbed that year. But I will take it!

For the most part, the rankings worked. 1982 just happens to be one of the few years where it failed miserably, IMHO.
Click to expand...
These rules make very little sense and very hard to understand.

Yes the elo type bonus points can be awarded today as well. Alcaraz is a high peak low floor guy today like Nadal in the past. These type of players will benefit from such rankings.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
You already have Emma raducanu who is almost finished as a top player and her title is a slam.
Click to expand...
so it makes 2 players that have only one title in whole career and that happen to be slam. emma was no10 as highest and the other one was no80. none of them played another QF beside the title. so if you compare with JJ who was no1 and YE#1 in very strong field back in 2008 and won 15 titles (6 big) and played in one slam F and 6 SF.
 
Last edited:
One day I want to calculate the ratio of weeks at number 1/slams won of the 28 players who boast this combination.
I feel like Nadal's ratio will be one of the worst, while that of the Lendl/Connors duo skyrockets.

Obviously for Nadal justified by having been contemporary with Federer and Djokovic.
Nadal has always had great consistency like the other two, just think that if of the 3 he is the worst in terms of overall number of weeks at number 1, he should be the best in terms of overall weeks in the top 2.
 
socallefty said:
The players who won only 1 Slam get derided as ‘One Slam wonders’ also especially if they didn’t get anywhere close to #1 in the world. There are a lot more of them on the ATP side who get less respect than Rios.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. I think you overestimate the general regard in which Rios is held. Despite his no. 1 ranking, the guy can't even come close to winning a "Best player to never win a slam" poll. E.g., https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-player-to-never-win-a-grand-slam.609474/. Poor Rios is not even guaranteed to be an option in a "Best player to never win a slam" poll. E.g., https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-player-to-never-win-a-slam.647323/. If your no. 1 ranking doesn't even clearly set you above other non-slam-winners, what good is it? A mathematical fluke, I suppose. Some slam titles are also flukes, of course. But least they result from on-court wins rather than calculations.
 
Not to start a controversy, but whoever says that it is better to be number 1 without having won a slam rather than the opposite, then for consistency should also evaluate in the GOAT debate first the comparison between the weeks at number 1 and then the count of the slams, or am I wrong?

Then it goes without saying, that Djokovic has made everyone agree by excelling in both.
But if instead we make the comparison between Federer vs Nadal, then the question starts to get interesting.

In Borg's time, the Swede was the one who accumulated the most slams, while Connors was the one who accumulated the most weeks at number 1.
And yet in the collective imagination the best tennis player of that generation is indisputably considered Borg.
 
It’s obvious to win a slam doesn’t matter if you’re the unranked 20,000 player in the world is more important than being number one and went in a slam as well as more prestigious by far
 
JMR said:
I doubt that. I think you overestimate the general regard in which Rios is held. Despite his no. 1 ranking, the guy can't even come close to winning a "Best player to never win a slam" poll. E.g., https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-player-to-never-win-a-grand-slam.609474/. Poor Rios is not even guaranteed to be an option in a "Best player to never win a slam" poll. E.g., https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-player-to-never-win-a-slam.647323/. If your no. 1 ranking doesn't even clearly set you above other non-slam-winners, what good is it? A mathematical fluke, I suppose. Some slam titles are also flukes, of course. But least they result from on-court wins rather than calculations.
Click to expand...
Of course he is not the best player to never win a Slam, but what does that have to do with the poll question in the OP? The poll question is about two short one-time events and which one you would prefer? The other one is a measure of achievements throughout a career for all the players who have never won a Slam - there are many guys who have achieved a lot more than Rios.

I still don’t know why you are making it a debate about which poll option is better when it is clearly going to be a matter of personal preference on whether people posting here value 1 Slam or being #1 better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Docalex007
Until Federer goes a calendar year without winning a slam, shove it!
Replies
16
Views
1K
Safinator_1
Safinator_1
D
Being #1 versus winning a slam
2
Replies
61
Views
2K
Jason Swerve
Jason Swerve
Fed881981
So, is the problem being #1 without a slam or finishing above someone with a slam?
3 4 5
Replies
217
Views
10K
jhhachamp
J
M
Will Berdych win a slam/get #1 ever?
Replies
4
Views
673
Wondertoy
Wondertoy
T
Most Grand Slam Wins Without Dropping a Set
Replies
17
Views
2K
Incognito
Incognito
Back
Top