Total Weaks at a certain ranking VS Year end ranking

[BorisBeckerFan]

Total Weeks at a certain ranking VS Year end ranking

In your opinion if Nadal And Federer retain ther rankings for the rest of the year and Novak and Andy are fighting for that number 3 spot what is more important to you? Who finished the year at number 3 or who had the most weeks at number 3. I think to much value is placed on how many weeks a player spends at number one. If someone spends 42 weeks at number one in a year and finishes at #2 and someone else finishes at #1 but only spent 10 weeks at that position he still had the better year because he finished at #1.

So, total Weeks at a certain ranking or Year end ranking?

 

[Pirao]

Weeks, not weaks.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Weeks, not weaks.

Thanks, I'l edit it. How do I start a poll?

 

[Cenc]

years
because it shows overall progresses of 1 calendar year
which means when in one season all tourneys come together - it shows whos the best
for instance moya was 2 weeks world number 1 but he definitely wasnt the best player of 1999, agreed?
he was the best in that one little period
but nothing more (those tourneys that counted for rankings from march1998-march1999) (im using moya as an example and i used to be one of his fans)
and i seriously doubt nadal will surpass feds 4 years as n1

 

[tacou]

yes years obviously but that wasn't the question.

I'd say year-end, I suppose. even if you spent almost the entire year at #1 but lost it at the end, whoever you lost it to was probably neck and neck with you all year and during the final stage he kicked it up a gear.

odd but interesting question.