Northern
Hall of Fame
You obviously don't want to get it. It's a simple concept, too.It doesn't.
See: Andy Roddick, ranked YE #1 despite only gaining the ranking for the first time in early November.
Weeks at #1 is an irrelevant record
- Thread starter Northern
- Start date
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I "get" your point (despite how hollow it may be) and I'm refuting it with my own which you're failing to grasp.
Perhaps it's time to end this skirmish.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I think the arguments that YE 1 is arbitrary and only rewards one particular "year" out of 365 possible ones is somewhat incorrect. You could make similar arguments about the length of a soccer match for example or any sport that has a clock; why determine who is the best over a given 90 minute period, why not 91? What if someone led almost all of the match then lost at the last minute? This is flawed thinking. In other words, part of the competition and sport is maxing performance within a certain period of time, over a game, over a slam, over a season etc. This is why as a Novak fan, I freely admitted his 4 in a row was not as impressive as a CYGS.
On the flip side, tennis is probably one of the least calendar/season based of most sports. There is a YEC indeed and a points race, but as slams (And to a smaller degree masters) are the main objective in terms of legacy, you can argue maxing in a period from mid season one year to mid season the next is nearly as impressive as doing it in 1 season. Particularly since there is an almost 11 month tennis season, it basically rolls into the next one. I know some years Fed took his break after AO.
In terms of Weeks at 1, I think @Northern makes a solid point that it is rewarding idle weeks as well. My counter to that would be that in the same way the YE 1 rewards an arbitrary pre defined period that everyone is aware of, the players earn the accrued right to be considered 1 over subsequent weeks until someone can surpass their points total by performance. It's basically an accrued way to measure the best player at any given time. And from a "top dog" perspective, it has some value in seeing how long a given player "ruled" atop the tennis world.
If you win 3 slams in a row for example, you earn the right to be considered "the top dog" in the tennis world for subsequent weeks even if you flounder a bit.
For example the Warriors are now the top dog in the NBA world and will be so until either someone knocks them off. They've earned that status and benefit of the doubt. It is true though that other sports don't measure "weeks", just results at the end of the season. That's what complicates this IMO
Thought provoking stuff from NortherN
On the flip side, tennis is probably one of the least calendar/season based of most sports. There is a YEC indeed and a points race, but as slams (And to a smaller degree masters) are the main objective in terms of legacy, you can argue maxing in a period from mid season one year to mid season the next is nearly as impressive as doing it in 1 season. Particularly since there is an almost 11 month tennis season, it basically rolls into the next one. I know some years Fed took his break after AO.
In terms of Weeks at 1, I think @Northern makes a solid point that it is rewarding idle weeks as well. My counter to that would be that in the same way the YE 1 rewards an arbitrary pre defined period that everyone is aware of, the players earn the accrued right to be considered 1 over subsequent weeks until someone can surpass their points total by performance. It's basically an accrued way to measure the best player at any given time. And from a "top dog" perspective, it has some value in seeing how long a given player "ruled" atop the tennis world.
If you win 3 slams in a row for example, you earn the right to be considered "the top dog" in the tennis world for subsequent weeks even if you flounder a bit.
For example the Warriors are now the top dog in the NBA world and will be so until either someone knocks them off. They've earned that status and benefit of the doubt. It is true though that other sports don't measure "weeks", just results at the end of the season. That's what complicates this IMO
Thought provoking stuff from NortherN
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I think the arguments that YE 1 is arbitrary and only rewards one particular "year" out of 365 possible ones is somewhat incorrect. You could make similar arguments about the length of a soccer match for example or any sport that has a clock; why determine who is the best over a given 90 minute period, why not 91? What if someone led almost all of the match then lost at the last minute? This is flawed thinking. In other words, part of the competition and sport is maxing performance within a certain period of time, over a game, over a slam, over a season etc. This is why as a Novak fan, I freely admitted his 4 in a row was not as impressive as a CYGS.
On the flip side, tennis is probably one of the least calendar/season based of most sports. There is a YEC indeed and a points race, but as slams (And to a smaller degree masters) are the main objective in terms of legacy, you can argue maxing in a period from mid season one year to mid season the next is nearly as impressive as doing it in 1 season. Particularly since there is an almost 11 month tennis season, it basically rolls into the next one. I know some years Fed took his break after AO.
In terms of Weeks at 1, I think @Northern makes a solid point that it is rewarding idle weeks as well. My counter to that would be that in the same way the YE 1 rewards an arbitrary pre defined period that everyone is aware of, the players earn the accrued right to be considered 1 over subsequent weeks until someone can surpass their points total by performance. It's basically an accrued way to measure the best player at any given time. And from a "top dog" perspective, it has some value in seeing how long a given player "ruled" atop the tennis world.
If you win 3 slams in a row for example, you earn the right to be considered "the top dog" in the tennis world for subsequent weeks even if you flounder a bit.
For example the Warriors are now the top dog in the NBA world and will be so until either someone knocks them off. They've earned that status and benefit of the doubt. It is true though that other sports don't measure "weeks", just results at the end of the season. That's what complicates this IMO
Thought provoking stuff from NortherN
It's somebody else.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
Haha, I knew it!
Btw, my new favorite of the season 2 is The Golden Lagoon. I've also found The Headmasters with a fairly solid English dub, but the resolution is very low...
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
That's weird, it should be easy to... ooooh you mean the Japanese series extension?
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
What do you think about my points tho?
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I concur though perhaps think of it slightly differently. The glut of idle weeks at the end of the year especially are the year-end bonus for being the tennis season champion. I haven't read the thread though as it covers ground which has been discussed so much over the years here that I'm done with it - pretty sure I've regurgitated opinions on it at least 5 times over the last few years.
This forum + me = glassy eyes right now.
Northern
Hall of Fame
You basically explained some of my ideas better than I did by using different points of view, and overall you give a very balanced and insightful view, thank you. The Weeks at #1 give some information the YE#1 doesn't, but to me the main problem is the counting of idle weeks, and the fact that in some scenarios you can end with nonsensical counts due to the way tournaments with large gaps following are favored. But I do see some of the merit in Weeks at #1. That's why I proposed a different "hybrid" metric, such as "# of tournaments finished as #1" with some kind of weighing factor depending on the importance of each tournament. This would remove the idle weeks issue, but still keep track of times where a player is #1 in the middle of the season.I think the arguments that YE 1 is arbitrary and only rewards one particular "year" out of 365 possible ones is somewhat incorrect. You could make similar arguments about the length of a soccer match for example or any sport that has a clock; why determine who is the best over a given 90 minute period, why not 91? What if someone led almost all of the match then lost at the last minute? This is flawed thinking. In other words, part of the competition and sport is maxing performance within a certain period of time, over a game, over a slam, over a season etc. This is why as a Novak fan, I freely admitted his 4 in a row was not as impressive as a CYGS.
On the flip side, tennis is probably one of the least calendar/season based of most sports. There is a YEC indeed and a points race, but as slams (And to a smaller degree masters) are the main objective in terms of legacy, you can argue maxing in a period from mid season one year to mid season the next is nearly as impressive as doing it in 1 season. Particularly since there is an almost 11 month tennis season, it basically rolls into the next one. I know some years Fed took his break after AO.
In terms of Weeks at 1, I think @Northern makes a solid point that it is rewarding idle weeks as well. My counter to that would be that in the same way the YE 1 rewards an arbitrary pre defined period that everyone is aware of, the players earn the accrued right to be considered 1 over subsequent weeks until someone can surpass their points total by performance. It's basically an accrued way to measure the best player at any given time. And from a "top dog" perspective, it has some value in seeing how long a given player "ruled" atop the tennis world.
If you win 3 slams in a row for example, you earn the right to be considered "the top dog" in the tennis world for subsequent weeks even if you flounder a bit.
For example the Warriors are now the top dog in the NBA world and will be so until either someone knocks them off. They've earned that status and benefit of the doubt. It is true though that other sports don't measure "weeks", just results at the end of the season. That's what complicates this IMO
Thought provoking stuff from NortherN
I appreciate your post, but please listen to Nathaniel. I keep telling people that I have nothing to do with him. I don't know where FedFosterWallace got that insane notion.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
You basically explained some of my ideas better than I did by using different points of view, and overall you give a very balanced and insightful view, thank you. The Weeks at #1 give some information the YE#1 doesn't, but to me the main problem is the counting of idle weeks, and the fact that in some scenarios you can end with nonsensical counts due to the way tournaments with large gaps following are favored. But I do see some of the merit in Weeks at #1. That's why I proposed a different "hybrid" metric, such as "# of tournaments finished as #1" with some kind of weighing factor depending on the importance of each tournament. This would remove the idle weeks issue, but still keep track of times where a player is #1 in the middle of the season.
I appreciate your post, but please listen to Nathaniel. I keep telling people that I have nothing to do with him. I don't know where FedFosterWallace got that insane notion.
At least - like me - he clocked on to why the name could be a convincing disguise. The o(r)ther NN strikes.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
You basically explained some of my ideas better than I did by using different points of view, and overall you give a very balanced and insightful view, thank you. The Weeks at #1 give some information the YE#1 doesn't, but to me the main problem is the counting of idle weeks, and the fact that in some scenarios you can end with nonsensical counts due to the way tournaments with large gaps following are favored. But I do see some of the merit in Weeks at #1. That's why I proposed a different "hybrid" metric, such as "# of tournaments finished as #1" with some kind of weighing factor depending on the importance of each tournament. This would remove the idle weeks issue, but still keep track of times where a player is #1 in the middle of the season.
I appreciate your post, but please listen to Nathaniel. I keep telling people that I have nothing to do with him. I don't know where FedFosterWallace got that insane notion.
Okay, I'll take yous two wild kids at your word!
Yes the significantly larger gaps at certain times of the year is a good point!
Number of tournaments at 1 would probably be the most accurate way to measure this sort of accrued top dog status I'm taking about, but I suspect it would be too niche sounding to catch on lol.
Northern
Hall of Fame
That wouldn't be enough for me to establish a potential relation on its own. That being said, I wonder how many words in the English language start and end by N.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Northern
Hall of Fame
Yes, not quite as catchy as Weeks at #1, is it? To add to that, although it would be interesting to compute this metric (it should be quite easy,) there are some additional problems. What tournaments would be counted? If you think about this for a moment, it's not quite as easy as it would be desired to answer this, for multiple reasons.
Northern
Hall of Fame
No way? That's actually far less than I suspected. Nice site as well, thank you for that.
Similar threads
- Poll
