Weeks at no.1 are nowhere near close slams

USO

Professional
Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.

An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17.

In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total.

I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

 
Do you read fanfictions about Fedal?
They probably resemble this one
"I will always be amazed at the huge difference between the most personal Federer and the Federer we see on the court. When he is not concentrating on tennis, he is a kind, funny man who plays a lot of jokes on you. I have many anecdotes about him. Like when he saw me once and said, why are you so handsome, Fabio? I wish I was just as handsome as you.

That's when I turned to him and said "Oh but you are as handsome as me Roger...you are! Our eyes met, I moved my lips to his and he moved away briefly and said "No! I can't do this to Mirka!" I said "Roger, you can't deny there's always been a chemistry between us, you can't deny our feelings for each other!" He turned back to me and took me up in his strong, bear arms and said "But Flavia...?" I said "Forget her, she's history! Kiss me Roger, for the love of God, kiss me!" I hope he doesn't mind me revealing our sex-fuelled ten year affair in this book. Turn to the next chapter for the full story, and also the anecdote about when I urinated in Murray's vegetable soup and swapped his bread for urinal cakes.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Obviously it's nowhere near as important as they want it to be. The Connors/Lendl comparison with Borg absolutely shows that it's never been a significant GOAT metric. Borg won more slams than those guys, despite having far less weeks at no.1, yet Connors and Lendl never were held up as being as great as Borg because they had far more weeks at no.1. It was never even a thing to be honest.

Trying to stuff weeks at no.1 as a significant GOAT metric is a recent invention created by Federer fans to act as insurance when they were not certain if Nadal would catch him for the slam record. Novak fans jumped on that bandwagon when they realised he could overtake Federer in that metric. Suddenly it's the "2nd most important GOAT metric after slams". LOL!

It's all a bit of a comedy, but you just have to laugh and play along.
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
Dude nobody is denying the importance of Slams as the pinnacle.

Weeks at No 1, one of the GOAT records, is a suitable tiebreaker for Slams. Hence Fed leads Rafa for now
Nobody is saying that the weeks record compensates for Novak's 3 less slams atm.

Also it seems like you are seeking validation for this, as if you don't believe it completely yourself ;)
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is surpassing both Nadal and Federer this year as the #1 king and there is nothing you can do about it. Stop crying.
In the history of tennis, weeks at no.1 has never been a significant GOAT metric. Federer fans tried to make it so when he got the record, and Djokovic fans are jumping on the bandwagon.

It's all about the slam record baby. No one will care who has the most weeks at no.1, if they don't have the slam record.
 
Rafa is just relaxing right now. He would be stupid to push his body to the limit just to fight for Weeks #1. If his 2nd ranking/seeding is not threaten by Thiem, he would not be playing Paris and maybe WTF. The BIG 3 know that their time in winning Slams is already short. Winning as much is the goal before a sudden BREAKTHROUGH from the younger players.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Dude nobody is denying the importance of Slams as the pinnacle.

Weeks at No 1, one of the GOAT records, is a suitable tiebreaker for Slams. Hence Fed leads Rafa for now
Nobody is saying that the weeks record compensates for Novak's 3 less slams atm.

Also it seems like you are seeking validation for this, as if you don't believe it completely yourself ;)

The most suitable tiebreaker is H2H, esespecially in slams against main rivals. Hence why Rafa leads Fed now, and Fed's case for GOAT is now very unconvincing, despite having a tie of the slam record. You simply cannot have a 10-4 negative record against your main career rival in the very biggest events of the sport, and still be expected to be considered "greater" in the event of a slam tie. Every other sport with a H2H element would laugh at such a thing even being possible, yet some Tennis fans are still trying to convince themselves it's credible. The H2H (mainly at slams) kills Federer. Weeks at no.1 do not compensate.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
In the history of tennis, weeks at no.1 has never been a significant GOAT metric. Federer fans tried to make it so when he got the record, and Djokovic fans are jumping on the bandwagon.

It's all about the slam record baby. No one will care who has the most weeks at no.1, if they don't have the slam record.
Being the best player in the world for a period of time over your peers and being crowned the best player in the world is always a significant metric, in any sport. Just like leagues in sports where the team with the most points is crowned as the best team in the league/country, except in tennis you are a world champion. I don't know what you have been smoking.
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
The most suitable tiebreaker is H2H, esespecially in slams against main rivals. Hence why Rafa leads Fed now, and Fed's case for GOAT is now very unconvincing, despite having a tie of the slam record. You simply cannot have a 10-4 negative record against your main career rival in the very biggest events of the sport, and still be expected to be considered "greater" in the event of a slam tie. Every other sport with a H2H element would laugh at such a thing even being possible, yet some Tennis fans are still trying to convince themselves it's credible. The H2H (mainly at slams) kills Federer. Weeks at no.1 do not compensate.
Naaaaah, we won't agree dude don't try
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Being the best player in the world for a period of time over your peers and being crowned the best player in the world is always a significant metric, in any sport. I don't know what you have been smoking.
Again, why has Borg's far less time as world no.1 compared to Connors and Lendl never been used against him in GOAT debates?

Of course being world no.1 for many weeks is an important milestone in the career of any player. No one is denying that. It's just clearly never been THAT important of a GOAT metric. Till Federer fans tried to make it so, and Djokovic fans jumped on it too.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Again, why has Borg's far less time as world no.1 compared to Connors and Lendl never been used against him in GOAT debates?

Of course being world no.1 for many weeks is an important milestone in the career of any player. It's just clearly never been THAT important of a GOAT metric. Till Federer fans made it so, and Djokovic fans jumped on it too.
If slam count is a GOAT metric, then #1 is aswell. No logic otherwise cause to even be #1 in thebfirst place 1 slam isn't even enough for that. #1 achievement is achieved by being the best player over a whole year.

It's always been used by people rating GOATs of the sport for a long time now. It's been part of the discussion.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
If slam count is a GOAT metric, then #1 is aswell. No logic otherwise cause to even be #1 in thebfirst place 1 slam isn't even enough for that. #1 achievement is achieved by being the best player in majority of the tournaments in the year.

It's always been used by people rating GOATs of the sport for a long time now. It's been part of the discussion.
The only thing used to rate GOATs for a long time has been slams. Nobody gave a damn that Borg "only" had 109 weeks at no.1 compared to John McEnroe at 170 weeks, Jimmy Connors at 268 weeks and Ivan Lendl at 270 weeks.

Borg's weeks at no.1 was one of the least impressive things about him compared to players of that era or just after. Yet for a long time, he was seen as the GOAT over them because he had the most slams.

I know my tennis history. Weeks at no.1 did not become a talking point in GOAT debates till Federer got the record, and Djokovic fans then realised he could as well. Even Sampras never emphasised weeks at no.1 too much as a GOAT metric, and he had all the reason to. He knew it was about slams, not about ranking points. It's a very forced talking point/metric because of Federer and now Djokovic fans.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
The only thing used to rate GOATs for a long time has been slams. Nobody gave a damn that Borg "only" had 109 weeks at no.1 compared to John McEnroe at 170 weeks, Jimmy Connors at 268 weeks and Ivan Lendl at 270 weeks.

Borg's weeks at no.1 was one of the least impressive things about him compared to players of that era or just after. Yet for a long time, he was seen as the GOAT over them because he had the most slams.

I know my tennis history. Weeks at no.1 did not become a talking point in GOAT debates till Federer got the record, and Djokovic fans then realised he could. Even Sampras never emphasised weeks at no.1 too much as a GOAT metric, and he had all the reason to. He knew it was about slams, not about ranking points.
You don't know anything. The fact that you are saying stuff like #1 wasnt a talking point until Federer got it but at the same time talking about slam count being a GOAT metric when many pre open era players couldn't even compete in slams cause being part of the pro tour banned them.
 

demrle

Professional
Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.
If Djokovic is out, who is Nadal racing against?
 

Devtennis01

Hall of Fame
Agreed.
I've ceased arguing it, though.
Anyone who has ever heard a player talk about slams will know.
Only players who never won slams but reached No.1 or who don't have enough slams to be GOAT or an ATG (well, their fans, really) keep beating the weeks at No.1 drum.
Snooze....
 

demrle

Professional
Is this a serious question? Obviously Federer who will be back next year.
Of course it's a serious question. In order to have a race, you need at least two objects that are moving. When a fast car is passing by a hamburger joint it is not called a race.
 

GabeT

Legend
In the history of tennis, weeks at no.1 has never been a significant GOAT metric. Federer fans tried to make it so when he got the record, and Djokovic fans are jumping on the bandwagon.

It's all about the slam record baby. No one will care who has the most weeks at no.1, if they don't have the slam record.
In most of the history of tennis slam count was not a thing and players did not seek to maximize their slam wins
 

TheAssassin

Legend
Number 1 indicates you have been better than the entire field over the period of one year so you better believe it matters. Nice attempt comparing previous greats, but the computer rankings weren't as precise then as they didn't properly reflect how dominant Borg's results were for several years.
 

GabeT

Legend
It’s not that complicated.

playing tennis involves many things, much more than just 8 weeks of slam play each year

reaching number 1 is a goal of all players. Plenty of interviews and books on the topics

The slam count is a recent development in tennis

there is no agreed upon criteria for GOAT. pick whatever you want


there is no GOAT. None of the big 3 will be able to claim, each has important records the others don‘t

3 slams is nothing for Novak if he’s on. He can, and has many times, won that in just a few months


enjoy the Big 3, soon we will miss them
 
Last edited:

demrle

Professional
Weeks at no.1 should be of zero importance in the GOAT debate. Yes, the fact that a player reached the no.1 shows that he was the best in the world in a given moment in time. However, said player is being compensated for that achievement by obtaining the 1st seed in a tournament, which in turn makes for an easier draw and increases his chances of winning the given tournament. And that potential win is already accounted for in other GOAT criteria.
 

lucky13

Rookie
it's just no1 that means you're the best in the world. not slams. when team won USO this year no one called him the best player. likewise cilic, vava or potro. or muzza, until he was no1. in addition, everyone has seen muzza as the best player in 2016 even though he won "only" one slam against noles 2! and that nole had better h2h that year and that nole won both slams finals they meet in. and even though the points margin was so small that muzza secured YE # 1 in the last match of the season and saved an MB in match before. it is even the case that muzza sacrificed his career for this no1. sampras has played 7 tournaments last 7 weeks to secure his 6:th YE # 1. on the other hand, players have often missed slams. before it was common not to go to AO (not least the above mentioned borg) and many escaped RG e.g. rafa did not want to play USO this year and fed released RG for several seasons in a row for example.
 
Last edited:

demrle

Professional
Slams in the GOAT race should count just as much as in any other race - 2000 points.

That is 133% of a WTF, 200% of a Masters 1000...

21 sets to win a slam, 10 sets to win a Masters. Slams get no special treatment. Otherwise we can debate if all slams are worth equally. BS

Number of points that each tournament is worth is proportional to the difficulty of winning said tournament. If somebody speculates and doesn't play the Masters, that's his problem (not to mention that it gives him an advantage at a subsequent slam)
 
Last edited:

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
Nearing 40, 35 and 34 respectively what matters right now are SLAM WINS. Other metrics are basically SECONDARY. Fed and Nole have WTF but Rafa has an Olympics single gold. They all been ranked #1 etc etc. Now it's a Slam Race.
Federer has 6 World Tour Finals titles and Djokovic has 5.
Rafa has 1 Olympic gold medal in singles.

6>5>1.

The ATP Finals is the annual and official year ending ATP tour championships.

Federer and Djokovic have many more weeks at no 1 also.

TRY HARDER.
 

demrle

Professional
I know I'm stepping on everyones toes here, but stay with me for a second please. Let's take a step back and look at how hilarious the situation is:

- Rafa fans claiming all of a sudden that slams are the be-all end-all, H2H not that important any more suddenly and if it is, then strictly in slams
- Novak fans claiming all of a sudden that Weeks at #1 is at least equally important as slams, nobody mentions Olympic gold which Rafa has and Novak would be ready to kill for
- Roger fans, knowing all to well that both records will be gone in no time, running between the two like headless chickens, trying to sidestep the hole that they dug themselves by hyping both records up while they seemed unbreakable

I mean, it's priceless, we should honestly enjoy it all! :-D
 
Last edited:

Ogi44

Rookie
Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.

An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17.

In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total.

I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

I would like to remind you that Borg in that time retired with 11 slams, just one short of Emerson who had 12. If slams were so important in the past as they are hyped now, then he will surely try to win one more before he retires, dont you think? Your opinion is that Emerson was GOAT in early 80s? Answer is very simple. Slams became so important in 90s, when american journalists were trying to justify why Sampras is the GOAT. In the past many players were skipping slams left and right for more lucrative tournaments just because of money. I am not saying slams are not important, but surely someone who follows tennis longer than few years knows its much more complex than who has the most slams.
 

victorcruz

Hall of Fame
It's the equivalent of the Warriors winning 73 wins. Yeah you were the best team..... in the regular season. The championship aka slams is what matters most. Now if he does both? We can talk, because it's still a good possibility.

I just say 3 goats. 3 boats and no hoes.


 

USO

Professional
I would like to remind you that Borg in that time retired with 11 slams, just one short of Emerson who had 12. If slams were so important in the past as they are hyped now, then he will surely try to win one more before he retires, dont you think? Your opinion is that Emerson was GOAT in early 80s? Answer is very simple. Slams became so important in 90s, when american journalists were trying to justify why Sampras is the GOAT. In the past many players were skipping slams left and right for more lucrative tournaments just because of money. I am not saying slams are not important, but surely someone who follows tennis longer than few years knows its much more complex than who has the most slams.
After Borg’s Wimbledon win, McEnroe got the best of Borg at their next three Grand Slam meetings. After the increasingly frustrated Swede fell at the U.S. Open Final in 1983, he’d had enough. He left professional tennis abruptly.

It was a bizarre moment for the sport. A luminary of the game just walked off the court, avoided the press, and left for the airport. Announcing his retirement, he explained to the New York Times days later: “When you go out on the court, you should say this is great, I’m going to hit the tennis ball, I’m going to try to win every point, and I like to make a good shot,” Borg said. “If you don’t think and feel that, it’s very difficult to play.”


It has nothing to do with the slam record or any other record. He just mentally was not there anymore. Of course you knew that but you tried to re-write history in order to make a point. Please don't do that anymore it's disrespectful.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.

An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17.

In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total.

I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

TLDR
 
Top