The standards of being #1 - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 02:23 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 265
                     
The standards of being #1

I was seeing a similar discussion taking place on another board and thought I

should post the gist of the argument here. Basically Federer has changed the

whole paradigm of thought about what sort of results constitute being a true

uncontested #1 player. Before a number one year was typically one GS and then

5 or so titles. Sampras managed multiple GSs in a year but usually won less then

double digit titles and lost around 20 matches. After Federer's reign though,

losing twenty matches in a year and winning perhaps 6 titiles will be

unnacceptable. Whoever succeeds federer has humongous shoes to fill or risk

being taken for a joke or a transitional # 1.
Tourmalante is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 02:30 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 932
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired. Pete Sampras left huge shoes to fill, and Roger is just now, 5 grand slams, 21 titles and a 146-9 record later is just starting to fill them.
deliveryman is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 02:41 AM
Registered User
 
rofe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,783
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by deliveryman
I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired. Pete Sampras left huge shoes to fill, and Roger is just now, 5 grand slams, 21 titles and a 146-9 record later is just starting to fill them.
6 grand slams.

Anyway, theses stats are difficult for Federer to repeat let alone his sucessors.

Need ideas for a new signature...
rofe is offline  
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 02:44 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,757
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

I hope Federer changes the Paradigm. Dominance during yr. prime yrs. should be a major determinant, rather than merely most Majors won. AA discusses this in less quoted portion of his post-match interview yesterday. Here's the quote:

Q. Do you think Roger is even better than Sampras at his best, and he could maybe break one day the record of Sampras?

ANDRE AGASSI: Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger.

I think he's the best I've played against. But I also think the accomplishment of winning that many Slams requires a number of things, including a little bit of luck to make sure you're healthy, nothing goes wrong.


There's no question that Pete is a Champion. Every Champion has their signature. 14 Majors was Pete's. But just because that worked for him, it doesn't follow that he's the greatest. Merely, as AA suggests that he had luck & longevity. If you look at winning % for a year, or most wins out of 100 matches played, he's nowhere up there w/Borg, McEnroe, Lendl or now Roger. If Roger got cancer in January, I would never say that makes Pete a better player. Pete was a great Champion & a great Big Match player blessed w/longevity.
TenHound is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 03:41 AM
Registered User
 
Ays25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,405
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

the only stantard is to compete againts good oppositon.. like back in the 80s and 90s..
those days when u look at a draw u can easily say " sampras can win wimby but there are around 10 more who can win as well" but therse days there is no competition. roger is the only good player but he is not that great imo.
he would be the todd martin or guy forget of the 80s 90s
Ays25 is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 04:02 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,339
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ays25
the only stantard is to compete againts good oppositon.. like back in the 80s and 90s..
those days when u look at a draw u can easily say " sampras can win wimby but there are around 10 more who can win as well" but therse days there is no competition. roger is the only good player but he is not that great imo.
he would be the todd martin or guy forget of the 80s 90s
yea right. comparing fed to martin or forget.
megadeth is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 04:22 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Mechlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,153
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

I think it's ridiculous to expect the next #1 to emulate Sampras and Federer to be considered a worthy #1. Just because this generation has been blessed (or cursed ) with a dominant player is no reason the next one will be. No one can predict what the dynamic will be even a year down the line, and I remain skeptical about anyone's chances at duplicating Federer's feats. It's entirely possible that a few years down the road, numerous people will be competing over the top spot and someone will edge out the rest. So while that player may not be dominant, there's no reason to consider him a joke for not winning multiple Grand Slams and 10 titles in a year.
Mechlan is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 05:49 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,037
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

The number 1 player of each generation is generally considered better than the number 1 player from the generation before especially in individual sports. The reason for this is because players become more gifted athletically and technically because the bar has already been raised and in order for them to be better they have to pass the bar. Also technology helps out a lot (with a lot of things besides rackets.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCtennisfan
You cannot be great without having haters. It's a fact of life.

I guess Roddick must be the greatest player to ever play the game.
nkhera1 is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 05:49 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,037
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by megadeth
yea right. comparing fed to martin or forget.
I think thats a disgrace to Martin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCtennisfan
You cannot be great without having haters. It's a fact of life.

I guess Roddick must be the greatest player to ever play the game.
nkhera1 is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 07:11 AM
Registered User
 
Federerhingis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NYC
Age: 32
Posts: 15,172
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by deliveryman
I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired. Pete Sampras left huge shoes to fill, and Roger is just now, 5 grand slams, 21 titles and a 146-9 record later is just starting to fill them.

32 titles!

Do not accuse a man for no reason—
when he has done you no harm, Proverbs3:30"


So long Marat Safin, C'mon Lleyton Hewitt,Viel gluck Tommy Haas, Bring it on Marcos Baghdatis, Gut Spielen Nicolas Kiefer, Dale Fernando Gonzalez, Dale David Nalbandian, Davai Nikolay Davydenko and Allez Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

Roger continue marvelling us the tennis mortals

Roger Federer & Martina Hingis (TENNIS)
Federerhingis is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 07:22 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Williamstown
Posts: 81
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

He's just talking about the last two years
LuckyAC is offline  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 07:26 AM
Registered User
 
Federerhingis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NYC
Age: 32
Posts: 15,172
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyAC
He's just talking about the last two years
Well Pete didnt retire 2 years ago, thats why the stats didnt match up.

Do not accuse a man for no reason—
when he has done you no harm, Proverbs3:30"


So long Marat Safin, C'mon Lleyton Hewitt,Viel gluck Tommy Haas, Bring it on Marcos Baghdatis, Gut Spielen Nicolas Kiefer, Dale Fernando Gonzalez, Dale David Nalbandian, Davai Nikolay Davydenko and Allez Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

Roger continue marvelling us the tennis mortals

Roger Federer & Martina Hingis (TENNIS)
Federerhingis is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 10:06 AM
Registered User
 
tennisvideos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 495
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourmalante
I was seeing a similar discussion taking place on another board and thought I

should post the gist of the argument here. Basically Federer has changed the

whole paradigm of thought about what sort of results constitute being a true

uncontested #1 player. Before a number one year was typically one GS and then

5 or so titles. Sampras managed multiple GSs in a year but usually won less then

double digit titles and lost around 20 matches. After Federer's reign though,

losing twenty matches in a year and winning perhaps 6 titiles will be

unnacceptable. Whoever succeeds federer has humongous shoes to fill or risk

being taken for a joke or a transitional # 1.
Sorry to say but this is a ridiculous argument. Nobody has to step into Roger's shoes and try to emulate what he has done ... he is a freak. The next person to hold the #1 ranking will have got there for a reason and that is all that matters. They have been good enough over a 12 month space to earn the #1 ranking. It's that simple. Any other attempts to put your own spin are merely that - your own attempts to try to belittle whoever may have been #1 previously or after Federer's reign. Totally unjustified and unfair. Federer is a freak, a superstar, a player of such talent that he has dominated the past 2 seasons in spectacular fashion. But if Nadal or someone else happens to take his crown, however briefly or with whatever results, then of course they have earnt that position. A simple fact. The rest is totally subjective and many people will try all manner of angles and slants to denigrate players they are not particularly fond of.
tennisvideos is offline  
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 01:06 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,396
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ays25
the only stantard is to compete againts good oppositon.. like back in the 80s and 90s..
those days when u look at a draw u can easily say " sampras can win wimby but there are around 10 more who can win as well" but therse days there is no competition. roger is the only good player but he is not that great imo.
he would be the todd martin or guy forget of the 80s 90s
And that's why Sampras won 7 of 8 right? because of all that incredible competition.
uNIVERSE mAN is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-13-2005, 01:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 614
                     
Re: The standards of being #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by deliveryman
I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired.
Like Federer, Hewitt has a winning record against almost everyone in the top 20. Some joke. Hewitt was #1 because he was the best player against the best players.
wipeout is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome