Mens Tennis Forums banner

More important?

More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

4K views 68 replies 32 participants last post by  Litotes 
#1 ·
Usually the 2 most widely cited and weighted stats, weeks at #1, and total slams.

But which is more important?

Me, I think #1, but slightly. It denotes that you are the best in the world, not that you are one of at least the top 4.

Though slams are the next best thing.
 
#2 ·
#1. Grand Slams are just a glorified Delray Beach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pratik
#4 ·
Slams
 
#7 ·
:confused: Why use that example? I could use the example of Pat Rafter who only got 1 week at #1 but still won 2 slams and reached 2 other finals :shrug:
 
#22 ·
Well I say 2 slams and 15 weeks at #1 is better than 1 slam and 60 weeks at #1.
...But 1 fluke GS < 10 weeks at #1. It just depends on how you look at it. IMO you have to be more well-rounded for #1 where as you have to play 2 good fluke weeks for a GS. There are far more fluke GS champs then there are fluke #1's.
 
#23 ·
...But 1 fluke GS < 10 weeks at #1. It just depends on how you look at it. IMO you have to be more well-rounded for #1 where as you have to play 2 good fluke weeks for a GS. There are far more fluke GS champs then there are fluke #1's.
Actually it's far easier to fluke a #1 ranking than a Slam. In order to win a Slam, you have to win seven best of five matches against the best players in the world, you can't BS your way.

Meanwhile, the ATP ranking system isn't very different from the WTA one that generated some truly abhorrent #1s. You can easily be #1 without being the best player in the world as it is far from an objective/reliable measure; you can't BS your way to a Slam title though.
 
#11 ·
Slams.

Rankings are mostly a joke.
 
#26 ·
All the players who have ever, in any era, been ranked #1 in the world-

1. Pancho Gonzales- 364 weeks
2. Bill Tilden- 330 weeks
3. Don Budge- 303 weeks
4. Pete Sampras- 312(286) weeks
5. Willie Renshaw- 286 weeks
6. Roger Federer- 260(298+) weeks
7. Rod Laver- 277 weeks
8. Laurie Doherty- 252 weeks
9. Ken Rosewall- 242 weeks
10. Jack Kramer- 234 weeks
11. Ivan Lendl- 156(270) weeks
12. Jimmy Connors- 182(268) weeks
13. William Larned- 199 weeks
14. Ellsworth Vines- 191 weeks
15. Joshua Pim- 173 weeks
16. John McEnroe- 156(170) weeks
17. Bobby Riggs- 156 weeks
18. Henri Cochet- 147 weeks
19. Reggie Doherty- 139 weeks
20. Bjorn Borg- 156(109) weeks
21. Tony Wilding- 130 weeks
22. Wilfred Baddeley- 122 weeks
23. Fred Perry- 121 weeks
24. Ernest Renshaw- 104 weeks
25. Rene Lacoste- 104 weeks
26. John Hartley- 104 weeks
27. Bill Johnston- 104 weeks
28. Lindley Murray- 104 weeks
29. Rafael Nadal- 104(102) weeks
30. Lleyton Hewitt- 104(80) weeks
31. Stefan Edberg- 104(72) weeks
32. Norman Brookes- 78 weeks
33. Andre Agassi- 52(101) weeks
34. John Newcombe- 62(8) weeks
35. Jim Courier- 52(58) weeks
36. Novak Djokovic- 52(53) weeks
37. Maurice McLoughlin- 52 weeks
38. Spencer Gore- 52 weeks
39. Jack Crawford- 52 weeks
40. Pancho Segura- 52 weeks
41. Dick Williams- 52 weeks
42. Frank Hadow- 52 weeks
43. Willoughby Hamilton- 52 weeks
44. Gustavo Kuerten- 52(43) weeks
45. Ilie Nastase- 52(40) weeks
46. Mats Wilander- 52(20) weeks
47. Andy Roddick- 52(13) weeks
48. Boris Becker- 52(12) weeks
49. Arthur Ashe- 52(0) weeks
50. Stan Smith- 43 weeks
51. Gerald Patterson- 26 weeks
52. Herbert Lawford- 26 weeks
53. Frank Sedgman- 26 weeks
54. Arthur Gore- 26 weeks
55. Guillermo Vilas- 26(0) weeks
56. Lew Hoad- 26 weeks
57. Mal Whitman- 26 weeks
58. Ernest Lewis- 17 weeks
59. Wilberforce Eaves- 17 weeks
60. Robert Wrenn- 17 weeks
61. Marat Safin- 9 weeks
62. Juan Carlos Ferrero- 8 weeks
63. Yevgeny Kafelnikov- 6 weeks
64. Thomas Muster- 6 weeks
65. Marcelo Rios- 6 weeks
66. Carlos Moya- 2 weeks
67. Patrick Rafter- 1 week

Should Fed finish 2012 as #1, he'll get up to #3.

Don't think anyone will get close to Pancho G.
 
#29 ·
For Open Era players, I counted their YE #1 as if they had been #1 that whole calendar year, and then in parenthesis, their actual weeks according to the computer.

For Pre-1973 players, there was no computer.
 
#30 ·
Well, we're not talking about the debate of who is the greater player: A slam winner or a #1 ranked player. We are talking about what makes a GOAT, and surely you cannot be the greatest of all time if you cannot be the greatest in your era, it's an inconceivable idea. No greatest of all time would spend record weeks at no. 2 or no. 3.
 
#32 ·
At this moment in time its the no1 ranking that is harder to obtain. Delpo won a slam he's no where near no 1 and guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling have been far closer to winning a slam than getting anywhere near no1.
 
#38 ·
Slams and a surname that contains the letters, N, A, D, A and L.
 
#41 ·
I think it's harder to get the #1 ranking. You can't fluke the #1 ranking, unless you ask a Nadal/Djoko tard about Fed reclaiming it at 31 y.o.

There are many players who have won slams without being #1, while the reverse I think it's true only for Rios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freak3yman84
#45 ·
Rios stayed into the rankings 5 weeks longer than Rafter without winning any major.

IMO there is no such thing as a fluke. Rios had a very consistent 1998, during a Sampras Era. No majors won indeed, but there are 3 Masters and the Grand Slam Cup. He was number 1 twice during that year. There are many factors to why this could have happened. Points balance, adversaries and especially game consistency are amongst them.

Regarding the OQ, I say that both are the dream of every tennis player out there. When Rios became number 1, nobody in Chile cared about any GS and took to the streets. When Na Li won the French Open, all China partied. When Murray won the US Open this whole forum was talking about it. One without the other seems to be incomplete, as people here mention Rios as a fluke. Chang never got to number 1 despite winning a Grand Slam and not so many people care about him anymore.

Who would you say was better: Chang with 1 Slam or Rafter with 1 week as No.1 ? Answer this question and the OQ is also answered.

EDIT: Also to add, cause I forgot.
Winning one Grand Slam = Top form for a shorter time period.
Getting to number 1 = Consistent form for a longer time period.
 
#56 ·
He got a very generous draw that time, and got demolished once he met a decent player. Plus, why focus on that? Look at the rest of Lleyton's draw...
 
#57 ·
don't see how this ended up discussing stuff like Bjorkman. But you see Bjorman won 9 slams and was nr1..........in doubles! He was quite the player.



For the topic: In men's tennis it usually goes hand in hand anyway. Federer, Sampras both spent a huge amount of weeks as nr1 as they collected slams.

A 14-15 slam winner that hasn't spent 200+ weeks as nr would feel very wrong. Maybe Nadal can become one as he spent so much time as nr2. But Nadal's resume has bigger holes than that so probably nothing that keeps Rafito awake at night.

Slams is what media and casuals focus most on so guess it's most important. Only the true tennis fans really care about time spent at #1. Many casual fans don't even understand the ranking system in the first place and the concept of defending points and so forth.
 
#58 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top