Well the two are obviously related. You don't won't loads of slams without spending time as #1. But I would say slams. Anyway Fed has both records in his resume so he is the GOAT. Both are important.
...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.
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.
Lenders, Lenders, Lenders... Let's start off:
1. You DO NOT always have to play the best players to win a GS... For example, Lleyton Hewitt Wimbledon 2002
R1: Unseeded 30 year old Jonas Bjorkman
R2: Qualifier Gregory Carraz
R3: Unseeded Julian Knowle
R4: Unseeded Mikhail Youzhny
QF: 18th seed Sjeng Schalken
SF: 4th seed Tim Henman (bad record in SF's)
F: 28th seed David Nalbandian
Did Hewitt have to beat the best players to win that? Nope.
2. While the ranking system might not always provide the best player in the world, you have to win a string of matches/tournaments to be ranked at #1 (far more than 7 matches when someone is on a hot streak) It is far more likely to fluke a GS then No. 1 and that is a fact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bjorkman will play in Wimbledon semi in 4 years after that tournament, he was still decent player. And it only shows what a great grass court player Lleyton was.
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.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!