[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

And Gaudio won a GS with no #1, and Rios was #1 with no GS so...?

Rios won several masters in addition to this #1. Gaudio only reached one TMS final so he didn't back his success up, Rios did.

IMO weeks at #1 only comes into play if two players have very identical careers (slams, masters wins)

For example Roddick and Murray's careers are pretty much dead even, yet I think at this stage it's R-Andy who has the slight edge due to his #1 ranking. But if M-Andy gets even 1 week at the summit, he will pass him straight away.

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Rios won several masters in addition to this #1. Gaudio only reached one TMS final so he didn't back his success up, Rios did.

IMO weeks at #1 only comes into play if two players have very identical careers (slams, masters wins)

For example Roddick and Murray's careers are pretty much dead even, yet I think at this stage it's R-Andy who has the slight edge due to his #1 ranking. But if M-Andy gets even 1 week at the summit, he will pass him straight away.

But that's only due to MS titles and not GS's. Both have 1 GS and 4 RU's so it doesn't really help the GS > #1 argument.

[Honestly]

The two goes hand in hand. Rios was an exception in many ways.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

But that's only due to MS titles and not GS's. Both have 1 GS and 4 RU's so it doesn't really help the GS > #1 argument.

1 GS, Olympic gold and 8 MS plus #1 is ahead of 1 GS, 4 MS and #1 even if he had less weeks than Roddick did.

Unless there's an outrageous amount of weeks at the top e.g. Lendl's 270, then it's no contest for me.

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

1 GS, Olympic gold and 8 MS plus #1 is ahead of 1 GS, 4 MS and #1 even if he had less weeks than Roddick did.

Unless there's an outrageous amount of weeks at the top e.g. Lendl's 270, then it's no contest for me.

But that has nothing to do with GS > #1 Murray only goes ahead by MS and Olympic Gold so it's off the topic of GS's.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

But that has nothing to do with GS > #1 Murray only goes ahead by MS and Olympic Gold so it's off the topic of GS's.

Well I say 2 slams and 15 weeks at #1 is better than 1 slam and 60 weeks at #1.

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

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.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

...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.

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Well I say 2 slams and 15 weeks at #1 is better than 1 slam and 60 weeks at #1.

I dunno bout that one. I'd rather have the 1 slam and 60 weeks. I mean, that over 1 calendar year.

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

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.

[Johnny Groove]

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.

[Chase Visa]

Slams. The differing systems make #1 comparisons tricky.

[Chase Visa]

How come Sampras says 312? I thought it was 286?

[Johnny Groove]

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.

[rickcastle]

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.