[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by duong

On the ATP website, the weekly update of the rankings started only on the 25th of june 1984.

Before that, except in cases when the situation was 100% clear (a player being very much ahead of the others), it seems impossible to know an exact number of weeks at this or that rank, you can only get a maximum if the case was optimal for him because he could always have lost a rank for a few weeks if a weekly update had been made.

Now Fed has 300 weeks guaranteed, 302 if Djokovic doesn't ask a wild-card in Basel or in tournaments next week.

I second this statement, although I did mention this before. Fed's 300 is also official, because it is backed up by solid data. Before 1973 when the computer rankings were introduced, the #1 status was an unclear vortex of collected data, nothing official, nothing certain. It's exactly like the world population approximation before recension was introduced. Nobody knows the exact numbers, just estimates, but the error chance is high.

Also, LOL, duong's post was number 300 in this thread. Destiny...

[alter ego]

Originally Posted by duong

On the ATP website, the weekly update of the rankings started only on the 25th of june 1984.

Before that, except in cases when the situation was 100% clear (a player being very much ahead of the others), it seems impossible to know an exact number of weeks at this or that rank, you can only get a maximum if the case was optimal for him because he could always have lost a rank for a few weeks if a weekly update had been made.

Now Fed has 300 weeks guaranteed, 302 if Djokovic doesn't ask a wild-card in Basel or in tournaments next week.

Originally Posted by Slasher1985

I second this statement, although I did mention this before. Fed's 300 is also official, because it is backed up by solid data. Before 1973 when the computer rankings were introduced, the #1 status was an unclear vortex of collected data, nothing official, nothing certain. It's exactly like the world population approximation before recension was introduced. Nobody knows the exact numbers, just estimates, but the error chance is high.

Are you guys sure? I see on the wikipedia list that Borg became number 1 on august 23rd 1977 and held that position for just 1 week.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by alter ego

Are you guys sure? I see on the wikipedia list that Borg became number 1 on august 23rd 1977 and held that position for just 1 week.

McEnroe also got one week in 1980 - aug 11th. And there were five more "one-weekers" in 1982 and 1983, courtesy of Connors and McEnroe.
http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/atprankhist.shtml

They did occasionally release rankings two or more weeks in a row, just not regularly.

[duong]

Originally Posted by alter ego

Are you guys sure? I see on the wikipedia list that Borg became number 1 on august 23rd 1977 and held that position for just 1 week.

to be fair, the only thing I know for sure is that on the ATP website, you can only see the full rankings updated weekly from the 25th of june 1984.

Whether or not it was calculated weekly before that, I'm not sure and I would be glad to know the answer,

but well can the guy who wrote that on Wikipedia be trusted either ? he may also have said that because he only saw Borg number 1 on the 23rd of august 1977 and then he saw nothing written for next weeks ... and then mis-interpreted it as "number 1 for one week" (besides it was just the week before the US Open, if he really had been number 1 only for one week, it would mean that Connors would have played and made a result the week before the US Open). I've seen so many mis-interpretations like that

Originally Posted by Litotes

McEnroe also got one week in 1980 - aug 11th. And there were five more "one-weekers" in 1982 and 1983, courtesy of Connors and McEnroe.
http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/atprankhist.shtml

They did occasionally release rankings two or more weeks in a row, just not regularly.

your post makes me think even more that my interpretation of the "one week" note on wikipedia or tennis-x was just related to a mis-interpretation of what's written on the ATP website as I said.

An easy way to see if they were number 1 only for one week would be to see if there's another player who was actually said as ranked number 1 on the ATP website one week later or if there was just no ranking released.

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by alter ego

Are you guys sure? I see on the wikipedia list that Borg became number 1 on august 23rd 1977 and held that position for just 1 week.

Originally Posted by Litotes

McEnroe also got one week in 1980 - aug 11th. And there were five more "one-weekers" in 1982 and 1983, courtesy of Connors and McEnroe.
http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/atprankhist.shtml

They did occasionally release rankings two or more weeks in a row, just not regularly.

I did say 1973. Before 1973, there were no computer rankings, so the uncertainty is high, after it, the number of issues per year increased. And here is how from the ITF site:

They were not weekly as they are now (except for non issues in the middle Slams or during the events in Miami and Indian Wells) until 1979 with there being the following number of issues in the early years (and not always on a Monday).

1973 - 7 issues
1974 - 11 issues
1975 - 13 issues
1976 - 23 issues
1977 - 34 issues
1978 - 40 issues
1979 - 43 issues

So yeah, Borg got one week because there was a moment when two issues were published one week apart. So did McEnroe. Summer #1 moments were possible due to the fact that the season was intense during the summer, so frequent ATP ranking issues were published then

[Juz78]

What a milestone!

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Juz78

What a milestone!

The records just keep tumbling.

[BigJohn]

Roger Federer is so completely awesome in so many ways!

The thing is that Federer fans can say that without being accused of trolling and/or fangirlism since it is a 1000% totally accurate statement. And yet some douchebags will.

[GOATsol]

Roger

[Topspindoctor]

Noserer

With him completing the crybaby slam (crying at all 4 slams) this year and this "spartan" record, he's surely going to be mentioned as an all time great player. His slam count may be inflated, but he was still good enough to take advantage. He should send Roddick, Hewitt and many of his other pigeons a lifetime supply of bird feed.

[BigJohn]

I believe that in this thread celebrating the last great record Federer had to break, reasonable and poised Federer fans have the right to embrace complete Fedtardism.

But only in this thread.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Noserer

With him completing the crybaby slam (crying at all 4 slams) this year and this "spartan" record, he's surely going to be mentioned as an all time great player. His slam count may be inflated, but he was still good enough to take advantage. He should send Roddick, Hewitt and many of his other pigeons a lifetime supply of bird feed.

Winning a slam, regaining the #1 rank dethroning prime No2e past 30 yo. True and real Spartan.

[Juz78]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

I believe that in this thread celebrating the last great record Federer had to break, reasonable and poised Federer fans have the right to embrace complete Fedtardism.

But only in this thread.

Yes, even the Fed haters (can you believe there are some of them out there!) need to tip their hats at this one.

[EliSter]

Another irrelevant record. Now we will watch the joy of Fedtards of another QF streak, and most probably R3 streak when he lose before QF. More stupid records yet to come Congratz btw.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by EliSter

Another irrelevant record. Now we will watch the joy of Fedtards of another QF streak, and most probably R3 streak when he lose before QF. More stupid records yet to come Congratz btw.

We'll get a R4 streak first .