Mens Tennis Forums banner

?

1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
He has more weeks on top than Becker, Wilander and Nastase combined. Never dominated a tour, won laughable (compared to that trio) 2 slams, 2 masters and 2 wtf's,and even during his best period was losing to scrubs in big stages left, right and center. His 80 weeks on top is easily one of the strangest and most misleading stats ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
not the most shocking thing ever (there have been some bizarre Grand Slam winners) butttttt pretty surprising when considering Hewitt overall. again when you think about the time period in which he stepped up then it's more understandable, as that was literally the definition of a transition period

still Hewitt's weeks at #1 is a stat often forgotten. also didn't he win the YEC once or twice?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
Safin should have been dominating during that period. And 2003-2006 should have given us Safin-Federer as one of the great rivalries in sports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,617 Posts
Murray will probably never get to #1 and Hewitt spent 80 weeks there. Wow
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
lightning strikes the same one a third time tomorrow morning would be inconceivable. strange and misleading won't even describe it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
It was a transition period as was said before. I can see the same thing happening with a guy like Borna Coric... then the real talented youngsters will mature and dominate him for the rest of his life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Whilst Hewitt is now often disparaged as simply a "transitional" no.1, people overlook just how severely unfortunate he was to be followed by arguably the greatest player of all time.

With no Federer in the mix he probably would have equaled the achievements of a guy like Boris Becker.

He had the misfortune to run into his kryptonite and the rest is history.

Easy to forget what a mental beast he was in his prime now that he has become a punch-drunk shell of himself too.
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
54,344 Posts
Leave Hewitt alone...that was the time, and he did beat the likes of Sampras, Rafter, Henman, Roddick, Nalbandian and Agassi during that period. Of course Federer came along and overshadowed Hewitt and others from end of 2003 onwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,967 Posts
1994-1999 Sampras era (in 2000 he won WB, though was soundly beaten by Safin at USO)
2000-2002 transitional era
2003-2007 Federer era
2008-2010 Fedal era
2011- Djokovic era

Simply as that. Not surprising that someone like Hewitt won so few slams when he had great competition like Safin, Oldgassi and young Federer + other members of the New Balls generation around.
Also Boris Becker was #1 only for that short period because he never dominated the tour, rather scored some wins at Wimbledon and a few times at AO, USO.

@OP: the last poll option is the troll one again, you should cut this Federer hate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,967 Posts
not the most shocking thing ever (there have been some bizarre Grand Slam winners)
In terms of who has the most weeks at #1 yet has dominated the Tour the least it is the most shocking thing ever. (strange, a bit undeserved GS wins are obviously another stuff, lets deal here only ATP#1s)
He won only 6 titles in his ascent year in 2001 to #1 (all small ones except USO), only 5 titles (all small ones except WB) when he remaned #1 during whole year in 2002. So he was not a slamlass #1, though he was barely the dominating one, like Sampras in the 90's bar clay and Federer in similar fashion in 2003-07.

butttttt pretty surprising when considering Hewitt overall. again when you think about the time period in which he stepped up then it's more understandable, as that was literally the definition of a transition period

still Hewitt's weeks at #1 is a stat often forgotten. also didn't he win the YEC once or twice?
He has won it 2x against Grosjean and Ferrero (2001, 02) on indoor hard, which was pretty quick back then. Quite a feat, though peak Hewitt dominated early Federer, others were indoor mugs, so not that much suprising either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,644 Posts
What are you whining about again? Hewitt was the best player during those 80 weeks. It's that simple. Sure, then Fed showed up so what.

By the way, Hewitt h2h vs. Fed from 1999/2003 was 7:2.

He was a great fighter. He deserved it. Many good players played at that time. Llayton was just a bit better and more determined than everyone else. Then Roger happened, injuries happened. I have a huge respect for Hewitt.

Comparing Murray with Hewitt is just silly. I wish Murray to get to that #1 even for a week, but he has to earn it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,967 Posts
Comparing Murray with Hewitt is just silly. I wish Murray to get to that #1 even for a week, but he has to earn it.
Yeah, even Murray has more Masters wins and 1 Olympic gold. Hewitt only competed in the Olympics once in 2012, so it's a meaningless stat.
Murray will retire still as the better player of the 2, though without even 1 week at #1. That's what makes the difference between that transitional era and Federer/Fedal/Djokovic era. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
In terms of who has the most weeks at #1 yet has dominated the Tour the least it is the most shocking thing ever. (strange, a bit undeserved GS wins are obviously another stuff, lets deal here only ATP#1s)
He won only 6 titles in his ascent year in 2001 to #1 (all small ones except USO), only 5 titles (all small ones except WB) when he remaned #1 during whole year in 2002. So he was not a slamlass #1, though he was barely the dominating one, like Sampras in the 90's bar clay and Federer in similar fashion in 2003-07.
Since when is YEC a "small title"? Or Indian Wells, for that matter?

When Hewitt first became No.1 (in the every end of 2001) he had a 71-15 W/L record, US and YEC titles, 4 smaller titles and only ONE opening round loss the whole season.
Then in mid-2002 he was holding 2 Grand Slam titles, YEC, Indian Wells and 2 smaller titles. You really think that a player holding two slam titles and YEC is a joke No.1? Really?

If you wanna see a joke No.1 look at Kafelnikov who rose to No.1 having been on a SEVEN match losing streak and gone WON 4R 2R 1R at slams and didn't face a single Top-10 player in his slam winning run.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,546 Posts
1994-1999 Sampras era (in 2000 he won WB, though was soundly beaten by Safin at USO)
2000-2002 transitional era
2003-2007 Federer era
2008-2010 Fedal era
2011- Djokovic era
Summer of 2013- Slamray and Goldray

Simply as that. Not surprising that someone like Hewitt won so few slams when he had great competition like Safin, Oldgassi and young Federer + other members of the New Balls generation around.
Also Boris Becker was #1 only for that short period because he never dominated the tour, rather scored some wins at Wimbledon and a few times at AO, USO.

@OP: the last poll option is the troll one again, you should cut this Federer hate
I fixed the list for you, also people truly disregard Hewitt as some secondhand challenger player.

In reality, he used to have the feet of Nadal and counter-punching of Murray.

Also Hewitt has the best lob in tennis history, next to mine of course. :angel:

Either way, Hewitt started an era. He kicked out all the serve and volleyers and showed the power of incredible fitness and stamina.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,839 Posts
I started watching tennis at the time he was Nr. 1 and already had both slams, so I don´t remember that much how it looked overall at his peak, but the most shocking thing is that he has a gigantic amount of 2 masters ?!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,797 Posts
If you wanna see a joke No.1 look at Kafelnikov who rose to No.1 having been on a SEVEN match losing streak and gone WON 4R 2R 1R at slams and didn't face a single Top-10 player in his slam winning run.
Wow, that is quite a shocking stat.

I haven't seen Hewitt play during his younger years, but surely someone who bloomed as a teenager and on his best had very good runs on surely should be recognized even though he hasn't accomplished what he "should've" being a #1 (i.e. full on domination). #1 means you are the most consistent which Hewitt's play seem to do. The problem is that it seems there are issues that his game could only do as much. Did he as we say "vulture" on those runs to get those points anyway (and based on recent years Hewitt is practically not playing that much)? :confused:
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
16,039 Posts
Bigger jokes:

- Rios number 1.
- Vilas not number 1 although calculations show he was number 1 in the ATP rankings, yet ATP refuse to correct the errors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,617 Posts
Bigger jokes:

- Rios number 1.
- Vilas not number 1 although calculations show he was number 1 in the ATP rankings, yet ATP refuse to correct the errors.
Ljubicic at 3
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top