Originally Posted by Timariot
In this situation, it is truly a no-brainer - #1 is a very exclusive club, whilst the difference between 6 and 7 Slams legacy-wise is minimal.
We went over this in another thread (A brief, incomplete treatise on the WTA ranking system, and the #1 ranking
), so I won't repeat it all here, but #1, under the divisor sytem
, is a very exclusive club. Under the 'best 17' system, it's a lot less exclusive.
There were six #1's in 21 years under the divisor system.
There have been NINE #1's in only seven years under versions of the current system; 'best 17 tournaments' or 'best 18 tournaments.
(There was one year, 1997, where they used a total point system a la the current Porsche system.)
I ceratinly can't see a player giving up a slam title for the #1 ranking NOW. Our current #1 didn't even make a slam final
this year. Measured against that, actually winning
a slam is a much more significant accomplishment.