Am I understanding this Right? - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 04:35 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,085
                     
Am I understanding this Right?

People let me now. But if this is true then the ranking system is truley fucked up.

I was reading that if Kim Clijsters were to tie Serena Williams in the ranking points, than Serena would reamin number 1. That is understandable. But why would she remain? Im being told Serena would stay number 1 b/c she has lesser tournies?

Now that has got to be a fucked up system more than anything else. First this ranking system always has and will reward quanity over quality. But if the players are tied in points, they are going to reward the player that has played the least the number 1 spot? Oh come on, who ever did this ranking system, has convinced me more now than ever that they really didn't know what the fuck they were trying to come up with!

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 04:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,204
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerenaSlam
People let me now. But if this is true then the ranking system is truley fucked up.

I was reading that if Kim Clijsters were to tie Serena Williams in the ranking points, than Serena would reamin number 1. That is understandable. But why would she remain? Im being told Serena would stay number 1 b/c she has lesser tournies?

Now that has got to be a fucked up system more than anything else. First this ranking system always has and will reward quanity over quality. But if the players are tied in points, they are going to reward the player that has played the least the number 1 spot? Oh come on, who ever did this ranking system, has convinced me more now than ever that they really didn't know what the fuck they were trying to come up with!
I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".
selesrules is offline  
post #3 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 04:45 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,085
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by selesrules
I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".
HELL IF THEY WERE WINNING LIKE THAT THEN HELL YEAH THEY NEED TO BE NUMBER 1, BUT KIM IS FAR FROM EVEN DOING THAT. Has she even won a Tier 1 this year? Oh yeah, Indian Wells. Anyway, if she did win 20 titles, and the season ender, i would consider her number 1. But she has only 5 titles this year, out of like 12 tournies played. If she is that good, then she would have a positive winning percentage and not a negative winning percentage

And realize that even the greats back then only average 13-15 tournies a year, not no damn 25!

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
post #4 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 04:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,007
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by selesrules
I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".

You act as if Serena has been sitting on her ass May I remind you that Serena has won 12 tourneys over the past year, including 5 slams and 3 tier ones
Serendy Willick is offline  
post #5 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 04:52 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,085
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luci
You act as if Serena has been sitting on her ass May I remind you that Serena has won 12 tourneys over the past year, including 5 slams and 3 tier ones
great point, and to add to it,

and selesrules, here is a lil more to add to it, when you make a point, include as much as posisble. as much as kim has done serena had done the same and more. the only differnce is kim has played more tournies. if kim is playing more than serena, how come is isn't winning more than serena? please explain

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
post #6 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,204
           
well, the more you play:

-the less fresh you are,
-the more you lose matches & confidence
-the less other players fear you since they get to see you and play you more,
-and also the more you are prone to injury.

So there are plenty of valid reasons... If Serena plays as much as Kim, all these factors would apply to Serena and her results would go down because of (less fresh, more losses/less confidence, less fear, more injuries).

Last edited by selesrules; Jul 30th, 2003 at 04:59 PM.
selesrules is offline  
post #7 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The lonely desert
Posts: 1,626
                     
No it makes perfect sense.

The poster above me is right, it's a compromise between quality and quantity. It wouldn't work if it leant too much in either direction.

Consider this:

Player A won 1 Grand Slam this year but nothing else.
Player B has great results amounting to a lot of points.
Player C has played less tournaments than player B.
Player D has the most points in total, but from 40 tournaments.
Player B and C have the same amount of points.

So player C is rightfully the #1 until player B has more points than her.


So in the system quality is more valued than quantity as long as the quality has a substantial quantity to back it up (in Serena's case this is true).

So it is wrong to say that quantity is valued more than quality in the current system because it eliminates players like player A from the very top and rightfully so.

Just a logical aspect that I felt you missed SS.
Messenger is offline  
post #8 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,204
           
Let's take this summer season:

Imagine Kim winning 3 harcourt summer titles and reaching the US Open semis or final.

Imagine Serena not playing anything, but winning the US Open.

Is winning the US Open bigger the reaching the final of the US Open + 3 title wins? Sure winning a slam is more important, but Kim should be ranked higher because not only she has quality, she has quality with much more quantity, the quality adds up.
selesrules is offline  
post #9 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,007
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by selesrules
Let's take this summer season:

Imagine Kim winning 3 harcourt summer titles and reaching the US Open semis or final.

Imagine Serena not playing anything, but winning the US Open.

Is winning the US Open bigger the reaching the final of the US Open + 3 title wins? Sure winning a slam is more important, but Kim should be ranked higher because not only she has quality, she has quality with much more quantity, the quality adds up.

Good for Kim. She can have it. I want my girl to collect her 7th slam thank you very much.
Serendy Willick is offline  
post #10 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:09 PM
Keeper of Venus & Serena
 
VSFan1 aka Joshua L.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Posts: 27,122
                     
Actually in a tie, the person who has more quality points is higher ranked.

Then, if they are still tied, then it is the person that has less tournaments.

If they are still tied, then, well, they just stay tied


Loves of my life....
Venus Ebone Starr Williams
Serena Jamica Williams
a lifelong and devoted fan since 1996

Official Life Coach of the Royal Court
VSFan1 aka Joshua L. is offline  
post #11 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manhattan,NYC
Posts: 2,057
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by selesrules
I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".
Has any of Kim's wins come with a Williams in the draw?

She must be hating the fact that she only wins when serena and venus are not in the draw....and last time I checked, she lost to venus despite venus being injured and having like a month off.....so her titles are great, but she shouldn't rejoice too much and too soon..I guess she already knows how it feels to win something she didn't feel equipped to own......like the year end...I would take her winning the year end this year over last year cos last year, there was no doubt the title belonged to Serena..I guess that is why Jen and Kim are now all smiley,smiley huh?

But the indoor season hasn't began and I think that will be the deciding factor for the next season cos Serena and Venus will have few tourney on their rank to defend and they would probably stay one and two for most of the year with a schedule like this year...cos the indoor season would be on for a year....kinda like Alex staying in the top 30 for so long without having to perform so well........gives you an idea huh?

When I think of life, sometimes my response is "Oh Damn!". But I still think of life anyway, "Oh Damn!!!"
maccardel is offline  
post #12 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,204
           
Quote:
Has any of Kim's wins come with a Williams in the draw?

She must be hating the fact that she only wins when serena and venus are not in the draw....
Yeah, Kim beat the crap out of both Venus & Serena when she won the Chase Championships.
selesrules is offline  
post #13 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 7,274
                     
Please Williams Fans why on earth do you bother arguing with Selesrules of all people? Havent you all learned by now that his sole pleasure is to argue with williams fans just to argue? He doesn't want to discuss anything rationally and his posts always attack venus or serena, why deal with someone like that? Why have a dialogue with someone like that? The only sane option in dealing with him is to have him on ignore.

The WTA Women of Wonder Featuring....The Goddess: Venus Williams The Glamazon: Serena Williams The Lioness: Jennifer Capriati The High Priestess: Monica Seles The Saint: Kim Clijsters The Phoenix: Chanda Rubin The Bon Vivant: Amelie Mauresmo The Titan: Lindsay Davenport The Courtesan: Anna Kournikova The Exile: Martina Hingis The Sorceress: Anatasia Myskina The Minx: Maria Sharapova
Cybelle Darkholme is offline  
post #14 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,007
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by selesrules
Yeah, Kim beat the crap out of both Venus & Serena when she won the Chase Championships.
And your point is? Serena beat Kim winning the Austrailian and beat the crap outta Kim at the Nasdaq, while Venus beat the crap out Kim on her home turf and while barely being able to move at Wimbeldon.
Serendy Willick is offline  
post #15 of 38 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ely, UK
Posts: 731
                     
Sounds like common sense to me.

Martina Hingis

'THE COMEBACK QUEEN'

2006 Australian Open Mixed Doubles Champion

209 weeks at No.1

40 singles titles incl. 5 GS, 2 WTA Champs
36 doubles titles incl. 10 GS, 2 WTA Champs
1 GS mixed doubles title



MartinaI is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome