Has #1 become less meaningful? - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:23 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tennisIlove09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 44,073
                     
Has #1 become less meaningful?

Since Hingis, there have been SO many #1's.
Capriati-Lindsay-Venus-Serena-Kim-Justine

That's 6, and 5 were first time #1's. Now consider that there have only been 13 # 1's EVER, and 5 of them since October 2001 for the first time. That's 2 years.

With all the changes at the top, is becoming #1, less meaningful?

I think not, but #1 is certainly given a bad rep. when you have players who don't win Slams #1. Again, no offence to Clijsters, but her 10 weeks are terrible for tennis, and the few weeks Lindsay regained #1 in 2001/2002 are terrible for tennis as well. Not to mention the weeks Hingis was #1 in her Slam drought (all of 2000/2001)
tennisIlove09 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,115
                     
it's not terrible for tennis at all. the problem is that most people like to bitch and moan about the rankings when actually they make perfect sense. I have said it a million times, TENNIS is so much more than just the four GRAND SLAMS! And that is great otherwise we tennis fans would only have 8 weeks of tennis each year.
treufreund is offline  
post #3 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Knizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,749
                     
The only time it's less meaningful is when a player who is not the best player in the world is ranked #1.
Knizzle is offline  
post #4 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:28 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tennisIlove09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 44,073
                     
I think it's terrible for the sport. I think it's terrible when the GENERAL Public (those who don't follow tennis) see players who haven't won a Slam in the last 52 weeks as #1.
tennisIlove09 is offline  
post #5 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,115
                     
stop being such a drama queen. the problem is that the "public" is too phucking stupid to understand mathematics.
treufreund is offline  
post #6 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:36 AM
Enemy of Art
 
Hurley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,946
                     
The general public doesn't even know that Kim or Justine is #1, or even who they are. In their minds it's Venus and Serena (and probably still in that order!).

So don't concern yourself with what the general public thinks about rankings, because the general public doesn't have any idea about them in the first place.

I am on der Tvitter, accumulating haters. https://twitter.com/Hurleytennis
Hurley is offline  
post #7 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:39 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tennisIlove09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 44,073
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurley
The general public doesn't even know that Kim or Justine is #1, or even who they are. In their minds it's Venus and Serena (and probably still in that order!).

So don't concern yourself with what the general public thinks about rankings, because the general public doesn't have any idea about them in the first place.
The general public in North America probably assume that Venus/Serena are #1/#2. I doubt that's likely in Europe.
tennisIlove09 is offline  
post #8 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:40 AM
Enemy of Art
 
Hurley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,946
                     
Yeah, but who cares about Europe

I am on der Tvitter, accumulating haters. https://twitter.com/Hurleytennis
Hurley is offline  
post #9 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:42 AM
Senior Member
 
~ The Leopard ~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kissing my little Lolita
Posts: 13,105
                     
I think it's great if there's a bunfight going on at the top among a few players for the # 1 position. I'd like to see about half a dozen players fighting it out.

Keep up the good work, Juju. Come back Vee and Ree. (And get your act together, Momo. )

Vin, kvinder og sang
~ The Leopard ~ is offline  
post #10 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 06:43 AM
Enemy of Art
 
Hurley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,946
                     
My point was this: if people know WHO is #1, they'll know WHY they're number #1. And if people don't know the reasons behind the ranking system, they probably don't have any notions of the WTA Tour system and just assume that Venus and/or Serena are #1.

Even a casual observer of tennis telecasts in North America has Pam Shriver telling them every minute that Kim is Miss Consistency and blah blah blah blah blah.

I am on der Tvitter, accumulating haters. https://twitter.com/Hurleytennis
Hurley is offline  
post #11 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 07:57 AM
Senior Member
 
cheo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: IN,USA
Posts: 4,254
                     
LOL!!!!!!!!!!111@that Pam Shriver comment..So True..Anyways..I think the WTA Tour needs to like promote more about how the rAnkings work to the "PuBLiC"...like its about the previous 52 weeks that go into the current system..and they take the bEST 17 Tournament RESULTS of a player and calculates them like how they performed on Grand Slams and those Tier 1 tournaments and Tier 2...They also need to bring up the attention what tournaments are the Tier 1 and Tier 2..and why they call them Tier 1 and Tier 2...OH ONe MOre thing..Yeah the WTA Tour players complain about not receiving Equal Prize Money at the Grand SLams but when a player wins a like Tier 1 for Example the Nasdaq Tournament...She'll receive only like 125,000 compared to the Men's Winner getting like 350,000..The WTA tour needs to address those issues..U know what I'm saying People!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cheo23 is offline  
post #12 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 08:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: yAkUlt lAnd
Posts: 1,334
                     
I guess, that its not really getting that meaningful in a way. But you know, i guess that if Serena wasnt injured, she would still be no.1 rite now. While Clijsters n Henin would be around 5000... i guess. just sad that the no.1 got injured, but hey someones got to be the representative of the no.1 while the real no.1 is injured, Justine or Kim are ms Serenas prime ministress at the moment.
7~LV3 is offline  
post #13 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 08:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 838
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by tennisIlove09
Since Hingis, there have been SO many #1's.
Capriati-Lindsay-Venus-Serena-Kim-Justine

That's 6, and 5 were first time #1's. Now consider that there have only been 13 # 1's EVER, and 5 of them since October 2001 for the first time. That's 2 years.

With all the changes at the top, is becoming #1, less meaningful?

I think not, but #1 is certainly given a bad rep. when you have players who don't win Slams #1. Again, no offence to Clijsters, but her 10 weeks are terrible for tennis, and the few weeks Lindsay regained #1 in 2001/2002 are terrible for tennis as well. Not to mention the weeks Hingis was #1 in her Slam drought (all of 2000/2001)
Well, we will see how many new number ones we will have in the next few years. I don't think we will see very many (Justine, Kim, Venus and Serena will domniate female tennis the next years).
rikvanlooy is offline  
post #14 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 08:13 AM
Senior Member
 
malaye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 802
                     
I don't think the number 1 position has less meaning just because there are more players who have reached it. On the other hand, it is a clear sign that there is more depth now than, say, 3 or 4 years ago. The Sisters have forced the other players to train harder. And we should be grateful for that. I can't wait for them to come back and fight it out with the other contenders. 2004 should be very exciting.
malaye is offline  
post #15 of 102 (permalink) Old Oct 20th, 2003, 10:30 AM
Senior Member
 
skanky~skanketta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not paradise thats fo sho
Posts: 15,459
                     
i think it just shows that the competition at the top is getting tougher. sure, there is a lack of depth, but now its not just the #1 vs the #2 like steffi vs seles/ASV or navratilova vs evert or lindsay vs martina anymore. now its lindsay vs venus vs serena vs kim vs jennifer vs justine. at least you can be sure to have better matches as these players have brought the game to a whole different level.

skanky~skanketta 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









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



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