Has #1 become less meaningful?
Since Hingis, there have been SO many #1's.
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)