PDA

View Full Version : How come no other player other than kim was ranked #1 without winning a slam...


Hulet
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:00 PM
...since the rankings were installed in 1975?

And, do you think there will be other players who might reach the top spot without winning a slam?

Curious minds want to know.

CanadianGuy
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:06 PM
Rios, it's been talked about a lot, he was thought as a "talent wasted"
(:rolleyes: there are thousands who would kill for #1 ranking, and he is a talent wasted?)
I just think it's not fair to think Kim sux coz she couldnt win slams. Had she played high tier events when she was young, without being hindered by AER, she could play big matches without choking. She rose up her ranking at twice the speed of Justine. If I am to pick one, probably Maria Sharapova. But Kim was a lot more accomplished at 17th birthday, and won tier II/reach slam final before 18. I dont know if Maria can ever reach #1.

jrm
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:10 PM
Look at her record from last year: win in SYDNEY, INDIAN WELLS, ROME, STANFORD, FILDERSTADT, ROSMALEN, LUXEMBOURG, CHAMPIONSHIPS, finals at US OPEN, ROLAND GARROS, BERLIN, SCOTTSDALE, semi-finals at FRENCH OPEN, WIMBLEDON, LEIPZIG ...

thelittlestelf
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:17 PM
Because she won practically every other tournament created last year and made the final of 2 grand slams. That's enough to make #1.

Andy T
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:51 PM
Hingis was also ranked #1 without being a reigning slam champion, as were Austin and Davenport.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:16 PM
she's been very consistent. Basically making semis of every tournament except for toronto.

tennisIlove09
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:25 PM
2 reasons:

1-She played a lot

and

2-She was consistent

However, she's paying it for it this season with injuries

calabar
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:31 PM
In fact because of the peculiarity if the WTA's ranking system, a player could win ALL 4 slams in a calendar year and NOT be the #1 ranked player at the end of that year. I am not saying that scenario is LIKELY, but it sure as hell is mathematically possible.

Now wouldn't that be a riot? Imagine, having a GRAND SLAM winner who was not "good" enough to be ranked #1.

TonyP
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:38 PM
The tour has to award points for participating in every trounament. If it doesn't, the other tournaments will die, because they cannot offer enough money to attract the top stars. They play only for the practice, and for the points.

So while the slams get the most points, the other tournaments must also get points, or soon there will be nothing but the slams and exhibition tournaments.

And unless and until the tour changes the ranking system to say you have to win a slam the year you finish as number one, whoever amasses the points amasses the points, end of story.

Martian Willow
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:55 PM
...they are the WTA Tour rankings, yes...? :)

SelesFan70
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:11 PM
The tour has to award points for participating in every trounament. If it doesn't, the other tournaments will die, because they cannot offer enough money to attract the top stars. They play only for the practice, and for the points.

So while the slams get the most points, the other tournaments must also get points, or soon there will be nothing but the slams and exhibition tournaments.

And unless and until the tour changes the ranking system to say you have to win a slam the year you finish as number one, whoever amasses the points amasses the points, end of story.

:worship: Sanity is restored momentarily!