PDA

View Full Version : 7 # 1's since Martina retired. BIG joke


Jamie
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:19 AM
Martina never received the credit she deserved. There have been 7 different ladies that have held the #1 ranking since Martina Hingis retired. Martina held it for 209 and it has taken less time then the 209 weeks to have 7 title holders. I guess WE know who the best of the best is.

Jericho
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:21 AM
it has more to do with the system itself IMO ;)

bw2082
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Isn't the system the same except more slam bonus?

Jericho
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:32 AM
Isn't the system the same except more slam bonus?
yeah pretty much...and i think it used to be best 18 and you would get an extra point for each tournament played after that (not sure though)

Daniel
Sep 14th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Martina i miss u :hug:

hingis-seles
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:30 AM
There have been 4 different #1's since Martina retired.

There have been 7 different #1's since she lost the top spot.

Gowza
Sep 14th, 2004, 11:07 AM
hingis was a great player but the depth of womens tennis has gotten better since she lost her top spot and retired. which makes it harder to hold on to that number 1 position. i think we also have to consider injuries. i cant really remember but serena was number 1 and got injured and kim took over and she got injured and justine took over and is now injured so the number 1's have been effected by injuries a bit and certainly the rankings have eg mauresmo getting to number 1 this year is mainly due to injuries of other top players rather than her results.

tennisjam
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:23 PM
I don't agree Martina didn't get credit she deseved...

Two years after she retired, she is still missing to many tennis fans...

Martina :bounce:

lukehingis
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:25 PM
Just another testament why she's one of the greatest

Jakeev
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:12 PM
I have never been a Hingis fan but always respected her as a player. But in all honesty, do you really think that if Martina had not retired she would have ever been number one again?

The fact so many women became number one after Hingis does not reflect at all how great Martina was as a player.

It just means the women got better and that because of the current ranking system, it allowed women to make it to the top, even if they seemingly should not have been there.

griffin
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:25 PM
and that because of the current ranking system, it allowed women to make it to the top, even if they seemingly should not have been there.

The current system isn't much different than the one Hingis played under - not that THAT version was any more popular. There were an awful lot of people saying (wrongly, imo) Hingis "should not have been there" for almost the last year she spent at #1.

Jakeev
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:35 PM
The current system isn't much different than the one Hingis played under - not that THAT version was any more popular. There were an awful lot of people saying (wrongly, imo) Hingis "should not have been there" for almost the last year she spent at #1.
But the women that got to that summit did it fair and square. Even if they did not win a Slam, (which seems to be a big issue about not bein number one if you don't win one) they still played the amount of tournaments they were supposed to to reach that level.

griffin
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:39 PM
Jakeev, I'm not suggesting AT ALL that anyone has gotten to #1 unfairly, quite the opposite, in fact.

Jakeev
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:49 PM
Jakeev, I'm not suggesting AT ALL that anyone has gotten to #1 unfairly, quite the opposite, in fact.
No, but from the scathing posts I have seen lately you would think the crimes of the century where commited the days Lindsay, Kim and Amelie reached number one without winning Slams.

Of course in all three players cases, they benefited by the fact that injuries of other top players allowed them to reach that top spot.

selesbooz
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:47 PM
The Big joke about being #1, is Martina Hingis. She spent how many weeks at #1 and only won 40 titles?????? 5 slames and did not even get a career slam. So you cant say that Maruresmo and Clijsters don't deserve to be #1 when they got they the same way Hingis did. By getting far in tournments. that's the story of Martina's life.

buscemi
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:55 PM
The Big joke about being #1, is Martina Hingis. She spent how many weeks at #1 and only won 40 titles?????? 5 slames and did not even get a career slam. So you cant say that Maruresmo and Clijsters don't deserve to be #1 when they got they the same way Hingis did. By getting far in tournments. that's the story of Martina's life.

Hingis as a joke? She won 3 GSs in '97 on her way to #1. Then, in '99 she re-claimed #1 with a GS win and 2 other Finals. Basically the only year she might not have deserved #1 was 2000, but that was a weird year.

alfonsojose
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:24 PM
at 2000, she lost to the champion in all slams, not before QF, and won lots of tier I events. She earned it ;)

buscemi
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:26 PM
at 2000, she lost to the champion in all slams, not before QF, and won lots of tier I events. She earned it ;)

As I said, 2000 was a weird year. Pierce won the French Open, but didn't do much else. Venus won 2 Slams, but only played 10 torunaments total (I think). I'm not quite sure about Lindsay.

Anne K.
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:27 PM
Martina never received the credit she deserved. There have been 7 different ladies that have held the #1 ranking since Martina Hingis retired. Martina held it for 209 and it has taken less time then the 209 weeks to have 7 title holders. I guess WE know who the best of the best is.
Don't credit Martina too much for this. Remember, before she became # 1, there
was a divisor ranking system in place, which rewarded quality over quantity.
It's my belief that she wouldn't have been numero uno as long under the other
system. Certainly it's not her fault, but you can't bemoan anyone who's made
# 1 since January 1997--it's a function of total number of points, and it will
almost always reward those who play 18+ tournaments per year and are
good, steady performers. :wavey:

Andy T
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Two reasons why so many women have ascended to the top spot since 2000

1) Injuries have forced the top player(s) to miss large chunks of the season. Serena and Justine in particular come to mind. Example: Had Justine never been injured, Mauresmo would not be #1 now.
2) The current system rewards quantity over quality. Players with restricted schedules (e.g. Venus in 00-01) don't get to/stay at the top of the rankings even if they win the big events because they're overtaken by players who play a lot.

treufreund
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:28 PM
Hmmm. so with the divisor system, a player could win a grand slam and not play the rest of the year and still have a higher ranking than someone who won a grand slam and had three finals appearances in the other grand slams?

now, how retarded is that! :rolleyes:

hinquit
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:48 PM
Just take away 2000 and 2001, you will know that Martina Hingis only spent two
years as number #1. Even by that she managed to stayed there because she was
playing too many tournaments just to protect her ranking.
Venus could have been number #1 the whole of 2000 and 2001 and probably 2002.

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 08:25 PM
Just take away 2000 and 2001, you will know that Martina Hingis only spent two
years as number #1. Even by that she managed to stayed there because she was
playing too many tournaments just to protect her ranking.
Venus could have been number #1 the whole of 2000 and 2001 and probably 2002.
You could equally argue that Venus was playing too few tournaments just to preserve her chances of winning the GS. She obviously wouldn't have been number 1 in 2001 or 2002 would she - she couldn't win the GS then either.

hablo
Sep 14th, 2004, 08:31 PM
The Big joke about being #1, is Martina Hingis. She spent how many weeks at #1 and only won 40 titles?????? 5 slames and did not even get a career slam. So you cant say that Maruresmo and Clijsters don't deserve to be #1 when they got they the same way Hingis did. By getting far in tournments. that's the story of Martina's life.


What do you mean 'only' ??? :confused: :confused: :haha: :haha: :lol: :lol:

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Two reasons why so many women have ascended to the top spot since 2000

1) Injuries have forced the top player(s) to miss large chunks of the season. Serena and Justine in particular come to mind. Example: Had Justine never been injured, Mauresmo would not be #1 now.
2) The current system rewards quantity over quality. Players with restricted schedules (e.g. Venus in 00-01) don't get to/stay at the top of the rankings even if they win the big events because they're overtaken by players who play a lot.
The current system rewards winning matches. Its perfectly possible (inevitable in fact) that if you win the GS (2 will do probably) and get near to the 17 counting tournaments doing well outside the GS you will make it to number 1. 17 is hardly a large number. Why would anyone want a part time number 1 resting or preparing to walk off with the next big GS cheque - it just raises the question number 1 at what (being invisible, avoiding competitors, gaining an unfair advantage) and leaves the rest of the top players incentivized to go part time too?

CJ07
Sep 14th, 2004, 08:44 PM
Had Venus gotten to the QF of the French in 2001, she would've gotten to #1 :rolleyes: :sad:

sartrista7
Sep 14th, 2004, 08:55 PM
1) Injuries have forced the top player(s) to miss large chunks of the season. Serena and Justine in particular come to mind.

It's part of any pro athlete's job to keep themselves healthy and fit for competition. If you can't do this for more than five months at a time, you don't deserve to be called No 1, frankly.

Injuries have a lot more to do with players' training and scheduling habits than people think... these oft-injured girls aren't just unlucky.

selesbooz
Sep 14th, 2004, 08:56 PM
What do you mean 'only' ??? :confused: :confused: :haha: :haha: :lol: :lol:

Players who wre #1 for that long have 100+ titles. And they played in a harder era then she did. the only reason that Martina was #1 for how long she was #1 is because she lost late in alot of tournments. :rolleyes: :wavey:

Calimero377
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:00 PM
Martina never received the credit she deserved. There have been 7 different ladies that have held the #1 ranking since Martina Hingis retired. Martina held it for 209 and it has taken less time then the 209 weeks to have 7 title holders. I guess WE know who the best of the best is.

Yes, the girl with 377 weeks ....


:worship:

Calimero377
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:03 PM
hingis was a great player but the depth of womens tennis has gotten better since she lost her top spot and retired. ....

If they had shot dead Graf & Navratilova in 1988/1989 you would have had your "depth of women's tennis" back then as well - Myskina, Sharapova & Kuznetsova types winning slams .....

Calimero377
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:07 PM
Hmmm. so with the divisor system, a player could win a grand slam and not play the rest of the year and still have a higher ranking than someone who won a grand slam and had three finals appearances in the other grand slams?

now, how retarded is that! :rolleyes:


Helau!!!

E Määnzer - wollemerne roilosse?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Aphrodite
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:09 PM
I have never been a Hingis fan but always respected her as a player. But in all honesty, do you really think that if Martina had not retired she would have ever been number one again?

The fact so many women became number one after Hingis does not reflect at all how great Martina was as a player.

It just means the women got better and that because of the current ranking system, it allowed women to make it to the top, even if they seemingly should not have been there.
If she worked on that serve and on making her game more powerful than she would have had a great almost sure chance of being number one.
She was to stubborn, I loved her but she gave up on the game and was plagued by injuries. She didnt want to be top 5, she wanted to be number one, yet she didnt work hard enough for it, tennis didnt make her happy anymore.
Thats the reality as good as she was she could have been much greater, she had it in her to be the best but she never had the work ethic, or the passion.

I love Martina, respect her, and miss her
and I still hope that some day Martina will be back, she was great for tennis, and made me a fan of hers forever.;) :worship:

chris/martina
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:13 PM
Wasn't hingis number 1 in 2000 and 2001 cuz the williams sisters couldn't be bothered to compete

buscemi
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:15 PM
Wasn't hingis number 1 in 2000 and 2001 cuz the williams sisters couldn't be bothered to compete

She was #1 in 2000 b/c Venus only played 10 events. Serena was not a factor yet. In 2001, Lindsay as #1, Jen #2, and Venus #3.

Ravsieg
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:27 PM
It's a fact that nowadays there aren't such great players like there was back then... (Serena Williams, Justine Henin-Hardenne and Kim Clijsters could be if they weren't injured that much..)

But still I won't complain... this way you never know who'll win a Grand Slam among lots of players instead of a group of 3 or 4, and it adds fun :D

Bankhead Bounce
Sep 15th, 2004, 01:51 AM
Martina never received the credit she deserved. There have been 7 different ladies that have held the #1 ranking since Martina Hingis retired. Martina held it for 209 and it has taken less time then the 209 weeks to have 7 title holders. I guess WE know who the best of the best is.

hingis was a great player. she was smart and tenacious and i'll always admire that about her. that's awesome she was #1 for 209 weeks but you know in tennis we always have to put an asterisk next to the champions and their achievements. hingis was at her peak while steffi and monica weren't 100%. lindsay was struggling with conditioning. pierce was just being pierce. majoli had a post-slam anxiety attack. sanchez vicario and martinez couldn't solve hingis. venus was still a "yearling". then there's the french open. serena, capriati and justine won it but hingis didn't. i don't think we need to go into the power game passing her by.

Chrissie-fan
Sep 15th, 2004, 02:08 AM
I miss Hingis. She was great. Should still be playing. Doesn't matter whether she would be #1 or #15. Her game was sooo attractive and a total contrast to the power game of the other star players.

Gaston

Martina never received the credit she deserved. There have been 7 different ladies that have held the #1 ranking since Martina Hingis retired. Martina held it for 209 and it has taken less time then the 209 weeks to have 7 title holders. I guess WE know who the best of the best is.