PDA

View Full Version : #1 with no GS or a GS but never reach #1


Vegeto
May 17th, 2009, 04:53 AM
Which do you prefer for your entire career as a tennis player?
:wavey:

Inger67
May 17th, 2009, 04:57 AM
A GS with no #1 for sure. You will have that tournament memory forever. It is a great accomplishment that all juniors look forward to and dream of. While a #1 is nice, I believe people respect you more after winning a GS than being the #1. Perfect example of how things are in today's game.

Bijoux0021
May 17th, 2009, 05:02 AM
Nowadays, a GS is definitely a better accomplishment than #1.

Temperenka
May 17th, 2009, 05:03 AM
No contest. A slam.

delicatecutter
May 17th, 2009, 05:08 AM
Aww Mary Pierce>>>>>>>>>Jelena Jankovic

pepaw
May 17th, 2009, 05:10 AM
Slam.

Pops Maellard
May 17th, 2009, 05:11 AM
Slam!

Sexysova
May 17th, 2009, 05:20 AM
second option.. GS and never being #1..

woosey
May 17th, 2009, 05:59 AM
a slam.

they pay more - like practically $1 million for two week's worth of work.

HeninFan_2008
May 17th, 2009, 06:09 AM
Yeah its safe to say I despise the Williams clan and everything they stand for - like their phony racism charge against Indian Wells. They are the real racists.

northern lad
May 17th, 2009, 06:11 AM
for my entire career? who cares, as long as i make enough money to live comfortably for the rest of my life.:p

HeninFan_2008
May 17th, 2009, 06:12 AM
As long as no Williams sister in finals I'm happy.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
May 17th, 2009, 06:16 AM
I don“t know

Seriously , I prefer the career of Rios- Corretja - Haas over Thomas Johansson's career any day

Safina - Jankovic over Majoli any day

In The Zone
May 17th, 2009, 06:25 AM
Slam. :) :drool: Mary Pierce. :hearts:

Vaidisova
May 17th, 2009, 06:43 AM
Slam

TennisViewer531
May 17th, 2009, 07:07 AM
I'd prefer winning a GS, coz that means I won a huge amount of money...

Ballbasher
May 17th, 2009, 07:11 AM
Grand Slam
As somebody said you have a memory. I can imagine the point you finish your first Grand Slam with will always remain in your head and will be the most amazing memory in tennis!
When you get to Number 1 you can't read it, but it's just not connected with anything!

AnDyDog621
May 17th, 2009, 07:36 AM
well worst GS Champion compare to worst #1...I would take being the worst #1, but winning a GS and being #1 ranked are both a HUGE accomplishment.

franny
May 17th, 2009, 07:47 AM
Slam. :) :drool: Mary Pierce. :hearts:

Mary Pierce is a multiple slam champion and finalist. I don't think she is the benchmark for a GS but never reach #1.

The better comparison is:

Svetlana Kuznetsova, Anastasia Myskina, Iva Majoli OR Dinara Safina, Jelena Jankovic?

northern lad
May 17th, 2009, 07:51 AM
The better comparison is:

Svetlana Kuznetsova, Anastasia Myskina, Iva Majoli OR Dinara Safina, Jelena Jankovic?

dinara and jelena still have a good 5 years at least left in them. there's no telling whether or not they'll get a slam in that time. nastya retired early. sveta's still young. if the question asks which would you rather have for your entire career, it's hard to use these girls as examples.

Richie77
May 17th, 2009, 08:32 AM
Here's a question along those same lines:

Does anyone think Hana Mandlikova would trade any of her four Slam titles for a week at No. 1? I think she would not.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
May 17th, 2009, 08:37 AM
People won't remember who was number 1 at any given time, but they sure do remember a Wimbledon or other grand slam winner! I'd take Wimbledon as my slam. I could retire on that happily. ;)!

homogenius
May 17th, 2009, 09:27 AM
It depends.I'd prefer Safina and JJ careers over Majoli, Myskina or Ruzici ones(to name some)but not over Pierce, Martinez, Sabatini etc...

InsideOut.
May 17th, 2009, 10:03 AM
#1 with no GS. At least you can say you were the best in the world at something for a while. And while almost 40 women have won Slams, only 20 have been #1. Go figure.

joćo.
May 17th, 2009, 10:11 AM
Wining a Grand Slam but never reach #1.

joz
May 17th, 2009, 12:10 PM
That's not such an easy call... way more people have won slams than have been #1 since the rating system was put in place. Slam winners include people like O'Neil, Jordan, Jausovec, Majoli, Melville, Ruzici. While all good players, they were never a threat for the #1 ranking.

AnnaK_4ever
May 17th, 2009, 12:19 PM
That's not such an easy call... way more people have won slams than have been #1 since the rating system was put in place. Slam winners include people like O'Neil, Jordan, Jausovec, Majoli, Melville, Ruzici. While all good players, they were never a threat for the #1 ranking.

Do NOT lump Majoli who won a real Grand Slam tournament with Melville, Barker, Jausovec, Ruzici, Jordan and O'Neil who won fake slams with no top-10 players in the draw.

CloudAtlas
May 17th, 2009, 12:19 PM
Grand Slam without a doubt. The #1 ranking is fast becoming meaningless with the top players being so inconsistent and it's the Slans people are remembered for.

terjw
May 17th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Well most ppl say they'd prefer a slam. Both are tremendous achievements but fewer players get to #1 than reach a slam so by definition it's it's actually harder to be #1 than win a slam. And before anyone argues differently citing Jelena and Dinara - yes there may be a player who finds it harder to win a slam than get to #1 - and I think Jelena is that player. But there are more players the other way round with a slam and no #1. It's Mathematics not opinion that over the years it's been harder to get to #1 than win a slam.

H.A.M.
May 17th, 2009, 12:54 PM
Take that white sheet off of your ugly head.:o

Cut the racist crap off, would you!?

miffedmax
May 17th, 2009, 12:58 PM
I would pretty much perform the most abject acts of humiliation for my adorable but apparently clueless favorite to achieve EITHER of these.

Emina.
May 17th, 2009, 01:28 PM
slam ;):)

joz
May 18th, 2009, 04:05 AM
Do NOT lump Majoli who won a real Grand Slam tournament with Melville, Barker, Jausovec, Ruzici, Jordan and O'Neil who won fake slams with no top-10 players in the draw.
Hmmm... yet Melville, Jausovec, Barker, Ruzici and even Jordan were way more consistent perofmrers than Majoli. They have better records in GS's (maybe not Jordan) and were in the top 10 FAR longer than Majoli. And, most of them had way better GS performances even w/ top players there.
OTH... do we have top players playing all GS's? They either retire, or are injured... we often don't have all the top players playing GS's... and indeed that's why ... people bitch about non-qualified players reaching the number one ranking. The fact is... they would not reach that spot if the others were all there... but the fact is ... they aren't playing the GS's.
If you look back at just this CENTURY...we've had top players, Henin, Clijsters, and Davenport retire... and others like Capriati, Pearce, S. Williams, V. WIlliams, Sharapova,... injured so often that they were not playing all GS's. People even in the 2000's were getting a break in GS draws because of The top players not playing... so it's really not much different.

franny
May 18th, 2009, 04:19 AM
dinara and jelena still have a good 5 years at least left in them. there's no telling whether or not they'll get a slam in that time. nastya retired early. sveta's still young. if the question asks which would you rather have for your entire career, it's hard to use these girls as examples.

What does Dinara, Jelena, Sveta being young and Nastya retiring early have anything to do with it? The question is would you rather be #1 with no GS (which are Dinara and Jelena) or one grand slam but never reach number 1 (Kuznetsova, Myskina, Majoli). These players have relatively similar accomplishments in terms of title won and success, with exception that one group has a slam and one group has been number 1. If Dinara wins a slam in a few weeks, then great she's off the list. But for now, using them as an example is perfectly valid.

HRHoliviasmith
May 18th, 2009, 04:24 AM
slam hands down.

HotSpot
May 18th, 2009, 04:31 AM
people will remember you as GS winner..

skanky~skanketta
May 18th, 2009, 04:38 AM
A grand slam of course!

Roookie
May 18th, 2009, 04:40 AM
A slam... but not a fluke one (cough cough Sveta cough Miskina cough).

darrinbaker00
May 18th, 2009, 04:43 AM
Which do you prefer for your entire career as a tennis player?
:wavey:
Whichever one makes me more money, of course.

Junex
May 18th, 2009, 05:49 AM
A slam... but not a fluke one (cough cough Sveta cough Miskina cough).

Talking about "Flukey".....
You can be a "fluke" Grand Slam Winner (i.e. the One Slam Wonders)
but there never was and never will be a fluke #1 !

Buitenzorg
May 18th, 2009, 05:57 AM
If I could vote:

#1 with GS titles :) that would be very nice!

Maria Croft
May 18th, 2009, 07:41 AM
I would take a GS over being #1 any day of the week.

unknowndiamond
May 18th, 2009, 09:01 AM
It depends on how they get that No 1 or how they get that GS.In fact all of them will be in history.But real tennis fans will remember the true consistent No 1 player who win everything :worship: but had bad luck in GS :sad:,not the player win GS by the luck of draw :rolleyes:. And sure we will remember the player with a stellar performance beating all top player to win GS :worship:, not the No 1 player who got it by winning many cheap tounaments :mad:.

Hardiansf
May 18th, 2009, 09:41 AM
Winning A SLAM :worship:
or Olympic gold medal :hearts:

...
Some days are meant to be remembered
Those days we rise above the stars

So I'll go the distance this time
Seeing more the higher I climb
That the more I believe
All the more that this dream will be mine

If I could reach, higher
Just for one moment touch the sky

TennisViewer531
May 18th, 2009, 11:25 AM
you can reach number one but will always get negative criticisms for not winning a GRAND Slam. You can win a Grand Slam and still get positive comments despite not reaching the top spot...

AnnaK_4ever
May 18th, 2009, 12:01 PM
A slam... but not a fluke one (cough cough Sveta cough Miskina cough).

Too bad one of the most deserving #1s *cough* Jankovic *cough* hasn't managed to "fluke" her way to a grand slam title.

AnnaK_4ever
May 18th, 2009, 12:06 PM
Hmmm... yet Melville, Jausovec, Barker, Ruzici and even Jordan were way more consistent perofmrers than Majoli. They have better records in GS's (maybe not Jordan) and were in the top 10 FAR longer than Majoli. And, most of them had way better GS performances even w/ top players there.
OTH... do we have top players playing all GS's? They either retire, or are injured... we often don't have all the top players playing GS's... and indeed that's why ... people bitch about non-qualified players reaching the number one ranking. The fact is... they would not reach that spot if the others were all there... but the fact is ... they aren't playing the GS's.
If you look back at just this CENTURY...we've had top players, Henin, Clijsters, and Davenport retire... and others like Capriati, Pearce, S. Williams, V. WIlliams, Sharapova,... injured so often that they were not playing all GS's. People even in the 2000's were getting a break in GS draws because of The top players not playing... so it's really not much different.

The biggest load of bullshit I've ever read here on TF.

Uranus
May 18th, 2009, 12:11 PM
Svetlana Kuznetsova, Anastasia Myskina, Iva Majoli OR Dinara Safina, Jelena Jankovic?
Safina/Jankovic for sure!

Too bad one of the most deserving #1s *cough* Jankovic *cough* hasn't managed to "fluke" her way to a grand slam title.
Myskina's wasn't a fluke at all. She was one of the faves going into this tournament and was a few points away from #1.
Kuznetsova... although very talented, she is quite often playing at a lower level than expected, and her very good runs are pretty uncommon (Miami 2007, Stuttgart 2009...) and can be considered flukes.

markdelaney
May 18th, 2009, 02:19 PM
It depends on the player and the slam they won.

e.g. Without being mean, I think winning Wimbledon is considered more of an achievement than winning the Australian Open (unless you're Australian)

e.g. Thomas Johansson

When Hana Mandlikova retired, having won 4 slams (Australian twice, French and US) she said her only regret was never winning Wimbledon.

Svetlana.
May 18th, 2009, 02:46 PM
Every player wants to win a slam and be the #1... in some cases the #1 rank comes first, in others a first slam. Only determined and committed to the tour players can achieve both.

Henin was a determined and committed player, it’s why she was unquestionable #1.

Volcana
May 18th, 2009, 02:46 PM
As long as no Williams sister in finals I'm happy.Miami 2009, Dubai 2009, OZ 2009, YEC 2008, US Open 2008, Wimbledon 2008, Miami 2008, Charleston 2008 ... kinda sux being you these last twelve months , huh?
Yeah its safe to say I despise the Williams clan and everything they stand for - like their phony racism charge against Indian Wells. They are the real racists.Since IW '01 .... that's 14 slam singles titles, four slam doubles titles, six all-Williams slam singles finals, An Olympic gold medal, and maybe 50 slam singles titles overall.

So you 'despise' them. You're a grain of sand who despises the ocean.

Volcana
May 18th, 2009, 03:04 PM
#1 with no GS. At least you can say you were the best in the world at something for a while.Please to forgive, but that's exactly the point. Being ranked #1 does NOT confer the undisputed right to say you are 'the best in the world'.

Under the current ranking, at most you can say that the player ranked #1 performed more consistently, at a high level, than any one else, in the past twelve months. But .... 'the past twelve months' includes, as always four slams, and the YEC, and in this case, the Olympics. And the current #1 wins NONE of them!?!?

Different sport, team sport, but relevant. The 1985 Chicago Bears (American football) had the best record, by far, of any team in the in a particular four year stretch including 1985. They onlu even made it to the title game once. They consistently performed at a high level, but they only performed at a GS championship level once.

That's Dinara Safina. A completely deserving #1. But #2 and #3 have performed on stages, and under pressure, where Safina has only failed. Worse, on most recent stage 'big' stage, #2 crushed #1.

Slams are like, well, the Olympics. (The Olympics for most sports, not tennis or cycling or World Cup.) In tennis (like golf, horrors) You get four chances a year to write your name in history. Christine O'Neil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_O%27Neil_(tennis)) won exactly ONE tounament her ENTIRE professional career. And to this day, she's the last Australian to win OZ.

But, to adhere to the thread topic, let's take the plu-perfect case. Gabriella Sabatini. An elite player, with two flaws. One, she played against Steffi Graf. She didn't match up well against Steffi Graf.

Would you rather HER career, or Jelena Jankovic?

Kworb
May 18th, 2009, 03:09 PM
#1 with no GS. I hate losing, and being #1 means I wouldn't have had that many embarrassing losses.

homogenius
May 18th, 2009, 03:21 PM
Too bad one of the most deserving #1s *cough* Jankovic *cough* hasn't managed to "fluke" her way to a grand slam title.

One had to play Serena in final, while the other (Myskina) played against her besfriend who wasn't able to put a ball in.Just saying.

AnnaK_4ever
May 18th, 2009, 03:28 PM
One had to play Serena in final, while the other (Myskina) played against her besfriend who wasn't able to put a ball in.Just saying.

One couldn't defeat Ivanovic to play Safina in the final while the other defeated Venus and Capriati to play Dementieva in the final :shrug:

AnnaK_4ever
May 18th, 2009, 03:32 PM
#1 with no GS. I hate losing, and being #1 means I wouldn't have had that many embarrassing losses.

Sure. Like Jankovic-2006 (ten losses in a row) or Ivanovic-2008 (multiple losses to players outside top-100).

homogenius
May 18th, 2009, 03:33 PM
One couldn't defeat Ivanovic to play Safina in the final while the other defeated Venus and Capriati to play Dementieva in the final :shrug:

Both have one final each in slams : one played Serena, the other played Lena on ue mode.I can see a difference here but maybe it's just me.

tennismaster8820
May 18th, 2009, 03:38 PM
I would always choose GS but never reach #1.
When winning GS you prove that you are best tennis player in the world for those two weeks!
Getting to #1 without winning GS means you are the most consistent player through the year, but never quite the best when it counts the most, at GS..

Volcana
May 18th, 2009, 03:39 PM
Winning a slam requires defeating opponents. You have to accomplish something. Being ranked #1 isn't an accomplishment. It's a by-product. You could, in theory, be ranked #1 without have any titles to you credit at all. (Obviously, you can be #1 without winning a slam title.)

AnnaK_4ever
May 18th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Both have one final each in slams : one played Serena, the other played Lena on ue mode.I can see a difference here but maybe it's just me.

Do you really want to compare their roads to GS final?
Anyway, it's not Myskina's fault Jankovic is not good enough. Myskina was able to defeat the likes of Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Capriati en route to her tour titles. Jankovic has built her career on upsetting Venus and wins over Zvonareva, Dementieva and Kuznetsova.

homogenius
May 18th, 2009, 03:59 PM
Do you really want to compare their roads to GS final?
Anyway, it's not Myskina's fault Jankovic is not good enough. Myskina was able to defeat the likes of Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Capriati en route to her tour titles. Jankovic has built her career on upsetting Venus and wins over Zvonareva, Dementieva and Kuznetsova.

Some bs here but whatever.To stay on topic, I'd still prefer Jelena and Safina careers to Myskina or Majoli ones.The last two may have won a slam (and I don't think it was a fluke run for either)they didn't do much except for that one win.Neither got passed the QF of a slam before or after their run (!), neither was really a threat to the best players of their generation and both had loosy end of career.Jelena and Safina (even if they never win a slam)will end up with many more titles, money etc...than these two and will be able to say that they were n°1 in their sport.
Majoli and Myskina can say that they won 7 matches in a row over two weeks once in their career : big deal.

MistyGrey
May 18th, 2009, 08:34 PM
Slam over No. 1

Kart
May 18th, 2009, 08:42 PM
Seeing that I can't play tennis to professional tour standards, I'd take either.

frenchie
May 18th, 2009, 08:45 PM
It depends

If you are a JJ or Safina fan, you'll chose option 1
If you are a Pierce, Kuznetsova, Myskina, Martinez or Majoli fan, you'll chose option 2

H.A.M.
May 19th, 2009, 12:26 AM
Do you really want to compare their roads to GS final?
Anyway, it's not Myskina's fault Jankovic is not good enough. Myskina was able to defeat the likes of Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Capriati en route to her tour titles. Jankovic has built her career on upsetting Venus and wins over Zvonareva, Dementieva and Kuznetsova.

So true :lol: Her only quality wins are over Venus. Dementieva, Kuzzy and Vera are wannabes who never do anything significant (especially the overrated Vera):tape: OK Kuzzy won the USO once but it was so random

CoolDude7
May 19th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Lets not get too crazy.. JJ has many quality wins over Serena, Maria, Safina, Ana.. JJ record against Venus is 4-3, Venus didn't make or break her career. Her biggest struggle is against Hen and Ana.. and defeated Ana and Hen is retired.

young_gunner913
May 19th, 2009, 04:26 AM
win a slam :hearts:

young_gunner913
May 19th, 2009, 04:30 AM
So true :lol: Her only quality wins are over Venus. Dementieva, Kuzzy and Vera are wannabes who never do anything significant (especially the overrated Vera):tape: OK Kuzzy won the USO once but it was so random

well Kuzzie's type of career, winning a slam and not reaching number one, is desirable to 107 people who voted so obviously she's done something significant. and trying to write off the accomplishment that she's made and that only 4 other women on tour have accomplished is just stupid. svetlana has accompishled something that 2 off our past 3 world number ones have yet to do. get it together. kthnxbye. :wavey:

madlove
May 19th, 2009, 04:57 AM
a slam of cos. rankings don't mean much these days

unknowndiamond
May 19th, 2009, 05:01 AM
I think we shoud consider the performance of player more than just result.For me, even GS champion and No 1 ranking of Ivanovic were not convinced me than the performance of Safina right now.Actually the best performance of Ivanovic was AO 08,where she beat Venus and just lost to Super Maria.After that,she somehow got lucky by Henin's retirement and Maria'shoulder injury.

Zauber
May 19th, 2009, 05:28 AM
The dream of every athlete is to be the very best, against the best.
Olympic gold. Grand slam winner.
All the best show up at their best.
Quality counts, you have to beat the best at one point in time.
Being number one means more of a long year grind with quality of course. But you could be number one without being number one.
Borg dominated the grand slam tournaments of french and wimbledon. But did not go down to the Australian Open so quite often someone else who ground out wins in the states, ended up being no one. Actually quite often it was Connors Who would win at the us and loose at Wimbledon and roland garros.

iWill
May 19th, 2009, 07:23 AM
you can reach number one but will always get negative criticisms for not winning a GRAND Slam. You can win a Grand Slam and still get positive comments despite not reaching the top spot...

Good point, also if you look at analysis for past players they are judged on how many slams they won. No one really talks about Steffi Graf's dominiation at the top of the rankings. The firs thing they always say in recognizing her greatness is her 20+ slams

I'd take a Wimbledon title or any other slam honestly over a week at number one any day

fnuf7
May 19th, 2009, 11:36 AM
Grand Slam for sure, no doubt whatsoever. Rankings can be forgotten very easily & who knows how tennis will be ranked years down the line, ranking as we know it may be obselete...a grand slam win is a major win forever, a piece of history, no matter what changes may take place in the future.

irma
May 19th, 2009, 01:25 PM
At this point I doubt somebody would take the career of Safina and Jankovic above the career of Sabatini, Novotna or Martinez. Not to speak about Hana Mandlikova who won 4 slams during her career but was unlucky that she had to deal with two extremely consistent players who won all the other slams.
Of course Safina and Jankovic are still playing and still can achieve a lot, but Jankovic by example became number 1 with one title under her belt over the last 12 months. That's not her fault of course, but I would rather be the number 2 with a slam and many titles then number 1 with only one title. It's always about the total results imho.

Vlover
May 19th, 2009, 01:38 PM
Grand Slam for sure, no doubt whatsoever. Rankings can be forgotten very easily & who knows how tennis will be ranked years down the line, ranking as we know it may be obselete...a grand slam win is a major win forever, a piece of history, no matter what changes may take place in the future.

Well said! Also the purpose of rankings was never to determine who was the "best" player but a fair system for seedings. The standard for judging your tennis career has always been about majors and always will be.

The formula for rankings have changed over time and who knows what it will be in the future. The formula for winning a major will remain the same, win 7 matches usually between the best players and you make history forever.

I have no doubt that Martinez would never exchange holding the Dish on center court Wimbledon for #1. Also if you should ask Venus which she would prefer, another Wimbledon or major title or more weeks at #1 she would go for major title. Also I doubt you get in the Hall of fame without a major titles of some sort.

Costanza
May 19th, 2009, 02:05 PM
I think we shoud consider the performance of player more than just result.For me, even GS champion and No 1 ranking of Ivanovic were not convinced me than the performance of Safina right now.Actually the best performance of Ivanovic was AO 08,where she beat Venus and just lost to Super Maria.After that,she somehow got lucky by Henin's retirement and Maria'shoulder injury.

:spit:
So,genius,Sharapova was destined to win FO in 2008,but unfortunately, shoulder injury prevented her?

Vegeto
May 19th, 2009, 02:54 PM
I personally think that to achieve the #1 ranking is harder than to win a Grand Slam. But I still prefer winning a Grand Slam (if by no fluke) because of
1.money
2.champion in the biggest tournament
3.more popularity
4.#1 with no GS is something that can possibly be considered a fluke (by the created ranking point system)? so if I can choose, I choose not to be #1 if I knew I'm gonna end up my career with no Grand Slam because people will keep questioning me on how I got that #1 but never won any Grand Slams, and then I have to explain that the ranking is something that can be unconcerned with Grand Slam results it is more about consistency throughout a year.
5.(in the other way) If I won a Grand Slam (by no fluke) I can say that I had beaten the #1 player (or #2 or many top rank players, if not) in the biggest tournament which I feel more proud than playing very consistent but lost to someone in the final of the biggest tournament.

H.A.M.
May 19th, 2009, 04:29 PM
well Kuzzie's type of career, winning a slam and not reaching number one, is desirable to 107 people who voted so obviously she's done something significant. and trying to write off the accomplishment that she's made and that only 4 other women on tour have accomplished is just stupid. svetlana has accompishled something that 2 off our past 3 world number ones have yet to do. get it together. kthnxbye. :wavey:

Dayum, you just got it twisted.

You're actually telling me that building one's career on wins over Kuzy (Jelena) rather over let's say Capriati (Myskina) is more worthy? Oh no, you didn't.

mickymouse
May 19th, 2009, 05:03 PM
#1 with no GS

Volcana
May 19th, 2009, 05:42 PM
The problem of course, is that being ranked #1 doesn't mean you're the best player. It certainly means you're ONE OF the best players, but tennis rankings fail because of the peculiar structure of the sport. Most sports have championships. The best is the one left standing when all the others have fallen.

A very few sports, tennis, golf, (American) thoroughbred hoseracing, don't work that way. Those sports have certain events during the year which have greater prestige than other events. Which completely changes preparation and focus for the players. Especially given the proximity of RG and WB. Can you really prepare for both events? The last two players to win both are double digit slam singles winners, among the elite of the elite in the history of women's tennis.

Contrary-wise, Martina Hingis was ranked #1 for 209 non-consecutive weeks. More than half of those came AFTER she won her last slam singles titles. It's not like BAD players were winning those slams instead of her. Graf, Davenport, Serena, Venus, Pierce, Capriati, multi-slam winners all. But if you're ranked #1, and SIX different players win slams and you don't, you aren't THE best player, no matter what the mathematical formula says.

rjd1111
May 19th, 2009, 05:48 PM
Yeah its safe to say I despise the Williams clan and everything they stand for - like their phony racism charge against Indian Wells. They are the real racists.

I am just glad they don't cheat like Henin.

AcesHigh
May 19th, 2009, 06:15 PM
I can't believe this thread is still going. I was going to post, but stopped(I think) so if I did post this already, excuse me for repeating myself.

Would I rather have 1 grandslam and that's it? Or would I want the #1 ranking which takes consistent high-quality play. All the #1's have been top players with Tier I wins, etc. You can fluke a slam win... it's hard to fluke #1.

I rather be Marcelo Rios than Gaston Gaudio

SAEKeithSerena
May 19th, 2009, 06:26 PM
give me the slam.

ChriS.
May 19th, 2009, 08:23 PM
Well most ppl say they'd prefer a slam. Both are tremendous achievements but fewer players get to #1 than reach a slam so by definition it's it's actually harder to be #1 than win a slam. And before anyone argues differently citing Jelena and Dinara - yes there may be a player who finds it harder to win a slam than get to #1 - and I think Jelena is that player. But there are more players the other way round with a slam and no #1. It's Mathematics not opinion that over the years it's been harder to get to #1 than win a slam.No one can argue with that. To be the highest ranked player is an achievement that will always be greater than to have won a one off event no matter how prestigious that event is. This is self evident if you consider other sports like Golf or even men's tennis. The problem at the moment is we do not have any dominant players so the value of the number one ranking is lower than it has been in the past but it is still the number one ranking - you do not get it unless you were the best over the preceeding twelve months.

young_gunner913
May 19th, 2009, 09:09 PM
Dayum, you just got it twisted.

You're actually telling me that building one's career on wins over Kuzy (Jelena) rather over let's say Capriati (Myskina) is more worthy? Oh no, you didn't.

um no i didnt so try opening up your eyes and reading dipstick. you're so quick to write off svetlana's slam win saying that she hasn't done anything since. as i recall in 2006 she won one of the biggest tournaments of the year over Sharapova and reached 2 more slam finals (one in 06 and one in 07) and lost to one of the best players on the tour. i think its you who has it twisted so trying reading the whole thing before you reply. kthnxbye.