PDA

View Full Version : Am I understanding this Right?


SerenaSlam
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:35 PM
People let me now. But if this is true then the ranking system is truley fucked up.

I was reading that if Kim Clijsters were to tie Serena Williams in the ranking points, than Serena would reamin number 1. That is understandable. But why would she remain? Im being told Serena would stay number 1 b/c she has lesser tournies?

Now that has got to be a fucked up system more than anything else. First this ranking system always has and will reward quanity over quality. But if the players are tied in points, they are going to reward the player that has played the least the number 1 spot? Oh come on, who ever did this ranking system, has convinced me more now than ever that they really didn't know what the fuck they were trying to come up with!

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:41 PM
People let me now. But if this is true then the ranking system is truley fucked up.

I was reading that if Kim Clijsters were to tie Serena Williams in the ranking points, than Serena would reamin number 1. That is understandable. But why would she remain? Im being told Serena would stay number 1 b/c she has lesser tournies?

Now that has got to be a fucked up system more than anything else. First this ranking system always has and will reward quanity over quality. But if the players are tied in points, they are going to reward the player that has played the least the number 1 spot? Oh come on, who ever did this ranking system, has convinced me more now than ever that they really didn't know what the fuck they were trying to come up with!

I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".

SerenaSlam
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:45 PM
I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".
HELL IF THEY WERE WINNING LIKE THAT THEN HELL YEAH THEY NEED TO BE NUMBER 1, BUT KIM IS FAR FROM EVEN DOING THAT. Has she even won a Tier 1 this year? Oh yeah, Indian Wells. Anyway, if she did win 20 titles, and the season ender, i would consider her number 1. But she has only 5 titles this year, out of like 12 tournies played. If she is that good, then she would have a positive winning percentage and not a negative winning percentage :)

And realize that even the greats back then only average 13-15 tournies a year, not no damn 25!

Serendy Willick
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:45 PM
I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".


You act as if Serena has been sitting on her ass :rolleyes: May I remind you that Serena has won 12 tourneys over the past year, including 5 slams and 3 tier ones :rolleyes:

SerenaSlam
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:52 PM
You act as if Serena has been sitting on her ass :rolleyes: May I remind you that Serena has won 12 tourneys over the past year, including 5 slams and 3 tier ones :rolleyes:
great point, and to add to it,

and selesrules, here is a lil more to add to it, when you make a point, include as much as posisble. as much as kim has done serena had done the same and more. the only differnce is kim has played more tournies. if kim is playing more than serena, how come is isn't winning more than serena? please explain :)

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:54 PM
well, the more you play:

-the less fresh you are,
-the more you lose matches & confidence
-the less other players fear you since they get to see you and play you more,
-and also the more you are prone to injury.

So there are plenty of valid reasons... If Serena plays as much as Kim, all these factors would apply to Serena and her results would go down because of (less fresh, more losses/less confidence, less fear, more injuries).

Messenger
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:59 PM
No it makes perfect sense.

The poster above me is right, it's a compromise between quality and quantity. It wouldn't work if it leant too much in either direction.

Consider this:

Player A won 1 Grand Slam this year but nothing else.
Player B has great results amounting to a lot of points.
Player C has played less tournaments than player B.
Player D has the most points in total, but from 40 tournaments.
Player B and C have the same amount of points.

So player C is rightfully the #1 until player B has more points than her.


So in the system quality is more valued than quantity as long as the quality has a substantial quantity to back it up (in Serena's case this is true).

So it is wrong to say that quantity is valued more than quality in the current system because it eliminates players like player A from the very top and rightfully so.

Just a logical aspect that I felt you missed SS.

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:03 PM
Let's take this summer season:

Imagine Kim winning 3 harcourt summer titles and reaching the US Open semis or final.

Imagine Serena not playing anything, but winning the US Open.

Is winning the US Open bigger the reaching the final of the US Open + 3 title wins? Sure winning a slam is more important, but Kim should be ranked higher because not only she has quality, she has quality with much more quantity, the quality adds up.

Serendy Willick
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:06 PM
Let's take this summer season:

Imagine Kim winning 3 harcourt summer titles and reaching the US Open semis or final.

Imagine Serena not playing anything, but winning the US Open.

Is winning the US Open bigger the reaching the final of the US Open + 3 title wins? Sure winning a slam is more important, but Kim should be ranked higher because not only she has quality, she has quality with much more quantity, the quality adds up.


Good for Kim. She can have it. I want my girl to collect her 7th slam thank you very much. :)

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:09 PM
Actually in a tie, the person who has more quality points is higher ranked.

Then, if they are still tied, then it is the person that has less tournaments.

If they are still tied, then, well, they just stay tied :)

maccardel
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:25 PM
I don't think the system rewards quantity over quality. I think it's pretty equal. I mean, what do you expect, that if someone wins 2 slams and 0 other matches, and another person wins 20 titles including the year-end championships, 5 tier 1s etc. that the first player should be no.1 anyways? No, there's a fine line. Serena BARELY plays tournaments! It's not as if she's playing a good amount of tournament, winning the slams and still risking to lose the ranking. You can't win a couple of slams and withdraw from most of the other tournaments and expect someone who always reaches semis/finals of slams and plays & wins tons of other big tournaments to never get to no.1. So I disagree with your claim about quantity is considered more then quality. It's more like "great quality and great quantity" is considered more then "excellent quality and almost non existant quantity".

Has any of Kim's wins come with a Williams in the draw?

She must be hating the fact that she only wins when serena and venus are not in the draw....and last time I checked, she lost to venus despite venus being injured and having like a month off.....so her titles are great, but she shouldn't rejoice too much and too soon..I guess she already knows how it feels to win something she didn't feel equipped to own......like the year end...I would take her winning the year end this year over last year cos last year, there was no doubt the title belonged to Serena..I guess that is why Jen and Kim are now all smiley,smiley huh?

But the indoor season hasn't began and I think that will be the deciding factor for the next season cos Serena and Venus will have few tourney on their rank to defend and they would probably stay one and two for most of the year with a schedule like this year...cos the indoor season would be on for a year....kinda like Alex staying in the top 30 for so long without having to perform so well........gives you an idea huh?

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:42 PM
Has any of Kim's wins come with a Williams in the draw?

She must be hating the fact that she only wins when serena and venus are not in the draw....

Yeah, Kim beat the crap out of both Venus & Serena when she won the Chase Championships.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Please Williams Fans why on earth do you bother arguing with Selesrules of all people? Havent you all learned by now that his sole pleasure is to argue with williams fans just to argue? He doesn't want to discuss anything rationally and his posts always attack venus or serena, why deal with someone like that? Why have a dialogue with someone like that? The only sane option in dealing with him is to have him on ignore.

Serendy Willick
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Yeah, Kim beat the crap out of both Venus & Serena when she won the Chase Championships.

And your point is? Serena beat Kim winning the Austrailian and beat the crap outta Kim at the Nasdaq, while Venus beat the crap out Kim on her home turf and while barely being able to move at Wimbeldon.

MartinaI
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:46 PM
Sounds like common sense to me.

AjdeNate!
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:48 PM
Kim cannot control her draws....her opponents....or who enters or withdraws from tournaments. I'm sure she'd like to play Serena in the finals, but she can't help it that Serena is not currently playing.

Mr. Man
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Please Williams Fans why on earth do you bother arguing with Selesrules of all people? Havent you all learned by now that his sole pleasure is to argue with williams fans just to argue? He doesn't want to discuss anything rationally and his posts always attack venus or serena, why deal with someone like that? Why have a dialogue with someone like that? The only sane option in dealing with him is to have him on ignore.
I have him on ignore. I wonder what kind of bullshit he is posting now. :lol:

SerenaSlam
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:50 PM
Let's take this summer season:

Imagine Kim winning 3 harcourt summer titles and reaching the US Open semis or final.

Imagine Serena not playing anything, but winning the US Open.

Is winning the US Open bigger the reaching the final of the US Open + 3 title wins? Sure winning a slam is more important, but Kim should be ranked higher because not only she has quality, she has quality with much more quantity, the quality adds up.
This should shut u right the fuck up, b/c that post was out right ignorant. Remember when I said, when you post somthing, make sure you add all you can.

What if Kim won 3 hardcout tournies, and made it to the finals?

Well put it like this, Venus did that same thing last year, and made it to the final of the usopen, and still no-one was even trying to give her anyhopes of number 1. hello muthafucka, you sound ignornat now don't you? back up what you have to say, otherwise, im gon back ur ass up in a corner, lookin like a dumb fuck in preschool on "time' out sessions every 30 minutes we post a subject.

The question is, why all of a sudden kim? people mention she has done this, and she has done that. Realize kim is not the first. When other players were doing the same thing kim is doing people were not aruging whether or not they were deserivng of number 1 or anything else.

"the quality adds up" yeah it does, when its in 1 bundle like the hardcourt season. But again the conversation would've even be up if Serena were playing. Its all about what if Serena. That is the only time a point gets acrossed for kim. What if Serena did this, then kim could, should, would, maybe might have, did, etc. :rolleyes:

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:54 PM
And your point is? Serena beat Kim winning the Austrailian and beat the crap outta Kim at the Nasdaq, while Venus beat the crap out Kim on her home turf and while barely being able to move at Wimbeldon.

My point is that maccardel was wrong when he said that Kim never and can't beat the sisters on her way to titles. :rolleyes:

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:59 PM
This should shut u right the fuck up, b/c that post was out right ignorant. Remember when I said, when you post somthing, make sure you add all you can.

What if Kim won 3 hardcout tournies, and made it to the finals?

Well put it like this, Venus did that same thing last year, and made it to the final of the usopen, and still no-one was even trying to give her anyhopes of number 1. hello muthafucka, you sound ignornat now don't you? back up what you have to say, otherwise, im gon back ur ass up in a corner, lookin like a dumb fuck in preschool on "time' out sessions every 30 minutes we post a subject.

The question is, why all of a sudden kim? people mention she has done this, and she has done that. Realize kim is not the first. When other players were doing the same thing kim is doing people were not aruging whether or not they were deserivng of number 1 or anything else.

"the quality adds up" yeah it does, when its in 1 bundle like the hardcourt season. But again the conversation would've even be up if Serena were playing. Its all about what if Serena. That is the only time a point gets acrossed for kim. What if Serena did this, then kim could, should, would, maybe might have, did, etc. :rolleyes:

It's simple idiot. Venus LOST points because she was champion the previous year, plus she was beaten in 3 straight slam finals by Serena proving that she wasn't no.1. Do you even know how the ranking system works?

And here's a message for ya:

DON'T HATE ME B/C IM WHITE

IM JUST KEEPIN IT REAL AND TELLIN IT LIKE IT IS

SAY IT LOUD, IM WHITE AND IM MUTHA FUCKIN PROUD

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Filip!
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:00 PM
SerenaSlam, can you tell why you are so frustrated? you are the most frutrated poster I ever saw on this board. I mean, come on, get over it!

The ranking is based on quantity AND quality. You can't become #1 when you're not winning consistently. Serena plays just a few tournaments, she can proove that she's also able to win more matches. If she wants to stay #1, OK, but she knows the rules. The rules don't have to change because TWO players in the world want to play less! They don't have to dictate the rules. The rules are a fact and they know them very good. Period!

SerenaSlam
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:03 PM
It's simple idiot. Venus LOST points because she was champion the previous year, plus she was beaten in 3 straight slam finals by Serena proving that she wasn't no.1. Do you even know how the ranking system works?

And here's a message for ya:

DON'T HATE ME B/C IM WHITE

IM JUST KEEPIN IT REAL AND TELLIN IT LIKE IT IS

SAY IT LOUD, IM WHITE AND IM MUTHA FUCKIN PROUD

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
and oh lookie lookie, serena bas beaten kim twice this year, and once in a slam. venus last year was more so needed to be talked about any deserving of number 1 than what kim is getting this year. hello people? this time last next year, who will we be talking about deserving of number 1? it seems to me this is the new thing

as long as you don't win a slam, and as long as you don't beat number 1, all you have to do is consistently get to the semis and finals of tournies. play like 12 so far for the year, only winning five, bascially loosing more than what you play, and you can have recogintion for deserving number 1 :rolleyes:

im just wondering, who will it be next year :)

SerenaSlam
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:05 PM
oh selesrules, i just realized your signature, proud to hear u are just as proud as me :)

at least we can say we both agree on 1 thing eh? that is probably our first and last agreement for the rest of your lives :)

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:10 PM
I have him on ignore. I wonder what kind of bullshit he is posting now. :lol:

Then you are one of the sane ones Mr. Man. Now if we can only gather the rest of our flock from the temptations of the devil. :angel: :devil: :angel:

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:14 PM
I just think that your signature is kinda too defensive. I mean, why refer to racism in every post? I don't see people on the board making racist comments, so it's not the place to flash a 10 meter "I'm black so I'm good", it kinda makes you look weird. You don't need to say it, we already know that black people are proud just like everyone else. :rolleyes:

maccardel
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:15 PM
I am done with this topic....my head is hurting....I've said what I wanted to say and I am done now......thank god I got that off my chest.....I feel so much better now....on to better things.....oh by the way, congrats Kim if you take the number one......you worked your ass for it and you deserve it....congrats....I concede.

Knizzle
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:58 PM
Yeah, Kim beat the crap out of both Venus & Serena when she won the Chase Championships.

You wish.

Knizzle
Jul 30th, 2003, 07:07 PM
It's simple idiot. Venus LOST points because she was champion the previous year, plus she was beaten in 3 straight slam finals by Serena proving that she wasn't no.1. Do you even know how the ranking system works?


So when Venus loses to Serena she is not considered for #1, but if Clijsters loses to BOTH Williams she still con be considered for #1. I don't follow your reasoning. If Venus had won that US Open final, she would have returned to #1. I think Serena would have been more deserving of the #1 because she had won 5 titles up to that point and 2 slams, and Venus had 7 titles and no slams. But Venus would have been ahead because she played more. Same for Clijsters.

controlfreak
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:07 PM
I heard that if they tie on points, Kim gets to be #1 because she has accumulated more karma points from helping little old ladies cross roads. Who can argue with that?

nash
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:11 PM
Is winning the US Open bigger the reaching the final of the US Open + 3 title wins?

IMO, that's a huge YES. I think just about any player would say so, as well.

alexusjonesfan
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:12 PM
I heard that if they tie on points, Kim gets to be #1 because she has accumulated more karma points from helping little old ladies cross roads. Who can argue with that?

that makes perfect sense...isn't there a proverb that says:

"The one who is closest to Buddha is highest on the wta computer."

SJW
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:14 PM
Serena can be 10000000000000000000000000th for all i care just keep bringing home Melbourne Paris London and NYC baby :kiss:

joz
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:22 PM
A player who is not fit enough or conditioned enough... who plays less than a third of the season... should not be ranked number one... regardless of how they do in the slams... if the slams are all that matters then lets shorten the season by about 4 months.... AND ALL OF US ON THIS BOARD WOULD GO NUTS....because we'd miss the tour....

selesrules
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:27 PM
IMO, that's a huge YES. I think just about any player would say so, as well.

So therefore Justine should be no.2. Case closed.

SJW
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:29 PM
A player who is not fit enough or conditioned enough... who plays less than a third of the season... should not be ranked number one... regardless of how they do in the slams... if the slams are all that matters then lets shorten the season by about 4 months.... AND ALL OF US ON THIS BOARD WOULD GO NUTS....because we'd miss the tour....

and dumbest post of the day goes to........:worship:

yea people. Serena shouldnt be number one. she doesnt deserve it. fuck that shes won 5 of the last 6 slams.....

shes got a boo boo and top players arent allowed boo boos ;)

rottweily
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:39 PM
I just think that your signature is kinda too defensive. I mean, why refer to racism in every post? I don't see people on the board making racist comments, so it's not the place to flash a 10 meter "I'm black so I'm good", it kinda makes you look weird. You don't need to say it, we already know that black people are proud just like everyone else. :rolleyes:

It's an obsession for some black people, let them do...

joz
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:43 PM
and dumbest post of the day goes to........:worship:

yea people. Serena shouldnt be number one. she doesnt deserve it. fuck that shes won 5 of the last 6 slams.....

shes got a boo boo and top players arent allowed boo boos ;)


You'll see that MANY, MANY times on this board I've said if a player is injured they SHOUD NOT play... but rankings are based on the season... and if you have so many injuries that you play very little... well it should impact your ranking... It's impacted Venus, Anna, Monica, Mary and many other players on the tour... but you don't change the ranking system just because some players aren't fit enough to play more than half the season...

Is Serena the best tennis player when she plays? No doubt about it! But the rankings aren't about "when someone plays".... they are about an entire season...
Have there been #1 ranked players in the past who weren't the best players at the time.... YES.... at least three that I can think of.... and that's okay... they earned those rankings based on the season....

LeonHart
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:49 PM
If Kim hasn't lost before the Semis all year, with so much more tournaments entered than Serena...HELL, Kim deserves that #1 spot for being the most consistant player on the tour.