PDA

View Full Version : 13 #1s - Here's How Long They Held It After First Obtaining


AjdeNate!
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:54 AM
Chris Evert (1) Nov 03, 1975 - Jul 09, 1978 (140)
Martina Navratilova (2) Jul 10, 1978 - Jan 13, 1979 (27)
Tracy Austin (3) Apr 07, 1980 - Apr 20, 1980 (2)
Steffi Graf (4) Aug 17, 1987 - Mar 10, 1991 (186)
Monica Seles (5) Mar 11, 1991 - Aug 04, 1991 (21)
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (6) Feb 06, 1995 - Feb 19, 1995 (2)
Martina Hingis (7) Mar 31, 1997 - Oct 11, 1998 (80)
Lindsay Davenport (8) Oct 12, 1998 - Feb 07, 1999 (17)
Jennifer Capriati (9) Oct 15, 2001 - Nov 04, 2001 (3)
Venus Williams (10) Feb 25, 2002 - Mar 17, 2002 (3
Serena Williams (11) Jul 08, 2002 - Aug 10, 2003 (57)
Kim Clijsters (12) Aug 11, 2003 - Oct 19, 2003 (10)
Justine Henin-Hardenne (13) Oct 20, 2003 - Oct 26, 2003 (1)


In length order:

Steffi Graf (4) Aug 17, 1987 - Mar 10, 1991 (186)
Chris Evert (1) Nov 03, 1975 - Jul 09, 1978 (140)
Martina Hingis (7) Mar 31, 1997 - Oct 11, 1998 (80)
Serena Williams (11) Jul 08, 2002 - Aug 10, 2003 (57)
Martina Navratilova (2) Jul 10, 1978 - Jan 13, 1979 (27)
Monica Seles (5) Mar 11, 1991 - Aug 04, 1991 (21)
Lindsay Davenport (8) Oct 12, 1998 - Feb 07, 1999 (17)
Kim Clijsters (12) Aug 11, 2003 - Oct 19, 2003 (10)
Jennifer Capriati (9) Oct 15, 2001 - Nov 04, 2001 (3)
Venus Williams (10) Feb 25, 2002 - Mar 17, 2002 (3)
Tracy Austin (3) Apr 07, 1980 - Apr 20, 1980 (2)
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (6) Feb 06, 1995 - Feb 19, 1995 (2)
Justine Henin-Hardenne (13) Oct 20, 2003 - Oct 26, 2003 (1)


So, I guess 'not being able to hold it' is a pretty common thing.

Total weeks at #1 (As Of Oct 27):

Steffi Graf 377 weeks
Martina Navratilova 331 weeks
Chris Evert 262 weeks
Martina Hingis 209 weeks
Monica Seles 178 weeks
Serena Williams 57 weeks
Lindsay Davenport 38 weeks
Tracy Austin 22 weeks
Jennifer Capriati 17 weeks
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 12 weeks
Venus Williams 11 weeks
Kim Clijsters 11 weeks
Justine Henin-Hardenne 1 weeks

rhz
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:00 AM
who cares!! No matter it's 1 week or 377 weeks, you can't take away the #1 from anybody on those list

Kart
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:03 AM
I always laugh when I see Venus Williams so low on the list of total weeks at no.1.

Today however, I'm laughing even more at seeing JenCap above both Venus and ASV.

Knizzle
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:04 AM
I always laugh when I see Venus Williams so low on the list of total weeks at no.1.

Today however, I'm laughing even more at seeing JenCap above both Venus and ASV.

I know. Serena kind of cut Venus' weeks at number 1 a bit short.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:15 AM
The fact that Juju will only have for a week at this stage just shows that she and Kim are neck-and-neck. It doesn't take away the fact that she has, at least momentarily, got into the position of accumulating more ranking points than anyone else in the world. Whatever the circs, that is a huge achievement.

Anyway, she won't be a one-week wonder. She'll lose it to Kim again in seven days, but she'll have it back before she's through.

tennisIlove09
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:19 AM
I know. Serena kind of cut Venus' weeks at number 1 a bit short.

No, the WTA's f*cked up ranking system did that. Venus should have been ranked #1 from Wimbledon 2000 through Australian 2002.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:35 AM
I'm no huge fan of JenCap, quite the contrary, but I give credit where it is due. She certainly looked like the best player in the world for at least part of that period. There has to be some lead-time with these things, since it goes on a whole year's performance, so when she became number 1 in October 2001 it was probably too late in a sense to acknowledge her considerable dominance earlier in the year. However, she had won two slams in a row earlier in the year and been very, very competitive in other tournaments (she made the final in Berlin IIRC, going down to Momo who was very briefly considered the best player in the world by many, until the 2001 RG debacle :rolleyes: ).

I think it's kinda difficult to say that JenCap, at least, didn't deserve a stint at #1.

Knizzle
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:41 AM
No, the WTA's f*cked up ranking system did that. Venus should have been ranked #1 from Wimbledon 2000 through Australian 2002.

Somewhat, but Venus could have played more. When she did she almost immediately became #1. She would have held it for a long time if not for Serena.

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 11:18 AM
I'm no huge fan of JenCap, quite the contrary, but I give credit where it is due. She certainly looked like the best player in the world for at least part of that period. There has to be some lead-time with these things, since it goes on a whole year's performance, so when she became number 1 in October 2001 it was probably too late in a sense to acknowledge her considerable dominance earlier in the year. However, she had won two slams in a row earlier in the year and been very, very competitive in other tournaments (she made the final in Berlin IIRC, going down to Momo who was very briefly considered the best player in the world by many, until the 2001 RG debacle :rolleyes: ).

I think it's kinda difficult to say that JenCap, at least, didn't deserve a stint at #1.

Dominating?! Even her best season she only won three titles....that doesn´t sound dominating to me. Venus was the best in ´00 and ´01....too bad the ranks didn´t notice.

The Crow
Oct 20th, 2003, 11:32 AM
Dominating?! Even her best season she only won three titles....that doesn´t sound dominating to me. Venus was the best in ´00 and ´01....too bad the ranks didn´t notice.

I'm more a Venus fan than a JenCap fan, but Venus wasn't more dominating than Jennifer in 2001. When you win 2 slams in a row, you are dominating that part of the season.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 11:36 AM
Dominating?! Even her best season she only won three titles....that doesn´t sound dominating to me. Venus was the best in ´00 and ´01....too bad the ranks didn´t notice.

Well, let's see. In another thread I got into an argument about whether JenCap was one of the dominant players from January 2001 to June 2002. It seems to me that she was. Afterall, she won three of the six slams played in that period, was ranked #1 for a good proportion of the time, etc, etc. But she was only one of the dominant group of players. I never said she was the dominant player through that time. Venus was a force to be reckoned with, as was Lindsay...then Serena started to become the truly dominant player toward the end of that period.

My point in this thread is a slightly different one. I carefully referred to JenCap's considerable dominance for a period "earlier" in 2001 than October when she became # 1. The period I had in mind was from about late January 2001 to about June 2001. In that time she won both slams that were played and did well in other tournaments. I didn't say total dominance, just "considerable" dominance: a number of other players were playing very well in that period, including Jelena and Amelie in the European claycourt season prior to RG.

Still it isn't surprising that JenCap went to # 1 later in the year when she'd cancelled out a lot of her less impressive results in 2000. That is the thrust of what I was saying.

Jeez, I don't even like JenCap that much. I almost always cheer against her, but she doesn't seem to get a lot of credit on this board except from her small group of vocal fans.

Tangerine~Juice
Oct 20th, 2003, 11:52 AM
Martina H :bounce:

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 12:13 PM
Well, let's see. In another thread I got into an argument about whether JenCap was one of the dominant players from January 2001 to June 2002. It seems to me that she was. Afterall, she won three of the six slams played in that period, was ranked #1 for a good proportion of the time, etc, etc. But she was only one of the dominant group of players. I never said she was the dominant player through that time. Venus was a force to be reckoned with, as was Lindsay...then Serena started to become the truly dominant player toward the end of that period.

My point in this thread is a slightly different one. I carefully referred to JenCap's considerable dominance for a period "earlier" in 2001 than October when she became # 1. The period I had in mind was from about late January 2001 to about June 2001. In that time she won both slams that were played and did well in other tournaments. I didn't say total dominance, just "considerable" dominance: a number of other players were playing very well in that period, including Jelena and Amelie in the European claycourt season prior to RG.

Still it isn't surprising that JenCap went to # 1 later in the year when she'd cancelled out a lot of her less impressive results in 2000. That is the thrust of what I was saying.

Jeez, I don't even like JenCap that much. I almost always cheer against her, but she doesn't seem to get a lot of credit on this board except from her small group of vocal fans.


That part of the season. That´s more like it...yep, in the beginning of the season Venus was playing like crap...still had enough to save eigth matchpoints to defeat Jen. Don´t even include Lindsay on the list of dominating for ´01....no slams, no slam finals......isn´t dominating.

Scotso
Oct 20th, 2003, 12:48 PM
:worship: all the people on that list :worship:

viele
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:29 PM
The fact that Venus has been at #1 for so few weeks is somewhat of a black eye on her career. However, I wouldn't underestimate her ability to return to the top. She has winning records against both Belgians and beating Serena is a matter of controling her emotions. It all depends on how much she wants it. If Venus plays more, she'll win more and the ranking will naturally follow.

DA FOREHAND
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:43 PM
The fact that Venus has been at #1 for so few weeks is somewhat of a black eye on her career. However, I wouldn't underestimate her ability to return to the top. She has winning records against both Belgians and beating Serena is a matter of controling her emotions. It all depends on how much she wants it. If Venus plays more, she'll win more and the ranking will naturally follow.


And I believe Venus is very much aware of this. She's stated as much.

Jennifer never dominated the tour...ever! Four titles in two years is hardly dominating, unless those four titles where four slams in a row. What was her longest win streak during that period? 10? :rolleyes:

calabar
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:47 PM
The "Total Weeks at #1" listing requires an *, that's because if you finish the year ranked #1. you get about 6 weeks at #1 WHILE THERE IS NO TOURNAMENT GOING ON. Since the tennis season ends with the WTA championship in early november, all those weeks between middle November through early January are counted as weeks at #1. But how can that be considered an achievement when there is no active competition going on? If this category is going to be meaningful, they should remove all those weeks at #1 during the "OFF SEASON". Then we can now compare apples to apples.

my 2 cents

hingis-seles
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:49 PM
Monica!!! *sigh* If not for that lunatic.......

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:50 PM
The "Total Weeks at #1" listing requires an *, that's because if you finish the year ranked #1. you get about 6 weeks at #1 WHILE THERE IS NO TOURNAMENT GOING ON. Since the tennis season ends with the WTA championship in early november, all those weeks between middle November through early January are counted as weeks at #1. But how can that be considered an achievement when there is no active competition going on? If this category is going to be meaningful, they should remove all those weeks at #1 during the "OFF SEASON". Then we can now compare apples to apples.

my 2 cents

Depends......Lindsay´s weeks at no.1 in ´01 are indeed tainted.....but in the most cases the year end no.1 was the real no.1 anyways, sooo...