Joined
·
43,627 Posts
...wasn't she 16? Where was the age limitations on playing too many events?
How Did Hingis Become #1?
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Joined
·
822 Posts
She just gained enough points to overtake Graf. as simiple as that.
Joined
·
43,627 Posts
Oh. I didn't realize the rule was a newer thingKnizzle said:
Thanks
She became number one by winning tournaments, and by consistantly getting to the later stages of tournaments.
And she'd won the Australian Open in '97 before she reached the number one ranking.
But you need to look at the run up on any player who get to the top.
This is tennis, it's not NFL football or NHL hockey were there are big, year ending events that determine who the world champion is.
Martina did well in a number of tournaments leading up to her winning Miami in '97, where she achieved the number one ranking.
But she only had one slam title at the time and before that she had not won that many tournaments.
Prior to getting to number one, she had won Filderstadt and Oakland in '96, then Sydney, Tokyo, the Paris Indoor and the AO before winning Miami.
But she had done well, getting to the finals of the Chase Championships in '96, the semi-finals at the USO.
The point is, you have to accumulate enough points to get to the top and that doesn't happen over night.
That is what Kim has done, allowing her to capture the top spot.
And she'd won the Australian Open in '97 before she reached the number one ranking.
But you need to look at the run up on any player who get to the top.
This is tennis, it's not NFL football or NHL hockey were there are big, year ending events that determine who the world champion is.
Martina did well in a number of tournaments leading up to her winning Miami in '97, where she achieved the number one ranking.
But she only had one slam title at the time and before that she had not won that many tournaments.
Prior to getting to number one, she had won Filderstadt and Oakland in '96, then Sydney, Tokyo, the Paris Indoor and the AO before winning Miami.
But she had done well, getting to the finals of the Chase Championships in '96, the semi-finals at the USO.
The point is, you have to accumulate enough points to get to the top and that doesn't happen over night.
That is what Kim has done, allowing her to capture the top spot.
Joined
·
18,697 Posts
Plus, she did have the quality points courtesy of wins over Seles, Graf, Sanchez-Vicario, Huber and Majoli, all Top-10 players at the time.
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
She also benefitted from Graf being out of the game for long stretches of time between the 96 U.S. Open and 97 Wimbledon... but let's not get into a Graf-Hingis conversation again! :lol:
Either the WTA waited for Venus and Martina to be eligible or they made exception for them because they were worried that with Monica absent the tour had no upcoming stars.
I always thought it was the latter but when I think about it, it was almost certainly the former.
I always thought it was the latter but when I think about it, it was almost certainly the former.
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Unfortunately for Kim, she is in much the same position. She has a good chance to win the U.S. Open, yes, in the absence of Serena and possibly Venus, and gain all those points. But this is the nature of the top- it's tough to get there, and tough to stay there. This is nothing new- it happened for Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert, King, Court, Goolagong, King, Court, King, Court, King, Bueno, Smith, Smith, Smith, Bueno, Smith, Smith Smith, Bueno, Hard, Gibson, Fry, Hart, Connolly and Pauline Betz Addie (now there's a name I haven't seen on this board!)!irma said:
Joined
·
14,605 Posts
Similar situation as this year but worse. Graf lost the number one ranking having 3 slams and the masters counting on her ranking points.TonyP said:
Yeah 1997 was the first year this stupid ranking system was introduced.
If you're going to change the ranking system, you have to come up with a way of making the top players play all the important tournaments.
If you make the slams so important, nothing else matters, you will destroy the rest of the tour.
The system can't be change just to benefit the Williams sisters. And they are what the argument is all about and nobody else.
I don't hear anyone but Williams fans complaining about how many tournaments Kim plays.
If you make the slams so important, nothing else matters, you will destroy the rest of the tour.
The system can't be change just to benefit the Williams sisters. And they are what the argument is all about and nobody else.
I don't hear anyone but Williams fans complaining about how many tournaments Kim plays.
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
Why would any fan except Kim's fans complain about the number of tourneys she plays? Like why is she playing four weeks in a row before a slam?
I don't know if Werthiem is a "Williams fan" but he also thinks the rankings should reflect who the best player is, and we all know at this time it's Serena. You are right when you say the rankings system has to encourage the players to support the entire tour, Kim has done that too bad she hasn't won the titles that the "fans" expect of the number one player.
I don't know if Werthiem is a "Williams fan" but he also thinks the rankings should reflect who the best player is, and we all know at this time it's Serena. You are right when you say the rankings system has to encourage the players to support the entire tour, Kim has done that too bad she hasn't won the titles that the "fans" expect of the number one player.
Simply because she was the best and was winning CONSISTENTLY. That's what it takes to be #1. No one laid down for her, she simply beat them. That's what Kimmy is now doing. She is winning more tournaments than any one else at the present. Like it or not Martina was the best when she was at the top and was healthy.
Joined
·
18,697 Posts
Martina was undefeated for the entire first half of 1997.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
