[lizchris]

That year, Venus won two Grand Slams, four other titles (I think) and an Olympic medal (which didn't count in her ranking), but was still number four in the world. Martina Hingis was still ranked number one, even thoug she hadn't won a Grand Slam since the 1999 AO. When the ranking system was questioned, it was changed slightly. Now, we have the same problem, but a little worse. Kim is the ranked number one, but has yet to win a Grand Slam title. Justine and Serena have won two Slams each this year, but both are ranked below Kim. It is understandable that Serena is because she was injured in the beginning of the year and for the entire summer and wasn't able to defend her pointss, but Justine has not been injured and played a full schedule(even though she pulled out of Rome, where she was defending finalist points). I will not be surprised that the WTA is asked questions about this and they re-examine the way they calculate the rankings.

BTW, I have no problem with the way the ranking system works now, but others do and this is why I brought it up.

 

[Sam L]

OR maybe it might be rugged under the carpet like when Davenport ended the year #1 in 2001 when Capriati and Venus both had 2 slams each.




But oh wait, I'm so stupid!!! KIM IS NOT AMERICAN! D'oh! :retard:

 

[Filip!]

The calculations are made for 52 weeks. That's too long to see who's really the best player. They should take 30 weeks or something like that.

 

[gweeny]

Just switch to the ATP ranking system. Each year a person who wins at least one slam ends up being no 1.

 

[lizchris]

OR maybe it might be rugged under the carpet like when Davenport ended the year #1 in 2001 when Capriati and Venus both had 2 slams each.




But oh wait, I'm so stupid!!! KIM IS NOT AMERICAN! D'oh! :retard:

You are stupid.

The reason why Lindsay ended up number one instead of Jennifer is that Jennifer went out in the second round of the Y/E Championships that year while Lindsay got to the final. Had the results been reversed or they played each other in the final and Jennifer won, she would have ended the year at number one.

Venus couldn't be considered a factor for the number one spot because she only played 12 tournaments (though she would have played 15 if not for the September 11 terrorist attacks) and she missed the Y/E Championships due to injury.

 

[Sam L]

You are stupid.

The reason why Lindsay ended up number one instead of Jennifer is that Jennifer went out in the second round of the Y/E Championships that year while Lindsay got to the final. Had the results been reversed or they played each other in the final and Jennifer won, she would have ended the year at number one.

Venus couldn't be considered a factor for the number one spot because she only played 12 tournaments (though she would have played 15 if not for the September 11 terrorist attacks) and she missed the Y/E Championships due to injury.

Wait wait wait. So are you actually justifying that Davenport DESERVED to be the year end #1 for 2001?

You realize that she didn't even reach a grand slam final that year right?

This is so funny! :lol: You are not only stupid, but blind, biased, hypocritical and moronic. Dumb Ass.

 

[lizchris]

Wait wait wait. So are you actually justifying that Davenport DESERVED to be the year end #1 for 2001?

You realize that she didn't even reach a grand slam final that year right?

This is so funny! :lol: You are not only stupid, but blind, biased, hypocritical and moronic. Dumb Ass.

The ranking system said Lindsay deserved to be number one at the end of the year, not me, asshole. She said that Venus was the real number one in 2001 in her mind, but wasn't becasue she didn't playn enough tournaments.

I am very well aware what Lindsayn did in 2001.

What is funny is that you post in a thread that is started by someone who you believe is stupid, blind, biased, hypocritical and moronic. Seems to me that the dumb ass is you.

It is good to throw names around when one doesn't have the capacity to debate the thread topic.

 

[franny]

People

People, Justine is going to end the year number 1. Don't forget that part of the reason Kim is number 1 right now is because she got so many pts from the tour championships and the indoor season in which she won I think like 3 titles. Justine didn't do so well indoors last year so this year, she'll be gaining pts whereas Kim will be losing pts unless she keeps winning the tournaments. Justine will 80% be number 1 at the end of the year.

 

[Hingiswinsthis]

i'm sorry, but the biggest #1 rankings joke has got to be that 2001 season. Lindsay won a lot of fall events like Clijsters to reach #1. Either Capriati or Venus would've ended the controversy. I remember that too because many here suggested that Jen should've played Pattaya right after Munich so she can save the reputation of the sport :lol:

 

[RYNJ]

People, Justine is going to end the year number 1. Don't forget that part of the reason Kim is number 1 right now is because she got so many pts from the tour championships and the indoor season in which she won I think like 3 titles. Justine didn't do so well indoors last year so this year, she'll be gaining pts whereas Kim will be losing pts unless she keeps winning the tournaments. Justine will 80% be number 1 at the end of the year.

unless Serena can have a say on that...

 

[Chance]

I don't think Serena can catch up-.

this is so like 2001 all over again- I remember throughout the offseason people were debating who really deserved the no.1 ranking....

 

[Hingiswinsthis]

Justine plans to play: Liepzig, Filderstadt, Zurich, and the Championshiops. You better believe just a couple of those wins, she'll snatch that #1 from Kim

 

[Doublebackhand]

i think the current ranking rules dont reward the champion in any tournament as much as they deserve, most of the times the champ just received a handful more points than the runner up which isnt fair. under this system, simply by reaching a lot of finals and semis, players can reach a high ranking by not actually doing a lot.

 

[great smash]

Just switch to the ATP ranking system. Each year a person who wins at least one slam ends up being no 1.

If you would take a good look at the ranking points awarded, you'd find that the points awarded to different accompishments are rather alike.

It's just the nature of the more evened out field in the ATP that it's highly unlike that there would be a player like Kim making 15/16 SF, yet not winning a slam.

 

[Sam L]

The ranking system said Lindsay deserved to be number one at the end of the year, not me, asshole.

Um...you said it not me. So why can't you accept the same thing with Martina in 2000 or Kim now? Can't you see how stupid you sound?

 

[Sam L]

It is good to throw names around when one doesn't have the capacity to debate the thread topic.

It's because you don't have the capacity to debate that I throw names only you're worthy of around. I'm not going to let this die if you want, I'll ask the board on who's right in this thread.

YOU WANT A SHOWDOWN? YOU GOT IT! BRING IT ON!

 

[per4ever]

Kim has collected more points, so it means something Justine might have won the most important titles: 2 GS's, but everyone forgets that Kim reached the final in both those slams too!!

Justine will become number one eventually, but Kim has still more points atm and she should be given credit for that.

 

[Sam L]

This is where you went wrong buddy:

The reason why Lindsay ended up number one instead of Jennifer is that Jennifer went out in the second round of the Y/E Championships that year while Lindsay got to the final. Had the results been reversed or they played each other in the final and Jennifer won, she would have ended the year at number one.

Venus couldn't be considered a factor for the number one spot because she only played 12 tournaments (though she would have played 15 if not for the September 11 terrorist attacks) and she missed the Y/E Championships due to injury.

The reason why Martina ended #1 in 2000 was because Venus was injured in the first half of the year and she only played like what 9 tournaments a year? EVERYBODY knew that. So why was there a controversy in 2000 but not in 2001? It's the same situation. EVERYBODY knew why they were #1, but why did only Martina got the heat?

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DELETING THIS THREAD, I GOT IT ALL SAVED, AND AM GOING TO BRING IT UP AGAIN AND AGAIN TO MAKE AN ASS OUT OF YOU, UNDERSTAND?

 

[Chance]

wow Sam L, you really have let certain fans get to you.....

 

[Rollo]

Henin will be #1 be year's end. She already has more points this year than Kim and Justine has only entered 14 events to Kim's 16.

The bottom line is Clijsters has to repeat as the winner of the WTA finals to have a shot at staying #1.