Topic: How Many Weeks at #1 is Worth One Slam?

[swish]

Number of slams is the best stat that determines how great a player is.
 
Another stat, weeks at #1, is also another stat that's highly important.
 
If someone has 4 slams and 1 year at #1, is this as good as someone who has 3 slams and 3 years at #1?
 
There has to be a point where a certain number of weeks is equal to a slam.
 
I'll start it off by saying a nice round number of 52 weeks is equal to a slam.
 
Discuss.
 

[Alex]

interesting thread Swish. I think that staying as long at #1 simply shows your consistency/overall quality compared to the field in a long run. it's hard. we tennis lovers don't sometimes understand how difficult is to be and stay on top of the world.

[jesse james]

Counting slams has consistently been the measure of greatness in the top players. Weeks at no1 is a secondary measure-though it only has any real utility when applied to players who's slam tally is very close.

[Freak3yman84]

Rios had 6 weeks at number one with no slams...


So we can safely assume >6 weeks = a slam. Let's go with 7.

[swish]

Rios had 6 weeks at number one with no slams...


So we can safely assume >6 weeks = a slam. Let's go with 7.

Lets give him a 500 tournament. That's about right.
 

[swish]

Counting slams has consistently been the measure of greatness in the top players. Weeks at no1 is a secondary measure-though it only has any real utility when applied to players who's slam tally is very close.

One player has 8 slams and 200 weeks, one has 10 slams 100 weeks. About equal?
 
 

[Dallas]

I think getting #1 in the ATP is a lot more worth than...say...getting to #1 in the WTA.  It's very difficult to get to #1 in the ATP without a slam (although it has happened), but not as many times as it did in the WTA.  WTA tournaments stay the same (best of 3 sets)...so it's easy to just keep playing a lot of tournaments to get points.  Back in the 'day'...the Master's event finals (and even some 500 series finals) were best of 5, as well as all the slams, so it took the men much more to get to #1.  They really had to 'earn it'.  Personally, I still think the slams should count for a lot more than the #1 ranking because after your career, many folks will always remember your slam total...not necessarily your #1 weeks ranking total.  So I wouldn't even count #1 weeks worth a slam.  I definitely wouldn't count Caroline's weeks as a #1 player worth a slam.  She has to EARN a slam!

[Litotes]

Counting slams has consistently been the measure of greatness in the top players. Weeks at no1 is a secondary measure-though it only has any real utility when applied to players who's slam tally is very close.

One player has 8 slams and 200 weeks, one has 10 slams 100 weeks. About equal?

Which ones are you thinking about? Lendl had 270 weeks with 8 slams. Noone has 10 slams, unless you're thinking Bill Tilden in the 20s long before rankings.

[masterclass]

Hmm, I don't know about the validity of this comparison.  These days, it's very difficult to get to #1 now without winning at least 1 major.  But winning 1 major doesn't guarantee you #1.  It depends how much competition one has for #1, or if there is a dominant player at #1 and also how many other lesser (below slam) tournaments are being won by you or the competitors.

Let's just take last year as a small example. 4 players had 1 major, but one player was number 1 for 35 weeks (Djokovic) and 1 other (Federer) was #1 for 17 weeks and Nadal and Murray did not make it to #1.  Now a bulk of Djokovic's weeks at #1 until July, were due to him actually winning 3 majors in that period (Wimbledon 2011, US Open 2011, AO 2012).  However Federer's 17 weeks were due to him winning only 1 major (Wimbledon 2012), but getting 8 other titles during that period including 4 masters and a Master's cup which are worth about 2.5 majors in points.  So the point is, though it's difficult to get to #1 today without winning a major, other titles, especially masters, can also be beneficial in getting to or keeping one at #1.

Per your suggestion of 52 weeks at #1 = 1 major...  I think that is high. It should be fewer weeks.

Jimmy Connors had 268 weeks at #1, which would be about 5 majors per given suggestion. He had 8 majors so about 33 wks/major.
Borg's 109 weeks at #1, about 2 majors, yet in reality he got 11 or about 10 weeks/major

Federer's 302 weeks is worth about 6 majors, but in reality he has 17 or about 18 weeks/major.

Wilander only had 20 weeks at #1, yet he won 7 majors or only 3 weeks/major.

Becker had 12 weeks at #1, yet won 6 majors, 2 weeks/major.

Rafter won 2 majors but only had 1 week at #1.

I guess I would just keep them as separate accomplishments rather than trying to equate them.

Respectfully,
masterclass

[swish]

Dividing weeks by majors I haven't considered.
 
The two stats I wanted to combine to give a career strength indicator.
A measurement of career strength = slams + (weeks at #1)/X.  X = 52 to start out with.
 
I'll have to go through a few top players, do a calculation with the variable being 52 and adjust that number to match the general consensus of a players all time rank.
Not sure if it will work out till I start plugging in the numbers.
 
 

[masterclass]

Dividing weeks by majors I haven't considered.
 
The two stats I wanted to combine to give a career strength indicator.
A measurement of career strength = slams + (weeks at #1)/X.  X = 52 to start out with.
 
I'll have to go through a few top players, do a calculation with the variable being 52 and adjust that number to match the general consensus of a players all time rank.
Not sure if it will work out till I start plugging in the numbers.

Ok.. Sir Swish. I admire your effort and good luck. I think I understand what you are trying to do, but I don't know if it can be simplified this much. The relative competition factor can influence each individual number so that sometimes winning majors leads to many weeks at #1, while at other times it leads to 0 weeks.  I can't see any rule for that, it just varies.

Example:
Federer was #1 for a total 285 weeks between Feb 2004 and early June 2010 (prior to RG result) based on 15 majors won, and Nadal was #1 for 46 weeks during that time period between Aug 2008-Jul 2009.  Nadal's first 3 majors at RG did not contribute to his #1 ranking at all, but his next 3 majors (RG2008, WC2008, AO2009) assured it.  So 3 majors got him 0 weeks at #1, because Federer was winning almost everything except RG then. And then the next 3 majors got Nadal 46 weeks at #1. 

Federer: 19 weeks/major - all of his majors contributed to his weeks at #1
Nadal: 15 weeks/major - only 3 of his first 6 majors contributed to his first 46 weeks at #1.
Nadal had 56 additional weeks at #1 Jun2010-Jul2011 where 4 more majors contributed or 14 weeks/major

Becker's 12 weeks at #1 (3 weeks Jan-Feb1991, and 9 weeks Jul1991-Sep1991) were based on 1 major (AO1991)!
His 5 other majors gave him 0 weeks at #1, even though he won 2 in a row, the 1989 Wimbledon and US Open!  Lendl somehow managed to stay #1 from Jan 1989 to Aug 1990 (80 weeks) winning just the AO in 89 and 90, or 40 weeks/major.  So Lendl obviously did better overall in more tournaments than Becker during that time.

Respectfully,
masterclass

[Orange Wombat]

Sometimes weeks at No.1 is a burden. Example: Caroline Pushniacki.

That's why I have a formula: Once player has won 1 slam, 5 weeks at number 1 equals 1 slam.

[swish]

Sometimes weeks at No.1 is a burden. Example: Caroline Pushniacki.

That's why I have a formula: Once player has won 1 slam, 5 weeks at number 1 equals 1 slam.

 
That would give Fed 300/5 or 60 additional slams. 
 
Sounds about right. 

[Tennis4you]

Weeks at number one mean very little to me.  Slam wins is the biggie. 

[swish]

Dividing weeks by majors I haven't considered.
 
The two stats I wanted to combine to give a career strength indicator.
A measurement of career strength = slams + (weeks at #1)/X.  X = 52 to start out with.
 
I'll have to go through a few top players, do a calculation with the variable being 52 and adjust that number to match the general consensus of a players all time rank.
Not sure if it will work out till I start plugging in the numbers.

Ok.. Sir Swish. I admire your effort and good luck. I think I understand what you are trying to do, but I don't know if it can be simplified this much. The relative competition factor can influence each individual number so that sometimes winning majors leads to many weeks at #1, while at other times it leads to 0 weeks.  I can't see any rule for that, it just varies.

Example:
Federer was #1 for a total 285 weeks between Feb 2004 and early June 2010 (prior to RG result) based on 15 majors won, and Nadal was #1 for 46 weeks during that time period between Aug 2008-Jul 2009.  Nadal's first 3 majors at RG did not contribute to his #1 ranking at all, but his next 3 majors (RG2008, WC2008, AO2009) assured it.  So 3 majors got him 0 weeks at #1, because Federer was winning almost everything except RG then. And then the next 3 majors got Nadal 46 weeks at #1. 

Federer: 19 weeks/major - all of his majors contributed to his weeks at #1
Nadal: 15 weeks/major - only 3 of his first 6 majors contributed to his first 46 weeks at #1.
Nadal had 56 additional weeks at #1 Jun2010-Jul2011 where 4 more majors contributed or 14 weeks/major

Becker's 12 weeks at #1 (3 weeks Jan-Feb1991, and 9 weeks Jul1991-Sep1991) were based on 1 major (AO1991)!
His 5 other majors gave him 0 weeks at #1, even though he won 2 in a row, the 1989 Wimbledon and US Open!  Lendl somehow managed to stay #1 from Jan 1989 to Aug 1990 (80 weeks) winning just the AO in 89 and 90, or 40 weeks/major.  So Lendl obviously did better overall in more tournaments than Becker during that time.

Respectfully,
masterclass

This isn't much effort.
I see how your trying to determine how slams contribute to #1, that won't matter much.
 
If you don't win slams then you won something else so it's all about points no matter what tournament level you use to get there being slams, wtf, masters and so on.
Dividing weeks at #1 is interesting but has little use here. 
 
 
 
Who's next!
 
 

[Alex]

Weeks at number one mean very little to me.  Slam wins is the biggie.

that's because you've never had a week at #1. On the other hand you haven't won a slam either ... hm, what was I trying to say here? 

[swish]

Weeks at number one mean very little to me.  Slam wins is the biggie.

that's because you've never had a week at #1. On the other hand you haven't won a slam either ... hm, what was I trying to say here? 

Alex, why did you chase Emma away?   

[swish]

Weeks at number one mean very little to me.  Slam wins is the biggie.

that's because you've never had a week at #1. On the other hand you haven't won a slam either ... hm, what was I trying to say here? 

Besides, this isn't about what is liked or not liked. 
 

[Alex]

Weeks at number one mean very little to me.  Slam wins is the biggie.

that's because you've never had a week at #1. On the other hand you haven't won a slam either ... hm, what was I trying to say here? 

Alex, why did you chase Emma away?   

What can I say? I gave her all of my love, but she was so vain and pretentious. She has bigger ego than the GOAT Tomic himself. the only problem is she has never won anything in her life. If you dare to disagree with her, it's like 'God help you' ... If you think like her, she loves you, if you disagree and challenge her, she hates you. I still love her, and miss her. She'll be back ... maybe if Scott changes this board to 'Murray4you'   ...

EMMA COME BACK, I LOVE YA 

[swish]

Weeks at number one mean very little to me.  Slam wins is the biggie.

that's because you've never had a week at #1. On the other hand you haven't won a slam either ... hm, what was I trying to say here? 

Alex, why did you chase Emma away?   

What can I say? I gave her all of my love, but she was so vain and pretentious. She has bigger ego than the GOAT Tomic himself. the only problem is she has never won anything in her life. If you dare to disagree with her, it's like 'God help you' ... If you think like her, she loves you, if you disagree and challenge her, she hates you. I still love her, and miss her. She'll be back ... maybe if Scott changes this board to 'Murray4you'    ...

EMMA COME BACK, I LOVE YA 

Could be she doesn't care much.
Or now knows she won't be left alone like the rest of the posters.
Maybe tired of the game.
 
It's good she's gone, tired of the back and forth crap.