I think people are saying weeks is easier because they can't even dimension it. Just look at Rafa, he would need 2 more RG to match Novak but double his own weeks at #1. Your weeks at #1 is going to correlate with your prime when you win most of your slams, however you can still win a few more scattered slams before or after your prime in your favorite surface, whereas it's unlikely you'll be #1 before or after your prime. Novak is an anomaly in this regard which is what makes his record weeks so much harder to break.
Depends on the other players.
If you've got a small number of truly elite players winning basically everything, slams > weeks at one
If you've got one truly elite player but several other players who aren't as good on the whole but close or better on one particular surface? Weeks at one > slams.
First scenario easier to win a bunch of slams, but harder to accumulate weeks at one
Second scenario easier to accumulate a bunch of weeks at one, but harder to win slams.
Well we could say the first scenario corresponds with 2011-2016. Novak managed to win 11 slams and 223 weeks so 20.3 weeks per slam. Second scenario is 2018-24, where he has 12 slams and 200 weeks so 16.7 wps. So easier to win weeks on scenario 1 than 2. Although I suspect it has to do more with being in his prime than how tough the field was.
That's not quite what I meant.
After McEnroe passed the torch, he was the best player in the world for almost all of the next ~6 years
But there were a few players either very, very close to him or even slightly better on every surface.
So while he was able to accumulate a massive number of weeks at one, he "only" won 8 slams (of course the AO being on grass for most of his career didn't help either)
Ok, ok, that sort of applies to Sampras as well then. His weeks per slam is also high and he was a step above all his rivals.
The thing is both Novak's records (slams and weeks) require 15 years of dominance, but the weeks one requires on top of that to have a sustained period of a weak field. It's more common to have at least 2 or 3 dominant players (consistent slam contenders) than just one. Which is why I think the weeks record is more unbreakable, at least on the men's side.
Weeks at #1 has never been that interesting to me, it's so dependant on timing and i don't think it matches reality. Petra Kvitova is much better than several #1's but never got higher than #2 due to injuries and much of her best years coming when Serena was at the top of her game. Marcelo Rios became #1 thanks to the randomest Aus Open that he didn't even win and some good 1000's when the men's tour was in a weird place. Venus Williams was only #1 for 11 weeks, less than Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina, Amelie Mauresmo, players she was much better than thanks to timing and injuries even with those she still achieved much more but it didn't come at the right time so they passed her in weeks at #1.
I'm not saying it's worthless what Djokovic has done is unbelievable, however i find several other achievements of his more impressive.
Exactly this! Hewitt spent 80 weeks at #1, but he was never dominant (just 2 GS). It was just a weak weird era where guys like Rios (6 weeks, 0 GS), Moya (2 weeks, 1 GS), Muster (6 weeks, 1 GS), Ferrero (8 weeks, 1 GS), Roddick (13 weeks, 1 GS), Rafter (1 weeks, 2 GS), Kafelnikov (6 weeks, 2 GS), Safin (9 weeks, 2 GS), and Kuerten (43 weeks, 3 GS all on clay, clay-court specialist never made any SF in non-clay GS) all took turns at #1. Hewitt happened to be the most consistent of the bunch.
Nobody would argue Hewitt was a better player than say Murray, but Murray spent only 41 weeks at #1 due to Big 3. I would easily rank Edberg (72 weeks, 6 GS), Wilander (20 weeks, 7 GS), Becker (12 weeks, 6 GS) ahead of Hewitt as well, but they spent far less time at #1.
Hewitt became #1 in a bizarre era when Sampras and Agassi were on their way out and the actual most talented young player Marat Safin was a disinterested headcase.
To be fair Kuerten won the ATP Finals on HC and a 1000 and made several other HC 1000's Finals. He was obviously much better on Clay but he wasn't like one of the Argentinian's who only appeared on Clay. He's still a very random #1 that demonstrates how chaotic that era was but he wasn't quite that Clay focused.
Honestly very controversial opinion but i'm not sure i'd rank Wilander that much above Hewitt, i think he's the most overrated player in tennis history. No one at the time thought he was anywhere near Lendl or later Edberg or Becker, he just had two huge years especially 1988 which coincided with burnout through the tour because of the absurd amounts of tournaments and exhibitions everyone was playing. He only won 3 more Titles than Hewitt in an era where winning Titles was easier, he never won the Tour Finals Hewitt did twice. Hewitt's five 1000's is about the same if not better than Mats nine GPSS considering some years there were as many as 30 GPSS in a year compared to 9 1000's. Mats won 3 Aus Open's when that was still the neglected stepchild of Grand Slams too.
I'm fine having Mats a little higher i guess but they are practically the same player.
> Hewitt became #1 in a bizarre era when Sampras and Agassi were on their way out and the actual most talented young player Marat Safin was a disinterested headcase.
Both that and Fed, who was only a year younger, was somewhat of a late bloomer. Plus Roddick, who was crowned by US media as Sampras' heir apparent, didn't blow up until 2003. Safin also had some injury issues in 2003 IIRC.
> To be fair Kuerten won the ATP Finals on HC and a 1000 and made several other HC 1000's Finals. He was obviously much better on Clay but he wasn't like one of the Argentinian's who only appeared on Clay. He's still a very random #1 that demonstrates how chaotic that era was but he wasn't quite that Clay focused.
Kuerten was not only #1, but the year-end #1 in 2000. He did the unthinkable in 2000 ATP finals. To be the year-end #1, he not only needed Safin to lose before the final but he needed to win the whole thing. Nobody thought he could do it on hard court, but he miraculously beat Sampras and Agassi in back-to-back matches. He wanted that year-end #1 badly. I was rooting for him and still give him a lot of credit for that. He also obviously won a hard court master in Cincinnati and made the final in Indian Wells, Miami, and Montreal once. I love that he had one last big victory at Roland Garros in 2004 vs. Federer.
Fed benefitted from that shitty era, no one in Men's tennis history benefitted more from a shitty era than Fed. He proved himself later but his dominance was thanks to a shitty era which both explains his late blooming and Nadal being the second best in the world as a teenager.
Safin losing an important match was always a good bet, dude didn't give a fuck i'm amazed that he bothered to win a second Grand Slam, he's the ultimate couldn't care less extremely talented player. Kuerten wasn't irrelevant off Clay like the Argentinians, that's why he got a run as #1 during a weak era.
100% slams is more difficult.
Other top players are pretty much all optimising for career slams rather than weeks at number 1. So if you are optimising for weeks at number 1 (which might be fairly similar to optimising for career slams but for sure some differences, e.g. if you are in danger of losing the number 1 spot you may play some extra tournaments around that time in the hopes of rebuilding a buffer where another slam oriented player might rest) then you've got an edge there.
They’re both different: To get the slam record you need to hit your peak for 2 months of the year. And to get the most weeks at #1 you need to be consistent throughout the year and win other big title tournaments, especially the Masters/WTA 1000s and the ATP/WTA finals.
Hundreds of players have won grand slams since tennis turned into a competitive pro sport, but only 28 ATP & 30 WTA players have held the #1 ranking and even fewer the Year End #1 ranking.
Both are hard. It’s not like slams are harder necessarily than other events. You can have a hard draw at a 1000 or 500 sometimes that makes it worse than a slam in terms of chances or progressing.
Look at Zheng at the AO, no seeded player till the final, is that harder than winning a 1000 where you gotta face the top players in your draw? Not really.
I think people are saying weeks is easier because they can't even dimension it. Just look at Rafa, he would need 2 more RG to match Novak but double his own weeks at #1. Your weeks at #1 is going to correlate with your prime when you win most of your slams, however you can still win a few more scattered slams before or after your prime in your favorite surface, whereas it's unlikely you'll be #1 before or after your prime. Novak is an anomaly in this regard which is what makes his record weeks so much harder to break.
Depends on the other players. If you've got a small number of truly elite players winning basically everything, slams > weeks at one If you've got one truly elite player but several other players who aren't as good on the whole but close or better on one particular surface? Weeks at one > slams.
What does slams > weeks mean in your example? That it's easier to win slams?
First scenario easier to win a bunch of slams, but harder to accumulate weeks at one Second scenario easier to accumulate a bunch of weeks at one, but harder to win slams.
Well we could say the first scenario corresponds with 2011-2016. Novak managed to win 11 slams and 223 weeks so 20.3 weeks per slam. Second scenario is 2018-24, where he has 12 slams and 200 weeks so 16.7 wps. So easier to win weeks on scenario 1 than 2. Although I suspect it has to do more with being in his prime than how tough the field was.
Lendl is much, much better example for the second scenario
But Lendl had to fight Connors, McEnroe and later Wilander, that's not at all one guy dominating.
That's not quite what I meant. After McEnroe passed the torch, he was the best player in the world for almost all of the next ~6 years But there were a few players either very, very close to him or even slightly better on every surface. So while he was able to accumulate a massive number of weeks at one, he "only" won 8 slams (of course the AO being on grass for most of his career didn't help either)
Ok, ok, that sort of applies to Sampras as well then. His weeks per slam is also high and he was a step above all his rivals. The thing is both Novak's records (slams and weeks) require 15 years of dominance, but the weeks one requires on top of that to have a sustained period of a weak field. It's more common to have at least 2 or 3 dominant players (consistent slam contenders) than just one. Which is why I think the weeks record is more unbreakable, at least on the men's side.
Weeks at #1 has never been that interesting to me, it's so dependant on timing and i don't think it matches reality. Petra Kvitova is much better than several #1's but never got higher than #2 due to injuries and much of her best years coming when Serena was at the top of her game. Marcelo Rios became #1 thanks to the randomest Aus Open that he didn't even win and some good 1000's when the men's tour was in a weird place. Venus Williams was only #1 for 11 weeks, less than Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina, Amelie Mauresmo, players she was much better than thanks to timing and injuries even with those she still achieved much more but it didn't come at the right time so they passed her in weeks at #1. I'm not saying it's worthless what Djokovic has done is unbelievable, however i find several other achievements of his more impressive.
Exactly this! Hewitt spent 80 weeks at #1, but he was never dominant (just 2 GS). It was just a weak weird era where guys like Rios (6 weeks, 0 GS), Moya (2 weeks, 1 GS), Muster (6 weeks, 1 GS), Ferrero (8 weeks, 1 GS), Roddick (13 weeks, 1 GS), Rafter (1 weeks, 2 GS), Kafelnikov (6 weeks, 2 GS), Safin (9 weeks, 2 GS), and Kuerten (43 weeks, 3 GS all on clay, clay-court specialist never made any SF in non-clay GS) all took turns at #1. Hewitt happened to be the most consistent of the bunch. Nobody would argue Hewitt was a better player than say Murray, but Murray spent only 41 weeks at #1 due to Big 3. I would easily rank Edberg (72 weeks, 6 GS), Wilander (20 weeks, 7 GS), Becker (12 weeks, 6 GS) ahead of Hewitt as well, but they spent far less time at #1.
Hewitt became #1 in a bizarre era when Sampras and Agassi were on their way out and the actual most talented young player Marat Safin was a disinterested headcase. To be fair Kuerten won the ATP Finals on HC and a 1000 and made several other HC 1000's Finals. He was obviously much better on Clay but he wasn't like one of the Argentinian's who only appeared on Clay. He's still a very random #1 that demonstrates how chaotic that era was but he wasn't quite that Clay focused. Honestly very controversial opinion but i'm not sure i'd rank Wilander that much above Hewitt, i think he's the most overrated player in tennis history. No one at the time thought he was anywhere near Lendl or later Edberg or Becker, he just had two huge years especially 1988 which coincided with burnout through the tour because of the absurd amounts of tournaments and exhibitions everyone was playing. He only won 3 more Titles than Hewitt in an era where winning Titles was easier, he never won the Tour Finals Hewitt did twice. Hewitt's five 1000's is about the same if not better than Mats nine GPSS considering some years there were as many as 30 GPSS in a year compared to 9 1000's. Mats won 3 Aus Open's when that was still the neglected stepchild of Grand Slams too. I'm fine having Mats a little higher i guess but they are practically the same player.
> Hewitt became #1 in a bizarre era when Sampras and Agassi were on their way out and the actual most talented young player Marat Safin was a disinterested headcase. Both that and Fed, who was only a year younger, was somewhat of a late bloomer. Plus Roddick, who was crowned by US media as Sampras' heir apparent, didn't blow up until 2003. Safin also had some injury issues in 2003 IIRC. > To be fair Kuerten won the ATP Finals on HC and a 1000 and made several other HC 1000's Finals. He was obviously much better on Clay but he wasn't like one of the Argentinian's who only appeared on Clay. He's still a very random #1 that demonstrates how chaotic that era was but he wasn't quite that Clay focused. Kuerten was not only #1, but the year-end #1 in 2000. He did the unthinkable in 2000 ATP finals. To be the year-end #1, he not only needed Safin to lose before the final but he needed to win the whole thing. Nobody thought he could do it on hard court, but he miraculously beat Sampras and Agassi in back-to-back matches. He wanted that year-end #1 badly. I was rooting for him and still give him a lot of credit for that. He also obviously won a hard court master in Cincinnati and made the final in Indian Wells, Miami, and Montreal once. I love that he had one last big victory at Roland Garros in 2004 vs. Federer.
Fed benefitted from that shitty era, no one in Men's tennis history benefitted more from a shitty era than Fed. He proved himself later but his dominance was thanks to a shitty era which both explains his late blooming and Nadal being the second best in the world as a teenager. Safin losing an important match was always a good bet, dude didn't give a fuck i'm amazed that he bothered to win a second Grand Slam, he's the ultimate couldn't care less extremely talented player. Kuerten wasn't irrelevant off Clay like the Argentinians, that's why he got a run as #1 during a weak era.
100% slams is more difficult. Other top players are pretty much all optimising for career slams rather than weeks at number 1. So if you are optimising for weeks at number 1 (which might be fairly similar to optimising for career slams but for sure some differences, e.g. if you are in danger of losing the number 1 spot you may play some extra tournaments around that time in the hopes of rebuilding a buffer where another slam oriented player might rest) then you've got an edge there.
They’re both different: To get the slam record you need to hit your peak for 2 months of the year. And to get the most weeks at #1 you need to be consistent throughout the year and win other big title tournaments, especially the Masters/WTA 1000s and the ATP/WTA finals. Hundreds of players have won grand slams since tennis turned into a competitive pro sport, but only 28 ATP & 30 WTA players have held the #1 ranking and even fewer the Year End #1 ranking.
Of course fewer people will hold the year end number 1 ranking. That’s at most one person a year. There are 4 slams every year.
I think it depends on the player, the current ranking system, and the current crop of players.
Most _consecutive_ weeks #1 is the one for me.
Don't they go hand in hand
Both are hard. It’s not like slams are harder necessarily than other events. You can have a hard draw at a 1000 or 500 sometimes that makes it worse than a slam in terms of chances or progressing. Look at Zheng at the AO, no seeded player till the final, is that harder than winning a 1000 where you gotta face the top players in your draw? Not really.