Would you rather win Wimbledon, "OR" get the number one tennis ranking? Not both.

[Dan26]

So, would you rather win Wimbledon, OR get the number one ranking in the world. Not both; one or the other.

What would mean more to you?

Would winning the biggest tournament mean more to you.

Or, would obtaining the number one ranking and being the best player in the world mean more?

 

[bongo fattymonks]

i'd rather bugger anna kournikova

 

[Carey=Queen]

No offence meant, but I couldnt give a shit about Tennis

 

[JUBJUB]

Well first of all I'd have to learn how to play tennis

,but I'd prefer number 1.

If your 1 you would of earn't a fair bit of money so you could phone 'John the Bookie' and he'd fix it so I could win Wimbledon.

------------------
"You will respect my Authoritah "

 

[Dan26]

Personally, I'd rather get the number ONE ranking.

 

[Mags]

Number one ranking and play doubles with Anna!

 

[eastaugh36]

Most people would rather win wimbledon, your name would forever be in tennis history as its the greatest tournament there is.
Mags, I would have a better chance with Anna than you I can assure you

 

[bongo fattymonks]

no way man
bongo fattymonks already has anna tied up and in the bag

 

[Dan26]

Eastaugh,

If you get the world number one ranking, your name will forever be among a list of players who have been number one.

I guarantee less players have been world number one than there have been players who have won any of the 4 Grand slams.

It's a more exclusive club.

 

[Frodo]

Watching tennis sux but

For being remembered.......Wimbledon

For Money...........Being Number 1

 

[DEES RULE!]

actually i would rather talk about footy! thanks!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Frodo:
Watching tennis sux but

For being remembered.......Wimbledon

For Money...........Being Number 1

What about for the honour of actually being "THE BEST" ?

Doesn't that count?

 

[eastaugh36]

dan, more people could recall who won wimbledon in a certain year than who was number 1 for any period of time in that year,number 1 changes often, whereas wimbledon is won only once a year

 

[Aussie_Roo]

I'm not really that much into tennis, but if I were talented enough to play the game I'd rather win Wimbledon. It is the number 1 tournament that all tennis stars aim to win due to it's tradition etc.. I know that Sampras is the reigning Wimbledon Champion, but I had no idea that the guy Kurtain (??) was the number 1 until the other night.

 

[Dan26]

What's your point?

You've still got to be the best to be number one. You don't have to be the best to win Wimbledon.......even though the "moment" of winning is fabulous.

 

[Mags]

Easty u been whacking ya self to hard lately havent u?

U think ur gods gift to chicks thats fine by me coz i really dont give a shit.

 

[Dan26]

I think it's fair to say that Kuertan is one of the less "well known" number one's. Most number ones are far more well-known. Kuertan is an excpetion.



[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 20 January 2001).]

 

[eastaugh36]

thas good mags at least we have that clear

 

[Hawkforce.]

Being number one means playing more tournaments.

Winning Wimbledon means beating Sampras/Agassi/Kafelnikov/Rafter etc...

I love how you are SO wrong about SO MANY things, Dan.

 

[Dan26]

Uh, Hawkforce.

That is a STUPID comment. I will prove it.

First of all to win Wimbledon, you don't necessarily have to beat Sampras, Agassi etc. One loss puts you out so someone else could knock them out before you play them.

Look at the list of world number one's which include Agassi, Sampras etc. To be number ONE you have to beat just as many, if not MORE top players. To get to number one you have to CONSISTETLY progress to the end of most tournaments, including Grand Slams. Grand Slams are worth more ranking points - much more.

So, to get number one you have to beat all those top players in order to get to the end of tournaments, in order to get number 1 !!!!

See ?

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Dan24:
What's your point?

You've still got to be the best to be number one. You don't have to be the best to win Wimbledon.......even though the "moment" of winning is fabulous.

You could decide to play only one or two tornements. Maybe Wimbledon and US open and win both. You would not be ranked No1 but chances are that you would be the best

 

[Hawkforce.]

Originally posted by Dan24:
Uh, Hawkforce.

That is a STUPID comment. I will prove it.


See ?

The above statement is patently false.

Ask the players Dan... in fact, ask Kuerten.

It's like asking footy players "is it better to finish top of the ladder OR win the grandfinal"

You, at least, should understand THAT analogy!

 

[Aussie_Roo]

Originally posted by Dan24:
What's your point?
You've still got to be the best to be number one. You don't have to be the best to win Wimbledon.......even though the "moment" of winning is fabulous.[/

B]

My point is recognition - it is easier to remember who wins Wimbledon, then to know who the number 1 is, as it changes on a regular basis.


From my understanding, you can be the best clay court player in the world and win all your tournaments on clay, but play like shit on grass / hardcourt etc.. and because you have accumulated a whole swag of points from the clay court tournaments can become World Number 1. Appears to be a little inconsistent to me.

Dan, you mentioned that you don't have to be the best to win Wimbledon. Of course, the best player wins the tournament - they are the only ones that are undefeated.

 

[ant]

I'd much rather win Wimbledon, strangely, for the reasons that Easty pointed out.

------------------
My mother always said not to be a know-it-all and I have never let her down.

 

[StrengthThroughLoyalty]

No. 1 for me. To have put in all the time and effort and reach the pinacle of being the best in world, would be the greatest achievment.

Reaching no.1 means you have won all over the world on all types of surfaces. Winning wimbledon may mean you are just a grass court specialist.