"real weeks at #1" with modifications

"real weeks at #1" with modifications

Post by stephen » Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:37:41


Some of you pointed out that one problem with translating the 2-slam
rule into weeks is that it arbitrarily gives more weeks to some
slam-segments than others because the slams aren't equally distributed
throughout the year. Thus a guy with 2 slams from USO to AO gets credit
for 22 or so weeks, but a guy with 2 slams from W to USO gets credit for
just 9 weeks, even though the accomplishment is the same.

Thus, one way to address that is something i did back in 2005: use
slam-segments instead of weeks, such that the USO-AO gap equals 1 slam
segment, as does the FO-W gap. So that we get a normalized comparison.

Also, some complained that my system means that sometimes there is no
#1, which some around here find problematic. Thus, include a second list
which uses Wimbledon as a TB. That is, when all the slams are split 4
ways, the W winner is #1.

So first, the pure 2-slams or more list. These are the number of
slam-segments that a player was #1, in that he had 2 slams while no one
else did:

1) Federer:................... 23
2) Borg:...................... 13
3) Sampras:................... 12
4) Connors:.................... 8
5 tie) Mac/Agassi:............. 7
7 tie) Lendl/Laver:............ 6
9 tie Wilander/Courier:........ 5
11 tie) Becker/Newk/Rosewall: ..3
13 tie) Nastase/Vilas: .........2
15) Hewitt: ....................1

Now, with credit given for #1 if a player held the W title and the slams
were split 4 ways (or if 2 guys had 2 slams). Now, there is no gap,
someone is always #1:

1) Federer:.... 24
2) Sampras:.... 23
3) Borg: .......18
4) Mac: ........12
5) Connors: .... 9
6) Agassi: ..... 8
7) Becker: ..... 7
8) Laver/Newk .. 6
10) Edberg/Mats/Courier: ... 5
13) Ashe/Goran/Hewitt/Nadal ..4

--
.. the profiteers are a consequence not
a cause of rising prices.

- JM Keynes

 
 
 

"real weeks at #1" with modifications

Post by stephen » Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:39:51

Quote:

> Some of you pointed out that one problem with translating the 2-slam
> rule into weeks is that it arbitrarily gives more weeks to some
> slam-segments than others because the slams aren't equally distributed
> throughout the year. Thus a guy with 2 slams from USO to AO gets credit
> for 22 or so weeks, but a guy with 2 slams from W to USO gets credit for
> just 9 weeks, even though the accomplishment is the same.

> Thus, one way to address that is something i did back in 2005: use
> slam-segments instead of weeks, such that the USO-AO gap equals 1 slam
> segment, as does the FO-W gap. So that we get a normalized comparison.

> Also, some complained that my system means that sometimes there is no
> #1, which some around here find problematic. Thus, include a second list
> which uses Wimbledon as a TB. That is, when all the slams are split 4
> ways, the W winner is #1.

> So first, the pure 2-slams or more list. These are the number of
> slam-segments that a player was #1, in that he had 2 slams while no one
> else did:

> 1) Federer:................... 23
> 2) Borg:...................... 13
> 3) Sampras:................... 12
> 4) Connors:.................... 8
> 5 tie) Mac/Agassi:............. 7
> 7 tie) Lendl/Laver:............ 6
> 9 tie Wilander/Courier:........ 5
> 11 tie) Becker/Newk/Rosewall: ..3
> 13 tie) Nastase/Vilas: .........2
> 15) Hewitt: ....................1

> Now, with credit given for #1 if a player held the W title and the slams
> were split 4 ways (or if 2 guys had 2 slams). Now, there is no gap,
> someone is always #1:

> 1) Federer:.... 24
> 2) Sampras:.... 23
> 3) Borg: .......18
> 4) Mac: ........12
> 5) Connors: .... 9
> 6) Agassi: ..... 8
> 7) Becker: ..... 7
> 8) Laver/Newk .. 6

Lendl also has 6, tied with Laver/Newk.

--
I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
had left the building.

- Bob Dylan

 
 
 

"real weeks at #1" with modifications

Post by *skripti » Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:47:15


Quote:

>> Some of you pointed out that one problem with translating the 2-slam rule
>> into weeks is that it arbitrarily gives more weeks to some slam-segments
>> than others because the slams aren't equally distributed throughout the
>> year. Thus a guy with 2 slams from USO to AO gets credit for 22 or so
>> weeks, but a guy with 2 slams from W to USO gets credit for just 9 weeks,
>> even though the accomplishment is the same.

>> Thus, one way to address that is something i did back in 2005: use
>> slam-segments instead of weeks, such that the USO-AO gap equals 1 slam
>> segment, as does the FO-W gap. So that we get a normalized comparison.

>> Also, some complained that my system means that sometimes there is no #1,
>> which some around here find problematic. Thus, include a second list
>> which uses Wimbledon as a TB. That is, when all the slams are split 4
>> ways, the W winner is #1.

>> So first, the pure 2-slams or more list. These are the number of
>> slam-segments that a player was #1, in that he had 2 slams while no one
>> else did:

>> 1) Federer:................... 23
>> 2) Borg:...................... 13
>> 3) Sampras:................... 12
>> 4) Connors:.................... 8
>> 5 tie) Mac/Agassi:............. 7
>> 7 tie) Lendl/Laver:............ 6
>> 9 tie Wilander/Courier:........ 5
>> 11 tie) Becker/Newk/Rosewall: ..3
>> 13 tie) Nastase/Vilas: .........2
>> 15) Hewitt: ....................1

>> Now, with credit given for #1 if a player held the W title and the slams
>> were split 4 ways (or if 2 guys had 2 slams). Now, there is no gap,
>> someone is always #1:

>> 1) Federer:.... 24
>> 2) Sampras:.... 23
>> 3) Borg: .......18
>> 4) Mac: ........12
>> 5) Connors: .... 9
>> 6) Agassi: ..... 8
>> 7) Becker: ..... 7
>> 8) Laver/Newk .. 6

> Lendl also has 6, tied with Laver/Newk.

This second is ok, but isn't this exactly what 7543 shows?

Federer.....83..(85)
Sampras....80
Borg.........59
Connors....42
McEnroe...41
Agassi.......33..(35)
Lendl........33
Becker......32

etc.

 
 
 

"real weeks at #1" with modifications

Post by stephen » Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:56:35

Quote:




>>> Some of you pointed out that one problem with translating the 2-slam rule
>>> into weeks is that it arbitrarily gives more weeks to some slam-segments
>>> than others because the slams aren't equally distributed throughout the
>>> year. Thus a guy with 2 slams from USO to AO gets credit for 22 or so
>>> weeks, but a guy with 2 slams from W to USO gets credit for just 9 weeks,
>>> even though the accomplishment is the same.

>>> Thus, one way to address that is something i did back in 2005: use
>>> slam-segments instead of weeks, such that the USO-AO gap equals 1 slam
>>> segment, as does the FO-W gap. So that we get a normalized comparison.

>>> Also, some complained that my system means that sometimes there is no #1,
>>> which some around here find problematic. Thus, include a second list
>>> which uses Wimbledon as a TB. That is, when all the slams are split 4
>>> ways, the W winner is #1.

>>> So first, the pure 2-slams or more list. These are the number of
>>> slam-segments that a player was #1, in that he had 2 slams while no one
>>> else did:

>>> 1) Federer:................... 23
>>> 2) Borg:...................... 13
>>> 3) Sampras:................... 12
>>> 4) Connors:.................... 8
>>> 5 tie) Mac/Agassi:............. 7
>>> 7 tie) Lendl/Laver:............ 6
>>> 9 tie Wilander/Courier:........ 5
>>> 11 tie) Becker/Newk/Rosewall: ..3
>>> 13 tie) Nastase/Vilas: .........2
>>> 15) Hewitt: ....................1

>>> Now, with credit given for #1 if a player held the W title and the slams
>>> were split 4 ways (or if 2 guys had 2 slams). Now, there is no gap,
>>> someone is always #1:

>>> 1) Federer:.... 24
>>> 2) Sampras:.... 23
>>> 3) Borg: .......18
>>> 4) Mac: ........12
>>> 5) Connors: .... 9
>>> 6) Agassi: ..... 8
>>> 7) Becker: ..... 7
>>> 8) Laver/Newk .. 6
>> Lendl also has 6, tied with Laver/Newk.

> This second is ok, but isn't this exactly what 7543 shows?

> Federer.....83..(85)
> Sampras....80
> Borg.........59
> Connors....42
> McEnroe...41
> Agassi.......33..(35)
> Lendl........33
> Becker......32

er no, it isn't.

Anyway, i like the first list better. And as i explained, if you go the
7543 route, use 7554 instead (no ties are possible, more accurate).

--
  "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".

- Thomas Jefferson

 
 
 

"real weeks at #1" with modifications

Post by Pedro Dia » Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:01:05


Quote:




> >>> Some of you pointed out that one problem with translating the 2-slam rule
> >>> into weeks is that it arbitrarily gives more weeks to some slam-segments
> >>> than others because the slams aren't equally distributed throughout the
> >>> year. Thus a guy with 2 slams from USO to AO gets credit for 22 or so
> >>> weeks, but a guy with 2 slams from W to USO gets credit for just 9 weeks,
> >>> even though the accomplishment is the same.

> >>> Thus, one way to address that is something i did back in 2005: use
> >>> slam-segments instead of weeks, such that the USO-AO gap equals 1 slam
> >>> segment, as does the FO-W gap. So that we get a normalized comparison.

> >>> Also, some complained that my system means that sometimes there is no #1,
> >>> which some around here find problematic. Thus, include a second list
> >>> which uses Wimbledon as a TB. That is, when all the slams are split 4
> >>> ways, the W winner is #1.

> >>> So first, the pure 2-slams or more list. These are the number of
> >>> slam-segments that a player was #1, in that he had 2 slams while no one
> >>> else did:

> >>> 1) Federer:................... 23
> >>> 2) Borg:...................... 13
> >>> 3) Sampras:................... 12
> >>> 4) Connors:.................... 8
> >>> 5 tie) Mac/Agassi:............. 7
> >>> 7 tie) Lendl/Laver:............ 6
> >>> 9 tie Wilander/Courier:........ 5
> >>> 11 tie) Becker/Newk/Rosewall: ..3
> >>> 13 tie) Nastase/Vilas: .........2
> >>> 15) Hewitt: ....................1

> >>> Now, with credit given for #1 if a player held the W title and the slams
> >>> were split 4 ways (or if 2 guys had 2 slams). Now, there is no gap,
> >>> someone is always #1:

> >>> 1) Federer:.... 24
> >>> 2) Sampras:.... 23
> >>> 3) Borg: .......18
> >>> 4) Mac: ........12
> >>> 5) Connors: .... 9
> >>> 6) Agassi: ..... 8
> >>> 7) Becker: ..... 7
> >>> 8) Laver/Newk .. 6
> >> Lendl also has 6, tied with Laver/Newk.

> > This second is ok, but isn't this exactly what 7543 shows?

> > Federer.....83..(85)
> > Sampras....80
> > Borg.........59
> > Connors....42
> > McEnroe...41
> > Agassi.......33..(35)
> > Lendl........33
> > Becker......32

> er no, it isn't.

> Anyway, i like the first list better. And as i explained, if you go the
> 7543 route, use 7554 instead (no ties are possible, more accurate).

No ties are "possible"?
 
 
 

"real weeks at #1" with modifications

Post by reillo » Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:09:06


Quote:
> Some of you pointed out that one problem with translating the 2-slam
> rule into weeks is that it arbitrarily gives more weeks to some
> slam-segments than others because the slams aren't equally distributed
> throughout the year. Thus a guy with 2 slams from USO to AO gets credit
> for 22 or so weeks, but a guy with 2 slams from W to USO gets credit for
> just 9 weeks, even though the accomplishment is the same.

> Thus, one way to address that is something i did back in 2005: use
> slam-segments instead of weeks, such that the USO-AO gap equals 1 slam
> segment, as does the FO-W gap. So that we get a normalized comparison.

> Also, some complained that my system means that sometimes there is no
> #1, which some around here find problematic. Thus, include a second list
> which uses Wimbledon as a TB. That is, when all the slams are split 4
> ways, the W winner is #1.

> So first, the pure 2-slams or more list. These are the number of
> slam-segments that a player was #1, in that he had 2 slams while no one
> else did:

> 1) Federer:................... 23
> 2) Borg:...................... 13
> 3) Sampras:................... 12
> 4) Connors:.................... 8
> 5 tie) Mac/Agassi:............. 7
> 7 tie) Lendl/Laver:............ 6
> 9 tie Wilander/Courier:........ 5
> 11 tie) Becker/Newk/Rosewall: ..3
> 13 tie) Nastase/Vilas: .........2
> 15) Hewitt: ....................1

> Now, with credit given for #1 if a player held the W title and the slams
> were split 4 ways (or if 2 guys had 2 slams). Now, there is no gap,
> someone is always #1:

> 1) Federer:.... 24
> 2) Sampras:.... 23
> 3) Borg: .......18
> 4) Mac: ........12
> 5) Connors: .... 9
> 6) Agassi: ..... 8
> 7) Becker: ..... 7
> 8) Laver/Newk .. 6
> 10) Edberg/Mats/Courier: ... 5
> 13) Ashe/Goran/Hewitt/Nadal ..4

So, what you're doing is the statical equivalent of torturing numbers to
make them confess to your final calculations? If we go with your extreme
rendition will you agree not to waterboard any future player who wins a
slam a year and 90% of his outside matches for a solid three-year period?

LNC