Robert B. Waltz 31 March 2005 06:09:50 [ permanent link ]
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
27 (38) CLIJSTERS 1035*
Minor correction, not affecting anyone's ranking. Clijsters's score shoud be 1042, not 1035. She's still #27. If she wins Miami, she'll be Top 20 again.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
Minor correction, not affecting anyone's ranking.> Clijsters's score shoud be 1042, not 1035. She's> still #27. If she wins Miami, she'll be Top 20 again.>
Would that be one of the most rapid comebacks, tournament-number-wise?
Robert B. Waltz 31 March 2005 17:51:11 [ permanent link ]
Procki <prock_vs_spammers@gazeta.pl> wrote:
[ ... ]
Without a precise definition I can't answer the question> > (and if I had a precise definition, I'd probably have> > to say that I don't know the answer. > >
Expression problems on my part. Alas, the word is quicker than the thought,> which had the same effect as the "hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye" trick> usually has ;)>
"Comeback" would be the rise from outside the top 100 (having dropped out of> it due to injury, illness or other reasons) to the top 20 (20 - as I was> referring to your previous post, but You can also redefine it to top 10, if> You wish; in fact that might be better).>
Rapidity would be defined by the number of matches played. This parameter> should answer the question: how many matches (tourneys) did this player> need to overcome the predefined gap (from rank < or = 101 to top 20 (or> top10)) in the rankings? I wouldn't place too much importance on the time> aspect (how many weeks etc.), because there the frequency of tournaments in> which a viable amount of ranking pts can be won, varies during the season.>
Hope this is more or less clear...
It is. Under the definition above, I can't think of anything else in the post-divisor period -- and it's generally easier now than it was under the divisor.
There is one complication, and it's the case of Seles 1995/1996. She came back and won the Canadian Open, reached the U. S. Open final, and won the Australian Open. That would, I believe, have represented an even faster climb than Clijsters. But, because Seles was special-ranked, it doesn't really show up. Had Seles *not* been special-ranked, she would not have been ranked until after her third event, so she would have gone from nothing to whatever her post-AO ranking would have been. (Or post-Sydney ranking, or whatever her third event was. She played only the Canadian Open and the USO in 1995, but I'm too lazy to look up her 1996 schedule.)
Of course, I doubt whether establishing this would mean anything in absolute> terms, since there are too many *variables* involved (fluctuation in the> quality of field, draws etc.), also, one should take into account the> number of ranking pts needed to make such a "leap", but since> injury-related breaks are so common, it might be interesting to compare how> efficient certain players (or types of players) are at overcoming the> ranking-deficits long absence from the competition might have induced.
Exactly -- hence my long second paragraph above.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
