DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ASSESTYTEAH** · 10-29-2009, 09:39 PM

Does that slam have to be won in the past 52 weeks to be considered for #1, or could that slam have been achieved years earlier?

I ask because, you see, any system we come up with will also have faults.

Of course it will have faults. And I don't have all the answers. And so you know I am consistent, I had this same position when Kim was a Slamless Number 1.

The other thing I didn't mention, which I think would be a very good idea personally, is to have the ranking system based on 2 years as opposed to 1 year of results. That is what Golf does. Sure it would take longer for younger players to ascend the rankings, and would reward veterans, but I think in the long run it would be a better reflection of ability.

10-29-2009, 09:39 PM	#30
ASSESTYTEAH Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 540 Senior Member	Does that slam have to be won in the past 52 weeks to be considered for #1, or could that slam have been achieved years earlier? I ask because, you see, any system we come up with will also have faults. Of course it will have faults. And I don't have all the answers. And so you know I am consistent, I had this same position when Kim was a Slamless Number 1. The other thing I didn't mention, which I think would be a very good idea personally, is to have the ranking system based on 2 years as opposed to 1 year of results. That is what Golf does. Sure it would take longer for younger players to ascend the rankings, and would reward veterans, but I think in the long run it would be a better reflection of ability.
	Quote