PDA

View Full Version : How would this affect the rankings?


christos_liaskos
04-18-2008, 02:42 AM
Take all the big prize money from the regular tour and put it into the futures and challengers tours but leave the rankings points where they are. In other words, Federer would still have all his amazing achievements that he has made the past few years but he would probably still be living at home with his parents and driving around an old banger whenever he returned to Switzerland.

The two players I will put forward are Davydenko and Nadal. However much I love Dayvdenko I dont think we would have seen him in the top 5 for so long because we all know he plays for the money and he just wouldnt be getting all that if the prize money was distributed in this way. At the other end of the spectrum I think is Nadal. I think he would still have all his achievments that he has made over the past few years even if the prize money wasnt there. I have seen in interviews where he has said that if wasnt as good as he was he would still be happy playing tennis even if it was at a challenger level if playing tennis all day was what he was able to do.

JackSkellington
04-18-2008, 03:01 AM
They're called endorsements...

christos_liaskos
04-18-2008, 03:04 AM
They're called endorsements...

Ok, so i forgot that. My point is, lets take all the money away from the big rankings points, whether its prize money or endorsments. Obviously its not possible but what would happen?

gj011
04-18-2008, 03:17 AM
Another boring "what if" thread.

And how do you know that Davydenko is in it only for the money? Jezzz.:mad:

christos_liaskos
04-18-2008, 03:34 AM
Another boring "what if" thread.

And how do you know that Davydenko is in it only for the money? Jezzz.:mad:

Actually its quite a relevant thread. We are all here because of the love of tennis and that is what is at the heart of this subject. You are clearly too dumb to see that and are more interested in player gossip and obviously find the regular GOAT threads much more interesting along with the 'who is better between 'whoever' and 'whoever'' threads. Yes those threads are so original arent they.

illkhiboy
04-18-2008, 04:45 AM
Actually its quite a relevant thread. We are all here because of the love of tennis and that is what is at the heart of this subject. You are clearly too dumb to see that and are more interested in player gossip and obviously find the regular GOAT threads much more interesting along with the 'who is better between 'whoever' and 'whoever'' threads. Yes those threads are so original arent they.

Christos, I think you're one of the better posters around here. I often find myself agreeing with you. Just wondering, however, if you actually researched
gj011's posts and threads before name-calling and stereotyping him?

I think this is an irrelevant thread myself. Let me state why.
But first I want to understand your original post. What do you mean when you say the prize money from the regular tour would go to the challengers/future tours? Do you mean that futures/challengers would be made a bit better in terms of having more ball kids/referees seeing that some of those events have players picking their own balls.
Or, do you mean that a player winning a futures would get more money than a player winning Madrid? That seems completely non-sensical. The whole point of playing challengers is to move up to the ATP/Grand Slam events. It's like saying, what if you earned less money as you moved up the corporate ladder?
ATP tour would quickly degenerate into a sham is my answer. There would be a huge question mark if the world's top players are truly the best.

Also, Davydenko is not top 5 because he plays lots of events. Regardless of how many events a player enters, only 18 of those tournaments count toward his ranking. The bulk of Davydenko's points come from his superb results at majors and Masters.

Ocean Drive
04-18-2008, 05:14 AM
Ridiculous thread for a simple reason.

As you move up you get less reward.

Makes no sense.

christos_liaskos
04-18-2008, 05:22 AM
Christos, I think you're one of the better posters around here. I often find myself agreeing with you. Just wondering, however, if you actually researched
gj011's posts and threads before name-calling and stereotyping him?

I think this is an irrelevant thread myself. Let me state why.
But first I want to understand your original post. What do you mean when you say the prize money from the regular tour would go to the challengers/future tours? Do you mean that futures/challengers would be made a bit better in terms of having more ball kids/referees seeing that some of those events have players picking their own balls.
Or, do you mean that a player winning a futures would get more money than a player winning Madrid? That seems completely non-sensical. The whole point of playing challengers is to move up to the ATP/Grand Slam events. It's like saying, what if you earned less money as you moved up the corporate ladder?
ATP tour would quickly degenerate into a sham is my answer. There would be a huge question mark if the world's top players are truly the best.

Also, Davydenko is not top 5 because he plays lots of events. Regardless of how many events a player enters, only 18 of those tournaments count toward his ranking. The bulk of Davydenko's points come from his superb results at majors and Masters.


I'll admit I didnt research gj011's posts but my point was that I am a bit fed up with all the other repeated threads that we get on here, comparing players, debating GOAT's, whos better on what surface etc etc. Over the last couple of months I havent posted much just because I havent really seen a thread that has caught my eye as something interesting or new.

As far as the original post goes: Lets make it as simple as possible. Take out prie money and endorsments all together, throughout the whole sport. Of course its never going to happen and the sport wouldnt really run properly as you pointed out. I should know more about this really but is that not how tennis worked before the tour turned pro in the late 60's?

I'm just wondering who would really stick around for the love of the game and the glory? I think Federer would still have reached no1 and had great achievements but would he bother hanging around until 30+ like he has said he will if he was struggling to survive just so he could play tennis all day, every day?

christos_liaskos
04-18-2008, 05:23 AM
Ridiculous thread for a simple reason.

As you move up you get less reward.

Makes no sense.

You guys dont think being the best ever is not reward? This is my exact point. It seems you all think its about the money from what you are saying.

PROTENNIS63
04-18-2008, 06:54 AM
there is no "if".

JRstriker12
04-18-2008, 07:07 AM
If you took the prize money and endorsements out of tennis, Fed and Nadal would have probably ended up being proffessional soccer players. IIRC - Fed said that at one point he had to choose tennis over soccer and Nadal was also a promising soccer player. With no cash in tennis, I doubt either would have chosen tennis.

I know you are basically asking, who on the tour plays more for the love of the game than the money, but I think you can't really have a good comparison if you took the big money out of tennis or any big-time sport. While many of these guys love the game, most athletes looks to maximize their earnings over a short career. A lot of guys would have taken their amazing athletic skills elsewhere where they can earn more money - rather than living at home and driving a beat-up car.

Also, without the big money, I doubt you would have the tour as it exists today. a lot of guys would have a hard time paying for all the travel and accomodations. Tennis would prob revert to look a lot like pre-open era tennis.

illkhiboy
04-18-2008, 09:44 AM
Take all the big prize money from the regular tour and put it into the futures and challengers tours but leave the rankings points where they are.

Ridiculous thread for a simple reason.

As you move up you get less reward.

Makes no sense.



You guys dont think being the best ever is not reward? This is my exact point. It seems you all think its about the money from what you are saying.

Ocean Drive was right.

I'll admit I didnt research gj011's posts but my point was that I am a bit fed up with all the other repeated threads that we get on here, comparing players, debating GOAT's, whos better on what surface etc etc. Over the last couple of months I havent posted much just because I havent really seen a thread that has caught my eye as something interesting or new.

As far as the original post goes: Lets make it as simple as possible. Take out prie money and endorsments all together, throughout the whole sport. Of course its never going to happen and the sport wouldnt really run properly as you pointed out. I should know more about this really but is that not how tennis worked before the tour turned pro in the late 60's?

I'm just wondering who would really stick around for the love of the game and the glory? I think Federer would still have reached no1 and had great achievements but would he bother hanging around until 30+ like he has said he will if he was struggling to survive just so he could play tennis all day, every day?

You're bringing up a slightly different point now (no talk of putting ATP money into challengers), which makes a lot more sense. Yeah a lot of people wouldn't even play tennis then. And we would lose out on a lot more talent than we do now. And then, different players would do different things. Who knows about Federer? But some people would just stick around for the love of the game, and prestige (which would be lesser I guess).

Ocean Drive
04-18-2008, 11:54 AM
You guys dont think being the best ever is not reward? This is my exact point. It seems you all think its about the money from what you are saying.

Why would guys on the challenger tour get more money than people who are head and shoulders better than them.

TENNIS IS A JOB.

And I could quote plenty of pro's on that one, it isn't a hobby.

christos_liaskos
04-18-2008, 01:25 PM
Why would guys on the challenger tour get more money than people who are head and shoulders better than them.

TENNIS IS A JOB.

And I could quote plenty of pro's on that one, it isn't a hobby.

Yes I know my original post was causing confusion and in reaction to your previous post, that was why I said lets take money out of it all together, so the guys on the challenger tour dont make more.