PDA

View Full Version : ITF Olympic Point Totals in 2012


Bud
04-22-2011, 03:12 PM
For the 2008 men's Olympic tennis competition, these points were awarded for participating:

Gold Medal - 400
Silver Medal - 280
Bronze Medal - 205
Loser 3rd/4th - 155
Quarterfinals - 100
Round of 16 - 50
Round of 32 - 25
1st Round - 5

For perspective, the 2008 point structure (which was subsequently changed in 2009), was this:

Grand Slam - 1000
MS1000 (current name) - 500
ATP 500 (current name) - 300

- - - - - - -

For 2012, the point structure for the Olympics will be revised upwards, based on the current point structure (unsure if that info has been released as of this date).

In the Olympics, to win a Gold Medal a player must be victorious in 6 rounds (no BYE for top players), while beating the very best players on the planet. In addition, the final round is a best of 5 set match as opposed to a best of 3 set match ◄◄

IMO, since the Olympics are becoming increasingly prestigious and are more difficult to win than a MS1000 tournament, the revised point totals should reflect that reality ◄◄

The new point structure should be something like this (IMO):

Gold Medal - 1200
Silver Medal - 800
Bronze Medal - 400
Loser 3rd/4th - 300
Quarterfinals - 200
Round of 16 - 100
Round of 32 - 50
1st Round - 25

This is based on the fact that it's tougher in every aspect to win an Olympic gold medal than winning something like Indian Wells for the top players (which is 6 rounds and best of 3 set final) ◄◄

- - - - - - -

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics#Ranking_points
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%2 7s_singles#Draw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_ATP_Tour#Points_Distribution_.28Singles_.26_D oubles.29

- - - - - - -

Discuss

dominikk1985
04-22-2011, 03:20 PM
I think it should have the structure of a masters tournament.

less than a GS of course (no best of 5, less players) but 400 is a joke. even a small tourney like barcelona has 500 for the winner.

Bud
04-22-2011, 03:24 PM
I think it should have the structure of a masters tournament.

less than a GS of course (no best of 5, less players) but 400 is a joke. even a small tourney like barcelona has 500 for the winner.

The Olympic final is best 3 of 5 sets

dominikk1985
04-22-2011, 05:14 PM
The Olympic final is best 3 of 5 sets

yeah but a GS is all rounds best of 5. masters finals also used to be 5.

however I would be OK with 1200 points since those are the olympics. but definitely more than 400.

jackson vile
04-22-2011, 06:28 PM
At the very least it is worth as much as WTF

FedError
04-22-2011, 07:04 PM
If they limit the number of players each country can send (in the case of 2008 I think it was 4 in men's events), then players lower than the top 4 of their country but still ranked high enough to qualify could be at a loss.

For Spain, the top 4 are currently Nadal, Ferrer, Almagro and Verdasco. Garcia-Lopez (26), Montanes (27) and Robredo (30) would miss on the opportunity to represent their country and thus miss on the opportuniy to gain points. France would be in a similar position.

Either the point totals should not be too high, or they could treat the Olympics as a MS event (that counts in a player's top 8 Masters results).

powerangle
04-22-2011, 07:51 PM
I think it should have the structure of a masters tournament.

less than a GS of course (no best of 5, less players) but 400 is a joke. even a small tourney like barcelona has 500 for the winner.

The 500 points for Barcelona is post-2009. Back then it was only worth 300 points, according to Bud.

So counting for this ratings "inflation", currently Barcelona is worth 500 points, and Olympics about 800.

Bud
04-22-2011, 09:20 PM
The 500 points for Barcelona is post-2009. Back then it was only worth 300 points, according to Bud.

So counting for this ratings "inflation", currently Barcelona is worth 500 points, and Olympics about 800.

Before the new system in 2009, the Olympic point total(s) fell between (what are currently) 500 and 1000 series events... which were worth 300 and 500 points respectively for a title. So, they will definitely increase the point totals in 2012.

My point is that the Olympics is ultimately more difficult (best 3 of 5 final) than a MS1000 event (best 2 of 3 final) and should be worth additional points. The Olympic tennis medals continue to grow in prestige as well as the event is only held twice per decade... whereas, there are 90 MS1000 tournaments per decade.

above bored
04-22-2011, 10:20 PM
I don't think the Olympics is more difficult to win than Masters 1000 events in real terms. In the Olympics, the quality of the field is impaired by the restricted number of players each country is allowed to enter. Motivation amongst the players is also mixed, with Roddick even pulling out last time so he could prepare for the US Open.

The only thing which really makes the Olympics more difficult to win is the infrequency with which it occurs. Only 1 event every 4 years compared to 9 events every single year suggests the comparative difficulty in winning the Olympics has more to do with luck than the difficulty of winning matches against a tough and motivated field. This is reflected in the fact that Kafelnikov and Massu were able to win gold medals in singles, but never won a Masters 1000 event despite having many more opportunities.

powerangle
04-23-2011, 02:25 PM
Before the new system in 2009, the Olympic point total(s) fell between (what are currently) 500 and 1000 series events... which were worth 300 and 500 points respectively for a title. So, they will definitely increase the point totals in 2012.

My point is that the Olympics is ultimately more difficult (best 3 of 5 final) than a MS1000 event (best 2 of 3 final) and should be worth additional points. The Olympic tennis medals continue to grow in prestige as well as the event is only held twice per decade... whereas, there are 90 MS1000 tournaments per decade.

Oh I know your point. I was just clarifying for Dominik that even though the Olympics gave relatively few points to the winners, they still gave more points than the (current) 500-level tournaments, like Barcelona. It appeared he thought the Olympics awarded less than Barcelona at the time, which is not true.

But I agree with you, the Olympics should be weighted a bit more heavily.

aldeayeah
04-23-2011, 03:23 PM
It's the same number of matches it takes to win IW or Miami. What's more, even those tournaments had best of 5 finals until recently.

I say give it the exact same treatment as Monte Carlo: the same points of a MS, non-mandatory nature and make it count as a 500 for the purpose of commitment.

Bud
04-23-2011, 03:28 PM
It's the same number of matches it takes to win IW or Miami. What's more, even those tournaments had best of 5 finals until recently.

I say give it the exact same treatment as Monte Carlo: the same points of a MS, non-mandatory nature and make it count as a 500 for the purpose of commitment.

Yes, had :)

However, those tournament no longer have best 3 of 5 finals, thus my rational behind additional points. Regardless, an Olympic gold medal should be worth at least as many points as a MS1000 win, not fewer.

Sid_Vicious
04-23-2011, 09:09 PM
The olympics is a non-event that nobody cares about.

MichaelNadal
04-23-2011, 10:49 PM
The olympics is a non-event that nobody cares about.

I wish it mattered more really, in any other sport the Olympics are a big deal.

Sid_Vicious
04-24-2011, 09:52 AM
I wish it mattered more really, in any other sport the Olympics are a big deal.
I was jking. Olympics are important, but I remember certain people calling WTF a "non-event" so I was messing around.

Semi-Pro
04-24-2011, 10:07 AM
I was jking. Olympics are important, but I remember certain people calling WTF a "non-event" so I was messing around.

It is only a non-event if Ralph doesn't win it.

aphex
04-24-2011, 10:13 AM
I wish it mattered more really, in any other sport the Olympics are a big deal.

Not really...nobody cares about Olympics football either...

aphex
04-24-2011, 10:14 AM
It is only a non-event if Ralph doesn't win it.

Of course. That's why Monte Carlo is the best event evah!

vive le beau jeu !
04-24-2011, 10:15 AM
The new point structure should be something like this (IMO):

Gold Medal - 1200
Silver Medal - 800
Bronze Medal - 400
Loser 3rd/4th - 300
Quarterfinals - 200
Round of 16 - 100
Round of 32 - 50
1st Round - 25

i agree, it should be fine like this... a bit less than WTF (at least 'undefeated'), but more than an overhyped 'masters-1000'.

Devilito
04-24-2011, 10:24 AM
If they limit the number of players each country can send (in the case of 2008 I think it was 4 in men's events), then players lower than the top 4 of their country but still ranked high enough to qualify could be at a loss.

For Spain, the top 4 are currently Nadal, Ferrer, Almagro and Verdasco. Garcia-Lopez (26), Montanes (27) and Robredo (30) would miss on the opportunity to represent their country and thus miss on the opportuniy to gain points. France would be in a similar position.

Either the point totals should not be too high, or they could treat the Olympics as a MS event (that counts in a player's top 8 Masters results).

agreed. You can't sanction an ATP event if you don't give everyone an equal shot of playing it. Why should someone ranked 800 in the world have more of a chance to play than someone ranked in the top 30 because they happen to be from a country with little in the way of tennis. The Gold Medal and the want to represent their country should be enough reason for somebody to want to play in the Olympics. You shouldn’t have to bribe players with ATP points as well. If people don’t want to play then that’s fine as well. That means in general they don’t care about all the fake patriotic BS and they only really care about their ranking points. At least they don’t have to pretend.

FedError
06-01-2011, 06:10 AM
PRESS RELEASE, 1 June 2011
ITF and ATP announce Olympic ranking point agreement

The ITF and the ATP today announced an agreement to award singles ranking points for men at the 2012 Olympic Tennis Event in London at Wimbledon. This is the fourth successive Olympic Games where men have received ranking points.

As a result of the agreement, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will allow nations to receive up to four entries into the men’s singles and two entries into the men’s doubles, with a maximum number of six men per country on-site.

The ATP rankings of Monday 11 June 2012 will be used as the basis for determining the 56 direct acceptances in the 64-player men’s singles draw, subject to a maximum of four players per country as well as existing eligibility requirements.

Six of the remaining eight singles places will be selected by the ITF’s Olympic Committee taking into consideration a player’s singles computer ranking and a geographic distribution of nations entered, as well as two Tripartite Commission Invitations decided by the IOC, National Olympic
Committees and the ITF.

ATP rankings will also be used to determine the 24 direct entries in the 32-pair doubles draw, subject to a maximum of two pairs per country and a maximum of six men per country in total. Doubles players ranked in the Top 10 can receive direct acceptance into the event providing they have an eligible partner. The remaining eight pairs will be selected by the ITF’s Olympic Committee.

The women’s singles event will also offer ranking points, with the same entry criteria used in the women’s singles and doubles events. Entries for the 16-pair mixed doubles event will be confirmed on site.

ITF President Francesco Ricci Bitti said: “The support of the ATP in finalising the agreement has ensured that as many of the top male players as possible are able to compete at the OlympicTennis Event. This is great news for the event and the players, and we are confident that next year’s tournament will surpass the success of Beijing.”

“Wimbledon will be an incredible stage for tennis at the Olympic Games,” said Adam Helfant, ATP Executive Chairman and President. “We know ATP players are very much looking forward to representing their countries in London next summer.”

Ranking Points (ATP / WTA)

Men’s Singles
Gold Medal 750
Silver Medal 450
Bronze Medal 340
Loser 3rd/4th 270
Quarterfinals 135
Round of 16 70
Round of 32 35
1st round 5

Women’s Singles
Gold Medal 685
Silver Medal 470
Bronze Medal 340
Loser 3rd/4th 260
Quarterfinals 175
Round of 16 95
Round of 32 55
1st round 1

vive le beau jeu !
06-01-2011, 06:37 AM
so... a bit less than before ? :?
(and still less than the overhyped "masters 1000") :neutral:

Tammo
06-01-2011, 07:38 AM
so in 2008 slams were only worth 1000 points

vive le beau jeu !
06-01-2011, 08:32 AM
the olympics (gold medal) were 800 (old) pts = 40% of a slam (2000 old points).
now it's only 37.5 %.

jamesblakefan#1
06-01-2011, 08:35 AM
This is fair. Winning the Olympics should definitely not be the same as making a slam final, and should not be more than winning a MS title. Face it, the Olympics aren't that valuable in terms of tennis achievements.

Bud
06-01-2011, 09:04 AM
I makes no sense that the point structure is less then a MS1000 tournament.

jamesblakefan#1
06-01-2011, 09:10 AM
I makes no sense that the point structure is less then a MS1000 tournament.

The field is better for the mandatory MS tournaments than it is for the Olympics. It makes complete sense.

Also it's a lot tougher to win IW or Miami (96 player draw, almost every top player shows) than it is to win the Olympics (64 player draw, top players skip)