Help me compare across eras!

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by jg153040, May 16, 2013.

  1. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    I made a system how to convert greatness to numberss. For more details see my post : The Greatness Formula in the Current Pro players forum.

    It is like this:
    13 weeks nr.1 = 1 slam point
    1 major = 1 slam point
    Career slam = 1 slam point
    Calendar Grand Slam = 2 slam points

    So for example Federer: 23,2 + 17 + 1 + 0 = 41,2.

    But I don't have much knowledge of history. How would you translate rankings and slam won from Laver or Rosewall.
     
    #1
  2. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,025
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I think in order to compare eras you need to understand that solely using majors will skew your system. Back in the early 80's and before the Australian was massively under attended and therefore players who skipped it come off worse in your rankings and others who did well there move up. Modern players have more chances for points in your system based on that.

    Also, how do you account from the pro majors won by guys like laver and Rosewall when they went pro? Do you just count them an a major like the traditional 4? Because if you want to compare eras you really need to address this issue. If you do then how would you calculate Emerson who dominated the amateur game? Are you saying the pro and amateur slams will hold the same weight? 1 point? Because there will be people who will bitterly challenge you. Or are you saying the pro slams don't count at all? This is a huge era difference right there.

    Also...as was said in the other thread..you need to award some kind of points for slam finals and career titles...the majors are 2 months out of a 10 month season now...you cannot just selectively throw everything else out.
     
    #2
  3. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    I don't know about pro majors. That is why I'm asking here if you guys have any ideas to translate them into this system. And how many weeks was Laver nr.1?
    Or other older greats. I didn't see them play that is why I'm asking here.

    Slam finals and tournaments won are all reflected in weeks being nr.1.
    The more you have, more time you will have spent being nr.1.

    So 13 weeks being nr.1 = 1 slam won.
     
    #3
  4. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Yep, this has always been the problem. The debate on how to count the amateur and Pro Slams against Open Era records.

    Some (myself included) take Pro Slams (and WTF/Masters) to be even more valuable than Open Era majors because the field is the best-of-the-best -- there are no scrubs. Others consider Pro Slams/WTF/Masters less valuable because they think it is harder to beat scrubs for a few rounds and then have to beat the tough opponents.

    The amateur issue is even tougher. It was well known that the best players of the pre-Open Era amateurs could have beaten many "Professionals". But some amateurs were paid (under the table) to stay amateur and not go pro. As you've stated, Emerson was one of these. It was believed at his top amateur level that Emerson could have beaten Laver and Rosewall on some grass venues. At the end of his amateur career, there was no question that Laver could have beaten professionals already. In his first year out of the amateurs and into the professional league, he made the finals of the US and French Pro.

    I've always struggled to quantify the amateur achievements, because it ends up being a bunch of hypothetical and circumstantial considerations.
     
    #4
  5. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    I guess it is impossible. Let's hope they don't change the main format of slams and rankings for the next 50 years.

    At least we can compare last 40 years maybe.
     
    #5
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    mightyrick,

    I doubt that Emerson could have beaten Laver and Rosewall and won grass majors.
     
    #6
  7. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,874
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Laver after winning the grand slam in 1962 entered the pro ranks and could only win 2 of his first 19 matches against Hoad and Rosewall. The gulf between the tours was enourmous.
     
    #7
  8. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    It wasn't until the start of the open era in April 1968 that professional players could play alongside amateur players in the same mainstream tournaments, including the 4 majors. Before this time, professional tennis players were banned from the mainstream tournaments, including the mainstream majors. Professional players at this time played in head-to-head world pro tours (the biggest events in professional tennis), and their own tournaments, including professional majors (French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro) and other big professional tournaments that were very big for their time (World Pro in 1932-1933, Tournament of Champions 1956-1959, Wimbledon Pro of 1967 etc.)

    The vast majority of tennis players at this time (pre-1968 ) were amateurs, and thus did not openly or officially play for any prize money. Only amateurs could enter the 4 majors as we know them today. Professional tennis at that time was mostly for the world's best, in a dog-eat-dog world where the business side of tennis fought and struggled to find money to run the costs of the professional tour and pay as many of the players as possible. Results were paramount in the long term, because if you failed to get consistent results as a professional player, you couldn't just reamateurise without permission from the national federations, which was seldom given.

    In the 1920s, the top amateurs were better players than the top professionals, as professional players at that time were mostly teachers who couldn't play amateur tennis due to their paid status as teachers. In the 1930s, it was neck and neck after notable players such as Bill Tilden, Henri Cochet, Ellsworth Vines, Fred Perry and Don Budge turned professional throughout the decade. After Jack Kramer became the best professional player in the world in 1948 after toppling Bobby Riggs on their world pro tour, the best professional players were better than the best amateur players from that moment on. As NatF mentions above, the Rod Laver that won the Grand Slam in 1962 was not the best player in the world, because the top professional players like Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad and Andres Gimeno (Pancho Gonzales having gone into an 18 month retirement at the end of 1961) were all better than Laver at that time.

    Somebody who is ignorant about the pro-am split in tennis history is going to think that players like Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Tony Trabert or Ashley Cooper were the best players of the 1950s in terms of achievements. In reality, the best players of the 1950s were Pancho Gonzales, Frank Sedgman, Pancho Segura and Jack Kramer.

    Before the start of the ATP world rankings in 1973, there were no official world rankings. And to be honest, it's clear that the credibility of the ATP rankings was extremely suspect until the mid-1980s or so.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2013
    #8
  9. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,025
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Actually no slam finals do not reflect totally in whether you are number 1 or not. Andy Murray has won a slew of masters shields and made 4 slam finals and has never been number 1. They are 2 totally different things. That is way to much streamlining for the sake of simplicity on your part.

    Slam wins and weeks #1 are not the be all and end all of greatness. As I have said tennis now has evolved to a 10 month season with many big non major tournaments. You have created a system that is way to simple and based around arbitrary numbers.

    As for using weeks at number one that is entirely sketchy before the computer was invented as the ranking were determined by experts making and publishing lists based on their interpretations of players performances. Depending on who was making the list different people could be number 1. I think they used to vote by committee to instead of by computer didn't they (someone confirm this?). Now we have points and a computer...past eras didn't have this concrete system.

    Its a valiant effort but it falls short as it is way to simplistic and would only work for the open era in probably the last 30 years when the Aussie was mass attended most years.
     
    #9
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, I'm glad I can agree with you finally.
     
    #10
  11. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it is right to discount Laver going to all of those finals right out of the amateur ranks. Clearly Laver could beat 90% of the professionals right out of the chute.

    That is my point. Emerson was the #1 amateur player in '64 and '65. There is little question the Emerson would have been able to already beat 90% of the tour. The guy was that talented.

    Obviously, I can't say for certain how Emerson would have done. It's all hypothetical. I can only say that Emerson was one of the most talented grass players ever... and certainly more of a grass specialist than Laver.

    But it's all hypothetical.
     
    #11
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I disagree. Emerson was not very talented. Laver (and Rosewall) was a better grass court player. L&R would have been a too heavy obstacle for Emmo.
     
    #12
  13. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Emerson would have become an even better player had he turned professional earlier than 1968. He chose to stay an amateur because of the Davis Cup and the relationship with Harry Hopman. Emerson was also allegedly paid money under the table to stay amateur.
     
    #13
  14. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,555
    Emerson

    The fact that Emerson beat a peak, pro tour hardened laver - 4 times in 1968, all in straight sets * - when Emerson was already well into his 30's, tells me everything I need to know about Emerson. Specifically it tells me that if he had gone professional at the same time as Laver he would have been very much into the mix as a Pro.

    (Yes, Laver won matches against Emerson in 1968, but that beside the point, which is that he was capable of beating a peak laver 4 times in straight sets when he was well past his peak.)
     
    #14
  15. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    And this was my point. Emerson is frequently underrated by many people. Emerson has unbelievable H2H against these players.

    Unfortunately for him, he decided to not go pro until a little later. I'm sure he was probably given incentive (paid under the table) to not go pro. Because he was clearly good enough to go pro in '64.
     
    #15
  16. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,375
    Imo the gulf between the amateur and pro tours was not enormous. Yes, the standard of the top pros was substantially higher, and the newly turned pro had to learn and improve his game. But the first matches between the older pros and the newer pros are always a bit misleading, because of surface and format.
    Take for instance, the Kramer vs. Gonzalez tour, end 49/50. The tour was played to a great deal indoors, beginning at MSG New York. Kramer was far more experienced on the indoor tour, while Gonzalez hadn't played much indoors as an amateur. And Kramer had also the experience in long personal mano a mano tours, while Gonzalez knew only the amateur tournament format. Result was, that before Gonzalez could settle, he was down 7-50, and lost the whole series 27-101. But that was not the real distance between those giants. Since mid 1950, Gonzalez held his own against Kramer, and had even a slight lead in their later hth.
    In the later world series, Gonzalez always had the advantage of format and surface. In 1956,Trabert, who was very good on hard and clay, never got the chance to play there in his series with Gonzalez. In 1957, Rosewall did very well in the initial matches on Australian grass, but couldn't cope with the indoor conditions, when the tour was continued in the US. In 1958, Hoad, who already had a half year of pro experience under his belt, got a big lead in their Australian grass encounters with Gonzalez.
    In January 1963, amateur Laver had to play Hoad and Rosewall always in a double header for a month. On Australian grass he did not that bad. In January 1963, he beat the pro champion Rosewall, i think at Adelaide 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 or something, certainly not a gulf between the "amateur" and older pros. Laver broke down in the later part of the double headers in January in New Zealand, but most of the tour was played indoors (thanks to the findings of Krosero), a playing condition, that Laver as an amateur didn't know. He had played only one indoor tournament before, the US indoor in 1962, when he got an invitation from the USTA. The pro World Series in spring 1963 was again played mostly indoors. Again, even then "amateur" Laver dominated Gimeno and ended second only to Rosewall. And if one closely looks at their hth series, after a slow start, Laver got a string of wins against the champ Rosewall (winning at MSG 6-0, 6-3), but lost the personal matchup against a stepping up Rosewall at the end of the tour, many losses coming after the whole thing was decided.
    When Laver had got accostumed to format and surface in mid 1963, he began to win important pro tournaments (3 in a row in Europe) and was challenging Rosewall severly, due to the testament of the promoters Trabert and Sedgman, who did run the pro tour. Rosewall remained the Nr. 1 in the 1963 season, no doubt, but after learning the format for half a year, Laver had closed the gap substantially.
     
    #16
  17. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    My system is only for the greats. Not for comparing lower ranked players.
    Just for the elite. Just for the best in the era. Slam finals are reflected in rankings. Because there is no way a person with most finals can be better than the guy who is ranked nr.1. So if most finals or more finals don't get you nr.1 and win you slams you are not the best. It is simple. I'm only comparing the elite. And I think it is enough simple system to compare the elites.
    For lower players is more complicated but I'm not trying to compare them.

    I agree about rankings before 1980. That is the purpose of this tread. How to somehow put them into the same format. But I guess it is almost impossible.
    I guess maybe we should have split systems. Modern and pre Modern. My system works well with Modern era and in the future, providing that format remains somewhat similar.
     
    #17
  18. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    Thanks for your feedback. Really appreciate it. Ok now I know I have to split the system for modern and pre modern era. So how to translate weeks nr.1 and slams won from the pre modern era? Maybe we should get historians and experts to vote based on the numbers. And to use a system most people will vote. Because if you somehow translate success from previous generations to weeks nr.1 or slams won you can compare. It is subjective of course. But it is still based on real numbers and logic. So if most experts vote for example that Laver was nr.1 for most weeks and that pro majors should count then ok. We have at least something. I'm trying to get as close to objective as possible. Not trying to be perfect. Just to accept general consensus.
     
    #18
  19. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    I totally subscribe to this. Laver needed some adaptation to the pro tour and he lost a lot of matches in the pro tour of the early 1963. But this adaptation didn't take long at all. In the pro major later this year, he was a finalist at the USpro and at the Frenchpro, where he lost in 5 sets to Rosewall. He was beaten in his first match in Wembley by Bucholz, but he beat him in other occasion. At the end of the year, he was clearly the second best player in the world.

    This suggest that at least some of the top amateurs could compete with at least the second tier of pro players, who include everyone but Rosewall, Laver, and in-form Hoad and Gonzales.
     
    #19
  20. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,025
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Like I said in my opinion your system is way to simplistic and arbitrary. You give 3 different point categories for majors then say everything else factors into weeks at #1 and say that covers it all. That is way to simple...greatness is not that easy sorry. No one calls Court the GOAT and she has more slams than anyone...that alone should tell you something. Your system is insanely biased towards major victories in my opinion.

    As for putting past greats into this system it is virtually impossible as there was no computer rankings and it would force you to recognize tournaments that are not majors...which you seem totally unwilling to do.

    Like I said..valiant effort...but way to simple.to be of any real use.
     
    #20
  21. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    Simple is good. Everyone likes simple. Objective is to win most. So you win the race. Like formula 1. Other subsets aren't that important. You can have the greatest serve and forehand but you still can't be great if you can't win matches. It is the sum of all parts that is greatness. And talent, speed, skill, that is translated into matches won.

    And it really isn't my system. It is the ATP system. And most people accept slams and rankings as the measure for greatness.

    The more you complicate things and we can't really talk. You can't measure everything. The system is what it is. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. But there is some kind of consensus. Otherwise what is the point of all this? You can find numbers where Roddick is greater than Sampras.

    I didn't just invent the system. My opinion is based on facts and logic.

    I would love to see your system though. I said that I'm trying to improve it.
    But it has to be translated into pure numbers and it has to have some logic behind it.
     
    #21
  22. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I actually praise the efforts.

    When people try to use data to make sense of the world we live in, I think that is an admirable thing to do.

    I also think it is correct to start out with a model that is relatively simple... and then iterate over it as exceptions are found which fall outside the model. The complexity in many mathematical models is usually due to the exceptions that need to be handled.

    I think it's good stuff. Even if I don't necessarily agree with the results, I think it is the correct way to begin to assess anything that has many variables.

    I'm probably byassed though, because I have substantial background in Operations Research.
     
    #22
  23. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    Ok simple is a relative term. It is simple for me, because all the hard analysis was done by guys like you. For example the ATP system. Both is important.
    I'm not trying here to create a new diet. To use the analogy. I'm just trying to check the people following the diet and determine who lost the most pounds or kilos.

    My goal is for us casual fans to translate complex numbers to simple outcome.
    Like a car race. You can analyze in detail all parts of the engine where one car is superior to another. But for me a casual fan it's only important who won the race.

    But we need both in this world. We need a person who makes a car, a person who drives it and a person who observes it.

    So all I want is to put a number on things. Otherwise it's all just relative.
    But when you translate everything into numbers then the world is much easier. And we can understand each other. So this system is easier to explain to a casual fan.
     
    #23
  24. Bursztyn

    Bursztyn New User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    Gliwice, Poland
    Are you going to present some data on these boards? It would be interesting to see the best players (male and female) in the open era listed according to the formula you specified in the first post of this thread.

    In another section of this forum there is a list of players based on similar criteria, however masters series tournaments are also taken into consideration. Some players (e.g. Nadal) are going to benefit from it.
     
    #24
  25. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Sure, I agree with what you're saying completely. You've put a strawman out there for critique, I think it is a valid start for sure.

    So, I think the first thing to do would be to look at the results of the model and determine "how close" the results come to what we think is reality. For example, Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall did not come up at all. While we all may disagree on where Laver/Rosewall fall on the Top-10 list... we all can agree that they should at least appear on the list, correct? Even in the Open Era they should appear.

    So now we either need to add another variable to the model which would show these results... or modify the existing coefficients (weights) on the current variables to make that happen. The question is... if we add a new variable... what is it? And what coefficient do we apply to that variable... and why?
     
    #25
  26. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    I'm posting here to translate pre modern era rankings into my formula. But since you ask ok I just made calculations.

    Federer 41,2
    Sampras 35,2
    Lendl 28,7
    Cnnors 28,6
    Mcenroe 20
    Nadal 19,8
    Borg 19,3
    Agassi 16,8
     
    #26
  27. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    I don't know for the pre-modern era. That's why I'm here. This system is great for the last 30-40 years maybe. I need feedback for someone who knows how things were. How many years were Laver or Rosewall nr.1. If there is general consensus we can start there. In how to somehow translate pro majors into slams won. For example for Laver I have this theory.
    Let's translate his 60% success rate to the slams he was banned from. I think he gets around 17 majors. Then somehow all we need weeks at nr.1 and we can compare. Even if rankings are changed it doesn't matter. You are nr.1 when you are better than your relative competiton.

    I'm here for help.
     
    #27
  28. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I'm not so sure it is necessarily correct for the last 30 or 40 years. Looking at the results, are we sure that the current model is "close enough"? For example, do we think McEnroe was better than Borg? Are we sure that Connors was better than McEnroe, Borg, and Nadal?

    I'm not saying the the end result of the model has to be perfect, but it should be at least "close" (however we define "close").

    The question is... do we think that the output of the current model is "close" enough? If it isn't, then we should modify it to create a more accurate result before adding in another element -- like pre Open-Era players.

    For sure... I know I'll help in any way I can. I consider this kind of stuff to be fun.
     
    #28
  29. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    My idea behind the system is that Slams are overvalued and rankings undervalued. And we've all been somehow brainwashed into this. That is why it is a strange feeling Mcenroe better than Borg. But the difference is minimal.
    They are almost the same. Borg has More slams but Mcenroe has more weeks at nr.1 My greatness value is comprised 50% from weeks nr.1 and 50% from slams won. Of course small bonus for greatness of winning career slam and calendar year grand slam.

    How I came up for this what every player would value the most. And that is nr.1 ranking, slams, career slam and CYGS. That is the general consensus.

    Smaller tournaments,finals, streaks... are all reflected in nr.1 ranking.
    So in 1 year you have a chance to win 4 slams. And you have a chance to be nr.1 4x 13 weeks. That is why 13 weeks is the same as one slam won.
    Because I award two things. PEAK PLAY (slams won). And consistency of peak play (tournaments won, streaks, finals...).

    I think all current systems are too much biased for slams only. I think you can't just show up for slam. Greatness is peak play + consistency.

    Let's say we have two workers. One works 16 hours/day. But then goes weeks missing in action. The other works 8 hours/day but is always there.

    So my premise is to award greatness to both things equally.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2013
    #29
  30. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Tennis history is anything but simple. It is full of twists and turns, contradictions, politics, technology changes etc.
     
    #30
  31. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I agree strongly with this.

    This is exactly the reason I ventured into computing trying to compute/calculate strong and weak eras during players' primes.

    To me, a major title is worth more if the field for that particular major is strong.

    For example, I would not say that Nadal's 7 French Open titles were particularly "strong" titles because the only real competition he had was Federer. The rest of the clay court field was so far behind those two that it is ridiculous. And on clay, Federer is so far behind Nadal that it isn't funny.

    As a result, I would weight Nadal's FO titles with a coefficient that represented the strength of the clay field he faced leading up to each particular FO major.

    This is why I think Borg's accomplishments are actually greater than Nadal's. The clay field that Borg faced in the latter part of his French Open runs was unbelievably strong. I don't think anybody could dispute it. Borg certainly faced more than just one very good clay player. Whereas Nadal only faced one really good clay player during his entire prime.

    So for me, Borg is still greater than Nadal. I think Nadal is an unbelievably good player... but I just think Borg had a much larger challenge during his prime.
     
    #31
  32. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Nadal beat players like Federer, Djokovic, Almagro, Ferrer, Moya at the French Open. He's just better than all of them on clay.
     
    #32
  33. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Those 8 are the open era top tier
    Second tier has 8 more
    Wilander,Newcombe,Rosewalk,Laver,Djokovic,Edberg,Becker and a guy to choose amongst Nastase,Vilas,Courier because the remaining big names of the open era have a record just nit as good as those of the second tier
     
    #33
  34. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    I agree on almost everything but the different levels of competition. This is a very slippery slope. I don't believe in the weak/strong competition theory.
    Because all what we know about the competition is their titles relative to the others and to the dominant player of that era. And another flaw is this: When Nadal's contemporaries will have finished their careers, they will look better. Djokovic, Dimitrov and those younger players. I mean some of them will win those clay titles.

    And another thing. You assume that beating a grand slam champion in a final is greater than beating a journeyman. I disagree. Because on that day he is playing better tennis than the grand slam champion. Hence that is why he is in a final of a slam. So I don't see a reason why you should be penalized if a journeyman is on a good day playing the same level of tennis as the multiple grand slam champion.

    And that is why I completely ignore any kind of weak/strong competition theories. Because you are asking impossible from the so called hypothetical goat. You are asking him to dominate an era where his competition also dominates. You can't expect from someone in 5 year span who wins 20 slams to beat multiple slam champions in the process. Weak competition is the same as saying strong dominant player. Just phrasing is different. So the more he wins the worse he looks. But when he starts to lose you say but now that he has competition he's not winning enough, he is not that good.

    After basic analysis it is easy to grasp circular reasoning. Hope this explains why I ignore any weak/strong competition theories.
     
    #34
  35. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    I only did for tear 1 yes and the modern era. Pre modern era is tough since there were mixed fields and no computer rankings. I'm trying to figure out how to do for pre-modern era. That's why I'm here. Haven't have much success yet. Has anyone done it yet? Give me your system to compare let's say Laver and Federer.
     
    #35
  36. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I don't presume that an era has to have one dominant player.

    I'm not saying I agree, but if you're going to follow this logic, then why not just count career win percentages. I mean if Federer beating Nadal isn't any better than Federer beating Roddick, the career win percentage is all you need.

    If it doesn't matter who you beat in a venue, then why does it matter where you beat anybody? So it is simpler to assert something like... over time, the best players win the most matches. In that case, here's your Top-10:

    1. Rafael Nadal - 83.24% - 616–124
    2. Bjorn Borg - 82.72% - 608–127
    3. Jimmy Connors - 81.78% - 1243–277
    4. Ivan Lendl - 81.76% - 1071–239
    5. John McEnroe - 81.55% - 875–198
    6. Roger Federer - 81.49% - 894–203
    7. Novak Djokovic - 79.65% - 497–127
    8. Pete Sampras - 77.44% - 762–222
    9. Boris Becker - 76.91% - 713–214
    10. Guillermo Vilas -76.81% - 921–278

    (btw, may not be completely update to date)

    Not that I agree completely with the list, but it's a pretty good Top-10 (even though it still excludes players I think should be on it).
     
    #36
  37. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    You are right

    Yes, agree on almost everything.

    This last era (last 10 years or so) is so different in so many things (as you and I have stated so many times), it makes statistics/numbers/achievements across eras comparisons pointless, because today's top players have it way easier in so many different ways than former eras top players.

    I admire Federer (for me, he is one of the best I have ever seen), I can appreciate how great Nadal is, but I am not blind, I've been watching tennis since the late 60s and I've seen all the changes in the sport, and I truly think Federer and Nadal would have had lower numbers (GS, GS finals, GS SF....) under the conditions of previous eras (and also there would have been more different players winning a GS tournament under those conditions).
     
    #37
  38. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    While I agree it doesn't matter who you beat ,it matters where you beat them. In one year being 4-0 vs Federer in slam finals or 250 events , not the same. You get much more points beating him in slam. And win % doesn't reflect where you beat someone. I mean the player with most weeks nr.1 and most slams has to have the best winning %. At least in tier 1 events.
    I mean how is he nr.1 than and has most of the slams?

    So winning % is also reflected in the rankings and slams won apart from many things.
     
    #38
  39. Bursztyn

    Bursztyn New User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    Gliwice, Poland
    jg153040 Thank you very much for your calculations.
    It seems to me that it matters where you beat a certain player. If grand slam tournaments are valued the most then it is a greater achievement to beat a player there than in a less important tournament.

    It is also difficult to compare percentages of matches won of active and retired players. Let's take Sampras for example. He is relatively high on your list, buy if we exclude his results from 2001-2002, he would be probably even higher because he lost relatively many matches during these years (well, his percentage of matches won would be definitely higher then it is now).
     
    #39
  40. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    All that matters is that 1958 to 1967 is pregolden
    1968 to 1989 is Golden
    And 1990 till 2001 is post golden
    Peak is around 1980-81
     
    #40
  41. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    mattennis about the homogenization. I don't think it matters.

    Sampras is the same as Federer if you take clay away. Without clay they both have 19 slam finals. So Sampras was as dominant as Federer. And Nadal can't dominate Hard Courts also. I think Sampras just wasn't good enough on clay that's it.

    You could argue because skipping the clay season he was fresher for the end season. I mean Roddick was also not good on clay. I mean Federer is an exception to the rule. I just think he is that great. Once in while stars align and every 50 years a player that talented comes. Probably statistical extreme but it is possible.
     
    #41
  42. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    If I understand correctly , does this mean that in no era should one person dominate? And if he does that something has to be wrong? But usually one era can't have one dominant player anyway. He slows down and then others have a chance to rack up titles
     
    #42
  43. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ok, so now you've narrowed to a more accurate representation. Number of tour points. Using points, it will bring you closer to what you are looking for. Just change the assertion a little bit.

    You could start with : The player with the most tour points won is the best player.

    Obviously, past era players are at a disadvantage with that model... so you might use something like... "The player with the highest percentage share of tour points won over their career is the best player." It seems to me that all of this weighting of venues is already done by the ATP. So there is no reason to recreate it.

    This data might be a bit more difficult to pull together, though.

    I think a more solid metric would be something like: the best players are those with the most years holding a number one ranking at some point in the year. For those with a tie, you could use total weeks at number one as a tiebreaker.

    After doing some looking, that list actually looks much more solid.
     
    #43
  44. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,763
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    BTW, with a list of players who held a number ranking for the most years (professional and open era), you end up with a list like this:

    Pancho Gonzalez (8 years)
    Bill Tilden (7 years)
    Rod Laver (7 years)
    Jack Kramer (7 years)
    Ken Rosewall (6 years)
    Pete Sampras (6 years)
    Roger Federer (5 years)
    Don Budge (5 years)
    Fred Perry (5 years)
    Bjorn Borg (4 years)

    When I look at this seriously, this list is probably the best I've ever seen for a complete professional and open-era top-10 all time. Every single person on that list was/is absolutely amazing.
     
    #44
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    Actually, there were points systems in use before the ATP computer system.
    There was a season's tour in 1942 which involved four touring pros, Budge winning, and also in 1947, Riggs winning.
    Kramer instituted a points system in 1958 and 1959 for the major pro tournaments on his tour (excluding the Cleveland Arena and Wembley Arena events, which were not managed by Kramer). Hoad won both years.
    In 1969, Kramer's idea of a Grand Prix system was adopted for the 1970 season, and evolved into the current ATP system.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2013
    #45
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    1937 to 1950 is pre-golden
    1951 to 1960 is golden
    1961 to 1970 is silver
    1970 to 1975 is bronze
    1975 to 1981 is copper
    1982 to 1991 is nickel
    1992 to present is lead
     
    #46
  47. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Bronze' s always been my favourite methal...
     
    #47
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Mustard, I believe that Emerson, just like Cooper and Olmedo, would not have improved much if turning pro earlier. He just did not have the potential of being a great player.
     
    #48
  49. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    Thanks this is something I was looking for yes. But this is probably Year end rankings. It can be tricky sometimes. Can you tell me total weeks being number one for those players. Because 5 years ending number one could mean that you are nr.1 just total 5 weeks in theory. So I don't think it is fair.
    If you can give me total weeks for those players that would help me a lot.
     
    #49
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    timnz, Emerson beat Laver only in small events. And I doubt that Emmo was well past his peak then.
     
    #50

Share This Page