Ok, maybe this need its own thread... Regarding the thread bout Nad rants over 52 weeks atp ranking, i asked in that post: what about a "ELO" type rating? (the one that chess uses, the most fair ever and the only one that allows acurate diferent eras players comparisions) Maybe im biased, cuz the 3 individual sports that i've played a high level chess, poker and Magic TG (yeah i consider those sports AND games,it depends of how seriously u take it) all 3 have really fair ranking sistems, chess, elo rating, MagicTG, a very similar one(prolly the most apropiate to tennis) and poker... well in poker who win more money is tha best one, nothing is more fair than this So what about a ranking that takes into account not only the victory in a tourney, but the players u faced and the "level" of the tourney itself? For example, get all pro players a 2000 points base, then give each kind of tourney a K value (for example 8 for 250, 16 for 500, 32 for masters 1000 and 50 for GS)then give points for each game, taking into account that K, i mean if u r playing a 8K event, u can win as much as 8 points for game, if u play a GS 50k one, u can win 50 points tops each game. and more important, take into account the ranking of your oponent, if two 2000 players play eachother, the winner takes 4 points and the loser takes 4 points, if a 2200 plays a 1800, if the 2200 wins takes 1 point, but if he loses, loses 8 points... (insert here a fair maths algorithm that im too lazy to make now) that will reward the players who win more, will reward the hardest draws more than the lousy ones, wont punish so badly early round upsets while benefitting the upsetter and at the end of the year will have a REALLY fair ranking... What do u guys think?