The ranking system should only be base on grand slams (this is the right post)

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Pusher Terminator, Feb 6, 2005.

?

The rankings should only be based on Grand Slam performances

  1. YES

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. no

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    The ranking system should only be based on Grand slams, instead it is based on how well you perform during the entire year and requires you to play often. I believe that this is because it helps tournament promoters make money. rankings should be based soley on the Grand slams and heres why:

    1. In every other sport if you win the crowning event you are the world champion regardless of your record during the year. If you win the world series..who cares what your record was during the year. If you win the Stanley cup who gives a crap about your record during the year. Why should tennis be any different?


    2. When Serena was kicking everybodys butt on the tour she was not ranked number one simply because she didnt play enough during the year.

    3. When Sampras won his last US Open he was ranked like number 50 or something in the world....that was simply ridiculous!

    4. The system promotes injuries. Playing that much tennis causes players to get hurt and shorten their careers. if you look at all the injuries on the tour compared to the old days you will see that there are far more injuries today even though medicine & physical training has improved today.

    5. It causes great players to quit. I believe Sampras would have stayed in the game if the rankings were only based on Grand slams. If he could just show up for Grand slam events and still be ranked in the top 10 I think he would still be playing today. Bog quit Tennis at something like 26 years old for similar reason. He had taken some time off, and when he came back on the tour he was ranked so low that he actually had to qualify for tournaments. Instead he just chose to quit. The rukes shortened Borgs career, Sampras' career...who's next?

    6. The current system takes away from the importance of the Grand Slams.
     
    #1
  2. court_zone

    court_zone Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    269
    I think they should have all the minor events in the beginning of the season and then the players with the most points go on to all four slams after, then the top 8 players who get the most ranking points at the end, advance to the big one, Year-ending masters. The winner of the year-ending masters would be crowned number one.
     
    #2
  3. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Push, Are you suggesting the rest of the tournaments count for nothing? In your system how would you determine seedings. Base it only on your GS results? That just doesn't make sense.

    In your system you may have many marquis players sitting out some or even worse much of the season. How do you propose to market that and promote the game worldwide if some of the best players are sitting at home nursing their hangnails and servere chapped lip injuries while the rest of the tour is being played? What is your reward for winning the tournaments outside of the GS's other than money?

    Here's an idea. How about shaving off on month of the tour as it exists today? The last week of the tour would be around the 1st or 2nd week in November, with the last ATP tour event being the year end masters. Now I want you to go tell those tournament directors who had tournaments in November their events are being canceled. See how easy it is?
     
    #3
  4. chicagohpch

    chicagohpch Rookie

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Doesn't make any sense. Yes, there are so many tournaments. There are also thousands of pro players who make a living on playing these tournaments. So you want these guys to play only for money? When Sampras could only play a couple of tournaments a year, he ranking deserved to be low. What's the fuss.

    What I would suggest is that tournaments should be ranked based on how many ranked players are playing in the tournaments (of course there should be an upper limit way below a grand slam points), so that the winner gets more points from winning a hgher ranked event. This will pressure the organizers to attract better players, and at the same time, eliminate some minor minor events.
     
    #4
  5. perfmode

    perfmode Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,767
    TMC = World Cup = Superbowl
     
    #5
  6. Craig Sheppard

    Craig Sheppard Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,361
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    I would support having rankings based on the 4 majors and all the Masters Series tournaments (is that about 12?), for a total of 16 or so ranking tournaments. That way the top players would only have to play those tournaments to maintain their rankings, giving them tournaments every month (or a little more at major times). They wouldn't get overworked that way, and the season would be shorter. Then the Masters Series Cup at the end of the year would be like a playoff for the "title", even though the #1 ranking may be wrapped up earlier in the year.
     
    #6
  7. daniel_rst

    daniel_rst Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    I like what you are trying to do in theory:

    Reward players less for just playing a lot of tournaments and more for big wins.

    However, just counting Grand Slam events is a bad idea. A better way to accomplish the same goal is to account for QUALITY of wins and losses based on the rating of the opponent. This is already done in table tennis and chess, for example.
     
    #7
  8. perfmode

    perfmode Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,767
    I'm a big fan of the glicko system that you use for set ratings and i think everything in the world that involves head to head matchups should use glicko. That includes, sports, poker and online video games.
     
    #8
  9. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    and for,

    In answer to your question.....the lesser tournaments should count for something. In sports such as Hockey and basketball your record during the year counts as far as you getting homefield advantage etc etc. In tennis, it should factor into your earnings at the Grand slams...you would get extra money if you win or make it to semi's or quarters.

    Players would not be home nursing hangnails because they love money too much. Money makes the world go around my friend.

    Finally, I like the idea of cutting the season short. Bravo! You are also right...it would not be easy.
     
    #9
  10. Roforot

    Roforot Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,196
    I think the Grand Slams should be weighted another 20-25% more as far as points go; I am dissappointed by women becoming #1 w/out winning a slam that year!
    I do feel that the other tournaments have importance and merit ranking points; if for no other reason than to differentiate b/w 4 players who've each won one slam in the year!
     
    #10
  11. Aykhan Mammadov

    Aykhan Mammadov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    Answer to post No 1:

    I understand that we are here to spend time.

    1. In all sports there are many events during year. But it is more objective to be considered as the first and best in a result of many tournaments than in one where you can accidenatlly win. As Massu in Olympics.

    2. Answer in 1.
    3. Answer in 1.
    4. All sports promote injuries. Say in football championship is conducted once in 4 years, but football players play continiously during a year ( I mean Europian football).
    5. It is the same in all sports. I was surprised when the daughter of my colleague retired from gymnastics in the age 22. It is considered old for sporting gymnastics.
    6. You are right. Nothing to do.

    I'm against what you wrote. Imagine how not important other tournaments become if you select one or a few as most important. In such a case we must sit and wait World championship say 2 or 4 years as football's or gymnastics' fans do. Or say a few months till GS. Conversely, in tennis everything is organised much better and clever. From my interests of spectator and tennis fan I'm against.
     
    #11
  12. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    aYKAHN,

    You have made some good points, however what you fail to realize is that Tennis viewership is on the decline while other sports viewership is on the rise. So I think that waiting for the Grandslams as in other spots would create excitement. I think someone else here had said how ridiculous it was to have a #1 ranked woman in the world who never won a grand slam......therefore i would rather take the importance away from little tournamnets than I would from grand slams....otherwise they really wont be very "grand" at all.
     
    #12

Share This Page