View Single Post
Old 01-27-2013, 09:44 PM   #9
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324
Default Agree but...

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr View Post
I don't buy the way the points used for this calculation is so close in relationship to points on offer in the rankings.

For example, a runner up at a major is a much more significant achievement in the greater scheme of tennis than winning a Masters 1000 tournament - twice a great at least imo... not 1.2 times.

It should be more like: Slam win 5, year ending championship 2.5, slam runner-up 2, Masters 1000 title 1... A relative scaling more like this would be more consistent with how tennis players are viewed historically and in the respect/admiration they get for past achievements.

For example, Rios vs Ivanisevic. No one at all cares that Rios was a number one player compared to Ivanisevic who won a major. Rios won 5 Masters series tournaments to Ivanisevic's 2... but the ranking above would rate Rios higher (I only did it quickly - could be wrong). That is folly imo - at the peak of the game Ivanisevic succeeded, Rios did not - and so will be remembered in higher regard than Rios ever will be.
Hi Bobby,

I completely agree with the sentiment of the weightings of Slams relative to other events. For instance, reflect on what would have happened if Murray had won that Australian Open. We would be left with Djokovic being number 1 with no current slam titles and Murray number 3 with 2 slam titles.

Problem though is this. It is completely subjective. What should be the relative weight of a slam vs a Masters 1000? I feel it should be about 3000 points, you say 5000 points. And we could make good arguments either way. However, at the end of the day who gets to decide? The best I could do was take personal opinions out of it....and just use the point weights that the ATP use. Like it or not (and I don't) the ATP says that a Slam wins is 2 x the points of a Masters 1000. I guess we just have to live with it.

The purpose of this ranking was to take personal opinion out of it altogether. It was to say, on an objective basis - based on achievement - what was someone's tournament achievements at Masters 1000 equivalent basis or higher, compared to other open era champions. No personal opinions - just the facts - based on the ATP's current weightings (to take personal opinion out of it).
timnz is offline   Reply With Quote