View Single Post
Old 04-23-2013, 05:57 PM   #44
timnz
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,006
Default My main point is

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMR View Post
Huh? I just provided a large set of examples! To quote my previous post:
"Take a look at last year's '100 Greatest Players' from the Tennis Channel and tell me how much discussion there was of, and how much apparent weight was assigned to, nonslam tournaments."

Do you think the comparison between Federer and Laver turned on how many M1000-equivalent titles each guy won? Do you believe that was even a factor? No -- it was all about slams, winning the CYGS or coming close, years of domination, success on all surfaces, etc. Watch the program if you don't believe me. And all the voters/pundits were tennis experts (former players, long-time journalists, builders of the sport, etc.)

To repeat: From the long-term, historical perspective, I'm being quite reasonable, perhaps even generous, in my proposed assignment of points for M1000 titles, YEC titles, and slam finals. One thing we can be certain of is that when Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are compared to each other 40 years from now, no one will look back and count each Masters title as half a slam, or each YEC title as 70 percent of a slam (and I'm speaking as a big fan of the YEC, personally).
I started out trying to come up with a relatively straight forward and objective way to compare players in the open era. The objective part (at least I tried...see Mattennis comments where the whole thing is more complex) was to simply list the players wins in the top events. I cut it off at Masters 1000 equivalents because of the reasons I have given above. Then I ran into the issue of weighting. Now you have made it very clear what your thoughts on weighting should be....but the fact remains there probably is as many opinions on this as members on this board. So what is abundantly clear and what could be said with certainity is that agreement on this will never happen. For instance I rate the WTF highly because it is an event now of long tradition that the top players rate highly. But if you speak to some members of this board...they see it more or less as an exhibition (even though none of the top players think so...but that is another story). Again opinion. I wanted to come up with the rankings so the only thing left to me was to use the ATP weightings. I personally think the slams are underrated ...I think they should be at least 3 x Masters 1000's - but again ..opinion. The next time I post these ranking I will title it....Open Era rankings using current ATP weightings....and leave it there for what it is.

Now if you are able to achieve consensus across the board on weightings I will tip my hat...but I don't think it is likely. Best wishes to you...I don't mean these comments with any disrespect.
timnz is offline   Reply With Quote