Originally Posted by jg153040
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.
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.