View Single Post
Old 05-17-2013, 09:03 AM   #45
Dan Lobb
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boredone3456 View Post
Actually no slam finals do not reflect totally in whether you are number 1 or not. Andy Murray has won a slew of masters shields and made 4 slam finals and has never been number 1. They are 2 totally different things. That is way to much streamlining for the sake of simplicity on your part.

Slam wins and weeks #1 are not the be all and end all of greatness. As I have said tennis now has evolved to a 10 month season with many big non major tournaments. You have created a system that is way to simple and based around arbitrary numbers.

As for using weeks at number one that is entirely sketchy before the computer was invented as the ranking were determined by experts making and publishing lists based on their interpretations of players performances. Depending on who was making the list different people could be number 1. I think they used to vote by committee to instead of by computer didn't they (someone confirm this?). Now we have points and a computer...past eras didn't have this concrete system.

Its a valiant effort but it falls short as it is way to simplistic and would only work for the open era in probably the last 30 years when the Aussie was mass attended most years.
Actually, there were points systems in use before the ATP computer system.
There was a season's tour in 1942 which involved four touring pros, Budge winning, and also in 1947, Riggs winning.
Kramer instituted a points system in 1958 and 1959 for the major pro tournaments on his tour (excluding the Cleveland Arena and Wembley Arena events, which were not managed by Kramer). Hoad won both years.
In 1969, Kramer's idea of a Grand Prix system was adopted for the 1970 season, and evolved into the current ATP system.

Last edited by Dan Lobb : 05-17-2013 at 09:07 AM.
Dan Lobb is offline   Reply With Quote