View Single Post
Old 05-17-2013, 10:12 AM   #54
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 10,927

Originally Posted by mightyrick View Post
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.
True that is why I use slams won + total weeks nr.1. So When a person A wins 2 majors and a person B wins 0 majors but is ranked nr.1 for 26 total weeks. I considered them the same in greatness. Because Slams and rankings is something players value the most.

Only one problem. But I think I have a solution. Yes we have a problem with rankings. Because the same achievement doesn't give you the same ranking in different eras. But we compare players relative to them.

But the same can be said about slams. You win slams with different scores.
And yet we give the same rating 1 to all slams. I mean why can't we do the same with rankings.

Let's say evolution of tennis. I mean Federer's level of play won't win him slams and nr.1 ranking in 30 years. But it was enough for his relative competition. Like todays record in running won't be enough for being nr.1 30 years from now.So achivements have value relative to your competition.

The best is the one who distances himself more from the pack. Nadal as great as he is he wasn't able to. The best should find a way.

Isn't this hypothetical goat? Who distanced himself the most from the pack?
A bet against a champion is a bad bet!

Last edited by jg153040; 05-17-2013 at 10:16 AM.
jg153040 is online now   Reply With Quote