|02-04-2009, 04:48 AM||#10|
Join Date: Dec 2006
OK, as people are commenting on the old list, but as I don't approve of everything in it anymore, I decided to put the new one here, even if (VERY important) it is still a work in progress.
Some methodology points:
-no more surface criteria (ie one clay major per year) as it led to too much twisting of the reality of what was and was not a great tournament.
-a system of coefficients for majors:
*only the true, undisputed majors get a coefficient of 1: this includes the traditional Slam majors, the Pro slam majors, and the '19th-century- Slam' (Wimbledon-Irish-Northern) majors, the Davis Cup, the New York Masters, and only a few others...
*the rest of the tournaments have coefficients.
An example: the year 1970.
Wimbledon and the USO were definitely true majors so they get a coef. 1.
There are still 2 'slots' to fill.
The PSW LA, Philadelphia, Sydney, and Tokyo Masters were all great tournaments, but none on the majors level.
So each one of them gets a 1/2 coef. 2*1+4*1/2=4, so we got it right.
0.5 Sydney Laver
0.5 Philadelphia Laver
0.5 PSW Los Angeles Laver
0.5 Masters Smith
1 Wim Newcombe
1 USO Rosewall
So Laver has gained 1.5 'points' during that year, rosewall and Newcombe 1 and Smith 0.5.
*the coef system let me be much more flexible concerning the pro/amateur divide for the really ambiguous years, such as 1934-1936 for instance.
In that case I can apply coefs not only for tournaments but also the pro field vs the amateur field.
I can give further details another time, this is just to explain why some coefs can seem very 'strange' and unintuitive for some of these years.
This system is obviously more complex than the previous one, but probably fairer too, and lets us take into account a bit of the complexity of tennis history.
Here's the list...
Last edited by SgtJohn : 02-04-2009 at 04:59 AM.