Mathematical Goat - A respectful attempt... please read on.

[Nathaniel_Near]

MTF forum member allows members to come up with a points distribution to determine the greatest of all time.

Some correct info is lacking in terms of wins, such as Rosewall's 71 and 72 WCT finals wins, but it's interesting anyway.


Some Spanish dude called Cevi, went to these efforts.

''Make your own Top-10 Greatest Tennis Player All Time.

Put the points you deems appropriate in each category and I will make for you a graphic with your 10 best players of all time...(based on your rating)

Fill out this tab. (replace X by the points you think are just appropriate)

OPEN ERA
Gran Slam
Champion: X
Runner up: X

2 GS diferents: X
3 GS diferents: X
4 GS diferents: X
4 Gs one year: X

AMATEUR ERA: Gran Slam
Champion: X
Runner up: X

MASTER1000
Champion: X
Runner up: X

GRAN PRIX CHAMPIONSHIP: (tournamentes before MS)
Champion: X
Runner up: X

PROFESSIONAL ERA:
Pro Slam -
Champion: X
Runner up: X

COPA DAVIS:
Champion: X

OLIMPICS:
Gold. X
Silver: X
Bronze: X

MASTERS CUP:
Champion: X
Runner up: X

FOR WEEKS Nº 1: X
FOR YEARS ENDED N°1: X

REST OF TOURNAMENTS: X''

***


People chimed in with their thoughts and then Cevi would create the table of results.

[Nathaniel_Near]

OPEN ERA
Gran Slam
Champion: 250
Runner up: 80

2 GS diferents: 50
3 GS diferents: 100
4 GS diferents: 300
4 Gs one year: 400

AMATEUR ERA: Gran Slam
Champion: 150
Runner up: 60

MASTER1000
Champion: 60
Runner up: 25

GRAN PRIX CHAMPIONSHIP: (tournamentes before MS)
Champion: 40
Runner up: 20

PROFESSIONAL ERA:
Pro Slams
Champion: 90
Runner up: 30

COPA DAVIS:
Champion: 60

OLIMPICS:
Gold. 90
Silver: 50
Bronze: 30

MASTERS CUP:
Champion: 90
Runner up: 25

FOR WEEKS Nº 1: 1
FOR YEARS ENDED N°1: 10

REST OF TOURNAMENTS: 5

---------- RESULT----------------------



NOW DO YOURS..
***




Without copying and pasting every single points distribution, here are further tables of results:





My eventual result ...

[pc1]

No Pancho Gonzalez, no Bill Tilden and others therefore major flaws. Also who sets the numbers? Not all the info is used for all players.

Not a bad try but I like others better.

[Nathaniel_Near]

[Nathaniel_Near]

[Nathaniel_Near]

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by pc1

No Pancho Gonzalez, no Bill Tilden and others therefore major flaws. Also who sets the numbers? Not all the info is used for all players.

Not a bad try but I like others better.

I think they do appear in some lists, and I agree entirely. But I thought people would find this interesting anyway. Surprisingly, the guy who put it together is just 24. He admits he may not have all the info, and wants help in having a more reliable and accurate set of results and achievements.


Players from older generations are particularly hurt, and only Laver and to some extent Rosewall get something which begins to approach their full due. But as you can see, none of Borg's non ATP tour titles are included, same for other players who played in the WCT era. Both of Ken's 71 and 72 WCT Finals wins aren't included, and so on, and so on, and so on. EVEN SO, I think it's a nice effort and it's a shame this forum member over at MTF doesn't post here, because surely if he posted his attempt in this forum, he would be inundated with information and knowledge which would help inform his database. It's nice how they went to the effort of producing tables for everyone - I'm not sure how much effort that takes, or if he coded such a system himself.

[Limpinhitter]

The value of such a comparison depends greatly on the weight you give to the various titles throughout history. I don't know what method, if any, you used to decided how many points to assign to these different titles, or if it was just a random subjective opinion. But, for example, assigning an open era major title 250 points and a pro major title 90 points seems to assign an excessive discount to pro major titles compared to open major titles, IMO. Olympic titles are given the same weight as pro major titles. That, alone, puts the value of this exercise in serious doubt. Olympic tennis is at it's highest value now, and even so, the ATP assigns 750 pts. for an Olympic title, which is less than the masters events, much less the majors.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The value of such a comparison depends greatly on the weight you give to the various titles throughout history. I don't know what method, if any, you used to decided how many points to assign to these different titles, or if it was just a random subjective opinion. But, for example, assigning an open era major title 250 points and a pro major title 90 points seems to assign an excessive discount to pro major titles compared to open major titles, IMO.

Well, I had problems with assigning points to things, and I didn't spend a particularly long time thinking about it, but it was immediately apparent that an obvious problem in just assigning a blanket figure to a category doesn't aco**** for the changes in weight of various achievements over time.


Here is my current points distribution, which lead to the results in table no.4

''Originally Posted by MatchFederer
I am changing this due to misunderstanding the AM Pro part, where I was assigning scores based on when the tour split and you had slightly weakened fields existing concurrently. It isn't a perfect and malleable solution because then, for example, Laver gets overly rewarded for winning the 62 Slam in the absence of Rosewall AND Gonzales, who were playing on the Pro tour.

Make your own Top-10 Greatest Tennis Player All Time.

Put the points you deems appropriate in each category and I will make for you a graphic with your 10 best players of all time...(based on your rating)

Fill out this tab.[/b] (replace X by the points you think are just appropriate)

OPEN ERA
Gran Slam
Champion: 100
Runner up: 50

2 GS diferents: 50
3 GS diferents: 100
4 GS diferents: 200
4 Gs one year: 500

AMATEUR ERA: Gran Slam
Champion: 80
Runner up: 40

MASTER1000
Champion: 25
Runner up: 15

GRAN PRIX CHAMPIONSHIP: (tournamentes before MS)
Champion: 25
Runner up: 15

PROFESSIONAL ERA:
Pro Slam -
Champion: 80
Runner up: 40

COPA DAVIS:
Champion: 25

OLIMPICS:
Gold. 25
Silver: 15
Bronze: 10

MASTERS CUP:
Champion: 50
Runner up: 25

*i have taken out the weeks as no.1 stat*

FOR YEARS ENDED N°1: 100

REST OF TOURNAMENTS: any other lower level tournament victory: 5''

[Limpinhitter]

Why not use the current ATP points system and make an informed judgment about the points pre-ATP and non-ATP events should be assigned by the strength of the event? That would seem more reasonable than a random assignment of points based on subjective opinion that can change from day to day.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Why not use the current ATP points system and make an informed judgment about the points pre-ATP and non-ATP events should be assigned by the strength of the event? That would seem more reasonable than a random assignment of points based on subjective opinion that can change from day to day.

It would do, but doesn't fit in with his system. It would be nice to take the time in a respectful forum to deduce a fair weighting for all these events in every single year of tennis tours. Currently his system is to assign whatever number is chosen, to EVERY Amateur, Pro and Open Era Major in 'name' rather than in 'weight'.

It goes almost without saying that your proposed idea is superior to the current model which is exhibited in this thread. BTW, it would seem that no non ATP events, other than majors, have been included in Cevi's database of results for the period that it was running alongside the WCT. Also, other tournaments are all counted as X according to the system, and yet many of those non major titles would indeed be the equivalent of a Masters 1000 rather than just 'any other tournament', or indeed more still.

[TMF]

I don't agree with having Davis Cup because it's a team effort. A player has DC title doesn't necessary means he has a better result(win/loss record) than a titleless player.

And one poster had the Master Series value at 10 while the pro majors at 75 and amateur slam at 60. That's ridiculous.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

I don't agree with having Davis Cup because it's a team effort. A player has DC title doesn't necessary means he has a better result(win/loss record) than a titleless player.

Hmm, I wonder why?.

Let's see, which player has never been on a winning Davis Cup team?

Nadal? no.
Sampras? no.
McEnroe? no.
Borg? no.
Laver? no.
Lendl? no.
Connors? no.
Agassi? no.

Rosewall? yes.
Aha! TMF is a Rosewall-****. Plain as day!

AHA!!! That's what TMF stands for--Triumphant Muscles Forever.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

And one poster had the Master Series value at 10 while the pro majors at 75 and amateur slam at 60. That's ridiculous.

BTW, one should make a gold medal in Olympic doubles worth at least 500 points.

Not having it listed--that's ridiculous.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Roger Federer, the greatest being who ever existed in the multiverse. That Olympic Doubles gold is worth at least 10000 points.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

Roger Federer, the greatest being who ever existed in the multiverse. That Olympic Doubles gold is worth at least 10000 points.

Damn! Great idea! Brilliant!

(Why didn't I think of that.)

[urban]

Maybe i don't understand the irony properly. But Rosewall was in the Davis Cup winning team 1953, 55 and 56, playing all singles in the Challenge Round, and was in the 1973 winning team.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

BTW, one should make a gold medal in Olympic doubles worth at least 500 points.

Not having it listed--that's ridiculous.

Nope. No one in their right mind would include double.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by urban

Maybe i don't understand the irony properly. But Rosewall was in the Davis Cup winning team 1953, 55 and 56, playing all singles in the Challenge Round, and was in the 1973 winning team.

My new quoted signature doesn't include anything directly pertaining to the DC, so it still stands.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by urban

Maybe i don't understand the irony properly. But Rosewall was in the Davis Cup winning team 1953, 55 and 56, playing all singles in the Challenge Round, and was in the 1973 winning team.

Ooops! I guess whoever made out the charts listed above was unaware of these facts.