Open era ranking based on the Slams + Season end finals
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Well
I'd love to rate the slams more than 2 x but then my ranking system would bear no relation to the current atp rankings. I am trying to be objective in this system. I do believe the current atp system has the slams weighted too lightly, but it is the system we have for better or worse. I can't make up a weighting to rate the players one way and the atp have them rated completely different.
I'd love to rate the slams more than 2 x but then my ranking system would bear no relation to the current atp rankings. I am trying to be objective in this system. I do believe the current atp system has the slams weighted too lightly, but it is the system we have for better or worse. I can't make up a weighting to rate the players one way and the atp have them rated completely different.
kiki
Banned
The fact that no newtard has been able to give any reasonable deffence on today´s weak era other than remote and vague concpts such as height of players and increased pool is the biggest argument to stablish current era as a weak era.
Their blattant overlook of the 1960´s and 1970´s details prove they are completely lost in their arguments.
kiki
Banned
The 1979 proves how big Dallas was even if lacking some luster.and, you know why, it is not a fault on Dallas but a fault on the WCT tour having disappeared as such and integrated into the Gran Prix.
What made Dallas big in the early 70´s was not just the event per se, but the path that led into it.So, IMO, Dallas was a major always, but the WCT tour failed from 1978 forwards ( integration in the GP killed it)
kiki
Banned
except when we talk about the last 10 years where only 3 guys are contenders for majors...
abmk
Bionic Poster
agassi - AO 2003
ferrero - FO 2003
roddick - USO 2003
gaudio - FO 2004
safin - AO 2005
del potro - USO 2009
list of major winners in the last 10 years apart from those 3 .... no of "contenders" are wayyyyyy more ...
you fail again ....just like your crush Kodes failed whenever faced with full fields in majors - 0 majors in full fields ...
kiki
Banned
so, Kodes didn´t play a 128 players field, so it was not a full field????
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Reasonable defense? You and BobbyOne make the claim that the era is weak, so where is your proof? All I claim is that it is impossible to prove that a certain era is weak unless you have specific cirumstances such as a split field.
I love how you think that listing the names of players who played in your "weak era" is somehow proof but general trends in athletic performance that are published in scientific journals don't count for anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
abmk
Bionic Poster
wimbledon 73 : 13 out of 16 seeds boycotted including the best 2 grass-courters at that time, newk and smith ......, a total of 81 players boycotted the event ...... That is as weak as wimbledon ever was in the open era
FO 70: no defending champion Laver, no runner up in the previous FO and best CC player of the generation - rosewall , no Newk ( who was 3-1 vs Kodes on clay )
FO 71: same as above, add to it that Laver did beat Kodes in Rome 71 final - that Rome event had a better field than FO 71 ...
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
and you have a crystal ball that tells you what would have happened if those players were in, no? excuses, escuses and more excuses.
1973 W had Nastase,Borg and Connors, among others, BTW.
And he has never seen a strong era in his life.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Once again, it is one thing to say that the current era isn't so much better, but it is just as ridiculous to say it is worse now than it ever has been. You are doing the same thing that you talk about in your post, but in reverse.
Don't worry, the world isn't trying to leave you behind.
kiki
Banned
except for one difference: some of has have lived through different eras and most of you just know one or one and a half.That puts our opinion in a different class, you know.it is like me discussiong with Von Karajan or Metha that Beethoven lived in a tougher era than Bach, I would just sound terribly ridiculous.That is how newtards with no prospective and balanced opinion look ( not all of them are like that, a few are well balanced).
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
In your opinion, your opinion is in a different class.
The fact remains that not everyone shares your opinion about which eras are strong or weak, irrespective of how long they have lived. Some people even understand that they have personal biases from growing up during certain eras or associating certain eras with a good period of their life.
The idea is to cut through all the crap and have discussions that are based upon the facts and where your personal feelings aren't really that relevant. No one can have a discussion without their own bias coming into play, but you can at least realize that you aren't truly impartial and try to see through that.
Last edited by a moderator:
kiki
Banned
In your opinion, your opinion is in a different class.
The fact remains that not everyone shares your opinion about which eras are strong or weak, irrespective of how long they have lived. Some people even understand that they have personal biases from growing up during certain eras or associating certain eras with a good period of their life.
The idea is to cut through all the crap and have discussions that are based upon the facts and where your personal feelings aren't really that relevant. No one can have a discussion without their own bias coming into play, but you can at least realize that you aren't truly impartial and try to see through that.
While I agree on some parts of your post, I didn´t talk about it at all.
Tell me: How can somebody who hasn´t seen what I have seen TRY TO EXPLAIN ME what I have seen?
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, so if I get it wrong, I apologize.
I don't think anyone wants to tell you what you have or have not seen. I think that they would just like for you to realize that how you view a certain era personally can't be translated to being an obvious truth that everyone must agree with.
Competitiveness in an era is only a statement about the parity of the era in question. It says nothing about the actual level the tennis was being played at in comparison to other eras. This is a simple statement that makes use of simple logic.
It seems like, for you, competitiveness is the hallmark of a strong era. If you were to replace the word strong with entertaining, I would agree. But it is all relative in tennis. Take away a few of the freak guys and any era would become competitive.
kiki
Banned
I never pretended to have any truth, just my opinion.Which is based on my experience and judgement, just like anybody´s else.But, of course, the less experienced people are, the more they talk about anything, like they knew it all.It is human nature.Specially if you haven´t hit your 25 or 30 yars of age.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
That is good to hear. There are also things other than opinions that can be used during a discussion. Are you trying to imply that I am not 25 or 30 years old?
Last edited by a moderator:
kiki
Banned
Since no era plays against another era, facts are relative to each era and, while they count, experience, judgement and seasoned opinions will give a clearer picture than mere statistical facts, like the height of the players or the matherial they use.
I don´t know about your age and it is not important, what is important is when did you really start watching and having a feeling for the game and be able to judge.Many 70 yrs old men who were never into tennis and just became tennis fans over the last 10 years are as clueless as a 15 yrs old kid.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
True, but the problem is that even people who would meet your criteria so that they are allowed to have an opinion don't all agree. Then, it is possible to have a discussion where people use their opinions, experience, and statistical facts in order to make arguments.
The problem is that many of the posts here are no different from those that are in GPPD. There are also many posts where people post stats about former players that are interesting, but that is another, better, story.
The bottom line is, you and BobbyOne don't like when people dismiss the older greats as not being part of the conversation, but you do the same thing to current players here, perhaps as some sort of payback. Surely someone with such experience would know that two wrongs don't make a right.
Last edited by a moderator:
To be honest, I don't think it's all that bad to say the previous generations of tennis is weaker than the modern time, but not vice versa. Because all sports improve over time, that's not an earth shattering news. Even ex-players like Lendl and Laver said today's standard are much higher than during their heyday, and they are not ashame to accept the truth.
He will conveniently ignore that Federer's era has much greater depth/talent than Laver's era is the consensus. Only some posters from the Laver Forum say otherwise.
kiki
Banned
You are right except that I do not care if a 15 yrs old picks federer or nadal or djokovic, it makes no difference, it is normal for his age, I mean, if a 15 yrs old guy icks Budge or kramer, I´d be astonished.Nothing agaisnt that.
it is the fact that, since they have no prospective or judgement, just bashing in, bashing out.being disrepectful and mobbing other eras they have no simple clue about.
But many great ex-players, historians/experts have said today's players are better, and they are not 15 years old, in case you didn't notice.
How is it disrespecful when they are just providing facts to support their arguments? If more athletes around the world continue to compete and fight their way into the ATP tour, the harder to get in. This fact alone is reasonable to believe the current field has more depth/talent players than in the 90s, 80s, 70s...
Not so fast.
Yes, athletic standard have improved, but the improvement is much much smaller than what is touted to be. After all, in real terms the 100 metre sprint times on the track have only improved by less than 5% in 75 years (Jesse Owens 10.25 on cinder tracks equates to 10.0 on modern tracks with modern shoes and timing devices). The mile record hasn't been improved on for 13 years. Hence, the rate of improvement has been very very small over time. It tends to be highly exaggerated and therefore the achievements and standards of past players sidelined and minimised wrongly.
Yes, athletic standard have improved, but the improvement is much much smaller than what is touted to be. After all, in real terms the 100 metre sprint times on the track have only improved by less than 5% in 75 years (Jesse Owens 10.25 on cinder tracks equates to 10.0 on modern tracks with modern shoes and timing devices). The mile record hasn't been improved on for 13 years. Hence, the rate of improvement has been very very small over time. It tends to be highly exaggerated and therefore the achievements and standards of past players sidelined and minimised wrongly.
Electronic timing actually slows times down as the clock is set to start simultaneously with the firing of the start gun, whereas human time keepers have to wait to hear the start gun and then react to it. These two delays that come with manual timing, sound delay and reaction time delay, serve to shorten the length of time the clock is running for and thus serve to improve runners' times.
It makes no difference to the Lendl/Sampras rankings if we increase Slam weightings
In my Rankings Sampras falls behind Lendl by 10 points in the Career Achievement stakes.
If we increase the weightings of slams from 2 x Masters 1000's to 3 x Masters 1000's (obviously at the same time we would increase the value of slam runner-up - because if a slam is more value, runner up at a slam is more value). Runner up gets increased to 1.8 x Masters 1000. (Keeping the same 2/1.2 ratio = 3/1.8)
Here is the results:
Lendl (8 x 3) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5) + (11 x 1.8) + (22 x 1) = 74.8
Sampras (14 x 3) + (5 x 1.5) + (4 x 1.8) + (11 x 1) = 67.7
That is very interesting. Even with weighting Slams 1.5 times what the ATP give them currently - it still doesn't bring Sampras over Lendl.
What that is making me think that in conversations about Players we don't factor in Slam runner-ups or Masters 1000's at all really. But is that right? Are slams wins the only criteria a player should be judged by? Do we have the position that if a Player doesn't win he may as well should lose in the first round because even runner-up is absolutely useless. And Masters 1000's don't count for anything either.......
Time perhaps to revise our perception of certain players....
In my Rankings Sampras falls behind Lendl by 10 points in the Career Achievement stakes.
If we increase the weightings of slams from 2 x Masters 1000's to 3 x Masters 1000's (obviously at the same time we would increase the value of slam runner-up - because if a slam is more value, runner up at a slam is more value). Runner up gets increased to 1.8 x Masters 1000. (Keeping the same 2/1.2 ratio = 3/1.8)
Here is the results:
Lendl (8 x 3) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5) + (11 x 1.8) + (22 x 1) = 74.8
Sampras (14 x 3) + (5 x 1.5) + (4 x 1.8) + (11 x 1) = 67.7
That is very interesting. Even with weighting Slams 1.5 times what the ATP give them currently - it still doesn't bring Sampras over Lendl.
What that is making me think that in conversations about Players we don't factor in Slam runner-ups or Masters 1000's at all really. But is that right? Are slams wins the only criteria a player should be judged by? Do we have the position that if a Player doesn't win he may as well should lose in the first round because even runner-up is absolutely useless. And Masters 1000's don't count for anything either.......
Time perhaps to revise our perception of certain players....
Last edited:
But cinder tracks have far far more impact. It has been calculated that a 400 metre run on cinders would be about a second slower than a modern track. Hence 100/400 x 1 second is 0.25 seconds.
Anyway my point is that advances in Physical performance are exaggerated beyond all proportion. Why is it that in 45 years the Marathon time has only gone from 2hr 8 min to 2hr 3 minutes? That is only a 4% improvement over 45 years. Hence about 1% per decade. Again, the Mile record hasn't improved for 13 years.
People see the hard hitting of current players and assume it is because they are physcially stronger. But really most of this is coming from the modern rackets.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I don't think they are exaggerated, but just misunderstood. You are talking about simple physical competitions like who can run the fastest over short or long distances. I would say that five percent is a pretty decent increase.
It isn't like humans are evolving in order to run faster over a span of decades, but instead that a general pool of humans who on average are physically the same as their peers from the past (the species as a whole) have pushed the limits of human performance by another five percent. I think that is pretty amazing.
Also, when people bring tennis into this discussion, they aren't saying that there is a big increase from year to year, just that given enough years there is an increase. This should level off eventually, and is thought by some that we are already there, but not by all.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't disagreeing with you on the impact of cinder. Nor was I necessarily disagreeing with your larger point about the relatively incremental progress of various track world records. But I thought it was worth pointing out that the introduction of electronic timing doesn't support your contention in the way you suggested because actually, in isolation, electronic timing makes good times harder to achieve.
Last edited:
Athleticism
Fair point. However it was only a minor part of what I wrote. The main point was that athletic improvements have been so small compared to what people are claiming. Only 5% improvement in 75 years of sprinting - only a 4% improvment in Marathon Running in 45 years? It's tiny people. It must not be exaggerated.
Skills increase? All court skills has decreased on average, particularly in the forecourt. But steadiness of ground strokes has increased a fair bit - but again the rackets help a lot in that regard.
Fair point. However it was only a minor part of what I wrote. The main point was that athletic improvements have been so small compared to what people are claiming. Only 5% improvement in 75 years of sprinting - only a 4% improvment in Marathon Running in 45 years? It's tiny people. It must not be exaggerated.
Skills increase? All court skills has decreased on average, particularly in the forecourt. But steadiness of ground strokes has increased a fair bit - but again the rackets help a lot in that regard.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Anyone can look at the performance at this years AO final.
Then try to find a past slam where such physical stress is about equal back before the 80's.
We can go to the pre-open ERA too and the difference will be greater.
And yes, many past pros have said the same thing about the game being harder.
I've posted these things before but it comes up again, so I have to keep monitoring this area to keep things in order.
Then try to find a past slam where such physical stress is about equal back before the 80's.
We can go to the pre-open ERA too and the difference will be greater.
And yes, many past pros have said the same thing about the game being harder.
I've posted these things before but it comes up again, so I have to keep monitoring this area to keep things in order.
timnz,
I'm aware what you're saying that the athletes improvement isn't that much over the decades. But does it take significant increase in order for a particular player to beat another player most of the time? We know Navratilova is better than Chris Evert during their prime and she dominated the h2h. But does it takes Navratilova to be a much better player to seperate the two? I don't think so, if Martina is a 10, then Chris has to be somewhere around 9.7 or 9.8. That's just about in any sports...you don't have to be head and shoulder better than the other apponent/team to beat them frequently.
About track and field, if you take the top 20 runners 40 years ago and compete against the top runners at the 2012 Olympics, we know today's runners would win, but would it be a landslide? No.
I'm aware what you're saying that the athletes improvement isn't that much over the decades. But does it take significant increase in order for a particular player to beat another player most of the time? We know Navratilova is better than Chris Evert during their prime and she dominated the h2h. But does it takes Navratilova to be a much better player to seperate the two? I don't think so, if Martina is a 10, then Chris has to be somewhere around 9.7 or 9.8. That's just about in any sports...you don't have to be head and shoulder better than the other apponent/team to beat them frequently.
About track and field, if you take the top 20 runners 40 years ago and compete against the top runners at the 2012 Olympics, we know today's runners would win, but would it be a landslide? No.
Last edited:
You're accusing others of pretending to have crystal balls? Haven't you said constantly that Kodes, with 3 Slams in the 70s, would have 6 or 7 in the 1930s? Didn't you just say yesterday that he would have the equivalent of 7 Slams if he played today -- and that Djokovic, if he were transported into the 70s, would have the equivalent of just 2-3 slams?
Last edited:
Yes, the path that led into it -- that was my argument. If the WCT tour itself decreased in importance, then its circuit-ending event naturally must decrease too -- slowly, but unavoidably.
In the early 70s, you're right. The best players were on the WCT tour. When they met in Dallas, it was thus naturally a huge event.
That was no longer the situation later, when the tour was integrated into the Grand Prix -- and it decreased in size. Then WCT was just another thing that the top players played. In the early 70s it was THE place where the top players were.
Even weighting Slams 5 X that of Masters 1000's Lendl comes out ahead of Sampras
Lendl (8 x 5) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5) + (11 x 3) + (22 x 1) = 40 + 9 + 33 + 22 = 104
Sampras (14 x 5) + (5 x 1.5) + (4 x 3) + (11 x 1) = 70 + 7.5 + 12 + 11 = 100.5
Note that 5 X Masters 1000 is 2.5 x what the ATP weights it. Even then Lendl still comes out ahead.
So maybe just maybe we need to rethink Lendl's career. Too long has his Slam final appearances and leading Masters 1000 equivalent record been ignored. I am not saying he is in fact ahead of Sampras....but maybe he should be a lot higher up people's lists than he is.
Lendl (8 x 5) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5) + (11 x 3) + (22 x 1) = 40 + 9 + 33 + 22 = 104
Sampras (14 x 5) + (5 x 1.5) + (4 x 3) + (11 x 1) = 70 + 7.5 + 12 + 11 = 100.5
Note that 5 X Masters 1000 is 2.5 x what the ATP weights it. Even then Lendl still comes out ahead.
So maybe just maybe we need to rethink Lendl's career. Too long has his Slam final appearances and leading Masters 1000 equivalent record been ignored. I am not saying he is in fact ahead of Sampras....but maybe he should be a lot higher up people's lists than he is.
I argued earlier in this thread that Sampras should be ranked ahead of Lendl. Nevertheless, I think that your conclusion is correct, and Lendl is one of the most underrated champions. I have never understood how people can rank him behind, say, Connors.
kiki
Banned
I never thought of it, but it is a magnificient point.
kiki
Banned
I think with each era, its demands.If Fed played in a weak era that had just 3-4 challengers, AT LEAST he is expected to be a clear nº 1, no? the fact he is beaten up by his number 2, combined with the weight of his era compared to toughe ras, puts him ( in spite of his tier 1 talent) at tier 2 or 3 at best...
it is not talent what it matters.All time greats loaded with it know very very well...
kiki
Banned
Yes, that definitely puts Kodes and Djokovic in the same league.Both have more or less the SAME EQUIVALENT MAJORS.
kiki
Banned
Per se, WCT finals were as big as any other tournament held in the planet between 1971 to 1989, and of course, some years, like 1978 or 1984 were not as good.But most (other) majors have also had weaker years.
This is nearly as bad as your Kodes/Vines "twins" argument. Djokovic has been #1 in the world, winning 3 Slams in one year, beating alltime greats Federer and Nadal a combined 10 times out of 11 matches in that year. Something Kodes could never dream of doing.
And of course you're doing the same thing with Novak that you did with Vines. Djokovic's career is not over by a long shot. Just like you cut off Vines' career at 1933, never taking out the crystal ball for him to consider how many amateur majors he would have won in later years -- all so you can call him a 3-major winner and link him to Kodes. You don't hesitate at all to take out your crystal ball for countless other players, playing completely useless games (3 majors in this era is worth 7 in that era, and 9 in that era, blah blah blah blah), but for Vines you're just not interested in taking out your crystal ball -- because it's far more useful to you to continue to call him a 3-major winner and link him with Kodes.
I'm sorry to call it fanaticism but that is exactly what your love affair with Kodes amounts to. It's really reaching offensive levels, the way you'll take just about any alltime great with far greater accomplishments than Kodes and drop down their achievements just so you can glorify him.
Yes, Dallas all the way through '89 was as big as Wimbledon and the USO. Whatever.
This is why
To be frank this is why I made this thread 'Open era only'. To avoid all of the comparison of era's. Let's face it it is near impossible to compare players in pre-open era to players in the post-open era. The variables and differences of the playing fields are too great.
To be frank this is why I made this thread 'Open era only'. To avoid all of the comparison of era's. Let's face it it is near impossible to compare players in pre-open era to players in the post-open era. The variables and differences of the playing fields are too great.
kiki
Banned
The fact that it bothers you so much that your beloved Vines may not seem as great to others, does not make him anything less of a great player.There must be a system to weighten eras so to make an equivalency.Maybe mine is a wrong system, but I am sure there is.
kiki
Banned
Dallas and the Masters were bigger than Ao till 1985 or so, so they can have a claim to be the 4 th greatest overall of the 70´s and 80´s.
Once again more suspicion about favoritism. When I first got into tennis I read about past greats, and I learned a little bit about Vines -- but very little. He did not strike me as a fascinating character, nor am I fascinated by the reports of his power. If you don't think as highly of him as others do, it makes no difference to me. What I do find outrageous are your poor arguments.
About finding a system like you describe: I doubt such a system will ever be regarded widely as good for anything but expressing personal opinions and biases.
Similar threads
