500 points and better at current ATP weightings for the big 4:

[timnz]

Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted (Except the Olympics which the ATP Currently weights at zero points):

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (13 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 111.86

Djokovic = (12 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 93.9

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 84.86

Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50) = 46.88

REMEMBER: There is no agreed weighting of events. In this forum I have tried to get an agreed weightings but opinions as to the weighting vary greatly.
The best I can do is use the current ATP weightings. Everytime I post these rankings people disagree with the weightings,
but what can I do? - there is no agreed standard beyond the ATP weightings.
Also note that this table doesn't represent 'Greatness' which is a subjective term.
It simply represents an objective list of the achievements of open era players weighted at current ATP weightings.

•Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
•Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
•Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
•Season end final victories with no loss before the final (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
•Season end final victories with one loss before the final (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
•Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
•Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points
•500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

 

[Chadillac]

Fed #1, murray #4. Insta like

 

[Chanwan]

Djoko's overtaken Rafa, interesting.

 

[timnz]

What is interesting is how far Murray is behind when he for sure in the top 15 or so in the Open era (in terms of achievements) - whereas the other three would be in the top 5 for sure.

 

[helterskelter]

I still don't understand the logic of not counting 250-level events at all and not counting anything prior to a Slam semi-final. Why is a Slam quarter-final worth no more than a Slam 1st round?

I also don't think it actually matters whether someone loses a match en route to the WTF title. All that matters is winning the tournament. There is good reason for the ATP to award points for all wins in the round-robin so as to make sure that players keep trying even if through the semis or eliminated; however, that instrumental reason probably shouldn't apply to an attempt to gauge overall achievements.

 

[timnz]

I still don't understand the logic of not counting 250-level events at all and not counting anything prior to a Slam semi-final. Why is a Slam quarter-final worth no more than a Slam 1st round?

I also don't think it actually matters whether someone loses a match en route to the WTF title. All that matters is winning the tournament. There is good reason for the ATP to award points for all wins in the round-robin so as to make sure that players keep trying even if through the semis or eliminated; however, that instrumental reason probably shouldn't apply to an attempt to gauge overall achievements.

Two reasons for not including anything lower than 500 (Note: Everything is counted from 500 and above).

'All that matters is winning the tournament" - why? Making a slam final is a noteworthy achievement. To not count it is to say that being a slam runner-up is equivalent to losing in the first round.

I included 500 level events because of the difficulty of determining Masters 1000 equivalency. Hence, to include 1000's and 500's means that at least players of old get their tournaments represented somewhat.

1/ Comparison between older players and players of the current generation shows that it was a lot easier to win 250's back then - so not a fair comparison to include them.

2/ Work - if we include things below 500, then we need to include, 500 runner-ups, 500 semi-finals, 500 quarter finals, 2nd round, 1 st round, 250 1st round.....etc etc

Aside from all of that....I am simply stating an objective fact. Here are the achievements at current ATP weightings for everything 500 level and above. It is what it is.

 

[helterskelter]

This is about a comparison between contemporary players, so I don't see the relevance of your first point to this particular comparison.

As for point two, yes, it would be a lot of work. If I were to devise my own formula, I would still do that work. Perhaps that's one reason why I don't try to make up my formula that will aim to make argument about players' achievements impossible.

Two reasons for not including anything lower than 500 (Note: Everything is counted from 500 and above).

'All that matters is winning the tournament" - why? Making a slam final is a noteworthy achievement. To not count it is to say that being a slam runner-up is equivalent to losing in the first round.

I included 500 level events because of the difficulty of determining Masters 1000 equivalency. Hence, to include 1000's and 500's means that at least players of old get their tournaments represented somewhat.

1/ Comparison between older players and players of the current generation shows that it was a lot easier to win 250's back then - so not a fair comparison to include them.

2/ Work - if we include things below 500, then we need to include, 500 runner-ups, 500 semi-finals, 500 quarter finals, 2nd round, 1 st round, 250 1st round.....etc etc

Aside from all of that....I am simply stating an objective fact. Here are the achievements at current ATP weightings for everything 500 level and above. It is what it is.

 

[timnz]

This is about a comparison between contemporary players, so I don't see the relevance of your first point to this particular comparison.

As for point two, yes, it would be a lot of work. If I were to devise my own formula, I would still do that work. Perhaps that's one reason why I don't try to make up my formula that will aim to make argument about players' achievements impossible.

Sure but I drew these results from my open era rankings - but I take your point.

I do think however, that 500 level and above is a pretty good measure. Do we seriously worry about how many 250's a Djokovic or Nadal has won? No we are looking at higher level achievements. And given the weighting of these lower level achievements (how many points for a quarter final at a 250?) - they probably wouldn't have too much impact on the final result. The two closest above - Djokovic and Nadal have won 7 and 9 250's respectively contributing (7 x 0.25) & (9 x 0.25) - half a point difference. I don't know their minor placings etc

 

[helterskelter]

Sure but I drew these results from my open era rankings - but I take your point.

I do think however, that 500 level and above is a pretty good measure. Do we seriously worry about how many 250's a Djokovic or Nadal has won? No we are looking at higher level achievements. And given the weighting of these lower level achievements (how many points for a quarter final at a 250?) - they probably wouldn't have too much impact on the final result. The two closest above - Djokovic and Nadal have won 7 and 9 250's respectively contributing (7 x 0.25) & (9 x 0.25) - half a point difference. I don't know their minor placings etc

You're right: 250s don't matter much. Also, the fact that Federer's won more of them suggests that it may be a quite recent thing for top players not to play them much (since 1000s started really being compulsory, which was about a third of the way through Federer's career).

 

[Dave1982]

I agree that 250's don't matter in ATG/GOAT debates & largely on basis that if one of players you've mentioned is contesting a 250 event it's highly unlikely that another top 2 or 3 player will be in the draw...therefore Federer, Djokovic & Nadal play 250's more as an exhibition & to satisfy sponsor obligations...so why count them?!?!

 

[Tennisanity]

All of this only matters if # slams is tied.

 

[Djokovic2011]

All of this only matters if # slams is tied.

That's of course if you believe only slams matter. If you don't then the rankings that the OP has devised become very useful and informative as it shows how well the top players have done overall at all tournaments from 500 level and above, not just the majors.

 

[timnz]

All of this only matters if # slams is tied.

The majority in these forums disagree with this:-

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ment-10-slams-5-wtf-vs-11-slams-0-wtf.534695/

 

[xFedal]

The majority in these forums disagree with this:-

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ment-10-slams-5-wtf-vs-11-slams-0-wtf.534695/

Can our Novak hit 100 this year? he is currently 86 pts.

 

[NLBwell]

I really like this method as a way of comparing across timeframes. Might take some time, effort, and arguments to dig out how previous tournaments compare if you go back to something like the WTC/Riorden-Connors tour days, but in the modern ATP-era, it should work pretty well. The Olympics probably shouldn't be in there since it wasn't considered important until recently (and is still more just a party for many of the players) if you are comparing against more than the past few years.

 

[Tennisanity]

The majority in these forums disagree with this:-

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ment-10-slams-5-wtf-vs-11-slams-0-wtf.534695/

Well of course there are nuances. But for example, I doubt 7 WTF could bridge the gap of 3 slams. Or let's say Player A has 10 slams and B has 9 slams, but B has a H2H of 40-0 against A. One can always make extreme cases, but bottom line is slams will have the most weight and in general, barring extreme inequalities in other areas, will determine the GOAT.

 

[timnz]

Can our Novak hit 100 this year? he is currently 86 pts.

I have been doing a ranking thread since around 2011 - and Novak then was around the Becker/Edberg/Wilander level then. I have been amazed on how rapid his rise has been to the point he is now above Nadal in points achieved.

 

[timnz]

Well of course there are nuances. But for example, I doubt 7 WTF could bridge the gap of 3 slams. Or let's say Player A has 10 slams and B has 9 slams, but B has a H2H of 40-0 against A. One can always make extreme cases, but bottom line is slams will have the most weight and in general, barring extreme inequalities in other areas, will determine the GOAT.

The question is - why? Unless we believe that the tennis season should only be 4 weeks a year - then why have these other events. If the players need warm-ups for the main event - why not just exhibitions for the rest of the year?

 

[timnz]

Well of course there are nuances. But for example, I doubt 7 WTF could bridge the gap of 3 slams. Or let's say Player A has 10 slams and B has 9 slams, but B has a H2H of 40-0 against A. One can always make extreme cases, but bottom line is slams will have the most weight and in general, barring extreme inequalities in other areas, will determine the GOAT.

No one disputes that Slams have the most weight. What there is discussion on - is the relative weighting to give these other events. But whatever weighting you decide upon - at some level a multiple of one of these lesser events will be more than a Slam in value eg 3 X WTF etc. Unless you believe that tennis should only be 8 weeks a year - then these other events have value. The question is what value. I have tried to get consensus as to a 'weighting' of these other events in these forums - but the feedback I got varied widely. Hence, I was thrown back to using the ATP weighting. No other 'official' weighting exists.

I think people underestimate how difficult it is to win a Masters 1000. in the last 46 Masters 1000 events - only 3 times has someone outside the 'big 4' won the event. Hence it is incredibly hard to win these events. I just don't think that it is of no value that Djokovic and Nadal have won 27 of these events. That is an absolutely huge accomplishment. To have the view that only Slams count is to ignore totally the other 8 1/2 months of the tour. Slams have been given greater value by the ATP - and ranking systems like the one I posted in the first posting of this thread - recognize their greater value....but other events and achievements also have value (albiet lesser) - and they get weighted accordingly.

 

[Tennisanity]

The question is - why? Unless we believe that the tennis season should only be 4 weeks a year - then why have these other events. If the players need warm-ups for the main event - why not just exhibitions for the rest of the year?

huh? Are you serious? Because tennis is a money making machine that completely gouges the fans? Like every sport. The more events, the more you take from the common man. It's the capitalist dream. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that. In any case, the other events for GOAT purposes would be tie breakers. Because how can anyone argue that 100 Master's shields is comparable to say 15 slams, or even 10 slams. Can't be.

 

[Tennisanity]

No one disputes that Slams have the most weight. What there is discussion on - is the relative weighting to give these other events. But whatever weighting you decide upon - at some level a multiple of one of these lesser events will be more than a Slam in value eg 3 X WTF etc. Unless you believe that tennis should only be 8 weeks a year - then these other events have value. The question is what value. I have tried to get consensus as to a 'weighting' of these other events in these forums - but the feedback I got varied widely. Hence, I was thrown back to using the ATP weighting. No other 'official' weighting exists.

Fair enough. I guess I'm saying slams are much more weight than the 2000 to 1000 step from slam to master. If Djoko never won a slam but still had his record 27 Master's, would he be above Stan or Andy? Or Safin? I doubt it.

 

[timnz]

Fair enough. I guess I'm saying slams are much more weight than the 2000 to 1000 step from slam to master. If Djoko never won a slam but still had his record 27 Master's, would he be above Stan or Andy? Or Safin? I doubt it.

I actually think that Slams should weight more than the ATP has it. Problem is there is no agreement on the weightined in these forums or elsewhere (believe me I have tried to get feedback). Hence, all we are left with are the ATP weightings.

Another point on this - why are we happy to accept these ATP weightings if they happen in a calendar year but if it becomes more than a calendar year then we don't agree with them? For example if someone was the ATP YE number 1 because they won 8 Masters 1000 and 1 Slam + WTF (totalling 11500 points) and another player won 3 slams and 2 Masters 1000 (totalling 10000 points)- all other things been equal - we woud accept there findings for YE number 1. But if both retired then - people would say - well the second player got 3 slams - so they are better and have achieved more. Why the inconsistency?

 

[Tennisanity]

Let's look at Wozniaki as an example. Remember the year she was #1? What if she repeated that for 10 straight year, but never once won a slam, where would she rank? She would forever a great player would could never win a slam. I think it really depends on the numbers. For example if you are a 10 slam winner, then maybe 3 WTF could bridge the gap with the guy who won 12 slams.

But if you won 0 slams for your career, then no amount of Master's or WTF could bridge the gap with say even a 3 slam winner.

 

[timnz]

huh? Are you serious? Because tennis is a money making machine that completely gouges the fans? Like every sport. The more events, the more you take from the common man. It's the capitalist dream. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that. In any case, the other events for GOAT purposes would be tie breakers. Because how can anyone argue that 100 Master's shields is comparable to say 15 slams, or even 10 slams. Can't be.

You think the only reason for having non-slam events is because of money? Nothing to do with the sport? Note: My point was I don't think anyone thinks that it would be a good idea to only have exhibitions outside of slams every year. Hence, the events need to be of some real value. And if they have real value then it will be a certain %age of what a slam is valued at.

 

[Tennisanity]

I actually think that Slams should weight more than the ATP has it. Problem is there is no agreement on the weightined in these forums or elsewhere (believe me I have tried to get feedback). Hence, all we are left with are the ATP weightings.

Another point on this - why are we happy to accept these ATP weightings if they happen in a calendar year but if it becomes more than a calendar year then we don't agree with them? For example if someone was the ATP YE number 1 because they won 8 Masters 1000 and 1 Slam + WTF (totalling 11500 points) and another player won 3 slams and 2 Masters 1000 (totalling 10000 points)- all other things been equal - we woud accept there findings for YE number 1. But if both retired then - people would say - well the second player got 3 slams - so they are better and have achieved more. Why the inconsistency?

Well I'm not sure people would accept that the player with 11500 was the true #1. He's just the statistical #1. So yes the ATP definitely is far from ideal. In this example, if slam was worth just 500 pts more, then the second player with 3 slams would be clear #1. That's why looking at points alone is incomplete.

 

[Tennisanity]

You think the only reason for having non-slam events is because of money? Nothing to do with the sport?

No, no not the only reason. But surely one of the important reasons, especially as tennis has become more and more lucrative over the years. But on the other hand, aren't the players a bit overplayed?

 

[Tennisanity]

Hmmm, you know what I think would work???? If you had a weighting system for the non-slam events that was a function of the # of slams you won. So if you are a 0 slam winner, you get 10% (just off the top of my head) of the points for all other events. This % gradually increases depending on the # of slams you won. So in this system Federer would be ranked EVEN further ahead because his Master's wins would be worth more than Djoko's as long as he's on a base of 17 slams vs 11 slams. And I like that, because as it stands now the 6 slam differential doesn't do justice for how far ahead Fed is actually ahead (in terms of accomplishments at least) of Nadal and Djoko.

 

[Tennisanity]

I think people underestimate how difficult it is to win a Masters 1000. in the last 46 Masters 1000 events - only 3 times has someone outside the 'big 4' won the event. Hence it is incredibly hard to win these events. I just don't think that it is of no value that Djokovic and Nadal have won 27 of these events. That is an absolutely huge accomplishment. To have the view that only Slams count is to ignore totally the other 8 1/2 months of the tour. Slams have been given greater value by the ATP - and ranking systems like the one I posted in the first posting of this thread - recognize their greater value....but other events and achievements also have value (albiet lesser) - and they get weighted accordingly.

Does this say something about the difficulty of winning a M1000 or rather the ease because of weak field?

 

[timnz]

Does this say something about the difficulty of winning a M1000 or rather the ease because of weak field?

Who knows? It is impossible to prove either way (see all of the threads on this). I think however, we can agree that winning these events isn't easy at all. Hence, they should have a significant value. Winning 27 of them is a simply a huge accomplishment.

 

[timnz]

Hmmm, you know what I think would work???? If you had a weighting system for the non-slam events that was a function of the # of slams you won. So if you are a 0 slam winner, you get 10% (just off the top of my head) of the points for all other events. This % gradually increases depending on the # of slams you won. So in this system Federer would be ranked EVEN further ahead because his Master's wins would be worth more than Djoko's as long as he's on a base of 17 slams vs 11 slams. And I like that, because as it stands now the 6 slam differential doesn't do justice for how far ahead Fed is actually ahead (in terms of accomplishments at least) of Nadal and Djoko.

That is a novel and interesting idea. However, I do think that it would amount to deflating the relative worth of Masters 1000 to a level that just doesn't reflect the achievement of winning it. You would effectively make a Slam worth 2000 points and a Masters 1000 at 100 points. (what would a 250 be worth then? 25 points?)

 

[Tennisanity]

That is a novel and interesting idea. However, I do think that it would amount to deflating the relative worth of Masters 1000 to a level that just doesn't reflect the achievement of winning it. You would effectively make a Slam worth 2000 points and a Masters 1000 at 100 points. (what would a 250 be worth then? 25 points?)

Well on that point, this whole process is inherently flawed. Is Sampras really only an 11 Master winner vs Djoko's 27? Is Djoko really more than twice as good? I don't think so. But Master's records have come into the spotlight now just as AO started to when Pete started winning them. In this regard, yes 27 M1000 is amazing, but it's also overinflated. The top guys in the 80s and 90s simply didn't have this as a goal, just like the top guys never even played the AO in the 80s. How can they be penalized then for an arbitrary change in the flavour what is "important" now. In 10 years someone will create the China Slam, some guy will win 10 of them and put him ahead of Federer, so Federer is penalized because there was no China slam in his era, just as Mac and the others are penalized for not playing AO. So what to do about it?

 

[Tennisanity]

That is a novel and interesting idea. However, I do think that it would amount to deflating the relative worth of Masters 1000 to a level that just doesn't reflect the achievement of winning it. You would effectively make a Slam worth 2000 points and a Masters 1000 at 100 points. (what would a 250 be worth then? 25 points?)

Actually yes, I agree with the last line, if you are slamless your Master's are effectively worth nothing. You will be forgotten as a nobody at least with respect to all time greats. Once you win a slam you have declared legitimacy. Only after Stan won the AO, did people say, uh oh, better watch for Stan the man, even in Master's. But there were still non-believers. And then when he won the FO, more people were turned into believers of Stan. And so it goes. The more slams you win, the more your career comes into the spotlight. I like it.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Just an observation and to put Federer's achievements into perspective, for Murray (who is considered a probable future hall of famer) to catch up to Federer's current point tally, he would basically need to win another 40 slams. WOW!

 

[timnz]

Based on the difficulty of winning a Masters 1000 I can't can't agree that a slam is worth 20 times a M1000

 

[timnz]

Well on that point, this whole process is inherently flawed. Is Sampras really only an 11 Master winner vs Djoko's 27? Is Djoko really more than twice as good? I don't think so. But Master's records have come into the spotlight now just as AO started to when Pete started winning them. In this regard, yes 27 M1000 is amazing, but it's also overinflated. The top guys in the 80s and 90s simply didn't have this as a goal, just like the top guys never even played the AO in the 80s. How can they be penalized then for an arbitrary change in the flavour what is "important" now. In 10 years someone will create the China Slam, some guy will win 10 of them and put him ahead of Federer, so Federer is penalized because there was no China slam in his era, just as Mac and the others are penalized for not playing AO. So what to do about it?

What was Sampras doing when he wasn't playing slams then? (a look at the number of tournaments he played in in the 1990s shows he was playing a full load - so we must conclude then he was losing a lot of them ). Lendl and Connors won a truck load of 500s - so the difference in circumstances didn't hold them back.

 

[Tennisanity]

What was Sampras doing when he wasn't playing slams then? (a look at the number of tournaments he played in in the 1990s shows he was playing a full load - so we must conclude then he was losing a lot of them ). Lendl and Connors won a truck load of 500s - so the difference in circumstances didn't hold them back.

What about AO in the 80s? I remember Mac saying in 84, that the only way he would play AO is if he won the FO to get the CYGS, which he eventually lost to Lendl. That's the kind of attitude they had. It simply was not played regularly. Yeah you could say well that's their problem, just like the new China grand slam in 2030 will be Fed's problem.

 

[timnz]

What about AO in the 80s? I remember Mac saying in 84, that the only way he would play AO is if he won the FO to get the CYGS, which he eventually lost to Lendl. That's the kind of attitude they had. It simply was not played regularly. Yeah you could say well that's their problem, just like the new China grand slam in 2030 will be Fed's problem.

Your analogy doesn't hold. The fact is Sampras did have tournaments available to him to play in (& earn points) - Federer doesn't have the China Grand Slam to play in.

Now you may say - but the Masters 1000's weren't compulsory in the 1990's. And you would be right. In fact from 1990 to 1995 there were other tournaments of similar prize money at points (from 1993-1995 there was only 1 - the Stuttgart indoors). I have done an analysis of Sampras' tournament wins and he won a maximum of 4 other tournaments that were of the same level of prize money and points as the official Masters 1000's - so that moves him from 11 to 15. That is still far below Djokovic and Nadal's level of 27 currently Note: I am talking of tournaments below the Slam and the 2 Season end finals level.

So should we say - well Sampras wasn't bothered winning anything outside Slams and season end finals - and give him credit for that.....and deliberately not reward Djokovic for working his tail off winning Masters 1000's?

Regarding the AO in the 1980's the data presented here is from my overall open era achievement ranking system. In that system I compensate for players not playing the AO by allowing the counting of their WCT finals results ONLY if they didn't play all the slams in that year:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

FYI McEnroe played the AO only a few months before he made that comment.

 

[xFedal]

I have been doing a ranking thread since around 2011 - and Novak then was around the Becker/Edberg/Wilander level then. I have been amazed on how rapid his rise has been to the point he is now above Nadal in points achieved.

I know his rise is unbelievable can he get to 100 pts this year? He currently has 86 pts.

 

[Tennisanity]

Your analogy doesn't hold. The fact is Sampras did have tournaments available to him to play in (& earn points) - Federer doesn't have the China Grand Slam to play in.

Now you may say - but the Masters 1000's weren't compulsory in the 1990's. And you would be right. In fact from 1990 to 1995 there were other tournaments of similar prize money at points (from 1993-1995 there was only 1 - the Stuttgart indoors). I have done an analysis of Sampras' tournament wins and he won a maximum of 4 other tournaments that were of the same level of prize money and points as the official Masters 1000's - so that moves him from 11 to 15. That is still far below Djokovic and Nadal's level of 27 currently Note: I am talking of tournaments below the Slam and the 2 Season end finals level.

So should we say - well Sampras wasn't bothered winning anything outside Slams and season end finals - and give him credit for that.....and deliberately not reward Djokovic for working his tail off winning Masters 1000's?

Regarding the AO in the 1980's the data presented here is from my overall open era achievement ranking system. In that system I compensate for players not playing the AO by allowing the counting of their WCT finals results ONLY if they didn't play all the slams in that year:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

FYI McEnroe played the AO only a few months before he made that comment.

Well I think I was trying to make a more subtle analogy, not on what was available to them, but more about attitude. Similar to how the slam count really became important only when Sampras starting threatening the record. In Mac,Connors' time, those guys were all close to the slam record (of 11 or 12 at the time?) but in the tennis arena, this was not really talked about the way it is today (at least as far as I know). The entire mindset was different in that time. So this is why I compare to the China slam as an appropriate but not exact analogy. If the sense simply was not there for chasing something that is considered "important" only 20 years later, then how can they be faulted?

 

[timnz]

I know his rise is unbelievable can he get to 100 pts this year? He currently has 86 pts.

Only last July he was on 76. So a gain of 10 in just 8 months - extraordinary

 

[timnz]

Djokovic's lead over Nadal has increased. 87.1 to 84.11 now.


Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (12 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 111.14

Djokovic = (11 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 87.1

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 84.11

Murray = (2 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (4 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 31.73

 

[xFedal]

Djokovic's lead over Nadal has increased. 87.1 to 84.11 now.


Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (12 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 111.14

Djokovic = (11 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 87.1

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 84.11

Murray = (2 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (4 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 31.73

Timnz our rule is not to give credit to a potential outcome but you just can't help but think, Novak can reach close to 100 points this year currently on 87.11

 

[timnz]

Timnz our rule is not to give credit to a potential outcome but you just can't help but think, Novak can reach close to 100 points this year currently on 87.11

Its okay to contemplate possibilities as long as we don't state they are certainties. In the last 8 months Djokovic has added 11 points to his total. It is easy to believe that by mid-year that he will be in the 90's and will end up in the high 90's or even higher by the end of the year. Now Federer probably will add to his total but not anywhere as much.

If you look at my overall ranking system Djokovic could be passing Connors in a few months...

 

[xFedal]

Its okay to contemplate possibilities as long as we don't state they are certainties. In the last 8 months Djokovic has added 11 points to his total. It is easy to believe that by mid-year that he will be in the 90's and will end up in the high 90's or even higher by the end of the year. Now Federer probably will add to his total but not anywhere as much.

If you look at my overall ranking system Djokovic could be passing Connors in a few months...

Can you link me to your thread about the tennis season?

 

[timnz]

Can you link me to your thread about the tennis season?

I don't have a thread about the tennis season. I was merely surmizing based on the 3 clay masters and FO and Wimbledon coming up. Djokovic has got a good chance of doing well in those events - and getting more than 3 thousand points (to passing Connors on my Open era ranking system ).

 

[timnz]

1. 
   Nadal catching up to Djokovic
   
   Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)
   
   Djokovic = (11 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 87.1
   
   Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 85.61

 

[timnz]

Nadal is inching back towards Djokovic. Who knows what will happen with Madrid and Rome and Paris to come shortly

 

[timnz]

And so it goes

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (12 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 111.14

Djokovic = (11 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (29 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 88.1

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 85.61

Murray = (2 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (5 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 32.33

 

[mattosgrant]

While this is certainly interesting I cant go along with that method of ranking absolute greatness as for instance there is no way in hell I would ever concede 2 Masters titles is equal 1 slam title in value, or 2 slam runner ups is over 1 slam title in importance. Or 3 undefeated WTF titles equal to 2 slam titles. 4 500 titles equal value to 1 slam or 8 250 titles equal value to 1 slam is getting into the total comedy realm.

That this method has Djokovic with more points than Nadal is further evidence of this to me, since as much as I love Djokovic and dislike Nadal there is no way at this exact moment I would consider Djokovic as having the better career yet. If he wins RG in a few weeks then maybe at that point (and even that would be a controversial statement to many, and I am probably influenced by being a Djokovic fan in saying so).

 

[timnz]

While this is certainly interesting I cant go along with that method of ranking absolute greatness as for instance there is no way in hell I would ever concede 2 Masters titles is equal 1 slam title in value, or 2 slam runner ups is over 1 slam title in importance. Or 3 undefeated WTF titles equal to 2 slam titles. 4 500 titles equal value to 1 slam or 8 250 titles equal value to 1 slam is getting into the total comedy realm.

That this method has Djokovic with more points than Nadal is further evidence of this to me, since as much as I love Djokovic and dislike Nadal there is no way at this exact moment I would consider Djokovic as having the better career yet. If he wins RG in a few weeks then maybe at that point (and even that would be a controversial statement to many, and I am probably influenced by being a Djokovic fan in saying so).

That's absolutely fine. I just am posting what I am saying in the title of my ranking system....Open era ranking system at current ATP weightings. It is what it is.

Now I don't agree with the ATP weighting system myself...but as I have said elsewhere - what else do we use instead? There is no agreed weighting system outside of the ATP's . Also another point....most people don't have a problem with the weightings in a single year...and are quite happy to anoint the player with the most points using these weightings as the YE number 1 ...why change the value of them because you are increasing the scale to 10 to 15 years. If you were ok with 8 x 250 events being the same number of points as a slam for a particular years ranking - why is it suddenly not appropriate spread over a number of years?