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

[mattosgrant]

Now I don't agree with the ATP weighting system myself...but as I have said elsewhere - what else do we use instead?

The answer to that is simple IMO. There is no exact points method that measures the exact standard of careers and players. The complexity of the pre Open era situation vs the modern 4 slams played all the time days, makes that even more clear. You seem to insist on looking at things very black and white. Our arguments about how you kept insisting upon there is nothing other than absolutely brilliance about reaching extra slam finals to keep losing them like Lendl. Or your insisting there is nothing impressive about Serena's outstanding slam final win ratio since it didnt include more extra final losses, makes that fairly obvious. I dont think you can evaluate things that simply and black and blue though. There are too many variables.

 

[timnz]

The answer to that is simple IMO. There is no exact points method that measures the exact standard of careers and players. The complexity of the pre Open era situation vs the modern 4 slams played all the time days, makes that even more clear. You seem to insist on looking at things very black and white. Our arguments about how you kept insisting upon there is nothing other than absolutely brilliance about reaching extra slam finals to keep losing them like Lendl. Or your insisting there is nothing impressive about Serena's outstanding slam final win ratio since it didnt include more extra final losses, makes that fairly obvious. I dont think you can evaluate things that simply and black and blue though. There are too many variables.

Each to their own. My point about slam finals is that most people think of just the final match at slams, when in reality it is 7 matches. It seems from my point of view that those who focus on slam final percentages penalise those who win 6 matches but don't penalise those who win 5 or less matches. It just doesn't seem logical IMO. I can't remember if I ever commentated on Senera's slam final count - I don't recall it - but I may have.

Now re. Black and white - my objective was just to compile a list of the objective achievements of players. You might be interested to know that my personal subjective list is quite different. I am thinking of writing that up some day.

 

[timnz]

Easy prediction of Djokovc beng in the low 90's post Roland Garros and Wimbledon, but where will Murray end up this year?

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) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 88.7

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) + (12 x 1) + (6 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 38.33

 

[timnz]

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 = (12 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (29 x 1) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 90.7

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) + (8 x 1.2) + (12 x 1) + (6 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 39.53

Djokovic now at around 6% more than Nadal. He started the year behind. Nadal may still surprise us yet (though he needs to recover)

 

[xFedal]

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 = (12 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (29 x 1) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 90.7

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) + (8 x 1.2) + (12 x 1) + (6 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 39.53

Djokovic now at around 6% more than Nadal. He started the year behind. Nadal may still surprise us yet (though he needs to recover)

Novak Needs to win Wimbledon!!!

 

[timnz]

Novak Needs to win Wimbledon!!!

Why?

 

[xFedal]

Why?

5 In a row will encompass and engulf Lavers 69 season inside and out.

 

[Nonsense]

This is probably one of my favorite threads on this forum!

 

[timnz]

Who will move the most before the end of the year ?

 

[timnz]

Movement from Federer and Murray

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) + (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) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (29 x 1) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 90.7

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 = (3 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (12 x 1) + (6 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 42.03

 

[timnz]

Djokovic is increasing his point on average by at least 1 per month. If and a big IF - if he continues at this rate he will be around Federer's current level (Federer could still increase when he comes back) in less than 2 years!

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) + (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) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 91.7

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 = (3 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (12 x 1) + (6 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 42.03

 

[TupeloDanger]

17 > 14 > 12.

 

[timnz]

17 > 14 > 12.

17 > 14 > 12 equals the statement "professional men's tennis is only played 8 weeks a year"

 

[GabeT]

17 > 14 > 12 equals the statement "professional men's tennis is only played 8 weeks a year"

Exactly.

 

[xFedal]

Djokovic is increasing his point on average by at least 1 per month. If and a big IF - if he continues at this rate he will be around Federer's current level (Federer could still increase when he comes back) in less than 2 years!

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) + (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) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 91.7

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 = (3 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (12 x 1) + (6 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 42.03

Things are beginning to get a little interesting.... Fed is ahead by 20 points still a lot of work left for Nole...... Basically Fed is ahead due to extra 5 slams 10 points and 5 more atp500 tournaments...

 

[timnz]

Ok so Murray didn't get anything for the Olympics but he did get points later

 

[xFedal]

Ok so Murray didn't get anything for the Olympics but he did get points later

UPDATES PENDING***

 

[Rafa the King]

But that logic is flawed as 6 WTFs are not worth 4 slams at all. Much less.

Ranking accomplishments in a formula, which already is very hard is imo:
1. GS
2. YE #1
3. WTF/Olympic Gold
4. Masters
5. Davis Cup
6. Other tournaments

So if we say GS are factor 1, YE #1 factor 0,5 etc... (Other tourneys we give factor 0,1 to even out slightly) We get:
Federer: 17 + 2.5 + 2,33 + 6,25 + 0,2 + 4= 32,28
Nadal: 14 + 1.5 + 0,67 + 7 + 0,8 + 2,6= 26,52
Djokovic: 12 + 2 + 1,67 + 7,5 + 0,2 + 1,9= 25,07
Djokovic could be at 25,9 if he wins tommorow though

 

[Tenez!]

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.
(...)

Very good work.
How about counting anything awarding 300+ ?
That way you include three more important metrics : Slam quarterfinals, Masters 1000 semifinals & ATP 500 finals.

Beyond that, I agree with the necessity a hard cut-off point.

 

[timnz]

Very good work.
How about counting anything awarding 300+ ?
That way you include three more important metrics : Slam quarterfinals, Masters 1000 semifinals & ATP 500 finals.

Beyond that, I agree with the necessity a hard cut-off point.

Thanks for the suggestion. I had specific reasons though for the 500 point cut off - I was reluctant to go as low as 500 - even that was a stretch - but out of fairness to older players whose had tournament wins that could possibly be 1000 level but are possibly 500 level as well. See my full ranking system that gives the open era with current ATP weightings (it has all the top open era players from Federer to Wilander):-

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

 

[Tenez!]

Thanks for the suggestion. I had specific reasons though for the 500 point cut off - I was reluctant to go as low as 500 - even that was a stretch - but out of fairness to older players whose had tournament wins that could possibly be 1000 level but are possibly 500 level as well. See my full ranking system that gives the open era with current ATP weightings (it has all the top open era players from Federer to Wilander):-

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

I agree with you. In that case perhaps 500 is right, but I'd like to know how many ATP500s finals were played between the Big5. If there were too many, that would be unfair to the runner-up.

Slams quarterfinals also seemed like an important metric to me, but I have no hard and fast reason for it. Actually, it's the first time two Top16 seeds can meet, so maybe you're right to discount it.

 

[timnz]

I agree with you. In that case perhaps 500 is right, but I'd like to know how many ATP500s finals were played between the Big5. If there were too many, that would be unfair to the runner-up.

Slams quarterfinals also seemed like an important metric to me, but I have no hard and fast reason for it. Actually, it's the first time two Top16 seeds can meet, so maybe you're right to discount it.

What did you think of my overall open era ranking system at:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

It has a lot of surprising results yes? It isn't what people who traditionally only value Slam wins think. It is its own thing - achievement based system only scoring 500 points and over events.