why the 1,2,4,8,16 points should never be used
for points distribution at oridnary events i like 1,2,4,7,10. I dislike 1,2,4,8,16.
The firsts points system in 1959 was 1,2,4,7 for 16 man events
In 1971 the wct converted this to 1,2,4,7,10 for 32 man events
This has been the bais for all tennis points system over the last 50 years
I wikk now demonstrate why i prefer this system with the help of rod laver. I view laver as easily the greatest day in day out tournament player ever.
In 1973 laver played the wct circiut with exactly the 1,2,4,7,10 system
The only two players who realisticly had a chance of beating laver on this tour were smith (the best player in the world at the time) and richey who had a suprisingly good record against laver. laver led by only 6-5 , although 2 of richey, wins came in the summer of 1972 when laver had a bad back. none of the other 30 players on the tour stood any real against laver; laver would and should win at 90% against the rest
I will compare laver with battrick,a journeyman player who played at 50% on this tour. both played 10 completed events.
laver played 44 and won 37; battrick played 19 and won9. he won about50% of his matches and on average lost in the second round.
Laver is a goat contender and miles better than battrick and him winning matches om this tour is very easy . myjudgement on a laver performance is reachig the sf is just ok; reaching the f pretty good; wiining the event good losing before the sf poor. battrick i rate as L16 ok; qf pretty good; sf very good; first round loser poor.
laver reached the sf 8/10 what you would expect; he got a bit unlucky and met richey in the qf 3 times . For laver richey is his sf opponent and smith his final opponent. Laver beat richey 2 times and lost once. discounting his bad luck he performed just what one would expect at about 90% (ie 8/9)
the far lesser battrick had 5 first round (poor) losses ; 2 qfs (pretty good) and one good sf.
the ponts awarded for performances for the 2 are
Laver poor =2 points ; laver ok = 4 ; laver pretty good = 7 and ; laver good=10
Laver also won 3 events and lost in final 3 times
battrick poor=0 ; battrick ok 1; battrick pretty good 2; battrick good 4
in my preferred system you get bonus pionts for beating good players. In this weak 1973 field laver had only 3 players who would help . based on 1973 play smith was a world number one contenfder and emerson and pilic were top 15 players. based on the ratios i calculated for 1971 beating smith is worth 3 points and the other 2 one point. thus if laver wins and beats smith its 13 points; if he beats emerson 11 ;and he beats alexander he's stuck with just 10.
now comparing the performance characteristics the ratio is constantly 3-4 times. laver is getting well rewarded. In fact when laver gave a poor performance he got 2 points and battrick's poor perf got zero. laver is being overrewarded. but what matter here is being fair to battrick and in terms of same performance the leeser player is battrick is geting only a third of laver's. Laver should have no compliants and is getting the correct rewarde for being a far better player. if wins 4 matches he gets 7 points (3 fairly easy ones and one tough sf win; his only win over smith came in the sf not the final; for one extra tough match win laver wins 5 matches and does not lose a match that week. 10 in total but 3 extra for one extra match . logically the four earlieir wins are better thenthan the last extra win. quite correctly he earns 7 pointsfor the first 4 and only 3 for the one extra; dead simple. logically 1,2,4,8,16 points would give an extra 8 for that one win which is miles too much. conclusion 1,2,4,7,10 is great. 1,2,4,8,16 is total garbage like many of carlos ideas.
on a poitical note . 1,2,4,8,16 has been used for prize money distribution. this pure ruthless nasty monopoly capitalism . nothing fair abot. thsankfully points are rewarded fairly in tennis and 1,2,4,7.10 hasd held sway for 50 years. three great cheers for fairnesxin tennis
so carlo read this and learn why your idea was pure arrogance and total stupidity
jeffrey