The ATP currently weights Slam wins at 2000 points and Masters 1000's at 1000 points. Hence, in the ATP eyes - Slams are worth 2 x a Masters 1000's. Using a base of 1000 points for a Masters 1000 - please choose in the poll what you think a Slam should be worth relative to a Masters 1000. My own view is around 3000 points. I'd be interested in seeing what people think in this forum.
How much should Slams be worth relative to Masters 1000's
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Kenshin
Semi-Pro
First of all, may I ask why you think the grandslams are worth 3000 points? What is your reason for it?
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
what's interesting is Nadal right now has 26 masters which being half as important points wise, translates into 13 slams. He has 13 slams.
(Djokovic has earned 9 slams worth of masters titles - three better than his slam count. Federer has only earned 10 and a half slams in masters victories)
(Djokovic has earned 9 slams worth of masters titles - three better than his slam count. Federer has only earned 10 and a half slams in masters victories)
For a number of years I have been producing a ranking list of Open era players, which I update after every Masters 1000, WTF or Slam. For weightings of their acheivements I use the current ATP weighting ie 2000 points for Slams, 1500 or 1300 for the WTF, 1200 points for losing Slam finals and 1000 points for Masters 1000's. Most of the objections and asked for corrections I get are around the weightings - particularly of the Slams. Most of the commentators feel that Slams should be worth a lot more than 2 X Masters 1000. And because of that I have gained a sense that most people would like to see Slams around 3000 points or greater. I didn't give greater than 3000 points because I think Masters 1000's still have solid value - and we shouldn't make them too irrelevant to the equation.
The other point is that I firmly believe that WTF's (for an unbeaten winner) should never go lower than 3/4's of a Slam's points - because the WTF has a strong tradition of 44 years of being a very important tournament. But that is another discussion.
Last edited:
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Slams are something totally different from Masters 1000. They have special value can't be counted by points. They are the epitome of tennis events and the winners of those events are remembered as an immortal legends in tennis. Masters 1000s or YEC just don't have that.
However, just to rank the players in more reasonable ways, we have to give point values to slams. I think 2000 is reasonable. Rankings should reflect the consistency of the players but if you give out too much points to slams, inconsistent but once brilliant players, people you call one slam wonders, will be ranked too high unfairly. No. 1 players should be someone who can beat other players with regularity and current point system is just fine.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Slams should be worth 4000 points at least. They are far more prestigious that any other tournament and should be treated as such.
Mr.Lob
G.O.A.T.
Maybe a topic for another thread, but total up all points for slamS, master events, wtf, etc, over past or present players career... and who is the leader? Top 10 men and women's? Seems the leader in total points would have the strongest case for goat status. Connors won the most titles, maybe he is goat!
Somebody take about 20 hours to add all that up, and get back to me.
Somebody take about 20 hours to add all that up, and get back to me.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, if you increase the points for the majors too much it ends up skewing the year-round ranking system too much imo.
The majors stand alone as important regardless of the points on offer so you could argue that 2000 is plenty enough or even too much.
For example, if Wimbledon was only worth 200 points I can guarantee people would still go to the ends of the earth to win it because history looks back at players primarily with majors in mind. There is barely a consideration given to the ranking points accrued from any particular tournament. The number of majors won matters regardless of the points on offer and is the key metric by which tennis greatness is determined.
The majors stand alone as important regardless of the points on offer so you could argue that 2000 is plenty enough or even too much.
For example, if Wimbledon was only worth 200 points I can guarantee people would still go to the ends of the earth to win it because history looks back at players primarily with majors in mind. There is barely a consideration given to the ranking points accrued from any particular tournament. The number of majors won matters regardless of the points on offer and is the key metric by which tennis greatness is determined.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
They already are with twice as many points as Masters, which are important tournaments also. I think it's perfect the way it is. Only 4 people can win a slam a year at the most, that doesn't leave a whole lot of points if you don't win one if it's worth more than 2000.
Done (for Men in the open era anyway). Be careful what you wish for, it may not produce the answers for expect:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381
Last edited:
Wimbledon should really be worth at least 5,000 pointsIt's the pinnacle of tennis. USO and RG should be worth 3,000 points and AO 2,000 points.
Then again, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Well, why do people complain when players who perform worse in majors are higher ranked than players who do (higher ranked because they performed better in minor events). Isn't it because we instinctively value majors much more than simply 2000 points?
Desertman
Hall of Fame
I think everyone is concentrating on the wrong aspect of this topic. It's more about the points given to the runner-up, semi finalist, quarter finalist etc. Does a GS runner-up deserve 1200 points? The WTA award the same points to the champion but 1400 points to the runner-up. Are the proportions right? does someone winning 6 best of five set matches in a row and then losing 10-8 in the 5th of a GS final deserve to be awarded 800 points less than the winner?
I agree that the GS are historic, the Masters are not. Any tennis player would give up all his Masters titles for just one GS title.
I agree that the GS are historic, the Masters are not. Any tennis player would give up all his Masters titles for just one GS title.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
(EDIT: I realize that the Masters 1000s actually consist of 5 to 7 total rounds rather than the 5 rounds I used for calculations in this post. Refer to post #26 for an update on the math).
2000 for the slams is just about right. Perhaps a little bit more considering the number of rounds and the fact that the slams are best of 5 compared to best of 3 for the Master's 1000s. If you consider that the slams are 7 rounds compared to 5 rounds for the 1000s, then the slams should be worth at least 1.4x the point value of the 1000s.
If you then consider that an ATP player must win at least 3 sets per slam match compared to 2 sets/match for the Masters 1000s, then the value of the slam would be 2.1x times (1.4 x 1.5) that of the Masters, or 2100 points.
Now if you want to argue that a player might need 4 or 5 sets to win a slam match, then we be tempted to change the 2nd multiplier to something between 4/3 to 5/3 (rather than 3/2). However, if you average 4/3 and 5/3, then you will still get 1.5 as a multiplier.
For the amount of work one needs to win a slams compared to a Masters 1000, it would be difficult to justify much more than 2300 for a slam winner. 3000 (or more) for a slam is much too disproportionate compared to the Masters and the lesser tournaments. If the point value of the slams is inflated too much, players would be less inlined to play tournaments that are not required. They would probably also take the Masters 1000 more lightly and we might see more withdrawals for relatively minor injuries.
.
2000 for the slams is just about right. Perhaps a little bit more considering the number of rounds and the fact that the slams are best of 5 compared to best of 3 for the Master's 1000s. If you consider that the slams are 7 rounds compared to 5 rounds for the 1000s, then the slams should be worth at least 1.4x the point value of the 1000s.
If you then consider that an ATP player must win at least 3 sets per slam match compared to 2 sets/match for the Masters 1000s, then the value of the slam would be 2.1x times (1.4 x 1.5) that of the Masters, or 2100 points.
Now if you want to argue that a player might need 4 or 5 sets to win a slam match, then we be tempted to change the 2nd multiplier to something between 4/3 to 5/3 (rather than 3/2). However, if you average 4/3 and 5/3, then you will still get 1.5 as a multiplier.
For the amount of work one needs to win a slams compared to a Masters 1000, it would be difficult to justify much more than 2300 for a slam winner. 3000 (or more) for a slam is much too disproportionate compared to the Masters and the lesser tournaments. If the point value of the slams is inflated too much, players would be less inlined to play tournaments that are not required. They would probably also take the Masters 1000 more lightly and we might see more withdrawals for relatively minor injuries.
.
Last edited:
and 6 more ATP championships = 4.5 slams according to the ATP
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Miami and IW have 7 rounds and they deserve 1000. All other masters make it 750.
And majors finalist need be to 1400 , semi finalist 900 and quarter finalists 500. It takes as much effort to reach QF as it takes to win a 500 event.
And majors finalist need be to 1400 , semi finalist 900 and quarter finalists 500. It takes as much effort to reach QF as it takes to win a 500 event.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
that's true, that makes 15. Djokovic would also be on 13.5
Mr.Lob
G.O.A.T.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
As a matter of ATP scoring, 2K or 2500 seems fine. As a matter of ranking the greats a la TimNZ's interesting criteria, I'd add a few hundred points every few majors, which would allow the tiers to reveal themselves pretty clearly. Maybe 2K points for majors 1-3, 2500 for 4-7, 3000 for 8-10, 3500 11-13, 4000 14-17, and so on and so forth.
I'd also incorporate certain bonuses, such as (1) multiple titles at a given major, (2) most titles at a given major, (3) career grand and golden slams, (4) 3 major seasons, (5) an Olympic gold (which I guarantee will be the 5th most prestigious title in tennis within a generation, if it isn't already - the players already take it very, very seriously since Beijing, and it's only going to grow in prestige in my opinion, and (6) small bonuses for leaders in titles at the YEC and individual masters events.
Not sure what the numbers for each should be, but adding those might create a richer picture. Just throwin' it out there.
I'd also incorporate certain bonuses, such as (1) multiple titles at a given major, (2) most titles at a given major, (3) career grand and golden slams, (4) 3 major seasons, (5) an Olympic gold (which I guarantee will be the 5th most prestigious title in tennis within a generation, if it isn't already - the players already take it very, very seriously since Beijing, and it's only going to grow in prestige in my opinion, and (6) small bonuses for leaders in titles at the YEC and individual masters events.
Not sure what the numbers for each should be, but adding those might create a richer picture. Just throwin' it out there.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
It occurred to me more than an hour ago, that one of my assumptions was incorrect. tennisaddict has it (partially) correct. I had indicated that the Master 1000s consisted of 5 round rather than 7 rounds for the slams. However, this not accurate. The singles draws for the Masters can vary from 48 (for Paris) to 96 (for IW & Miami).
The other 6 Masters 1000 consists of draws of 56. In this latter case, the top 8 seeds get a first round bye and, potentially, would play 5 rounds if they get to the finals. The rest of the field (48 ) in the draw would need to play 6 rounds if they get to the finals. For the Paris Masters, the top 16 seeds get a 1st round bye and, again, would only play 5 rounds if they get to the final. The rest of the field would require 6 rounds.
For IW and Miami, the top 32 seeds receive a 1st round bye. They would potentially play 6 rounds if they reached the final whereas the rest of the field would be playing 7 rounds if they reached the finals. In light of this, it makes sense that IW & Miami should be worth more than the other Masters 1000s. If we keep the other 7 Masters at 1000, then IW and Miami should be worth something in the neighborhood of 1200 according to the math; perhaps 1250 points.
If we keep 7 of the Masters at 1000, then the slams should be worth at least 1750 to 2100 points. This takes into consideration that the slams singles for ATP players are best of 5 rather than best of 3 (refer to my previous). Would not put the total point value of the slams any higher than this since most of the Masters run 5 to 6 rounds (with IW & Miami running 6-7 rounds). In light of the math, the current 2000 points for the slams is just about right compared to 1000 for most of the Masters. Only IW & Miami would be increased to 1200 (or 1250).
.
Last edited:
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
Similar threads
- Poll
