How should the "Big Titles" Be Calculated? "Big Title Points"?

[McEnroeisanartist]

I have seen a lot of places that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic all have the same number of "Big Titles" - 54

Anyone else think that this should be calculated differently, as winning a Grand Slam is worth twice the ranking points of a Masters 1000, and winning the ATP Tour Finals undefeated is worth 1500 ranking points and 1300 points with one round robin loss.

So I would calculate their Big Title Points as:

Federer 20 X 2,000 (Grand Slams) + 8,800 (ATP Tour Finals) + 28 X 1,000 = 76,800 Points
Nadal 19 X 2,000 (Grand Slams) + 0 (ATP Tour Finals), + 35 X 1,000 = 73,000 Points
Djokovic 16 X 2,000 (Grand Slams) + 7,100 (ATP Tour Finals) + 33 X 1,000 = 72,100 Points

Then of course you would look at their points from their finals appearances

Federer 11 X 1,000 ( Grand Slams) + 3,800 (ATP Tour Finals), + 22 X 600 = 28,000 Points
Nadal 8 X 1,000 (Grand Slams) + 2,000 (ATP Tour Finals), + 16 X 600 = 19,600 Points
Djokovic 9 X 1,000 (Grand Slams) + 2,000 (ATP Tour Finals) + 16 X 600 = 20,600 Points

I would still expect Nadal and Djokovic to pass Federer in Big Title Points, but to reduce their greatness to Big Titles won seems mathematically incorrect.

 

[Third Serve]

I've mentioned something like this before.

 

[GabeT]

I think using points is captured elsewhere, such as weeks at number 1. Big Title points is too nerdy for the average fan, most of whom don’t understand the difference between a slam and a Masters. Big Titles is a marketing gimmick but I think it serves a purpose, to highlight the set of tournaments where you can expect most of the top players to participate.

 

[AceSalvo]

I've mentioned something like this before.

Same here. But ATP wants to water down the results so that they can get their "story" out.

 

[Third Serve]

Same here. But ATP wants to water down the results so that they can get their "story" out.

It's just to simplify things for the casual viewer.

 

[AceSalvo]

It's just to simplify things for the casual viewer.

And ATP does not expect the casual viewer to know how many points each of the categories are worth to get a full picture.

 

[Third Serve]

And ATP does not expect the casual viewer to know how many points each of the categories are worth to get a full picture.

Yeah, but it's not like they're pushing an agenda or anything like that.

 

[James P]

It's not worth anything, but Olympic gold should be worth 3000 or something like that. Imo.

 

[AceSalvo]

Yeah, but it's not like they're pushing an agenda or anything like that.

Maybe and maybe not, but ATP has not released an official statement on that. Funny how they don't promote the actual "Titles" count.

Halle and Queens are "big" because there are no grass M1000's. So thats funny too, that ATP does not have a grass M1000.

 

[helterskelter]

It's not worth anything, but Olympic gold should be worth 3000 or something like that. Imo.

The ATP are biased against ITF events. That said, 3000 seems way too much to me unless the tournament's format is revamped massively. For it to merit more points than a Slam, it should be best of five sets and at least a 128-player draw. But that's the same format as a Slam so points should be even. For it merit more points than a Slam, maybe make it best of five and a 256-player draw. Or some round-robin at some point in the draw.

As it stands, I would give it 1,500 points, putting it on par with the Tour Finals.