Is it possible to objectively evaluate the worth of a tournament?

[McEnroeisanartist]

Is it possible to evaluate the worth of winning a tournament?

For example: Nadal has 27 Masters Series Tournament wins (27,000 points) and 0 Year End Finals (0 points). Federer has 21 Masters Series Tournament Wins (21,000 points) and 6 Year End Finals (9,000 points). Does that mean if Nadal never wins a Year End Finals, but wins 4 more Masters Series tournaments, he will have surpassed Federer in the biggest tournaments just below the grand slams? I don't think necessarily. If a player wins three Masters Series Tournaments (3,000 points), but never a Grand Slam, they have in theory won more points than a Grand Slam champion (2,000 points) who has never won a Masters Series tournament. But, the Grand Slam champion would never trade their Grand Slam.

 

[Russeljones]

post it here
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381

 

[SLD76]

What in all the effs is the point?

 

[ollinger]

Insofar as it's obvious to most sensate creatures that tournaments cannot have "objective" worth, what sort of person asks such a question?

 

[veroniquem]

"We" don't need do evaluate it. The ATP and ITF are doing it for us by attributing points:

1- slams
2- WTF
3- masters
4- 500
5- 250

If the worth was left to personal appreciation, it would be complete chaos and ranking would be impossible.

 

[mike danny]

Basic math:

2000-slams
1500(or 1300 if you lose 1 match)-WTF
1000
500
250
futures
challengers

 

[timnz]

Is it possible to evaluate the worth of winning a tournament?

For example: Nadal has 27 Masters Series Tournament wins (27,000 points) and 0 Year End Finals (0 points). Federer has 21 Masters Series Tournament Wins (21,000 points) and 6 Year End Finals (9,000 points). Does that mean if Nadal never wins a Year End Finals, but wins 4 more Masters Series tournaments, he will have surpassed Federer in the biggest tournaments just below the grand slams? I don't think necessarily. If a player wins three Masters Series Tournaments (3,000 points), but never a Grand Slam, they have in theory won more points than a Grand Slam champion (2,000 points) who has never won a Masters Series tournament. But, the Grand Slam champion would never trade their Grand Slam.

But at some point a lesser event has to be worth something. And if so a multiple of it will exceed a slams points, whatever weighting you apply. There are a million opinions as to what the weightings should be...at that is the problem in essence...you could never come to an agreement about that, so the best you can do is use the ATP weightings.

 

[timnz]

Exactly

"We" don't need do evaluate it. The ATP and ITF are doing it for us by attributing points:

1- slams
2- WTF
3- masters
4- 500
5- 250

If the worth was left to personal appreciation, it would be complete chaos and ranking would be impossible.

Exactly. And when I get beaten up over my Open era achievement system (see link below) for tournaments achievements currently 1000 points and above, that is what I say - we have to use the ATP points - because what other option do we have?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Wouldn't the best way be to look at the summative totals of every players all time points?

Why is a slam F worth 1.2K, but a slam semi worth 0? Likewise a WTF runner-up could be worth up to 1.1K. Its arbitrary to remove them in calculation.

The ATP formula is 4 slams + 8 masters 1000 + WTF + best 5 other results (including Davis Cup and Monte Carlo) each year. I think the best solution is to do create a composite list using that criteria for every player, every year.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

sorry my mistake the formula is:

4 slams + 8 masters 1000 + WTF + 4 masters 500s (Davis Cup and/or Monte Carlo can count here) + best 2 other results

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

You probably could come up with a largely agreed upon system but it will always be subjective.

In trying to find some objective worth for tournaments, you could invent an arbitrary system OP and it wouldn't be any more or less subjective than the current one used by the ATP/ITF as long as the bracket tiers hold an equal amount of points (so all Slams = X and all Masters 1000s = N).

I'd wager that if research was done though that a general collective truth would reveal that most/maybe nearly all players and fans would consider for example winning 2 Slams as being worth more than winning 4 Masters 1000 events.

 

[T-Noone]

I think the OP brings up a good point. I'm not saying I agree, but he/she is questioning why organizations can place numbers to a tournament. Each tournament has it's own unique conditions and pool of competitors, and the winner is always the one who is last standing. This is a philosophical discussion...one worth having? I'm not sure.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Obviously the current distribution probably doesn't do a whole lot to mirror the general perception of tournament worth but nonetheless it offers a nice degree of control to ensure that the tour runs well, which is the point. It does seem the current points distribution though is beautifully (sarcasm) arbitrary with only one important core element -- that at least the tournaments are in the right order.

Ultimately, the current ranking system has been left to the personal appreciation of the ATP/ITF according to the premise of having a rough system that ensures the tour exists in a feasible capacity. Kudos.