Lendl - Becker 1989

[Benhur]

Below are Becker's and Lendl's event-by-event performance in 1989, with the ATP points awarded for each result.

Note that Lendl's AO is valued at 335. Becker's Wimbledon is at 488, and his USO at 466. Also, Becker's Master's final, Lendl's Master's semifinal, and Lendl's Dallas semifinal got zero ATP points.

The total difference by the end of the year was 592 points. The weighings of tournaments relative to slams not very different from today, except for the AO which is significantly lower. In today's system Lendl would have had apreciably more points for his AO win, but probably less for Key Biscaine, which in those days had almost as much weight as the AO (296 vs 335). In sum, the system seems fair.

It would be possible to calculate what the point total would be in today's system. Could it be a bit different? Maybe. It would be an interesting exercise. But that's a far cry from saying the ranking system was nonsense in 89. I agree the situation is exceptional, but it arises not from any serious flaws in the system, but rather from the fact that Lendl was an exceptionally consistent player in general, and 89 was one of his top 4 years. He just kept winning tournament after tournament, and that's why Becker could not catch him in the rankings. The situation could plausibly arise in today's system as well, even with a player winning 3 slams, let alone 2. If 1982 had been normally counted, the exact same situation would have arisen, with the difference in points even worse than in 1989.

I still think it is possible to give the year to Becker in recognition of his 2 slams, but accept that Lendl was *fairly* ranked number one the entire year. It sounds like a contradiction, but not to me. Or maybe give it to both.

BECKER 1989

Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 16-Jan-89, O, Hard , Draw: 128
ROUND OF 16
This Event Points: 35, ATP Ranking: 4
===
===
Milan, Italy
GP, 13-Feb-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 168, ATP Ranking: 4
===
===
Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
GP, 20-Feb-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 48
WINNER
This Event Points: 201, ATP Ranking: 3,
===
===
Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.
GP, 13-Mar-89, O, Hard , Draw: 56
ROUND OF 16
This Event Points: 24, ATP Ranking: 3
===
===
Monte Carlo, Monaco
GP, 24-Apr-89, O, Clay , Draw: 48
FINAL
This Event Points: 155, ATP Ranking: 3,
===
===
Hamburg, Germany
GP, 8-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 96, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 128
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 219, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 26-Jun-89, O, Grass , Draw: 128
WINNER
This Event Points: 488, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.
GP, 14-Aug-89, O, Hard , Draw: 64
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 102, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
US Open, NY, U.S.A.
Grand Slam, 28-Aug-89, O, Hard , Draw: 128
WINNER
This Event Points: 466, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
Paris Indoor, France
GP, 30-Oct-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 295, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
Stockholm, Sweden
GP, 6-Nov-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 48
ROUND OF 16
This Event Points: 30, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
Masters, NY, U.S.A.
WC, 28-Nov-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 8
FINAL
This Event Points: 0, ATP Ranking

================================

LENDL 1989

Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 16-Jan-89, O, Hard , Draw: 128
WINNER
This Event Points: 335, ATP Ranking: 2
===
===
Dallas WCT, TX, U.S.A.
GP, 28-Feb-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 8
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 0, ATP Ranking: N/A
===
===
Scottsdale, AZ, U.S.A.
GP, 6-Mar-89, O, Hard , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 169, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Key Biscayne, FL, U.S.A.
GP, 20-Mar-89, O, Hard , Draw: 128
WINNER
This Event Points: 296, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Tokyo Outdoor, Japan
GP, 17-Apr-89, O, Hard , Draw: 56
FINAL
This Event Points: 126, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Forest Hills, NY, U.S.A.
GP, 1-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
WINNER
This Event Points: 212, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Hamburg, Germany
GP, 8-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
WINNER
This Event Points: 213, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 128
ROUND OF 16
This Event Points: 72, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Queen's Club, England
GP, 12-Jun-89, O, Grass , Draw: 64
WINNER
This Event Points: 157, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 26-Jun-89, O, Grass , Draw: 128
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 211, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Montreal / Toronto, Montreal, Canada
GP, 14-Aug-89, O, Hard , Draw: 56
WINNER
This Event Points: 223, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
US Open, NY, U.S.A.
Grand Slam, 28-Aug-89, O, Hard , Draw: 128
FINAL
This Event Points: 362, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Barcelona, Spain
GP, 18-Sep-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 84, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Bordeaux, France
GP, 25-Sep-89, O, Clay , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 125, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Sydney Indoor, Australia
GP, 9-Oct-89, I, Hard , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 126, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Stockholm, Sweden
GP, 6-Nov-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 48
WINNER
This Event Points: 274, ATP Ranking: 1
===
===
Masters, NY, U.S.A.
WC, 28-Nov-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 8
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 0, ATP Ranking: N/A
---------------

GS TITLES
BECKER 2
LENDL 1

GS RUNNER-UP
BECKER 0
LENDL 1

GS SEMIFINALIST
BECKER 1
LENDL 1
-------
TOTAL TITLES
BECKER 5
LENDL 10

RUNNER-UP
BECKER 2
LENDL 2

SEMIFINALIST
BECKER 3
LENDL 4

TOTAL ATP POINTS
BECKER: 2279
LENDL: 2871

 

[Moose Malloy]

In 1989, it was an average system, so your 'total' of points earned isn't the # used to determine final finishes. Also they had quality points offered back then, which explains why the 4 majors had different points.

I posted this in a thread earlier this year, in response to a poster that didn't know that the Year End Masters offered no ranking points pre 1990

In the 80s they had the 'Nabisco Grand Prix' points race, in which all the tournaments gave points, in which the top 8 qualified for the Year end Masters. It was completely separate from the ATP ranking, as were WCT events(which had some of the biggest events of that time, in terms of prize money, & attracted great fields)

The ATP wasn't really one unified tour in the 80s, many had conflicting interests. 1990 is when the real ATP tour was launched.
I have a lot of Masters matches from the 80s on tape, both the commentators & the tournament officials(during trophy presentations) seemed to pretend the ATP ranking didn't exist that week, only acknowledging the Grand Prix points race, which often generated a very different list.

All this info makes it sorta clear why the ATP ranking wasn't considered a big deal(like Connors' streak at #1 pre Fed) by players of that time, so many events weren't even counted towards it. It also may explain some strange year end #1's over the years(Mac in '82, Connors in '77, etc)

Money was probably a bigger motivation than ranking points back then. Its funny, Becker received more money than Edberg at the trophy presentation(like 100,000 more) for the '89 Masters(despite losing the final) since he finished higher in the Grand Prix Race. The prize money for winning the Masters was only 200,000 but Becker got another 500,000 for finishing 2nd in the race that year. 500,000 was a much bigger purse than you got for winning a major in 1989. Even without ranking points, the Masters was a big deal to the players of the time, because of the money. Now money alone isn't enough to ensure players take a tournament seriously.

I wonder if Lendl would have stayed #1 longer had they counted points for the Masters in the 80s, considering Wilander only passed him after winning his 3rd major in '88.

I have an old tennis magazine for the 1990 Year End Championship, much was made of the fact that ATP points were offered that year for the 1st time.

Also I have the Year in Review Tennis magazine for 1989, they listed the final ATP rankings & Grand Prix rankings for 1989.

the atp ranking(it was based on an average, I averaged out all the points listed for these players for 1989 on the website, not counting the 0 listed for WCT events & the Masters, & the numbers do match):

Lendl 213.214 from 15 events
Becker 189.916 from 12 events
Edberg 150.857 from 15 events

Grand Prix Race(which counts all events played)

Lendl 9,831
Becker 7,039
Edberg 6,355

Since 1990 was the 1st year they used the new system that counted best 14, I assume the 1989 Masters was counted for some players on Jan 1 of 1990.

Under both ranking systems, Lendl had a big lead over Becker. But Edberg gets closer with the 'race' system(not surprising since he won the Masters that year) I'm curious as to how different the atp ranking for that year would be if the Year End Masters was included(in which Becker made the final)

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=174203&page=3&highlight=becker

and here is another thread on the same topic:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=166590&page=4&highlight=becker

 

[Benhur]

In 1989, it was an average system, so your 'total' of points earned isn't the # used to determine final finishes. Also they had quality points offered back then, which explains why the 4 majors had different points.

Thanks for the information, Moose. The Lendl lead by the average system is proportionately about the same as by adding the ATP points. It's even larger by the Grand Prix points.

This is an unusual situation because on the one hand Becker's Wimbledon and USO, as well as his other wins, have to be given their weight, but at the same time it cannot be claimed the ranking systems were wrong, and Lendl's outstanding performance that year is borne out by his substantial lead in all those systems. So I give the year to both.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

Lendl won more tournaments in 1989 than anyone. By today's standard, some are huge AMS, like the Humburg and Rogers. Had he won the USO (finalist), no doubt he would be the #1.

 

[jeffreyneave]

atp points 1989 and lendl

they are rubbish and no way relect today's weights. Small tournaments have 150 to 220 points compared to a slam of 450 (chang in paris)

There are obviously extra points for beating top players, hence becker's488 at wimbledon (beat top 2 in the world), only 466 us open (only beat no1.) , which I like.


To get to today's points I have doubled the slams eg chang's french 900; I have increades events which look like super 9s(winners' points over 250) by 50%( eg lendl's key biscayne rises from 296 to 444). I have left all the minor tournaments as the same( so lendl forest hills 212 is stiil 212). I have also given points for the Masters at the same level as today; ie runner up becker 525 and sf lendl 300

This converts lendl's original ponts of 2871 to 4436

It convertts to becker from an oriinal points of 2279 to 4236

So a win for lendl ,but a lot closer.

However, if one uses the average system of the 1980s and 1970s, which meant you did not suffer for playing fewer events

Becker's 13 events = 326 average
Lendl 16 events = 277 average

There you are ; a win for becker if the weights are more realistiv between slams and minor events. Using the average system is fair because players only had to play 12 at this time not 18 to qualify for the average system

One of the reasons becker was named no1 by the itf was his davis cup exploits. If one equates winning the cup to reaching a slam final;that gives becker another 726 points. I excluded Lendl's WCT performance before, but now I give him an extra 225 points for sf (the value of a sf at a super 9)

This leads to a total points of becker 4964; Lendl 4561

On an average basis its becker 356; lendl 268

Just show adusting to include all performance makes a big difference and so does using realistic weights.

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

they are rubbish and no way relect today's weights. Small tournaments have 150 to 220 points compared to a slam of 450 (chang in paris)

There are obviously extra points for beating top players, hence becker's488 at wimbledon (beat top 2 in the world), only 466 us open (only beat no1.) , which I like.


To get to today's points I have doubled the slams eg chang's french 900; I have increades events which look like super 9s(winners' points over 250) by 50%( eg lendl's key biscayne rises from 296 to 444). I have left all the minor tournaments as the same( so lendl forest hills 212 is stiil 212). I have also given points for the Masters at the same level as today; ie runner up becker 525 and sf lendl 300

This converts lendl's original ponts of 2871 to 4436

It convertts to becker from an oriinal points of 2279 to 4236

So a win for lendl ,but a lot closer.

However, if one uses the average system of the 1980s and 1970s, which meant you did not suffer for playing fewer events

Becker's 13 events = 326 average
Lendl 16 events = 277 average

There you are ; a win for becker if the weights are more realistiv between slams and minor events. Using the average system is fair because players only had to play 12 at this time not 18 to qualify for the average system

One of the reasons becker was named no1 by the itf was his davis cup exploits. If one equates winning the cup to reaching a slam final;that gives becker another 726 points. I excluded Lendl's WCT performance before, but now I give him an extra 225 points for sf (the value of a sf at a super 9)

This leads to a total points of becker 4964; Lendl 4561

On an average basis its becker 356; lendl 268

Just show adusting to include all performance makes a big difference and so does using realistic weights.
jeffrey

I don't know, it seems to me you are using various standards simultaneously. If you say the system is rubbish because it is not like today, then convert it to today. But what you are doing is keeping it the way it was for some things and making arbitrary conversions for others.

I would start by assigning slams 1000 points and calculating fractionally from there as it is done today. Then determine what events were the equivalent of today's Masters Series and put them at 500 points The next tier would be 300, and the next 250. That's what it would mean to convert to today's system. Otherwise you are on the one hand maintaining the old system for relative weighs among individual tournaments but on the other hand changing other things to an arbitrary simulation of today's system, by adding 100% here, 50% there, and leaving it as is elsewhere. That is not a conversion to today's system. Also, your cutoff of 250 points to consider an event the equivalent of today's top 9 seems a bit high. For example, the Canadian Open had a similar status as today relative to slams. The top players were always there before the Open. It should probably be 500.

So, a slam is 1000. So Key Biscayne is 500 (and so is Paris Indoor for Becker, and Stockholm and Tokyo for Lendl according to your cutoff, etc), Hamburg I may put at 300, like Barcelona today, if you don't want to consider it a super 9. But not at 213! which is lower than Stuttgart today. The lowest tier they played was probably the equivalent of today's 250s. Isn't Queen's at 250 today? It was 157 then. You cannot keep it at 157. Nor can you keep Forest Hills at 213. It has to be at least 250 and probably 300, etc.


In any case, it would be good to see how many points you gave each plahyer at each event to reach your points. But even with all that, you had Lendl ahead.

For the rest. I don't understand how you calculate your average according to the system of the 70s and 80s (in any case, this wouldn't be very relevant in an attempt at converting the 1989 ATP points to today's system).

Moose posted these averages on his post

Lendl 213.214 from 15 events
Becker 189.916 from 12 events
Edberg 150.857 from 15 events

And the 213 vs 189 matches pretty well the proportions I obtained by just adding the ATP points for each player.

 

[jeffreyneave]

My adjustments were a quick way of getting today's weights. I changed the 1989 atp points by doing this: 100% increase for slams; 50% increase for super 9s (events with more than 270 points); no change for minor events

Today's weights

slams 1000
super nine 500
minor events 175-250


My weights used for my previous post
slams 900
super nines 450
minor events 150-225

The ratios are the same more or less, but there is a bit more flexibility because in 1989 points were partly calculated for who you beat. Thus becker's wimbledon win(beat lendl and edberg) is worth more than his Us open (just beat lendl) win. My points were a quick conversion from 1989, but still produced the right ratios. Neither Hamburg or candian open were super 9s in 1989 (look at the prize money and the fields); they are at the top end of the minor tier; hence 210-225 point range for my weights.

Lendl still wins on total points won, but he played more. The point is that players at the time knew they had to play 12 events and then their points would be averaged for their ranking; hence it is quite appropriate to use 2008 weights with the 1970s/1980s average and not apply best 18 of 2008 (players did not contract to play a best 18 , but instead at least 12 with an averge). Becker wins on this system

Further more Becker played four rounds of Davis cup, which allowed Lendl to play more events. Becker does deserve reward for this play in those circumstances; with davis cup included becker wins on total ponts gained for the season as well of course on the average sustem. The ITF named becker world champion partly because of his davis cup feats. Becker was voted number one by the atp players. The 1980s ratios are not acceptable. The ITF named different no1s in the 1980s and 1970s because there was not sufficient weight to the majors in the ATP's system. Since 1996 the Atp and ITF came to deal with more points for the slams in the atp computer rankings. They have never disagreed since then on who was no1.

No player since ww1 has not be named numner 1 if he won the Us open and Wimbledon. The only way that's going to be challenged is if some one else wins the aussie and french open. That has only happened once in 1967 when Newcombe won the big 2 and emerson the the french and aussie. In 1967 , there were 7 big events - the 4 slams+ german + itlay + south African opens
. Since emerson won the german , he had won 3 out of 7 and was ranked number one by some journalists. However, most journalist choose newcombe with his 2 out of 7 because he had won the big 2.

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

My adjustments were a quick way of getting today's weights. I changed the 1989 atp points by doing this: 100% increase for slams; 50% increase for super 9s (events with more than 270 points); no change for minor events

Today's weights

slams 1000
super nine 500
minor events 175-250

No, today's weights are in 4 categories as follows:

Slams 1000
Masters Series (9) 500
International Series Gold (9) 300
International Series (43) 250

My weights used for my previous post
slams 900
super nines 450
minor events 150-225

Your minor events cgategory is is weighed too low, and in addition you need one categorie between it and super nines to reflect today's system.

Thus, in your system, it would be:
Slams 900
Super 9 (today's MS) 450
Next 9 (todays IS Gold) 270
All others (today's IS) 225

The Canadian Open, Hambourg and various others would surely be the at least the equivalent to the International Series Gold today (though I wonder, for example, which 9 tournaments were ahead of the Canadian Open at at the time). And everything else would be at least 225.

 

[Benhur]

No player since ww1 has not be named numner 1 if he won the Us open and Wimbledon. The only way that's going to be challenged is if some one else wins the aussie and french open.
jeffrey

I mentioned that the situation was exceptional - but not because of any particular flaws in the 1989 system. The situation could perfectly well arise today. Take two players with the same slam results as Becker and Lendl in 89. 2 to 1. That difference in points can be amply surpassed if the player with only one slam wins 4 or 5 MS titles and a bunch of others, while the other one does much worse outside the slams. The only way you can eliminate it from the rankings is by assigning such disproportionate amount of points to each slam that a difference of one slam between two players at the end of the year cannot be made up with anything else. Again, that would make all other tournamens meaningless for all practical purposes.
You could still give the year award to the player with one more slam, but you would not need to take from the record the fact that the other player was *ranked* 1 the entire year - except by coming up with a ranking system that renders everything outside slams completely meaningless.

 

[jeffreyneave]

I'm talking about the 2000-2007 points. Loads of 175 point events and lots between 175 and 250. Agassi never won a 300 point event between 200 and 2005. Federer has only won one 300 event dubai in his career. Both have won lots of 175 events. In 2007 there were only 2 300 events (barcelona and dubai); the rest were 175 -250 ; that's the norm.

As far As I'm concerned 300 events Should only exist in exceptonal circumtances like Dubai when it atrracyted 6 o7 of the world's top event . If one event a week is worth 500; 2 a week means 250 or less; 3 aweek should be 175 or 200. THe atp have moved the wrong way in 2008 by increasing the number of 300 point events: they are going back to their bad old ways of the 70s and 80s with this move all wrong

Lendl did not win 5 super style events ; he won 2; becker won one; his extra wins were all minor events partly gained when becker is playing 4 weeks of davis cup. Becker's superb davis cup display should be rewarded with at least as many points as lendl would earn for reaching the us open final becker won 7 matches; 6 best of five set ; beat agassi, edberg and wilander and did not lose; lendl won 6 best of 5 set matches with only one good win over agassi and then he lost. becker easily wins on average systen which was which players faced in the 70s and 80s, and on total ponins if hisd davis cup expoiis are justifiably. Its perfectly legit to apply ant ratios you want between slams and the rest for any ranking year.; the atp had 33

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

Lendl won more tournaments in 1989 than anyone. By today's standard, some are huge AMS, like the Humburg and Rogers. Had he won the USO (finalist), no doubt he would be the #1.

This summarized that year already.

 

[jeffreyneave]

Lendl won ten events , but only 3 are big wins; the rest are minor events and he had to play 17 events to get those extra wins compared to becker who was tied up with the davis cup and only played 14 events ; that's why the average is appropriate in this case and because players were told it was an average system at the time. You can apply any weights you want for slams with any total sytenm eg in 70s 33% mark-up slams and average system; in 80s 50% mark up for slams and average system; early 90s 50% mark-up system and 18 best events; late 90s 100% markup slams and 18 best; 2000-7 100% mark-up slams and 13 fixed events plus 5 best others.

becker won 4 big events and 3 minor ones. and his davis cup is worth more than a super 9; more like a slam final or winning the Masters end of season event. I'm not saying lendl was definitely not no1 in 1989, but the atp rankings of the time were totally wrong; that's why everybody else (players, journalists and the ITF) choose becker.

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

I'm talking about the 2000-2007 points. Loads of 175 point events and lots between 175 and 250. Agassi never won a 300 point event between 200 and 2005. Federer has only won one 300 event dubai in his career. Both have won lots of 175 events. In 2007 there were only 2 300 events (barcelona and dubai); the rest were 175 -250 ; that's the norm.

As far As I'm concerned 300 events Should only exist in exceptonal circumtances like Dubai when it atrracyted 6 o7 of the world's top event . If one event a week is worth 500; 2 a week means 250 or less; 3 aweek should be 175 or 200. THe atp have moved the wrong way in 2008 by increasing the number of 300 point events: they are going back to their bad old ways of the 70s and 80s with this move all wrong

Lendl did not win 5 super style events ; he won 2; becker won one; his extra wins were all minor events partly gained when becker is playing 4 weeks of davis cup. Becker's superb davis cup display should be rewarded with at least as many points as lendl would earn for reaching the us open final becker won 7 matches; 6 best of five set ; beat agassi, edberg and wilander and did not lose; lendl won 6 best of 5 set matches with only one good win over agassi and then he lost. becker easily wins on average systen which was which players faced in the 70s and 80s, and on total ponins if hisd davis cup expoiis are justifiably. Its perfectly legit to apply ant ratios you want between slams and the rest for any ranking year.; the atp had 33

Well, another way of putting it is this:

** Becker won 2 slams to Lendl's 1.

**Lendl had 1 slam runner-up appearance to Beckers 0. (And they had 1 semifinal appearance apiece)

** Lendl won 2 "super-nine"-equivalent titles to Becker's 1 (according to your estimation)

(Note that Lendl's 2 titles in this category included a 128-men draw tournament, Key Biscayne, that seems clearly above all the rest outside slams. In contrast, Becker's Paris was a 48men draw.)

In addition to the above-mentioned titles:

**Lendl won 7 other titles to Becker's 2.

Of these additional titles by Lendl, 4 of them (Forest Hills, Barcelona, Hamburg and Montreal) were 64-men draws.
Becker's 2 titles (Philadelphia and Milan) were 48 and 32 men draws respectively, and they both had lower weighings than the Lendl's titles mentioned above (significantly lower in the case of Milan).

So in general I don't see any clear reason to be outraged that the ranking system kept Lendl on top throughout the year.

 

[jeffreyneave]

First of all lendl did not win barcelona. you also forgot to mention that becker was runner-up at the masters and won the davis cup. The size of the field does not matter. The fact that key beyscine is 96 and paris indoor 48 man today does not mean they should not have the same p[oints; they have the same points now and the same in 1989(its the prize money and quality of field that counts .

lets look at their acheivement in your terms .

In minor events Becker won 1 with more than 200 pts
lendl won 3 with more than 200 pts

In other minor events becker won 1 withless than 180 pts
lendl won 4 with less than 180 pts


based on the weights of 2000-2007 that I used in my early post a slam = approx 5 minor events


It follows that a super 9 is worth 2 1/2 minor events.

Converting Becker's 2 slams, I super 9 etc = an equivalent of 14 1/2 minor events

Converting lendl = an equivalent of 17 minor event wins

However , becker only played 13 events = 1.12 wins per event
lendl played 17 l= 1.06 wins per event

That's why becker is no1 even without the davis cup

I counted the davis cup at about 3 1/2 minor wins

THat raises becker to 18 wins/ 14 events = 1.3 winns per event

lendl's failure to win the wct means with total coverage means he's left with

17 wins/17 events = 1 win per event ; an evener clearer win for becker


What you don't seem to be able to accept is that the weights of the atp computer were crap. Only the Atp computer baced lendl in 1989; all other opinion favoured becler. I repeat the ITF choose becker: the players choose becker as player of the year; and journalists choose becker (eg Tennis magazine in France)


jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

First of all lendl did not win barcelona.

True. My mistake. We could replace it with say Queens which had a 64 men draw and the point I was making is the same. But it doesn't matter at all for the current calculations.

Ok. Now let's adjust those calculations for the sake of fairness. We will keep your units (lowest level tournaments) as 1/5 of a slam.

Let's give in magnanimously to your wishes regarding Davis Cup, and give Becker 1/2 slam for his Davis Cup play. I am feeling generous.

Becker +2.5 (above the 14.5 you counted earlier)

Let's also account for total slam performance. We must be fair (your title system does not account for this)

They each had one R16 appearance, so let's give them 1/16 of a slam or 0.31 units.

Becker +0.31
Lendl +0.31

They each had one semifinal appearance, so let's add 1/4 slam for each, or 1.25 units.

Becker + 1.25
Lendl + 1.25

Lendl was runner-up at the Open, so add 1/ 2 a slam or 2.5 units.

Lendl + 2.5

The size of the field does not matter. The fact that key beyscine is 96 and paris indoor 48 man today does not mean they should not have the same p[oints

Oh no. It matters very significantly. Key Biscayne was a 128 man draw (not 96 as you say) and Paris was only 32, not 48 as you say. It took 7 matches to win it, as opposed to 5. It was the only event outside of slams to have the same draw as slams in those days, and clearly the most important. It was weighted at almost 90% of Lendl's Australian Open. I will not yield on this. So let's put it a notch above the previous 2.5 units, at 3.25, a slight push of 0.75 units.

Lendl + 0.75

lets look at their acheivement in your terms.
In minor events Becker won 1 with more than 200pts lendl won 3 with more than 200 pts

Yes, these 4 events had significantly more points than Becker's Milan or Lendl's Bordeaux or Lendl's Queen's, so let's give them a tiny 0.25 unit prop above the bare unit, for fairness sake.

Becker + 0.25
Lendl + 0.75

As for Becker's Master's final vs Lendl's Master's semifinal + Lendl's Dallas WCT semifinal. I suppose we could say these cancel each other pretty well, in order to avoid elucubrations as to how much they should be worth.

So, adding the above adjustments to your calculations of 14.5 and 17 respectively, we have:

Becker: 18.8
Lendl: 22.6

As for averages. If you want to get into that, there is one that shines royally above all others and speaks for itself loud and clear.

Becker played a total of 73 matches that year (including Davis Cup) and won 65.

Lendl played 87 matches and won 81.

Winning percentage:

Becker: 89%
Lendl: 93%

Also note here that the contention that Becker was prevented from playing more tournaments because of Davis Cup has little merit. Lendl did not play on any of the weeks with Davis Cup play. Lendl played 14 more matches than Becker in total (including DC). (In any case, we've included his David Cup play as half a slam.)

Becker did not play more tournaments because he did not want to.

But as I said. When it comes to averages, winning percentage is the clearest (among comparable seasons by two players). Actually, Lendl's 93.1% for the year is probably one of the top 4 or 5 of all time, or at least the open era. Becker never had a 90% year. A 4 point difference around the 90% level is huge. It means Lendl was more than 33% closer to perfection (100%) than Becker.

What you don't seem to be able to accept is that the weights of the atp computer were crap.

They were definitely not crap, as demonstrated by fair transposition to the current system and a look at the winning percentage, and even by generously including his Davis Cup with the weight of half a slam in the ranking system, which in those days would have been unheard of.

What you don't seem to understand is that, as I told you before, this was clearly an exceptional situation, and the exact same situation could very well arise with today's system (or could have arisen in any of the years since then). And the only way to avoid it would be to devise a ranking system where tournaments outside slams are rendered all but irrelevant for ranking purposes. The situation had everything to do with Lendl's performance, and nothing to do with the system being "crap."

Only the Atp computer baced lendl in 1989; all other opinion favoured becler. I repeat the ITF choose becker: the players choose becker as player of the year; and journalists choose becker (eg Tennis magazine in France)

Yes, that's fine. I would give Becker the year, but none of that changes the fact that Lendl was fairly ranked number 1 the entire year. Do you think his 48 weeks ranked as number 1 that year should be erased from the record? If so, why not erase also the entire 30 weeks that McEnroe was ranked 1 in 1985? Why not erase any week where a player was ranked number one during a year he did not get the best player award at the end? Why not rewrite the entire tennis record? Through the first half of the year, Becker wasn't even anywhere near Lendl in ranking points. And the fact is he could not catch him and would not have caught him even in today's system.

 

[FedForGOAT]

They were definitely not crap, as demonstrated by fair transposition to the current system and a look at the winning percentage, and even by generously including his Davis Cup with the weight of half a slam in the ranking system, which in those days would have been unheard of.

What you don't seem to understand is that, as I told you before, this was clearly an exceptional situation, and the exact same situation could very well arise with today's system (or could have arisen in any of the years since then). And the only way to avoid it would be to devise a ranking system where tournaments outside slams are rendered all but irrelevant for ranking purposes. The situation had everything to do with Lendl's performance, and nothing to do with the system being "crap."



Yes, that's fine. I would give Becker the year, but none of that changes the fact that Lendl was fairly ranked number 1 the entire year. Do you think his 48 weeks ranked as number 1 that year should be erased from the record? If so, why not erase also the entire 30 weeks that McEnroe was ranked 1 in 1985? Why not erase any week where a player was ranked number one during a year he did not get the best player award at the end? Why not rewrite the entire tennis record? Through the first half of the year, Becker wasn't even anywhere near Lendl in ranking points. And the fact is he could not catch him and would not have caught him even in today's system.

I would like to note that the rankings were pretty flawed back then. For example, Wilander needed to win the USO, his 3rd slam, to surpass Lendl and get to no.1. Also (this is earlier) Jimmy connors was ranked below John McEnroe in 1982, but was ranked no.1 in 75' and 77'. So while I agree with your statement as a whole, I don't think what the rankings were should be a factor.

 

[Benhur]

I would like to note that the rankings were pretty flawed back then. For example, Wilander needed to win the USO, his 3rd slam, to surpass Lendl and get to no.1. Also (this is earlier) Jimmy connors was ranked below John McEnroe in 1982, but was ranked no.1 in 75' and 77'. So while I agree with your statement as a whole, I don't think what the rankings were should be a factor.

The system in the late 80s was not exactly like today's, but that does not make it automatically "flawed". It was based on what the orgaizers then thought fair. In 88, Lendl started the year with a significant lead, and did well enough through the first half of the year to stay ahead. By the USO, Wilander caught up with him and became number one. During his best years, Federer had a big lead over the number 2, and a huge lead over the number 3, in the order of 3000 points or so. It would take those players many months of stellar performance to catch up, even assuming Federer stopped playing. If he didn't stop playing, it would take them even longer. Should we say the system is flawed because it contains that possibility. Well, of course Lendl didn't stop playing in 88 either, while Wilander was catching up, that's why it took him a while to catch up. Two observations: Wilander's 88 was much better than Becker's 89, and Lendl's 89 was much better than Lendl's 88. Put those two things together, and you understand why Becker never caught up with him in the rankings.

Now, if you'd prefer a ranking system that would automatically catapult a player to the top as soon as he wins two slams in the same year, regardless of anything else, it's possible to have it. Just give slams 15 or 20 times the weight of everything else, and there you go. But the cost would be to to throw everything else into irrelevancy. It is not wise to assume that everything was flawed and silly just because it happened in the past, even in the remote past. Let alone 1989 which was only yesterday.
1982 is a different situation involving a schism in the tennis world.

 

[jeffreyneave]

what a load of rubbish. The atp rankings are not history and never were as measure of the nop1 ranking. since the atp got lendl's ranking wrong in 1989 its safe to assume that lendl was not n01 for all the time he was ranked number 1. He deserved to be no1 from Usopen 1985 to end of wimbledon 1998.He does not deserve to be a clear no1 at any other time. If the rankings are crap; there is no history.

The 5 ratio applies across all minor events ranging 128 to 225 . There is no bonus for events above 180 because there are lots of wins below 180; its simplification; if you want the full detail across all events played go back to my earlier post which reveal the actual points totals and average points per event.
stop introducing points for non-wins into this methodolgy . you started on a win basis keep it there. If y0u want to count every performane do so openly and see my points system.

I counted the davis cup at 3.5 wins approx equal to us open runner-up and win at masters. its a prestige event above a super nine but about equal to the masters in prestige. Key beyscaine receives the same points as paris in today's system.(2000-2008) and it did in 1989; so your inflation for large draws is wrong and is not one used by the atp now or ever; its the quality of the field that matters; paris had 8 of the top 10 players for 1989; key beyscaine had only 5; so its lucky to have as many ponts as it does.

Your ajustments are wrong: an average sysyem is not a win/loss %; its an average points per event played: that's what the atp used in 1989; in this simplification started by you its win equivalents/per event.

Counting the davis cup Becker is 18 wins/14 events = 1.3

Counting all lendl events is 17 wins/17 events = 1


Its not that they played the same weeks; you can rest when you choose; becker's 4 weeks of high pressure best of 5 set tennis is the same as lendl entering 4 extra tournaments.

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

what a load of rubbish. The atp rankings are not history and never were as measure of the nop1 ranking.

Yes, it's out of history because you say so. All the rankings they kept year after year, all the seedings for all the tournaments based on those rankins - everything is just out of history because you don't like it. Fine. Let's just say that History is what the historian had for breakfast.

since the atp got lendl's ranking wrong in 1989

It did not "get his ranking wrong". The ranking was not established by guessing or divinatory spiritual sessions at the ATP headquarters, consulting the stars and the oracles. The ranking was computed week by week by simply following the system that had been set up for that purpose, which was similar to previous years and to subsequent ones. The system obviously seemed reasonable to them when they established it. And as I told you many times, the same exceptional situation could have arisen in subsequent years and could perfectly well arise today. If it were to arise today, a future Jeffrey might shout that our rankings were not history and never had been. We are out of history.

its safe to assume that lendl was not n01 for all the time he was ranked number 1. He deserved to be no1 from Usopen 1985 to end of wimbledon 1998.He does not deserve to be a clear no1 at any other time. If the rankings are crap; there is no history.
The 5 ratio applies across all minor events ranging 128 to 225 . There is no bonus for events above 180 because there are lots of wins below 180;

This constant presentation of the system that you would like is irrelevant. The system you keep proposing is your own invention. They only thing you are saying is that the 1989 rankings were out of history because they did not follow the system advocated by Jeffrey when he looked back at them in 2008. Because of that, you have not even shown that the ranking would have been different in today's system. You keep attempting to do so by assigning your arbitrary weightings, bringing in the Davis Cup, and then introducing an average system that is not part of today's system. None of this makes any sense. There is no law in 1989 or in 2008 stipulating that the ATP ranking system has to conform to your wishes. It was what it was.

The difference between Lend's and Becker's performance on slams that year was exactly half a slam. That's it. You need to assimilate that. Outside of slams, Lendl's performance was far superior to Becker's. Anybody can see that by just looking at the record. There is nothing surprising in the fact that Lendl was ranked 1.

I counted the davis cup at 3.5 wins approx equal to us open runner-up

Now, you who purport to know what should be in and out of history, answer this question: can you name one past year in the history of professional tennis when Davis Cup was part of the main individual ranking system? If none, why should 1989 be the one special year when this happens? You are bringing things from "out of history" into your own history, to take other things "out of history" and into oblivion. Am not impressed at all by those methods. I gave you half a slam for that Davis Cup to assuage you, but that's not enough. Okay, I retract. Becker gets nothing for Davis Cup. Not a dime. He didn't win it. Germany did. He didn't play for himself. He played for his country. And Davis Cup was never a part of rankings. It's a patriotic endeavor, not an individual one.

and win at masters.

What win at the Masters? Becker was a finalist at the Masters. Lendl a semifinalist. Lendl was also a semifinalist at Dallas WCT. If those events had been counted, it's anybodys guess how much they should be worth, but they should pretty much cancel each other out.

Your ajustments are wrong: an average sysyem is not a win/loss %; its an average points per event played: that's what the atp used in 1989;

The ATP used this in 1989 but didn't come to your conclusions. In order to come to your pre-conceived conclusions you have to cherrypick what goes in and out of history, and then guess how much each cherry should weigh by invoking how much it might weigh now, or how much it weighed then, depending on the needs of the moment.

To sum:

1. Becker has the lead in slam performance, by half a slam. Not more.

2. Lendl leads in other big tournament wins by 2 to 1.

3. Lendl leads in all other tournaments wins by 7 to 2.

4. Aside from his 10 titles, Lendl reached the semifinals or finals of all the remaining 7 tournaments he played, except for the R16 appearance at RG.

5. Becker, who played 4 fewer tournaments than Lendl, lost three times in the R16 (AO, (Stockolm and IW)

6. Lendl played 87 matches and won 81 (93.1%)

7. Becker played 73 matches and won 65 (89.0%

And yet you keep claiming that 1989 is a crap aberration out of history.

Nonsense.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I agree that Becker deserves the title of 'Player of the Year' for 1989, but it is unlikely that he would have finished #1 under any of the 'fairer' ranking systems used since 1990. And I agree with Benhur, its very possible for this scenario to happen today(Fed was incredibly dominant week in, week out in '05 & '06, but what if someone else won 2 majors & he won 1 those years? no way would that 2 major winner have finished #1 with Fed's leads)

Also, I have a lot of old Tennis magazines with ranking points listed in the back pages.

On Jan 1, 1990, the ATP switched over to their new 'best 14' system, & adjusted all 1989 results to this system in the rankings that week. I will post the rankings & points from the January issue of the magazine later, but I can tell you that Lendl had a big lead in this 'revised' ranking as well, not just the 1989 system. I think that is very telling.

 

[Benhur]

I agree that Becker deserves the title of 'Player of the Year' for 1989

I do too.

but it is unlikely that he would have finished #1 under any of the 'fairer' ranking systems used since 1990.

I am pretty certain he wouldn't have finished #1under any of those systems.

And I agree with Benhur, its very possible for this scenario to happen today(Fed was incredibly dominant week in, week out in '05 & '06, but what if someone else won 2 majors & he won 1 those years? no way would that 2 major winner have finished #1 with Fed's leads)

Just a quick overview shows clearly why Lendl would have been #1 in today's system as well.

1. In slam performance, Becker would have 500 points more than Lendl today.

2. In big tournament performance, Lendl would have 500 points more than Becker.

3. So everything boils down to their performance in the remaining tournaments, which is overwhelmingly in Lendl's favor. Lendl would have 5 more tournament wins than Becker. On top of that, Lendl has a better performance in the tournaments that he didn't win, reaching the finals or semis in all but one of them.

 

[jeffreyneave]

The atp rankings are just an opinion; they are not history; and the point is that a very different atp system exists today with more realistic weights. Why are they more realistic ? because there is widespread aqcceptance ie the ITF agrees with the atp computer rankings since 1996 when more acceptable le weights were introduced. In 1989 the players, itf and journalists voted for becker; that basically says that the atps weights were unacceptable to any one else but themselve; in otherwords, based on judgements now and rankings issued by others between 1973 and 1989, the atp rankings were a dumb opinion.

What I did was show that by applying the weights and coverage of 2000-2007 between events to the system which applied in 1989 , becker would be no1 on an average system (which was used in 1989) and with the inclusion of the davis cup becker wins on total points accumated and an average performance as well

In introducing their world champion, the ITF said rankings should be based on performance in the major events ie the 4 slams, masters, wct finals and davis cup. The davis cup is important and everyone else agreed it was important in 1989 but the atp. look at the performance of becker and lendl in the seven big events
Lendl Becker
Aussie w L16
WCt sf
french L16 SF
Wimb SF W
Us open F W
Masters SF F
Davis cup W

ITs quite clear Becker was the better player in the events that mattered and Why the ITF named him world number one.

All rankings are a matter of opinion, but majority opininon is againsy lendl and the aTP in 1989. Every one believes the weights of 2000-2007 are better
and I have showed with those weights Becker wins. The 1990 system of best 14 is irrelevant because the weights between events are still the same as in 1989. The crucial thing about a ranking system is getting the weights right. In my view slams being worth 4,5,6 minor events is about right and the ITF and ATP have accepted that betwen 2000 and 2007 ; thats why it is appropriate to covert the 1989 system to that weighting.

jeffrey

 

[Moose Malloy]

In 1989 the players, itf and journalists voted for becker

And in 1990 the ITF voted for Lendl over Edberg.

The 1990 system of best 14 is irrelevant because the weights between events are still the same as in 1989. The crucial thing about a ranking system is getting the weights right. In my view slams being worth 4,5,6 minor events is about right and the ITF and ATP have accepted that betwen 2000 and 2007 ; thats why it is appropriate to covert the 1989 system to that weighting.

since you think the system was poor from 1990-1999 as well, do you admit that this scenario could've happened in those years as well?

I recall Agassi having a huge lead on Sampras after the end of the '95 USO, if he didn't get injured & played reasonably well he would have ended that year #1, despite Sampras having more majors. It's pretty hard to find a system that has no flaws. Bottom line Lendl was close in 1989, anyway you cut it. It was not like Mac being #1 in '82 or Connors being #1 in '77 imo.

 

[Benhur]

The atp rankings are just an opinion; they are not history;

How do you distinguish opinion from history?

and the point is that a very different atp system exists today with more realistic weights.

Yes, and in today's atp ranking system, Lendl would still come out ahead.

Why are they more realistic ? because there is widespread aqcceptance ie the ITF agrees with the atp computer rankings since 1996 when more acceptable le weights were introduced. In 1989 the players, itf and journalists voted for becker; that basically says that the atps weights were unacceptable

No, it doesn't say that. It says they give recognition to Beckers two prestigious slams.
Since you keep bringing up the ITF, consider this. The ITF picked Becker in 1989, but the following year (1990) it picked Lendl over Edberg (who was the year end number one in the ATP). Now would you say that Edberg had no business being number one in 1990? For the record, I disagree with the ITF choice, I think Edberg had a better year than Lendl in 1990, even though he didn't become number one until late August. But looking at the 1989 record I am not persuaded AT ALL that Becker had a better year for ranking purposes. For prestige purposes, yes. Wimbledon and the USO are good to have. He can have the award. Lendl keeps the rankings.

to any one else but themselve; in otherwords, based on judgements now and rankings issued by others between 1973 and 1989, the atp rankings were a dumb opinion.

Opinions opine that rankings are opinions.

What I did was show that by applying the weights and coverage of 2000-2007 between events to the system which applied in 1989 , becker would be no1 on an average system

What you did was pick one aspect of today's system (the weights), shoehorn it selectively and arbitrarily into the old system, then add the Davis Cup for the hell of it and give it the value you decree, then mix the whole conconction with one aspect of the old system which you wish to keep (the average). What kind of a system is that? It's a joke.

It becomes apparent within minutes of looking at the record that, in today's system, Becker would have considerably fewer points than Lendl in the rankings. There would be a 500 point difference in slam performance between the two. This is cancelled out by their respective MS level performance in the other direction. You are left with a lead of over 5 tournaments by Lendl. No matter how you look at it, Becker has nothing to make up the difference.

In introducing their world champion, the ITF said rankings should be based on performance in the major events ie the 4 slams, masters, wct finals and davis cup.

Is this why the ITF picked Lendl over Edberg in 1990 as World Champion? Did Lendl play a lot of Davis Cup that year? Do you like that "opinion" by the ITF?

The davis cup is important and everyone else agreed it was important in 1989 but the atp.

Davis Cup was never a part of ranking systems. We are discussing the merits of a ranking system week by week. Show me one year in the past history of tennis when Davis Cup was part of the individual ranking system.

ITs quite clear Becker was the better player in the events that mattered and

Its's clear only because you keep choosing to exclude ALL the other tournaments that Lendl won, 5 more than Becker, including two MS level. And because you choose to include the Davis Cup, which no ranking system has ever included. We are evaluating a ranking system, not a Player of the Year award, which I already told you it was okay to give to Becker.

All rankings are a matter of opinion, but majority opininon is againsy lendl and the aTP in 1989. Every one believes the weights of 2000-2007 are better

Any ranking system at any point since 1989 into which you transpose the record fairly will show Lendl ahead by a good margin. The only way to avoid it would be to somehow render irrelevant all of Lend's extra 5 wins which in today's system would be worth between 1200 and 1500 points, as well as his fine performance on all the other events he didn't win -- and include instead a Davis Cup for Becker, that no system has used. In other words, the only way to do it is to INVENT a system for that purpose, which is what you are doing. The record needs to be transposed by assigning the current value of slams based on today's lower level tournaments (4x) but maintaining the relative differences between the tournaments outside slams, which were considerable. You did not do that. And Davis Cup, I repeat, never played any part in rankings. And even if you include it in today's system as a MS category event, it won't be near enough. The only way to do it is by the cherrypicking mingling method I outlined above.

The 1990 system of best 14 is irrelevant jeffrey

Everything is irrelevant that does not show what you want to see.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

I would say Becker had a great 89, and then went down hill from that point on; so did Lendl except for his great AO wins.

 

[jeffreyneave]

Why use the 2000-2007 weights with averages ? bceause the weights are ones agreed between ITF and ATP; there was no agreement in 1989, and not only did the ITF diagree so did the players and journalist; the atp were on their own with these dumb weights; they since learnt the error of their ways and have changed them so they are acceptanble to the ITF and others ; and in return the ITF gave up the grand slam cup and recognised the masters.

The weights were what the aTP and others objected to ; not the system of calculation. ITF accepted best 14 in the 1990s and now 13 fixed and best 5. So the average system would I'm sure be accetable to the ITF. The other point is thay players faced a play 12 and get an average in 1989; that affected their behaviour and both players played a lot less than 18 ranking events. the players knew the method of calculation and played less accordingdly.

Anyway if you base the 1989 rankings on today's system of playing slams, master's series events and 5 best others ,Becker still wins even without the Davis cup counting. the total ponts would be

Becker 4184 ; Lendl 4045

Its silly to use the system because players had total free choice in 1989, and thus were under no obligation to play masters serires events

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

Anyway if you base the 1989 rankings on today's system of playing slams, master's series events and 5 best others ,Becker still wins even without the Davis cup counting. the total ponts would be

Becker 4184 ; Lendl 4045
jeffrey

These number don't make sense. Where do you pull them from?

Here is the detailed explanation of a transposition to TODAY's system.

Today's slams are valued as follows:
W: 1000
F: 700
S: 500
R16: 150

So: Becker's 2 slam wins, 1 semi and 1 R16 are: 2650
Lendl's 1 slam win, 1 final, 1 semi and 1 R16 are: 2350
===========

Today's MS series
W: 500
R16: 75

We have already identified that Becker had 1 MS level win (Paris) and Lendl had 2 (Stockolm and Key Biscayne) in 1989. Becker also had a R16 appearance at Stockolm (75 points in today's MS system)

So, adding 575 to Becker and 1000 to Lendl from the previous, we have:

Becker: 3250
Lendl: 3350

==============

For the rest of the tournaments

Today's 2 lower levels range from 175 (like Valencia) to 225 (like Queens) to 300 (like Rotterdam or Dubai). In 1989 they ranged from 125 to about 250.

So, the easiest way to convert this is to establish the baseline level tournaments that correspond to today's 175 baseline. That would be the turnament with the lowest points in their 1989 record: Lendl's Bordeaux at 125. So 175/125 = 1.4

So, for all their tournaments (below MS series) just multiply their 1989 points by 1.4

BECKER 1989 - Other tournaments

===
Milan, Italy
GP, 13-Feb-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 168; TODAY'S POINTS: 168 x 1.4 = 235.2
===
===
Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
GP, 20-Feb-89, I, Carpet , Draw: 48
WINNER
This Event Points: 201; TODAY'S POINTS: 281.4
===
===
Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.
GP, 13-Mar-89, O, Hard , Draw: 56
ROUND OF 16
This Event Points: 24; TODAY'S POINTS: 33.6
===
===
Monte Carlo, Monaco
GP, 24-Apr-89, O, Clay , Draw: 48
FINAL
This Event Points: 155; TODAY'S POINTS: 217
===
===
Hamburg, Germany
GP, 8-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 96; TODAY'S POINTS: 134.4
===
===
Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.
GP, 14-Aug-89, O, Hard , Draw: 64
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 102; TODAY'S POINTS: 142.8
===

Total Becker points in today's system: 4294.4

================================

LENDL 1989

===
Scottsdale, AZ, U.S.A.
GP, 6-Mar-89, O, Hard , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 169; TODAY'S POINTS: 236.6
===
===
Tokyo Outdoor, Japan
GP, 17-Apr-89, O, Hard , Draw: 56
FINAL
This Event Points: 126; TODAY'S POINTS: 176.4
===
===
Forest Hills, NY, U.S.A.
GP, 1-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
WINNER
This Event Points: 212; TODAY'S POINTS: 296.8
===
===
Hamburg, Germany
GP, 8-May-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
WINNER
This Event Points: 213; TODAY'S POINTS: 298.2
===
===
Queen's Club, England
GP, 12-Jun-89, O, Grass , Draw: 64
WINNER
This Event Points: 157; TODAY'S POINTS: 219.8
===
===
Montreal / Toronto, Montreal, Canada
GP, 14-Aug-89, O, Hard , Draw: 56
WINNER
This Event Points: 223; TODAY'S POINTS: 312.2
===
===
Barcelona, Spain
GP, 18-Sep-89, O, Clay , Draw: 56
SEMIFINAL
This Event Points: 84; TODAY'S POINTS: 117.6
===
===
Bordeaux, France
GP, 25-Sep-89, O, Clay , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 125; TODAY'S POINTS: 175
===
===
Sydney Indoor, Australia
GP, 9-Oct-89, I, Hard , Draw: 32
WINNER
This Event Points: 126; TODAY'S POINTS: 176.4
===
===

Total Lendl points in today's system: 5359

Note that the conversion factor from the baseline of Bordeaux 125 produces results like today, ranging from 175 to 298.

So

Becker: 4294
Lendl: 5359

There is the business of Becker's Master's final, Lendl's Master's semifinal, and Lendl's WTC Dallas semifinal, which were not counted. However you want to count these, they would more or less cancel each other out.

 

[jeffreyneave]

The figures were easily derived; lendl loses points because he played 9 other events ; he lose his bottom 4 events; No atp system just adds the points as you do each time; that's wrong ; that's why the average is best is this conversion.

You are the one decimating the rankings of 1989 and completly changing them . ; 175-250 is today's range not 300; they are only exceptional circumstances for 300; only 2 in 2007 ; you have to have at least 6 of the top ten to get a 300 style event in my opinion. the conversion factor would be 250/225 = 1.11

Cincinatti and indian wells are super 9s. Second your removing the ranking system of the indviduality of the 1989 ; there's a greater range because of goods wins ; very weak bordeaux ; weak aussie open; grear wimbledon; the aussie open given its prize money, field and Lendl's opponents is not worth anywhere near becker's wimbledon win; and that was the view of the atp in 1989.. That means using the 1989 indvidual charcateristics which you have failed to do. Chang's french would be worth a 1000 (coverted from 450); the other slams you do in proportion to that coversion with their own invidual ponts.

What was wrong with 1973-1989 atp rankings were the weights; and that's all that needed changing. When it was not obvious who was no1 the atp computer got it wrong each time in 1975, 1977,1978,1982,1989.

THe players, ITF and most journalists did not agree wiyth the computer. Ashe in' 75 , borg or vilasd '77, borg '78, coonors 1982 and becker were their choices; and to gain wide pread acceptance the atp have had to change their weights to those used between 2000-2007; the ITF now accepts the Atp rankings : a concensus has emerged and its not round the the dumb atp computer rankings of the 1970s

As to the davis cup. only the ATP fails to recognise its importance;The ITF always regardes as a big event comparable to the MAsters.

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

The figures were easily derived; lendl loses points because he played 9 other events ; he lose his bottom 4 events;

That's nonsense again. In today's system there are 9 MS events, which the players are forced to play or they get penalized. According to your own previous assessment, the only MS level events they played that year were Paris (Becker), Stockolm (Becker and Lendl), and Key Biscayne (Lendl).

Thus if today's system allows for 9 MS events + 5 other events = 13 total tournaments outside slams, then Lendl played exactly that amount of tournaments outside slams. If you want to do it that way, then pick 9 events from what they played and give them MS status. But you can't just eliminate half of Lendl's tournaments when there weren't more than 3 super-9 events (according to your previous assessment).

You are the one decimating the rankings of 1989 and completly changing them . ; 175-250 is today's range not 300. they are only exceptional circumstances for 300; only 2 in 2007

What are you talking about? Today there are NINE International Series Gold events (300 points) and 40+ International Series events ranging from 175 to 250. Just look it up at the ATP site.

the conversion factor would be 250/225 = 1.11

You keep pulling numbers out of thin air.

The most logical way to establish the conversion factor for tournaments outside MS level is at the observed baselines of 175/125.

If you want to calculate it at mid point in the ranges, then the midpoint today (from 175 to 300) would be 237. And the midpoint then (from 125-Bordeaux to 225-Montreal) would be 175. So 237/175 = 1.35 just barely under the factor calculated at the baseline. If you want to do it at the high point, then it would be 300/225 = 1.33.

No appreciable difference between the three.

And any of those conversion factors will give, after transposition, a range of 175 to about 300 which corresponds exactly to today's range. But even if you use your out-of-a-hat conversion rate, it won't change the outcome.

Cincinatti and indian wells are super 9s.

There you go again. Yes, they are super 9s now. You made a row before when I suggested Montreal should be considered a super 9, as it clearly had the highest points of them all. However, if you want to include Cinci and Indian Wells, go right ahead. But then you have to include also Montreal and Hamburg on the same grounds. The difference will grow considerably larger for Lendl, as he won both Montreal and Hamburg, while Becker lost in the semis at Cinci and in the round of 16 at Indian Wells. Do you really want to do that?

I wonder if you have any idea whatsoever what you are doing, except muddling the issue and changing your own criteria with every new post.

Second your removing the ranking system of the indviduality of the 1989 ; there's a greater range because of goods wins ; very weak bordeaux ; weak aussie open; grear wimbledon; the aussie open given its prize money, field and Lendl's opponents is not worth anywhere near becker's wimbledon win;

What is it that you want to do? A conversion to today's system or some concoction of your own mind where you select which features of today's system you like and graft them into other featurs of the old system that you prefer. Today's system gives a fixed amount of points in slams and MS series depending on the round reached in each tournament. That's the system.

If you want to convert it, do so by using some modicum of consistency. It's not that complicated. But stop this massive production of fog.

 

[jeffreyneave]

You are the one transposing the systen; there is no way you just add up all events as you keep doing; you use average system or best five others. Lendl only played 2 super nines in 1989; becker played 4 (events with winners above 260); I transpose the 2000-2007 system ; only 2 eventd with 300; the 2008 is knew and is a cheat by the atp; the 2000 -2007 system is the one I aqlways to and the one that has been used for all recent world rankings ; 2008 has not produvced any rankings . The canadian open is 250 event; it needs 6 of the top 10 to justufy 300 points.

 

[jeffreyneave]

You are the one mixing up the systems :

fixed points for super 9s and slams ; ratios for minor events

adding total points up; instead of best five others or the average system;


I always quote the 2000-2007 weights: hardly any 300 events;

Neither hamburg or the candian open justify 300 points ; they are 250 pointers at best; 4 of the top ten in each is not exceptional: 5 of top 10 = 250 points(1/2 super nine 500); it nedds 6 of top10 for 300 points.

Cincinatti and indian wells were clearly super 9s in my original calculations , which I regard as fair way to covert to 2000-2007 wights; not your biased hodge podge. you are the one picking and choosing.

jeffrey

jeffrey.

 

[Benhur]

You are the one mixing up the systems : fixed points for super 9s and slams ; ratios for minor events

No. Your contention was that top events (MS level and slams, especially the latter) were weighted too low in 1989 with respect to minor tournaments. So we start by giving slams and "super 9s" their current value, and then working a system where the remaining events are worth a fraction of a slam that is equivalent to today's -- that is, within today's range of 175-300 -- based on the 1989 range of 125-225.

Any assignation of points along today's lower level range of 175-300 *has* to be based on their relative values assigned along the 1989 range of 125-225 if only because that is all we have to get their relative value. The alternative would be to assign it by casting dice. Thus the Canadian Open and Hamburg are clearly at the top of the 1989 range, which corresponds to today's Rotterdam or Barcelona (300 points). And Bordeaux is clearly at the bottom, which corresponds to today's 175 level (Valencia).

adding total points up; instead of best five others or the average system;

Five others AFTER 9 "super nines" or MS level. That's a total of 14 tournaments outside slams - and Lendl played only 13 events outside slams. There weren't 9 MS events then, or anywhere near that figure. They have at best 2 or 3 each. Even if you added Cinci, IW, Montreal (god forbid!) and Hamburg (god forbid!), you would only have 7 total. If you want to do it that way, identify the 9 MS events for each. An absurdity.

I always quote the 2000-2007 weights: hardly any 300 events;

Today is June 21, 2008.

Neither hamburg or the candian open justify 300 points ; they are 250 pointers at best;

That's exclusively by your own decree. Their valuation at the time clearly indicates they were at the top of the range for "minor" events, which today is 300 points, and the transposition based on any conversion factor calculated at the baseline, at midpoint, or at high point, completely bears that out. The Canadian Open in particular was clearly more important in 1989 than, for example, Barcelona is today. And Barcelona today is 300 points, as well as 8 other tournaments. Your contention that the 300-point level does not exist today is clearly not based on reality. There are nine such events.

Cincinatti and indian wells were clearly super 9s in my original calculations , which I regard as fair way to covert to 2000-2007 wights;

Thse events were far below Paris and Key Biscayne. But even if you catapult them to MS level to try to help Becker's cause, it will only bring Becker's total up by 123 points over what I had calculated. (We just add 82 more points to his Cinci semifinal appearance, to bring it up to today's 225; and then we add 41 points for his R16 appearance at IW, to bring it up to today's 75).

That still leaves Lendl 942 points ahead of Becker. Still almost a full slam. In today's system.

Becker: 4417
Lendl: 5359

 

[jeffreyneave]

Get this straight you idiot you do not just add the events in total ; its wrong wrong wrong


You you use the average system or the best 5 mate; no add up get it

I always quote the 2000-2007 system thats the system to use mate understand; 2008 is not the system; its the atp behaving badly and inflating ordinary events like rotterdam at the expense of slams- wrong wrong wrong . I use the 2000-2007 weights which have been accepted widely; 2008 has not happened yet and events like rotterdam do not deserve 300 points ; only 2 300 events in 2007 and they had very special fields at dubai and barcelona; events like canada and hamburg on 2007 system are 250 at best; they only had 4 of the top 10; that barely qualifies for 250 (it should be 5/10 for 250 as super nine attracts all the best for 500)

Read my original post super nines were events with over 270m points for the winner and there were at least 6; 300 events would be in the 240 to 260 range ; no 300 events for lendl get it; 4 out of top 10 = 250 at best remember that.

You are the one doing the hodge podge;

if you use a ratio for minor events (ie should be 250/223) you use a ratio for super 9s and slams (ie aussie open worth less than wimbledon); no fixed points.


You do not add up events ever ever ever ever ever; the ATP have never done this


instead you either use best 5 others or the average system . since lendl and becker knew they were playing an average system with a minmimum of 12 and played towards those consranits that's the one to use; you don't like lendl losing his 4 worst scores; well lendl does not deserve any advantage for playing extra eventsd while becker plays the davis cup ; very unfair; that's why you use the average system; it was fair to both players in 1989 and alowed them to play and choose their own schedules accordingly.


As far as l'm concerned the davis cup counted in 1989; why did every body but the atp chose becker as number one because the davis cup counted big big big to every one but the atp; look at the the ITF criteria the davis cup is on par with the masters.

jeffrey

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

No. Your contention was that top events (MS level and slams, especially the latter) were weighted too low in 1989 with respect to minor tournaments. So we start by giving slams and "super 9s" their current value, and then working a system where the remaining events are worth a fraction of a slam that is equivalent to today's -- that is, within today's range of 175-300 -- based on the 1989 range of 125-225.

Any assignation of points along today's lower level range of 175-300 *has* to be based on their relative values assigned along the 1989 range of 125-225 if only because that is all we have to get their relative value. The alternative would be to assign it by casting dice. Thus the Canadian Open and Hamburg are clearly at the top of the 1989 range, which corresponds to today's Rotterdam or Barcelona (300 points). And Bordeaux is clearly at the bottom, which corresponds to today's 175 level (Valencia).



Five others AFTER 9 "super nines" or MS level. That's a total of 14 tournaments outside slams - and Lendl played only 13 events outside slams. There weren't 9 MS events then, or anywhere near that figure. They have at best 2 or 3 each. Even if you added Cinci, IW, Montreal (god forbid!) and Hamburg (god forbid!), you would only have 7 total. If you want to do it that way, identify the 9 MS events for each. An absurdity.



Today is June 21, 2008.



That's exclusively by your own decree. Their valuation at the time clearly indicates they were at the top of the range for "minor" events, which today is 300 points, and the transposition based on any conversion factor calculated at the baseline, at midpoint, or at high point, completely bears that out. The Canadian Open in particular was clearly more important in 1989 than, for example, Barcelona is today. And Barcelona today is 300 points, as well as 8 other tournaments. Your contention that the 300-point level does not exist today is clearly not based on reality. There are nine such events.



Thse events were far below Paris and Key Biscayne. But even if you catapult them to MS level to try to help Becker's cause, it will only bring Becker's total up by 123 points over what I had calculated. (We just add 82 more points to his Cinci semifinal appearance, to bring it up to today's 225; and then we add 41 points for his R16 appearance at IW, to bring it up to today's 75).

That still leaves Lendl 942 points ahead of Becker. Still almost a full slam. In today's system.

Becker: 4417
Lendl: 5359

Benhur, so this is your way of using the analytical skills. I would say this is more like a practice match for you, right? :wink:

 

[Benhur]

[

QUOTE=jeffreyneave;2448690]Get this straight you idiot you do not just add the events in total ; its wrong wrong wrong

When children run out of arguments, they resort to names and screaming: no, no no, no.

You you use the average system or the best 5 mate; no add up get it

No. That's what YOU want to use. I've already told you countless times that's not a transposition to today's system, which is what this exercise is about, since you consider the 1989 system "rubbish." Best 5 after NINE super series events, which neither of them played. That's 14 tournaments, including top level events, allowed to be counted outside of slams. Lendl played a total of 13 tournaments outside slams, including 2MS level. They all count.

I always quote the 2000-2007 system thats the system to use mate understand

What I understand is that you use any system that suits your needs. We are in 2008. Even if you used the 2000-2007 system, the result would be the same, but I am not going to waste time dissecting it.
Today's system is today's.

2008 is not the system

It's not the system you want. You want a custom-made system, made by you, for you, to satisfy you.

events like canada and hamburg on 2007 system are 250 at best

This is ridiculous. You just make up anything that comes to your head. Canada and Hamburg were 500-point events in 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000.

You either have no clue what you are talking about or you are just making it up as you go along.

Those two events were at the top of the range below super nines in 1989 and should definitely be worth at least 300 points in a transposition to today's. This is born out by the conversion factor established at the baseline (175/125) or anywhere in the range. Your notion that the 300 level does not exist today is false.

 

[Benhur]

Those two events (Montreal, Hamburg) were at the top of the range below super nines in 1989 and should definitely be worth at least 300 points in a transposition to today's. This is born out by the conversion factor established at the baseline (175/125) or anywhere in the ranges. Your notion that the 300 level does not exist today is false.

This is further corroborated by picking two tournaments that have retained roughly the same status through the years, like Queen's and Barcelona, and comparing their weight relative to one another, then and now.

Queen's gave 157 points to the winner in 1989. It gives 225 today. Conversion factor 1.4
Barcelona gave 214 points in 1989. It gives 300 today. Conversion factor *again* 1.4

Note that their weight relative to each other back then (214/157) is also ~= their weight relative to each other today (300/225).

Hamburg (213) and the Canadian Open (223) were equal or above Barcelona (214) in 1989. So they would be at least 300 converted to today.

This of course is only a minor point. Because even if you demoted those two events to the gutters of the 1989 system, Lendl still comes up confortably ahead.

The erasure of the record from the record can only be accomplished by unlimited amounts of sophistry, bad faith and Orwellian manipulation of data with the pre-conceived goal of concocting a ranking system that never existed in the history of tennis, one specifically designed to have Becker come up on top of the rankings in 1989. The notion that one third of Lendl's tournaments outside slams must be thrown out on the grounds that in recent times you can only count 5 after MS series is totally preposterous. In the first place, there were nowhere near the number of MS-level events then as there are now. In the second place they were not compulsory, and neither of the two entered more than 4 such events. The fact remains that 9 MS + 5 = 14 tournaments in total that should be allowed to be counted outside of slams. Lendl played only 13 such tournaments, 2 of them equivalent to today's MS level, and 2 of them equivalent to today's 300-point level.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that a difference of only half a slam in GS performance (in Becker's favor) was amply surpassed by Lendl's far superior performance in the remaining events. The same situation can be easily conceived today or at any point between today and 1989, under any of the ranking systems in place since that time.
==============

“Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unpalatable, is the truth.”
-- Sherlock Holmes

 

[jeffreyneave]

you have been told again and again no add up; you are the one changing the system. Itsw an average system or 5 minor ones. Its not correct to assume lendl can have 14 extra events outsdide the slams as you keep doing repeatedly; he gets 5 minor outside the slams and super 9s; there were 6 super 9s in 1989; if lendl had played 6 super 9s and 5 others he would have kept all his events; he choose badly ; becker played hamburg and montecarlo but he does not get super 9 ponts for those weak fields either.

Nor does lendl deserve the WCT if becker gets nothing for davis cup.

2000-2007 is the system to use ; no 300s for events like rotterdam and in 1989 canada or hamburg ; 4 out of top 10 is 250 at best. Queens was weak in 1989 with just 3 of top 10 equals only 200 pts. Barcelona only had 2 top ten players in 1989; no way is that 300 pomts; more like 225. The bottom linre is that with free chioce and only 12 to play in 1989 , there were very very few strong fields. A real super 9 gets all the best players and is as strong as a slam; the top 5 this year have played every super 9; in 1989 not one event outside the slams got all top 5; live with it; fields outside the slams were weak in 1989 and there hardly strong events; in otherwords loads of minor events worth 250 or less and nothing much else; it was hard finding 6 super 9s.

Barecona and dudbi have justified 300 points by having exceptional fields; 6 of the top ten or more . 240 -260 points is required in 1989 for 300 event; no way for events with points between 200 and 225

I have been totally consistent with my methodology from the start

ie ratio coversions for all events
no add up instead an average (or if you prefer 5 minor events)
no 300s (top of 250 which has been the norm for 2000-2007)
super nines restricted to events with more than 260 ponts.

Even with you wild infation for 300 events, your last calculation gives becker an average of 330 and lendl 317; a win for becker

you can't add them up; no way are you adding 17 events for lendl against just 13 for becker; that's a total cheat; and the bottom linre is that the atp have never, never, ever , ever, done that. The average is fair becvause the players played accordingly ie only need to play 12 and no obligation to play genuine super 9s, which is why they ended up playing few super 9s. A correct interpreation of the current system leaves lendl without 4 events and no WCT(if you want the wct , becker, as he richly deserves, gets another 750 ponts for the davis cup win). I presented this conversion in my post on the 19 june. becker wins without the davis cup. With the davis cup, which everybody else but the dumb atp recognised as big event, he even wins on your incorrect measure of total ponts accumulated.

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

you have been told again and again no add up; you are the one changing the system. Itsw an average system or 5 minor ones. Its not correct to assume lendl can have 14 extra events outsdide the slams as you keep doing repeatedly; he gets 5 minor outside the slams and super 9s;

1. It is the height of absurdity to say you can only have 5 events outside "super 9's" when THERE AREN'T NINE SUPERNINES TO BE FOUND. Talk about temporal hybridization. There were 6 (according to your own assessment). So that would make 8, not 5, allowed outside that category if you want to keep the same number of events outside slams (14)

2. Show me the rule that says a player cannot substitute another event for a super 9 he didn't play.

3. Show me the rule that says non-existing events (3 super-nines that didn't exist) are required to replace 3 existing ones by assigning 0 points to 3 existing ones that were played.

4. Think about the profound silliness contained in the bolded question above. Think about the fact that such silliness is exactly what you are suggesting. Draw the appropriate conclusions.

5. Name the 6 super-9 events in 1989 that you claim to have found. I can only account for 4.

Nor does lendl deserve the WCT if becker gets nothing for davis cup.

I never counted Lendl's WCT or Masters in my calculations.

To sum, even if existing supernines are ruled unreplaceable by lower events when you don't play them (which you still have to show me is the case, not just state it), that still leaves us with only SIX irreplaceable ones. The 3 missing ones that couldn't be played because they didn't exist, clearly need to be replaced by events that were actually played. So you wouldn't take out 4 events from Lendl. You would take only one. Take out Barcelona, and Lendl is still ahead by some 800 points.

Your idiotic mystifications about the relative value of Montreal and Hamburg are useless garbage. I have shown you countless times that the only way to assess their relative value to other lower tier events at the time is by comparing the points assigned at the time and alignign that range with today's range of 175-300 to find a transposition factor. That puts Montreal and Hamburg at about 300 today, which is perfectly reasonable.

I mean, on the one hand you catapult Indian Wells from 239 points (in 1989) to 500 points today, by giving it MS status. On the other hand you refuse to give even 300 points to Montreal, which had 225 points then - barely under IW.

It is sheer nonsense, and you will not get away with it. I am a rather tenacious junkyard dog, and you won't get away with that stuff, am telling you.

You are utterly dellusional if you think those kinds of prestidigitations and fog emissions are going to have any effect on my assessment of the situation.The situation can be grasped very quickly by looking at their respective slam performance, which is separated by half a slam, and then looking at the rest where Lendl was far better. Only

It is really incredible the hoops and loops and knots you go through to confuse the issue. Is it really that difficult for you to understand that the exact same situation is perfectly possible today?

Maybe changing the names will help you clear your eyes and see better.

Say Federer's performance on slams one year is 1 win, 1 runner up, 1 semifinal, 1 R16.

One of his rivals has 2 wins, 1 semifinal and 1 R16.

But Federer does significantly better in the other events, winning double the amount of MS titles as the other guy, and doing much better in other tournaments as well. There is no question as to who would end up number one in the current system.

Why is it so hard for you to understand it?

 

[Benhur]

1. It is the height of absurdity to say you can only have 5 events outside "super 9's" when THERE AREN'T NINE SUPERNINES TO BE FOUND. Talk about temporal hybridization. There were 6 (according to your own assessment). So that would make 8, not 5, allowed outside that category if you want to keep the same number of events outside slams (14)

2. Show me the rule that says a player cannot substitute another event for a super 9 he didn't play.

3. Show me the rule that says non-existing events (3 super-nines that didn't exist) are required to replace 3 existing ones by assigning 0 points to 3 existing ones that were played.

4. Think about the profound silliness contained in the bolded question above. Think about the fact that such silliness is exactly what you are suggesting. Draw the appropriate conclusions.

5. Name the 6 super-9 events in 1989 that you claim to have found. I can only account for 4.



I never counted Lendl's WCT or Masters in my calculations.

To sum, even if existing supernines are ruled unreplaceable by lower events when you don't play them (which you still have to show me is the case, not just state it), that still leaves us with only SIX irreplaceable ones. The 3 missing ones that couldn't be played because they didn't exist, clearly need to be replaced by events that were actually played. So you wouldn't take out 4 events from Lendl. You would take only one. Take out Barcelona, and Lendl is still ahead by some 800 points.

Your idiotic mystifications about the relative value of Montreal and Hamburg are useless garbage. I have shown you countless times that the only way to assess their relative value to other lower tier events at the time is by comparing the points assigned at the time and alignign that range with today's range of 175-300 to find a transposition factor. That puts Montreal and Hamburg at about 300 today, which is perfectly reasonable.

I mean, on the one hand you catapult Indian Wells from 239 points (in 1989) to 500 points today, by giving it MS status. On the other hand you refuse to give even 300 points to Montreal, which had 225 points then - barely under IW.

It is sheer nonsense, and you will not get away with it. I am a rather tenacious junkyard dog, and you won't get away with that stuff, am telling you.

You are utterly dellusional if you think those kinds of prestidigitations and fog emissions are going to have any effect on my assessment of the situation.The situation can be grasped very quickly by looking at their respective slam performance, which is separated by half a slam, and then looking at the rest where Lendl was far better. Only

It is really incredible the hoops and loops and knots you go through to confuse the issue. Is it really that difficult for you to understand that the exact same situation is perfectly possible today?

Maybe changing the names will help you clear your eyes and see better.

Say Federer's performance on slams one year is 1 win, 1 runner up, 1 semifinal, 1 R16.

One of his rivals has 2 wins, 1 semifinal and 1 R16.

But Federer does significantly better in the other events, winning double the amount of MS titles as the other guy, and doing much better in other tournaments as well. There is no question as to who would end up number one in the current system.

The following is from the 2006 ATP Official rule book, pages 144-145, whose breathtaking prose I finally got around reading. It clearly shows that you can replace MS events with other tournaments, especially non-existing MS events. It follows that all of Lendl's non-MS category events do count, if there were only 4 MS events in 1989, and all but one count if there were 6 MS events. In the latter case, you could take out Barcelona. In either case, there is absolutely no way that Lendl does not end up ahead of Becker by at least some 800 points in the current system.

8.03 INDESIT ATP 2006 RACE
A. Each player is ranked according to his total points from the four Grand Slams, the nine
ATP Masters Series Tournaments and the Tennis Masters Cup of the calendar year, and his
best five results from all International Series Tournaments played in the calendar year. For
EVERY Grand Slam and ATP Masters Series Tournament for which a player is not in the
Main Draw, and was not (and, in the case of a Grand Slam, would not have been, had he
and all other players entered) a Main Draw Direct Acceptance on the original Acceptance
List, and never became a Main Draw Direct Acceptance, the number of his results from all
International Series Tournaments played in the calendar year, that count for his ranking,
is increased by one. Once a player has been accepted in the Main Draw of one of these
thirteen Tournaments, as a Direct Acceptance, a Qualifier, a Special Exempt or a Lucky
Loser, or having accepted a Wild Card, his result in this tournament shall count for his
ranking, whether or not he participates.

8.04 INDESIT ATP ENTRY RANKING (SINGLES)

A. The INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking (Singles) is based on calculating, for each player, his total
points from the four Grand Slams, the nine ATP Masters Series Tournaments and the
Tennis Masters Cup of the Entry Ranking period, and his best five results from all eligible
Tournaments in the Entry Ranking period. For EVERY Grand Slam or ATP Masters Series
Tournament for which a player is not in the Main Draw, and was not (and, in the case of a
Grand Slam, would not have been, had he and all other players entered) a Main Draw
Direct Acceptance on the original Acceptance List, and never became a Main Draw Direct
Acceptance, the number of his results from all other eligible Tournaments in the Entry
Ranking period, that count for his ranking, is increased by one. In weeks where there are
not four Grand Slams and nine ATP Masters Series Tournaments in the Entry Ranking
Period, the number of a player’s best results from all eligible Tournaments in the Entry
Ranking Period will be adjusted accordingly. Once a player is accepted in the Main Draw
of one of these thirteen Tournaments, as a Direct Acceptance, a Qualifier, a Special
Exempt or a Lucky Loser, or having accepted a Wild Card, his result in this Tournament
shall count for his ranking, whether or not he participates.

 

[jeffreyneave]

rubbish; the system says you can replace another event if you don't qualify for it; ie your ranking is too low to get in a masters series event. you only get 5 others if you qualify for all slams and super 9s as lendl did.

the system is not 4 slams and 14 best others as you imply; it never was

both 5 best others and the average system explicitly stop players gaining an advantage from playing lots of extra minor events . lendl played 9; far too many and becker 4 . the bottom line lendl deserves no advantage for playing these events while becker played 4 weeks of davis cup. the davis cup is a worth 750 points (as big as the masters according to ITF) and a big event; its total joke to exclude it.

your are the cheat:

inventing 300 points ( barcelona had 6 of top 10 2008 and deserves 300; in 1989 it had 2 of the top ten and no way even deserves 250; they are not the same event in quality ; just because they are played at the same venue does not meanthe same in terms of status over the years stupid; barcelona was weak in 1989 as were most events; not one event outside the slams and masters attracted the top 5 in 1989; every super 9 this year has had the top 5; that's why events in 1989 outside the slams are worth a lot less; the fields are all weak efforts like barcelona and not worth even 250 points

not counting the davis cup; its only you and the stupid atp don't reconize
it ; that's why the itf, players vote and journalists voted for becker; only lendl fantatics and the stupid atp rankings voted for lendl


not accepting the average system. in 1989 both becker and lendl knew it was an average system with a minimum of 12; both fulfilled their obligation and played accordingly. its not a minimum of 18 event system and never was in 1989. all I have done is used weights of 2007-2000 , extended the coverage to the masters. davis cup and wct ( your calculations do explicily count the wct amd masters saying lendl's 2 sf equals becker's final at the masters, but don't count the davis cup) and kept the average system. the average system still allows lendl to count all his extra events but gives him no advantage over becker for extra activity while becker played the davis cup (both played 17 weeks, but becker played 4 weeks of davis cup and only 14 events); its perlectly legit to use any weights you like with any method of calculation

on the average system becker wins on my calculations with or without the davis cup; and still wins on your calculations even with your false invention of 300 events which did not deserve to exist in 1989 because of all the weak fields.


jeffrey

 

[ClarkC]

Its not that they played the same weeks; you can rest when you choose; becker's 4 weeks of high pressure best of 5 set tennis is the same as lendl entering 4 extra tournaments.

Davis Cup is not played all week. In fact, if your country wins early, you don't have to play so many sets, do you?

In the first round of 1989 Davis Cup, Germany faced mighty Indonesia. Becker won over the legendary Abdul-Kahar Mim, 6-0, 6-1, 6-1. On Sunday, the tie was already 3-0 for Germany, so Becker played a shortened match against Tintus Arianto-Wibowo, winning 6-2, 7-5. Could you tell us which week-long tournaments this compares to for Lendl?

In the QFs, Becker at least had to play actual professional tennis players from Czechoslovakia (Novacek and Srejber), but they were not the kind of players you had to beat in the finals of good tournaments. Srejber won 1 title in his career (Rye Brook, NY) and reached one other final. Novacek was much better (20 finals, winning 13). Becker won both matches in straight sets, as expected. He did have to endure 5 sets in a doubles loss. That Davis Cup tie (11 sets) is more comparable to a real tourney.

Against the USA in the semis, Becker won a huge 5-setter over Agassi but did not play on Sunday. He was scheduled to play Brad Gilbert in the last match, but Carl-Uwe Steeb upset Agassi in 4 sets to clinch the tie. 9 sets in the first 2 days (4-set doubles win) is tough, but only 5 sets of singles is not like a week-long tourney.

Becker was phenomenal in the final. Can't count sets here, because we cannot hold it against him that he beat Edberg and Wilander in straight sets!

Becker won 3 big singles matches in that year's Davis Cup (Agassi, the two Swedes). That is more than it takes to win 1 tourney, but is nothing like winning 4 tourneys in terms of rest/strain.

 

[ClarkC]

Every one believes the weights of 2000-2007 are better
and I have showed with those weights Becker wins.

No, you have shown that with the benefit of your own bogus weights for Davis Cup, Becker could win. You are counting a ridiculous tie with Indonesian players who might play at Futures tournaments today as 0.5 tourneys, and counting each of the other Davis Cup ties as 1.0 tourneys, even if Becker played 1 singles match and 1 doubles match total in a tie.

 

[Benhur]

rubbish; the system says you can replace another event if you don't qualify for it; ie your ranking is too low to get in a masters series event. you only get 5 others if you qualify for all slams and super 9s as lendl did.

I don't know how many times you need to be told that there weren't 9 "super 9s" (MS events) in 1989. There were at most 5 according to me (6 according to you). If the current system allows players to replace GS and MS events for which they do not qualify (up to a maximum total of 18 events) it certainly would allow replacement of MS events that don't exist.

NOBODY qualifies for a tournament that doesn't exist. Please read that again.

There is no reason whatsoever why you should cap the total events at 13 or 14, when there are players TODAY who played less than 4 slams and less than 9 MS events (because they didn't qualify or were injured) and yet are allowed up to 18 events to count for the rankings.

So if you want to transpose the 1989 system to the current system, you need to account for the non-existing MS events and replace them by lower ones, just like those players today are allowed to do. You cannot just assign 0 points to them on the grounds that Lendl WOULD have qualified for those extra MS events if they had existed. BUT THEY DIDN'T EXIST.

Tell me how I am to massage your temples so this simple piece of information penetrates into your craneum.

This means, assuming there were 5 MS level events in 1989 (IW, KB, Cincinnati, Paris, Stockolm) that the missing 4 can be replaced by other events. Which means ALL of Lendl's tournaments count. If you think there were 6 MS events (I don't know what the 6th one is) then, you take out the poorest showing from Lendl's record (Barcelona), and he still comes out far ahead of Becker.

You keep talking of an average system and Davis Cup and whatnot. The purpose of this exercise is to convert the 1989 record to the current system, because you indicated that there is no way Lendl would be year end number 1 in the current system. And my point is that is not true. There is no average system today. Today's system is as it is. You keep concocting a personalized potpourri of a system that does not exist except in your own head. You keep refusing to base the transposition of points on the relative values assigned to non-GS events in 1989, increasing for example the value of Indian Wells by a whopping 109%, because Becker played it, and simultaneously refusing to increase Montreal or Hamburg by a mere 33%, because Lendl won them. ABSURD!!

As can be abundantly gathered from previous posts, it is crystal clear that any transposition to the CURRENT system (not the Jeffrey potpourri system) would show Lendl ahead by a large margin. Detailed calculations were shown, but they are not even necessary because all you have to do is compare slam performances, see the difference in points in TODAY's system, and then take a quick glance at the rest.

Slam performance:

Becker: 2 wins, 1 semifinal and 1 R16.

Lendl: 1 win, 1 runner up, 1 semifinal, 1 R16.

The difference between their performances in slams would be EXACTLY 300 POINTS in today's system, in favor of Becker.

Lendl has a FAR BETTER performance everywhere else. You need to be blinded by some kind of debilitating mental disease not to see that. He won double the amount of MS level events, and he won a total of 5 more events than Becker. The result is that he has at least 800 points more than Becker in todays system.

Your contention that Becker could only play 13 events because he played DC is nonsense. Lendl didn't play any of his 17 tournaments during DC. Becker chose to sit on his behind while Lendl played those extra tournaments. (For comparison of what is possible, Lendl played 23 events in 1982 PLUS Davis Cup.)

I reapeat: I am talking about TODAY'S system, which is clearly stated in the ATP rule book, the relevant parts of which I quoted above. I am not talking about the system developed by the fevers of your delirium for the exclusive purpose of showing that Becker should have been ranked number 1 in 1989. There is no doubt that in your own fantastic system, he should have. You don't need to convince me of that. But certainly not in the 1989 system, and certainly not in today's system either.

Here's the rule book. Learn it by heart and transpose it to iambic pentameters (in heroic couplets) for to facilitate memorization.

http://www.frankymoser.de/ATP_Rulebook.pdf

 

[jeffreyneave]

. the rule does not allow you to replace a super 9 with another event if you are injured . look at roddick he's stuck with 5 minor events despiite missing loads of super 9. you can't even read straight. its quite clear that replacement is only for players whose ranking is too low tp get into suprer nines. doesn't apply to lendl.

they played 17 weeks and becker played only 14 events and lendl 17 ; when they played them is up to them ; its still the same effort. the bottom line is lendl deseves no advatage for extra events, which you keep giving him.
playing four weeks of davis cup best of 5 set wins is certanily as demanding as entering 4 tournamemts. look at lendl's performance in his bottom 4 events; he's playing nobodies in best of 3 sets except for his loss to edberg in tokyo. becker's wins in 5 sets are more impressive against wilander, edberg and agassi.

i never denied that on add up basis without the davis cup lendl wins, but who cares about that; that's not fair and never was. we are not their t o transpose the exact system of today and never were. What I was removing were the lousy weights of 1989 ,and putting in 2000-2007 weights and using the average system

the average system is the one to use because that's what the players knew at the start of 1989 and played accordingly. you can't change the rules of play, but you can certainly change the weights and coverage.

. you only had to play 12 events and both players did that. the average stops becker losing by playing the davis cup. and the bottom line is the davis cup is very important and the ITF ranking states it explicitly; so you and atp are in dreamland if you think you can ignore beckerr's win. Its wort 750 points according to the ITf (who regard as good as the masters)


Becker wins on every average basis; on my calculations with or without the davis cup; he even wins without the davis cup on your calculations of june 19 with all those non existant 300 points you have created. becker also wins on add up of 14 (including davis cup at 750) to lendl's 17 when you remove all those stupid 300 events and keep the top event to 250, as I have always done (an 11.11% mark up insead of your joke 40%).


!989 is not an 18 touramenent season its a 12 and no way can you covert directly to the present system of 18; I repeat both the average and the 5 best explicitly stop players gaining an advantage to players playing lots of minor events as lendl did ; your cheating and that's the only way lendl can win. lendl deserves no advtange of your 17 plays 13 type ; its a joke and he is not going to get it


tHe davis cup counted very big and you can't ignore it; the ITF, the atp players; and journalists all voted for becker because the davis cup really does count and youand the atp are in fantasy prentending otherwise.


rome is the 6th super 9;


4 out of top 10 is never worth 300; get real; super 9 should attract all the top 10 or at least 8 or 9 given an injury. 4 0f top ten as canada and hamburg had is struggling to get 250 never mind 300; you just can't give way points to ordinary events like thast; you need 6 of the top 10 to justify
300 like barcelona had this year. your 1.4 inflation makes barcelona 1989 with only 2 top 10 players a 300 event; ludicrous. fsce it fields in 1989 were weak weak and events outside the slams were worth a lot less than they have been betwween 2000-2007

 

[Benhur]

. the rule does not allow you to replace a super 9 with another event if you are injured . look at roddick he's stuck with 5 minor events despiite missing loads of super 9. you can't even read straight. its quite clear that replacement is only for players whose ranking is too low tp get into suprer nines. doesn't apply to lendl.

Get this through your head. NOBODY QUALIFIES FOR EVENTS THAT DON'T EXIST - NOT EVEN LENDL. THEREFORE LENDL DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THOSE 3 MISSING MS EVENTS. THEREFORE THEY CAN BE REPLACED WITH OTHER EVENTS THAT WERE ACTUALLY PLAYED, AND HE GETS THE POINTS FROM THOSE OTHER EVENTS - NOT ZERO POINTS AS YOU WOULD HAVE IT. THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM ALLOWS.

never denied that on add up basis without the davis cup lendl wins, but who cares about that;

Of course you don't care. But the fact is with the tournaments he played, which would certainly be allowed in the current system (except for one) he wins in the current system. And he wins by a pretty large margin. I do care about that, because it shows that the 1989 system was not as crazy as you make it to be, if the results would be the same in today's system.

Each period or even each year deserves analysis by itself. The situation would be completely different if you tried to transpose the late 70s system or the 1982 system, to today's. But the 1989 rankings would be the same today, at least for the top two spots.

that's not fair and never was.

Your personal opinion of fairness is irrelevant to this discussion. Rankings are determined by a set of agreed-upon system rules, not by one individual's personal preferences.

we are not their t o transpose the exact system of today and never were.

Oh? First time I hear that. What are we here for then? To create our own pet system, using averages as in 1989 and weighting as in today, and adding a DC that neither then nor now was used for rankings? I could create endless systems where Lendl would come out ahead by a lot more points. Following your method, all I would have to do to justify them is appeal to my own sense of fairness. What a stupid game that would be.

What I was removing were the lousy weights of 1989 ,and putting in 2000-2007 weights and using the average system

Right. You are creating Your own pet hybrid. Pick what you like from the old system, pick what you like from the current one, transpose the weighting as you please, add in DC and assign it what you please, and... presto, you've got it, Becker emerges at the surface. In that manner, you could rewrite the entire history of tennis rankings for the last two decades, year after year. Why don't you do that?

the average system is the one to use because that's what the players knew at the start of 1989 and played accordingly. you can't change the rules of play, but you can certainly change the weights and coverage.

You can't change the rules but you can change the weights? Says who? Aren't the weights and coverage part of the rules? Isn't it a whole package? Your method, again is nothing more than this: what you can and cannot change is being determined exclusively by what you feel like changing or not changing. That's how you work. And that's why I see no merit whatsoever in what you are doing. You need to use a system that exists now or existed then. Not one you fabricate for your own purposes.

 

[jeffreyneave]

get stuffed you rude jerk. you can't even read a rule correctly. your are the one inventing rules . its 5 best others and that's all ; that's all roddick gets. and that all lendl gets . 1989 is not 2008. you can't transpose the system . 1989 never was an 18 tournament season; its minimum of 12 ; that's what players played too. you can't change that average rule because that's what they played to. becker played 12 events; he played by the rules and got his average; lendl played 15 and got his average.

of course you can change the weights and coverage. the atp web sites lists the wct finals , davis cup and masters so they were always official events and they should all count.


you can change every atp ranking system and get a better one. the davis cup counted in the 1970s for the grand prix and the itf always counts the davis cup as big (as obviously did the players and journalists in 1989.)


Atp rankings have always being crap and are not to be emulated in any respect. they have changed their sytem at least 5 times and are obviously clueless; there never has been a definitive system and anyone can come up with a better system

the point the 1989 atp is that the weights lousy and totally unacceptable to every one at the time. The 200o-2007 weights I like and the ITF seems to accept; that's why they have currency. The coverage in 1989 was totally stupid. the davis cup, wct and masters all count and shouled always do so.

becker was partly ranked no1 because of the davis cup. The ITF, players and journalists vcounted it and you can't stop it being counted by countinually referring to stupid atp computer rankings.

jeffrey

 

[Benhur]

get stuffed you rude jerk. you can't even read a rule correctly. your are the one inventing rules . its 5 best others and that's all ; that's all roddick gets. and that all lendl gets .

No, it's not "5 others and that's all," my stuffed mindless doll. The rule today clearly and explicitly allows players to replace any major or MS events for which they don't qualify, up to a total of 18 events for the year. That's the rule. If you can't read it, go back to elementary school, learn how to read, and then read it again. Roddicks case has nothing whatsoever to do with Lendl's. Lendl didn't stay out of those missing 3 MS tournaments becaus of injury. He stayed out of them because they didn't exist, according to your own evaluation of which tournaments must be considered MS level. If they didn't exist, he didn't qualify for them, and can therefore replace them by events in which he played, as the rule clearly states.

1989 is not 2008. you can't transpose the system .

Of course you can transpose the system. That's exactly what you are doing by transposing the weights. If you transpose the system, you do so in totto. What you like to do is decree which aspects of the systme you are allowed to transpose, and which aspects you are not allowed, depending on what works best for your case.

1989 never was an 18 tournament season; its minimum of 12 ;

Is playing above the minimum against the rules?

that's what players played too.

They played as much as they wanted. Looking no further than Lendl and Edberg, they both played at least 17 tournaments each that year. And Edberg also played DC.

But even if you cap it at 12 tournaments for the year, by counting 4 slams plus their best 8 performances outside slams, Lendl has a much better record in today's system. As I've told you many times, Becker has only a 300 point edge in slam performance, which is amply surpassed by Lendl's performance in the other tournaments, no matter under what system, except the one you are making up.

you can't change that average rule because that's what they played to.

In that case, you cannot change the weightings either, because that's also "what they played to." They knew how many points each tournament would give them and chose accordingly.

You either transpose the system or you don't.

you can change every atp ranking system and get a better one.

Of course, you can change any system to anything you want. The phrase "better one" here means only "whatever I like."

Atp rankings have always being crap and are not to be emulated in any respect.

Have you sent a proposal to them suggesting they sc**** the entire ranking history for the last two decades and replace it by your system?

they have changed their sytem at least 5 times

Clearly not enough times, since they have always failed to come up with a system that pleases you.

and are obviously clueless; there never has been a definitive system and anyone can come up with a better system

Thank you for acknowledging what I have been pointing out. You are obviously a member of the "anyone" group. And the word "better" means whatever makes you tickle. I am also a member of the "anyone" group, and am endowed with my own sense of betterness. But at least I attempt to replace the system with one that actually exists. You replace it by whatever you want. Both your weightings of non-GS tournaments and you insistence that tournaments must be limited and averaged the way you decree, are nothing but undiluted garbage from an imbecile. Keep spouting it. I'll keep throwing it back at you.

 

[jeffreyneave]

you stil can't read. replacement is only for players who are kept out of an event because their ranking was too low; if the event does not exist there's no replacement; 6 super 9 ninres is a 15 event season ,but still only 5 minor events. your the cheat. ever sinve your first post you have imposed an 18 event add up on 1989 and its wrong; moose malloy told you it was an average system but you never listned; you yhave invented your own system which has nothinfg todo with 1989

of course an average system of mnimum 12 afects play. becker played exactly 12 and played by the rules; there is no advantage playing extra events ( you can if you wish and they will be counted, as lendl did, but only on average basis). your totally wrong about weights affecting play; players still played all the big slams even though the points were 1/2 what they should have been; all players can control is the number events they play. they can;'t change tthe weights or give points to the davuis cup; becker still played the davis cup even with 0 points because he agreed with the ITF it was a very important event and atp are wrong.

I have no respect for any ATP ranking ; they are all crap; they have never counted the Davis cup or the WCt finals when they were played; they are cheats. lokk at 2008 where they given 300 ponits to non- events like rotterdam (breaking the concept that minor events should only have at most a 1/4 of slam's points) and only giving 400 to the OLympics, which had a field as good as a super 9 and its much more prestigous; nADAL'S WIN WILL BE REMBERED A Lot longer than his canadian open win.

I choose 2001-7 weights because of ITF approval; nothing to do with the atp. These weights were forced upon the atp in exchange for the ITF giving up the grand slam cup; if the atp had had their way we would have be4en kept wuth the stupid weights which existed for 25 tears since 1973; weights as dumb and stupid as 1989 where slams wereonly worth 2 times a minor event

I prefer the ITF list of champions to the atp rankings. I'm sure the ITF would approve 2001-7 weights over 1989 weights since they choose them; they would certainly approve of the inclusion of the davis cup and wct finals to 1989 rankings (its explicit stated in their judgement on how the world champion should be determined) and they would also approve of the average system because they wish to protect particpation in the davis cup; an average does just that; a player like lendl not playing the davis cup and being able to play extra events does not gain any advantage or disadvantage over a davis cup player.

I don't want the whole system of any atp ranking. like the ITF l'm free to change the weights and incude the davis cup to improve the 1989 system; we don't want another crap atp ranking system. The ITF did that in 1989 and choose becker as did journalists and players; they looked at the facts thru more realistic weights and coverage and did not choose ant atp ranking system, whatever the year.

jeffrey

 

[ClarkC]

I think Becker should be considered the best for 1989 because of all the titles he won on clay that year. Those clay titles prove that he was truly an all-court player. :neutral:

 

[Benhur]

you stil can't read. replacement is only for players who are kept out of an event because their ranking was too low; if the event does not exist there's no replacement;

On the contrary. Inexistence of an event is the most radical, clear, automatic, unavoidable and fundamental form of disqualification for that event. Why don't YOU try getting your ranking high enough to qualify for an inexistent event?

6 super 9 nines is a 15 event season

No. 6 super nines is a 6 super nine season. Nothing more. The number of total events is independent of the number of super nines, just like the number of days in one year is independent of the number of sunny days that year.

I have no respect for any ATP ranking ; they are all crap;

We know. We know.

I prefer the ITF list of champions to the atp rankings.

Of course you do. That's why you are such a vocal defender of the ITF giving 1990 to Lendl, while the ATP had Edberg as year-end number 1.

In that light, it would be interesting to see you explain why Lendl's 1990 was better than Edberg's, according to the ITF. Why don't you explain that?
Even I, a Lendl fan, cannot understand how that could happen, so any ideas you can give me will be welcome. On the other hand, I have no trouble at all seeing why Lendl was ranked number one at the end of 1989.