Relative Ranking points in Men's Tour

[timnz]

Just thought I'd start a discussion on what people think the relative ranking points of the various levels of events should be.

My thinking is that Grand Slams should shine way above others.

Hence relative rankings should be (in my opinion) and example points won.

Winning Grand Slam points - 3000 points
Season end finals (formerly called Masters Cup) - equal to final of a Grand Slam - 2000 points
Masters events - equal to semi-finals of Grand Slam - 1000 points
Currently called '500' events - equal to quarter finals of Grand Slam - 500 Points
Currently called '250' events - equal to fourth round of Grand Slam - 250 Points

With that relative rankings - one should avoid the situation currently where someone could win the calendar Grand Slam and not be the Year end number one if there was someone else who was winning a lot of '1000' tournaments. (Similar to the situation on the Women's tour at the moment).

 

[timnz]

Points

I know in my thread that the points I have given aren't the actual points being won at the moment - but I am trying to give a relative sense of the points.

At the moment a Masters Level event is worth 1/2 a Grand Slam. That is wrong in my opinion - it should only be about 1/3.

It 'feels' right to me that the accomplishment of making a Grand Slam semi-final is worth about the same as winning a Masters Level event. And that winning the season end finals is about the same level of accomplishment as being a runner-up at a Grand Slam event.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

Grandslam 3000 points? Thats way too extreme imo; i'd say 2,500 @ most.

Masters cup 1,800 and Masters series is accurate @ 1000

 

[timnz]

It's not so much the points but the relative points

Yes, we may have different opinions on how many points a Grand Slam event should have... but my main point is that a Masters level event feels about the same level of achievement as making a Grand Slam semi-final and winning the Masters cup 'feel's the same level of achievement as making a Grand Slam final.

At the moment Masters events are too strong relative to a Grand Slam event IMHO.

 

[clayman2000]

I like your idea, but the slams are a bit too high. Here is mine

Slams:
W --- 3000
RU -- 2100
SF -- 1400
QF -- 700
R16 - 350
R32 - 175
R64 - 90
128 - 30

Masters:
W --- 1200
RU -- 850
SF -- 580
QF -- 290
R16 - 130
R32 - 50
R56 - 20

500's:
W --- 500
RU -- 350
SF -- 245
QF -- 125
R16 - 40
R32 - 10

250's:
W --- 250
RU -- 175
SF -- 120
QF -- 60
2R -- 20
1R -- 0

Masters Cup:
W --- 2000
RU -- 1400
SF -- 900
RR -- 200 for 0 wins, 400 for 1 win, 600 for 2 win

Based on this point system this would be the rankings:
1) Federer -- 16440
2) Nadal -- 13900
3) Murray -- 13315
4) Djoker -- 11305
5) Roddick -- 8155
6) Del Po -- 6974

Roddick is quite aways from Djoker cause he hasnt played 3 Masters and the YEC.
Murray is very close to Nadal because hes played 1 more Slam + the YEC

 

[tacou]

everyone keeps saying the Grand Slams should be worth more but I disagree. they are the most points but more importantly most prestige. winning 4 slams in a year is obviously much to take pride in but winning 9 masters in a year is much more impressive in my opinion

 

[EtePras]

Disagree completely. Only the very best players win Masters Series events, maybe occasionally a talented headcase wins when better players are all injured/withdraw, but you see a lot of mugs get to grand slam semis.

 

[egn]

I actually think the current system is not so bad. REmember you make the slam points to high we benefit the player who makes a good semifinal run and does crap the rest of the year as 1400 points can really push a player high up the rankings over the more consistent.

 

[Brned]

everyone keeps saying the Grand Slams should be worth more but I disagree. they are the most points but more importantly most prestige. winning 4 slams in a year is obviously much to take pride in but winning 9 masters in a year is much more impressive in my opinion

More impressive but less likely to be remembered.

 

[Andres]

More impressive but less likely to be remembered.

I don't know eh? No one has ever come close to that. The most Shields anyone has ever won in a year is 4, less than half the total. In fact, no one has EVER won the 9 shields. Several players have won the 4 slams, and even a Grand Slam was achieved.

But no one has ever won the 9 shields. I believe is a much more impressive achievement than winning the four slams. And I don't think anyone will EVER win all of them the same year.

 

[scineram]

Change the rules when dislike the results?

 

[clayman2000]

I don't know eh? No one has ever come close to that. The most Shields anyone has ever won in a year is 4, less than half the total. In fact, no one has EVER won the 9 shields. Several players have won the 4 slams, and even a Grand Slam was achieved.

But no one has ever won the 9 shields. I believe is a much more impressive achievement than winning the four slams. And I don't think anyone will EVER win all of them the same year.

Well remember Masters are best vs best. Also top players can draw a 1st round opponent as high as 17.

Thats being said if someone won all 9 Masters in a year, i would trade them all for 1 slam win.... thats a player mindset.

Its like with Fed slam semi streak vs the calendar slam. The semi streak may be harder, but i think anyone in the right mind would take the calendar slam over it