REVISED: Updated Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting

#1
This ranking systems approach is to compare Open era players tournament achievements at a 500 series title equivalent and higher (point wise). This is NOT a 'greatness' index of Open era players. 'Greatness' is a subjective term (doesn't mean it isn't valuable), whereas the intention of this ranking system is merely to layout tournament achievements (500 points and higher) of the great open era players weighted at current ATP weightings.

The explanation as to why I broke this off at 500 point level (formerly I had the break off at 1000 points and higher) is explained below:

Masters 1000 Equivalents are very difficult to do a comparison between older players victories at that level compared to recent players. So what were Masters 1000 equivalents years ago, vs now? There is no clear agreement. Masters 1000 pre-1990 are difficult to agree on. There is no agreed 'Masters 1000' equivalent list. The only list that I have seen some agreement on, in these forums, is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

Because Masters 1000's weren't compulsory prior to 2000, players opted to play at other events, sometimes with similar points to 'Official' Masters 1000 equivalent events. I have decided that we should therefore include all players 500 level event victories. Most of the 'defacto' Masters 1000's have been rated at the 500 level. Therefore in a ranking system, they don't give as many points, but at least they get represented somewhat. I didn't include 250 level tournaments because it is clear that older players in the 70's/80's had a much easier time of it accumulating 250 level titles and hence, there is no fair comparison between them and modern players.

Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted.

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Federer = (20 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (22 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (13 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (22 x 0.50) = 127.36

Djokovic = (15 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (32 x 1) + (15 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 104.1

Nadal = (17 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (33 x 1) + (16 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (5 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (20 x 0.50) = 102.4

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 2 - 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (11 x 0.60) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (22 x 0.50) = 89.48

Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (9 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (22 x 0.50) = 77.02

McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + (5 - 1)) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) = 73.76

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (0 + (2 - 1) x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (5 x 0.72) + ((4 - 1) x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 69.0

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + (2 -1)) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + (3 - 1)) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) + (4 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (1 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 63.32

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((3 - 1) x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (5 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50**) = 62.52

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 57.36

Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (10 x 0.50) = 47.38

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) = 45.86

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) = 37.96

** Agassi's 9 500 series equivalents are calculated by taking his post 1990 6 event wins and adding 1988 wins at Forest Hills, Stuttgart and Stratton Mountain
**** I found it difficult to determine what Wilander's 500 level equivalents are. Depending upon approaches, I ended up with anything from 5 to 10. I have settled (for now) on 8.

•Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
•Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
•Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
•Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
•Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
•Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
•Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
•500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

* Note: To even out the fact that pre-mid 1980's great players tended to play 3 slams a year vs 4 slams a year for current players, I will only include WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup placings if the player didn't play all the slams in that year eg I include Lendl's 1982 WCT Finals win but I don't include his 1985 WCT Finals win, since in 1982 he didn't play all the slams but in 1985 he did. That way it is fair to modern players that the older players aren't getting an extra event to score points in (since modern players don't have the WCT Finals or Grand Slam Cup to count). This explains the minus entries you see eg Edberg for season end finals runner-ups ((2 - 1) x 1) - he was runner-up at the 1988 WCT finals and the 1990 WTF - but he played all of the slams in 1988 so that achievement gets subtracted off.

** Note on the Olympics: I believe that the Olympics should be given points. I have my own opinion as to how much. But as I have stated, I don't use subjective weighting here, I am using the current ATP weightings. And like it or not, the ATP has decided to weight the Olympics Singles champion as zero points (formerly they had it at 750 points). I have decided to leave the olympics in - just so people can see it - but weight it at zero points (unfortunately)

REMEMBER: There is no agreed weighting of events. In this forum I have tried to get an agreed weightings but opinions as to the weighting vary greatly. The best I can do is use the current ATP weightings. Everytime I post these rankings people disagree with the weightings, but what can I do? - there is no agreed standard beyond the ATP weightings.
 
Last edited:
#2
Your love of the sport really shines through timnz, especially when one sees all the time and effort you've made to compile such a chart so kudos to you for that. In a way I'm disappointed with you though - just when I thought Novak was edging that bit closer to Connors and Lendl, it now appears he still has some way to go! ;)
 
#3
Interesting table. But it's ranking still players by their numbers as many already do. So it's more of the most successful players, rather than greatest. No table of numbers can objectively make a list of the Greatest players ever. Too many variables involved, like equipment, surfaces, etc...
 
#4
Your love of the sport really shines through timnz, especially when one sees all the time and effort you've made to compile such a chart so kudos to you for that. In a way I'm disappointed with you though - just when I thought Novak was edging that bit closer to Connors and Lendl, it now appears he still has some way to go! ;)
The way that Djokovic is powering through the Masters 1000's - at the end of his career - he will rate very highly on this :)
 
#5
Interesting table. But it's ranking still players by their numbers as many already do. So it's more of the most successful players, rather than greatest. No table of numbers can objectively make a list of the Greatest players ever. Too many variables involved, like equipment, surfaces, etc...
As I said in my post. This is not a list of the 'Greatest Player' (which is a subjective assessment). It rather is an objective list of the great players achievements in events at 500 points level and greater. Their points are their points - there is no subjectivity to it.
 
#6
As I said in my post. This is not a list of the 'Greatest Player' (which is a subjective assessment). It rather is an objective list of the great players achievements in events at 500 points level and greater. Their points are their points - there is no subjectivity to it.
I see. How did you come up with the criteria and how many points for what though?
 
#7
The way that Djokovic is powering through the Masters 1000's - at the end of his career - he will rate very highly on this :)
Precisely why such a list is questionable. So much more emphasis placed on YEC and less on Olympic Gold.

Edit: I #applaud the effort.

#GrannyIlluminati
 
Last edited:
#9
Could a rough multiplication factor that equates X points in say 1980 to Y points in 2015 be produced? If you could crosswalk points from all years to their equivalent # of point in 2015, then you could simply use this adjustments and determine how many total points a player accumulated over their career.

However, this would perhaps give too much weighting to longevity of even mediocre results (e.g., Connors in the late 80s) over briefer periods of superb results (Borg). But simply dividing total adjusted points over a career by # of years would seem to boost Borg for not attempting to extend his greatness further and quitting early.

I think the best way to do it would be to avoid trying to aggregate over an entire career and instead display total adjusted points by year and comparing players careers that way. Align the years based on peak results in terms of points...then we can compare the intensities of peaks, longevities of peaks/primes, and how well players did before their prime and after their prime in older age.
 
#10
I see. How did you come up with the criteria and how many points for what though?
The points are the ATP's. As I mentioned, there is no agreed weighting for tournaments. (I have tried to get agreement on this forum - and there are as many thoughts on this as there are people in it). Hence, the only thing I can do is use the current ATP weightings. I have listed everywhere a player has got 500 points or more in their career, using today's standards. (I have changed the cut-off from 1000 to 500 points to include the many titles that the older players won that were quality titles but weren't getting included in my old system). The cut-off at 500 is useful because it takes us away from the criticism by some of Connors having so many titles that were 'light-weight'. If I cut 250's out altogether across the board - then that argument goes away.
 
#11
Precisely why such a list is questionable. So much more emphasis placed on YEC and less on Olympic Gold.

Edit: I #applaud the effort.

#GrannyIlluminati
I am just using the ATP weightings - hence the title of the thread 'Updated Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting'. The ATP weight the WTF at 1500 points for an unbeaten winner and the Olympic Gold Singles at 750 points. It is worth noting though - that since 1970, in newspaper articles the WTF has been ranked only a little lower than slams by journalists and players. But regardless of that - I am just using the current ATP weightings.

Thanks for your note. I appreciate the discussion and thanks for the encouragement :)
 
Last edited:
#13
Could a rough multiplication factor that equates X points in say 1980 to Y points in 2015 be produced? If you could crosswalk points from all years to their equivalent # of point in 2015, then you could simply use this adjustments and determine how many total points a player accumulated over their career.

However, this would perhaps give too much weighting to longevity of even mediocre results (e.g., Connors in the late 80s) over briefer periods of superb results (Borg). But simply dividing total adjusted points over a career by # of years would seem to boost Borg for not attempting to extend his greatness further and quitting early.

I think the best way to do it would be to avoid trying to aggregate over an entire career and instead display total adjusted points by year and comparing players careers that way. Align the years based on peak results in terms of points...then we can compare the intensities of peaks, longevities of peaks/primes, and how well players did before their prime and after their prime in older age.
Sounds very interesting.....and difficult. You interested in the challenge of doing that?
 
#15
Sounds very interesting.....and difficult. You interested in the challenge of doing that?
Not really, but I do appreciate the work you've put into what you've done.

The time it would take to put together statistics like what I suggested...well, lets just say I think it would be far more rewarding finding a complete tape of a Connors-Borg or Connors-McEnroe match and watching that.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#16
What if you took their best five years - Wouldn't that get closer to the 'Greatest Player'? While the list you produce is essential, it obviously means players with long careers are 'marked high'.

Again there is nothing wrong with this at all, but a best five year statistic, or some such variation on this, would be interesting.

As I said in my post. This is not a list of the 'Greatest Player' (which is a subjective assessment). It rather is an objective list of the great players achievements in events at 500 points level and greater. Their points are their points - there is no subjectivity to it.
 
#17
What if you took their best five years - Wouldn't that get closer to the 'Greatest Player'? While the list you produce is essential, it obviously means players with long careers are 'marked high'.

Again there is nothing wrong with this at all, but a best five year statistic, or some such variation on this, would be interesting.
Why would you discriminate against longevity? It is a big plus in any player's resume, imo.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#19
It's not a question of discriminating against longevity, it's just another statistic to ascertain who was really the greatest player during their peak years.

It generates a different type of list, but no less interesting for all that. It would be one that more adequately reflects subjective judgements about greatness.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#20
re Edberg: apparently the 84 tennis competition was restricted to under 20 year olds so that would exclude that achievement from his list.
 
#21
It's not a question of discriminating against longevity, it's just another statistic to ascertain who was really the greatest player during their peak years.

It generates a different type of list, but no less interesting for all that. It would be one that more adequately reflects subjective judgements about greatness.
So your view of greatness does indeed discriminate against the longevity of players. I don't agree. I find timnz's approach to be very fair.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#22
It's a statistic that is an artefact of the collector's imagination and construction.

I don't want to see his approach disappear. I'm just interested in another approach.

He's already said that his approach has nothing to do with greatness, which he calls subjective.

I'm just pointing out that a statistic that focuses on a peak period of performance brings us closer to the issue of greatness.

The reality is that you are again talking about greatness, whereas the original post only talks about achievement.

And there's the reason for the other approach. If people like you mistake lifetime achievement for greatness then that's a problem.

A statistic that allows us a comparative approach to achievement in peak years of performance seems a good approach.

Not an exclusive statistic that resolves all issues, but just as another statistic that some may see as a slightly better indicator of greatness.
 
#23
I don't see how you can insulate talk of achievements from talk of greatness and vice-versa. The longevity "stat" as such is an important indicator of the commitment of the player and forms a valuable context for his overall contribution to the game.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#24
The point about statistics is that they are not obective, but that they are consistent.

(This is probably not how a trained mathematician would put it, I suppose, but I think I'm roughly right).

Controlling achievement by time is perfectly consistent as long as the time frame makes sense and is the same for everyone.

I'm not talking about excluding a statistic, but collecting another one to see it what it brings out from the data set.
 
#25
The point about statistics is that they are not obective, but that they are consistent.

(This is probably not how a trained mathematician would put it, I suppose, but I think I'm roughly right).

Controlling achievement by time is perfectly consistent as long as the time frame makes sense and is the same for everyone.

I'm not talking about excluding a statistic, but collecting another one to see it what it brings out from the data set.
And you don't have the foresight to glean how a debate centering around a predefined number of years would unfold?
 
#26
I'm just pointing out that a statistic that focuses on a peak period of performance brings us closer to the issue of greatness.

The reality is that you are again talking about greatness, whereas the original post only talks about achievement.
Peak period of performance brings us closer to the issue of domination, which is as much related to greatness than longevity, but not more, in my opinion.

Also, it's a bit funny to suggest that achievements aren't the best way to measure greatness. Was the greatest player a loser?

That being said, looking at players peak period doesn't request half the work Timnz put in his great ranking, although it will be hard to find an agreement on which years are peak and which aren't.

I bet Borg and Federer look very good in such list.
 
#28
So your view of greatness does indeed discriminate against the longevity of players. I don't agree. I find timnz's approach to be very fair.
Assuming that with a lof of effort we could agree on players best years, we would still have to discuss how is weighted dominance other a short period vs long career. It's really the same problem that the weighting of the slams.
 
#29
Peak period of performance brings us closer to the issue of domination, which is as much related to greatness than longevity, but not more, in my opinion.

Also, it's a bit funny to suggest that achievements aren't the best way to measure greatness. Was the greatest player a loser?

That being said, looking at players peak period doesn't request half the work Timnz put in his great ranking, although it will be hard to find an agreement on which years are peak and which aren't.

I bet Borg and Federer look very good in such list.
It would be hard to support (impossible for me personally) a paradigm of career progression that would be extolling the exploits of 2-3 players and discarding those of players who invested a lot to reach some stellar achievements. I don't subscribe to the notion that everyone who hasn't won multiple majors by the age of 23 is a bum, I can hardly then be seen as defending the need for the greats to conform to a window of achievement. Everyone's career should be judged on its whole, otherwise the discussion should be renamed completely and, in my view, be conducted on a completely individual level.

Best years of XX wherein he accomplished YY, agree or disagree. Comparisons on this tangent would invariably lead to talk of age, era, competition, etc. etc. Not just a can of worms but a ruined canned worm factory buried under nuclear waste somewhere in a war-torn part of the 3rd world. Why should timnz's effort be tarnished by a wish for the above? Only trolls live off that.
 
#31
NOTE: After reflection in the last few months, I have decided to change the Open era achievement ranking system that I have been posted for a number of years. The reasons are principally around the Masters 1000 achievements and their equivalents. When I found out that Lendl only competed in 10 of 27 Masters 1000's in 1990-1992 (because they were not compulsory then), and that there were 8-9 other tournaments per year from 1990-1992 that were equivalent in points and prize money to the 'official' Masters 1000 - that made me wonder if our count of these events was fair.

The problem that I have wrestled with mostly is this:

The earlier events didn't have the depth of top players that today's do (which is harder on more recent players) and, because of it not being compulsory, and there were other comparible events - (then it is unfair on the older players who didn't compete in what we deem Masters 1000 equivalents). So how do we work out equivalency given that there were completely different contexts for the playing of these events pre-2000 (particularly before 1993)?

Masters 1000 pre-1990 are difficult to agree on. There is no agreed 'Masters 1000' equivalent list. The only list that I have seen some agreement on, in these forums, is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

I have decided that we should therefore include all players 500 level event victories. Most of the 'defacto' Masters 1000's have been rated at the 500 level. Therefore in a ranking system, they don't give as many points, but at least they get represented somewhat. I have therefore changed the cut-off to 500 points and above, where previously I had 1000 points and above per event.

Details of the system:

Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted. That is:

  • Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
  • Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
  • Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
  • Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
  • Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SERUNL) 1000 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
  • Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
  • Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
  • Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 750 points
  • 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points
* Note: To even out the fact that pre-mid 1980's great players tended to play 3 slams a year vs 4 slams a year for current players, I will only include WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup placings if the player didn't play all the slams in that year eg I include Lendl's 1982 WCT Finals win but I don't include his 1985 WCT Finals win, since in 1982 he didn't play all the slams but in 1985 he did. That way it is fair to modern players that the older players aren't getting an extra event to score points in (since modern players don't have the WCT Finals or Grand Slam Cup to count).

REMEMBER: There is no agreed weighting of events. In this forum I have tried to get an agreed weightings but opinions as to the weighting vary greatly. The best I can do is use the current ATP weightings. Everytime I post these rankings people disagree with the weightings, but what can I do? - there is no agreed standard beyond the ATP weightings. Also note that this table doesn't represent 'Greatness' which is a subjective term. It simply represents an objective list of the achievements of open era players weighted at current ATP weightings.

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SERUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 95.92

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 92.28

Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 85.12

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) = 74.61

Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 70.1

McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (8 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) = 69.56

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (5 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 63.6

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (1 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 60.32

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 58.77

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (8 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 52.56

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (8 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) = 38.66

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) = 33.76


**** I found it difficult to determine that Wilander's 500 level equivalents are. Depending upon approaches, I ended up with anything from 5 to 10. I have settled (for now) on 8.

you sir are a legend yourself... for making such an exhaustive list.. kudos..
 
#32
just giving my 2 cents worth. Someone can certainly create a ranking system analysing the peak years of players. But what would it be measuring? And how long is the peak period? A players peak year? Two years? McEnroe's 1984 may have been higher than most others top year. But another player may have a better top 5 years than McEnroe. So who is better then?
Surely it simply better to measure a players total achievements. It is not 'better' to win 5 Wimbledons in 5 years than 10 years is it? And if you think it is, why?
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#34
The OP distinguished achievements from greatness but presumably achievements function as an indicator for greatness even if the latter concept is more encompassing.

If we are more interested in greatness then the argument for choosing a smaller slice of time than a lifetime career would give us a more accurate indicator.

I would suggest something along the lines of five or perhaps seven consecutive years beginning with the year in which they won their first 1000 event.

In the context of measuring greatness, moreover, I would question the inclusion of 500 series of events because the only mandatory events now are really the 1000 series events.

I would make 720 points the minimum, which also excludes SEFSNSL.

Peak period of performance brings us closer to the issue of domination, which is as much related to greatness than longevity, but not more, in my opinion.

Also, it's a bit funny to suggest that achievements aren't the best way to measure greatness. Was the greatest player a loser?

That being said, looking at players peak period doesn't request half the work Timnz put in his great ranking, although it will be hard to find an agreement on which years are peak and which aren't.

I bet Borg and Federer look very good in such list.
 
Last edited:

DMP

Professional
#36
If we are more interested in greatness then the argument for choosing a smaller slice of time than a lifetime career would give us a more accurate indicator.

I would suggest something along the lines of five or perhaps seven consecutive years beginning with the year in which they won their first 1000 event.
Huh??? If we are interested in greatness why on earth restrict the period of time? All you want to look at is 'greatness' over 5 years, or 7 years.

What about greatness over a whole career? I can assure you that is important to a lot of people.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#38
We already have that statistic or did you just miss it? Lots of interesting statistics can be drawn from the same data set. I'm suggesting a further one that could be interesting. The other statistic does not just disappear if you create another one.

The point about restricting the time span is that it allows you to focus more on the key element of greatness: if someone won twelve slams, inter alia, over five years and then got run over by the Clapham Omnibus and another person won twelve over fifteen years then on the face of it who is the greater player all other things being equal?



Huh??? If we are interested in greatness why on earth restrict the period of time? All you want to look at is 'greatness' over 5 years, or 7 years.

What about greatness over a whole career? I can assure you that is important to a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
#39
NOTE: After reflection in the last few months, I have decided to change the Open era achievement ranking system that I have been posted for a number of years. The reasons are principally around the Masters 1000 achievements and their equivalents. When I found out that Lendl only competed in 10 of 27 Masters 1000's in 1990-1992 (because they were not compulsory then), and that there were 8-9 other tournaments per year from 1990-1992 that were equivalent in points and prize money to the 'official' Masters 1000 - that made me wonder if our count of these events was fair.

The problem that I have wrestled with mostly is this:

The earlier events didn't have the depth of top players that today's do (which is harder on more recent players) and, because of it not being compulsory, and there were other comparible events - (then it is unfair on the older players who didn't compete in what we deem Masters 1000 equivalents). So how do we work out equivalency given that there were completely different contexts for the playing of these events pre-2000 (particularly before 1993)?

Masters 1000 pre-1990 are difficult to agree on. There is no agreed 'Masters 1000' equivalent list. The only list that I have seen some agreement on, in these forums, is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

I have decided that we should therefore include all players 500 level event victories. Most of the 'defacto' Masters 1000's have been rated at the 500 level. Therefore in a ranking system, they don't give as many points, but at least they get represented somewhat. I have therefore changed the cut-off to 500 points and above, where previously I had 1000 points and above per event.

Details of the system:

Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted. That is:

  • Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
  • Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
  • Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
  • Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
  • Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SERUNL) 1000 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
  • Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
  • Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
  • Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 750 points
  • 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points
* Note: To even out the fact that pre-mid 1980's great players tended to play 3 slams a year vs 4 slams a year for current players, I will only include WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup placings if the player didn't play all the slams in that year eg I include Lendl's 1982 WCT Finals win but I don't include his 1985 WCT Finals win, since in 1982 he didn't play all the slams but in 1985 he did. That way it is fair to modern players that the older players aren't getting an extra event to score points in (since modern players don't have the WCT Finals or Grand Slam Cup to count).

REMEMBER: There is no agreed weighting of events. In this forum I have tried to get an agreed weightings but opinions as to the weighting vary greatly. The best I can do is use the current ATP weightings. Everytime I post these rankings people disagree with the weightings, but what can I do? - there is no agreed standard beyond the ATP weightings. Also note that this table doesn't represent 'Greatness' which is a subjective term. It simply represents an objective list of the achievements of open era players weighted at current ATP weightings.

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SERUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 95.92

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 92.28

Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 85.12

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) = 74.61

Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 70.1

McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (8 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) = 69.56

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (5 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 63.6

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (1 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 60.32

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 58.77

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (8 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 52.56

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (8 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) = 38.66

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) = 33.76


**** I found it difficult to determine that Wilander's 500 level equivalents are. Depending upon approaches, I ended up with anything from 5 to 10. I have settled (for now) on 8.
This ranking of yours make absolutely no sense. Why do you even include semifinal results? Why is Lendl ranked 2 ahead of Borg and Sampras?? Nevertheless, please continue to make us laugh. :lol:
 
#40
This ranking of yours make absolutely no sense. Why do you even include semifinal results? Why is Lendl ranked 2 ahead of Borg and Sampras?? Nevertheless, please continue to make us laugh. :lol:
Yes, why would he include SF results when those do not include playing matches akin to playing a Masters 1000, oh wait.
 
#41
  • Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
  • Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SERUNL) 1000 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
  • Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SERUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 92.28
I believe you have overstated Lendl's achievements at the YEC.

In two years he won BOTH available YEC equivalents (1982 and 1985). He can't have both.

He won the Tour Finals 5 times and they are the closest equivalent of the current WTF. The two WTC Finals he won should be considered more like M1000s.

Can you explain how you came 6 above: ((5 + 1) x 1.5))? Surely he either he won 5 of them or you include both and he won 7.

Similarly, if you include both, can you explain how you came up with a combined 2 runners-up (SERUNL/SRU?). The chart I see on Wikipedia show he was runner-up 5 times (1980, 1983-at both, 1984, 1988).

This needs more clarification imo. I know you argue that since he didn't play one of the majors in certain years you allow players both of the season ending tournaments - but that introduced things which can warp the numbers. For example, if two players didn't play a major - one because they didn't want to but the other because they were injured then to grant them both a free pass on an extra season ending is arguably wrong.

Regardless of the reasoning I think that no free passes should be given for missing a major. They are what they are. You say you offer Lendl an extra swing at a season ending title in 1982 because he missed a major that year, the Aussie Open... But he'd already played the Aussie Open previously so it's not as if you can argue it lacked importance - even from his own viewpoint.

I get that the extra criteria you have added aimed to make it fairer on the guys from the pre compulsory M1000 era, but it has also in a round-about way disadvantaged the modern guys in other categories.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#42
You could quite easily make the argument that everything under 750 points, see the table above, should not be included as it includes semi-final appearances and 500 point matches.

This decision to include such events is very beneficial to certain classes of player and not others and is greatness defined as achievement really about losing semis or winning 500 events?

Yes, why would he include SF results when those do not include playing matches akin to playing a Masters 1000, oh wait.
This ranking of yours make absolutely no sense. Why do you even include semifinal results? Why is Lendl ranked 2 ahead of Borg and Sampras?? Nevertheless, please continue to make us laugh. :lol:
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
#43
Great efforts. But having Lendl head and shoulders above Sampras and Borg will surely raise some eyebrows.
I've also been working on an index for tennis greatness.
Larry's Tennis Greatness Index (July 13, 2015, aka. Monday after Novak's 9th GS.)
1. Federer 461 (out of 500 pts)
2. Sampras 392
3. Nadal 360
4. Lendl 355
5. Connors 349
6. Borg 310
7. Djokovic 289
8. McEnroe 285
9. Agassi 262
10. Becker 207
11. Edberg 198
12. Wilander 182
IMHO, the most important and telling criteria for greatness include: GS titles, weeks at #1, winning percentage against top 10 players, and total non-GS titles. The top 12 GS winners in the open era are ranked in each category. For each category, each player receives points calculated as a percentage of the maximum achievement in that category.
__________________________________________
GS titles (The points are doubled for the GS titles category since it reflects the most prestigious achievement. Players winning Career GS get 1 bonus GS count.):
1. Federer 17+1=18 (200 pts)
2. Nadal 14+1=15 (167)

2. Samprasl 14 (156)
4. Borg 11 (122)
5. Novak 9 (100)
6. Agassi 8+1=9 (100)
6. Connors/Lendl8 (89)
9. McEnroe/Wilander 7 (78)
11. Edberg/Becker 6 (67)
__________________________________________
Weeks at #1:
1. Federer 302 (100 pts)

2. Sampras 286 (95)
3. Lendl 270 (89)
4. Connors 268 (89)
5. McEnroe 170 (56)
6. Novak 155 (51)
7. Nadal 141 (47)

8. Borg 109 (36)
9. Agassi 101 (33)
10. Edberg 72 (24)
11. Wilander 20 (7)
12. Becker 12 (4)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players)
__________________________________________
Winning percentage against Top 10 opponents:
1. Borg 70.00% (100 pts)
2. Nadal 66.5% (95)
3. Djokovic 65.32% (93)
4. Federer 65.17% (93)

5. Becker 65.05% (93)
6. Lendl 64.32% (92)
7. Sampras 63.59% (91)
8. McEnroe 57.24% (82)
9. Agassi 54.77% (78)
10. Connors/Edberg/Wilander below 52.74% (Murray's number), estimated at 50% (71)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records)
__________________________________________
Total non-GS titles:

1. Connors 109-8=101 (100 pts)*
2. Lendl 94-8=86 (85)
3. McEnroe 77-7=70 (69)
4. Federer 86-17=69 (68)
5. Borg 64-11=53 (52)
6. Agassi 60-8=52 (51)
6. Nadal 66-14=52 (51)
8. Sampras 64-14 = 50 (50)
9. Djokovic 54-9=45 (45)
10. Becker 49-6=43 (43)
11. Edberg 42-6=36 (36)
12. Wilander 33-7=26 (26)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records)
*According to the wiki page, Connors' total ATP singles titles dropped from 109 to 105. Not sure why. Here I kept using the 109 number.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
#44
Your love of the sport really shines through timnz, especially when one sees all the time and effort you've made to compile such a chart so kudos to you for that. In a way I'm disappointed with you though - just when I thought Novak was edging that bit closer to Connors and Lendl, it now appears he still has some way to go! ;)
Federer also lost a huge lead but now he's not that much ahead of Lendl.
 
#47
This ranking of yours make absolutely no sense. Why do you even include semifinal results? Why is Lendl ranked 2 ahead of Borg and Sampras?? Nevertheless, please continue to make us laugh. :lol:
The reason Lendl is ahead of Borg and Sampras is in the rankings. You can see it in the figures. He got more points. It is simple as that. Borg suffered because he missed out on his late 20s and early 30's. Sampras suffered because, though his Slam victories are first rate, his achievements at levels lower that that aren't compatible with the other greats.

Why semi-final results...as I said I decided to include 500 level events. If I am going to do that then I need to include everything where a player can earn more than 500. You earn 720 points for making the semi-final of a slam.

Regardless of your laughing. What actually is wrong? I simply have objectively listed everywhere, in current terms a player earned 500 points or more
 
Last edited:
#48
so winning 8 masters is just as good as winning a Career Grand Slam o_O


#AngieB doesn't approve!!
What is 8 masters 1000 worth? Is it worth anything? Remember very few players win one. Wawrinka and Berdych have 1 each - that's all. So if it worth something, what is it worth? Whatever figure you give it, it is worth a percentage of a slam. That means some multiple of Masters 1000 is worth a slam (or 4 slams or whatever). So what are they worth? Now there is no consensus on these boards what the weighting should be, so the best I could do is use the ATP weightings.
 
#49
You could quite easily make the argument that everything under 750 points, see the table above, should not be included as it includes semi-final appearances and 500 point matches.

This decision to include such events is very beneficial to certain classes of player and not others and is greatness defined as achievement really about losing semis or winning 500 events?
I thought about 750 points as a cut-off but that didn't help me with the problem of the fact that the older player won many events that were actually similar in points and prize money to Masters 1000's but aren't recognised as such. They are rated as 500 level events as a whole. So I was torn between the disputable area of myself raising these events to Masters 1000 level or just put down objectively what they are. The whole point of this ranking is not to try and engineer an outcome...but simply to put down what the results actually are. So that is why I chose to include 500s. Having made that decision I had to include everything above 500 points like slam semifinals.
 
#50
Great efforts. But having Lendl head and shoulders above Sampras and Borg will surely raise some eyebrows.
I've also been working on an index for tennis greatness.
Larry's Tennis Greatness Index (July 13, 2015, aka. Monday after Novak's 9th GS.)
1. Federer 461 (out of 500 pts)

2. Sampras 392
3. Nadal 360
4. Lendl 355
5. Connors 349
6. Borg 310
7. Djokovic 289
8. McEnroe 285
9. Agassi 262
10. Becker 207
11. Edberg 198
12. Wilander 182
IMHO, the most important and telling criteria for greatness include: GS titles, weeks at #1, winning percentage against top 10 players, and total non-GS titles. The top 12 GS winners in the open era are ranked in each category. For each category, each player receives points calculated as a percentage of the maximum achievement in that category.
__________________________________________
GS titles (The points are doubled for the GS titles category since it reflects the most prestigious achievement. Players winning Career GS get 1 bonus GS count.):
1. Federer 17+1=18 (200 pts)
2. Nadal 14+1=15 (167)

2. Samprasl 14 (156)
4. Borg 11 (122)
5. Novak 9 (100)
6. Agassi 8+1=9 (100)
6. Connors/Lendl8 (89)
9. McEnroe/Wilander 7 (78)
11. Edberg/Becker 6 (67)
__________________________________________
Weeks at #1:
1. Federer 302 (100 pts)

2. Sampras 286 (95)
3. Lendl 270 (89)
4. Connors 268 (89)
5. McEnroe 170 (56)
6. Novak 155 (51)
7. Nadal 141 (47)

8. Borg 109 (36)
9. Agassi 101 (33)
10. Edberg 72 (24)
11. Wilander 20 (7)
12. Becker 12 (4)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players)
__________________________________________
Winning percentage against Top 10 opponents:
1. Borg 70.00% (100 pts)
2. Nadal 66.5% (95)
3. Djokovic 65.32% (93)
4. Federer 65.17% (93)

5. Becker 65.05% (93)
6. Lendl 64.32% (92)
7. Sampras 63.59% (91)
8. McEnroe 57.24% (82)
9. Agassi 54.77% (78)
10. Connors/Edberg/Wilander below 52.74% (Murray's number), estimated at 50% (71)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records)
__________________________________________
Total non-GS titles:

1. Connors 109-8=101 (100 pts)*
2. Lendl 94-8=86 (85)
3. McEnroe 77-7=70 (69)
4. Federer 86-17=69 (68)
5. Borg 64-11=53 (52)
6. Agassi 60-8=52 (51)
6. Nadal 66-14=52 (51)
8. Sampras 64-14 = 50 (50)
9. Djokovic 54-9=45 (45)
10. Becker 49-6=43 (43)
11. Edberg 42-6=36 (36)
12. Wilander 33-7=26 (26)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records)
*According to the wiki page, Connors' total ATP singles titles dropped from 109 to 105. Not sure why. Here I kept using the 109 number.
I appreciate very much this kind of effort. I do have issues with using the weekly ATP ranking though. Double counting comes to mind..is they got the ranking because of the important events you are already counting. The other reason is that it wasn't reliable until the mid-1980's (guess how many weeks Borg was number 1 before April 1979 - 1 week!, McEnroe number 1 at the end of 1982 with 1/3 of the titles of Lendl (and they weren't big titles either)
 
Top