This ranking systems approach is to compare Open era players tournament achievements at a 500 series title equivalent and higher (point wise).

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. Example is Connors with around fify-nine 250 equivalent level tournament wins vs Federer with less than half of that.

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 1.3) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.8) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50) + (ATPC)

Djokovic = (24 x 2) + (4 x 1.5) + (3 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (12 x 1.2) + (40 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (12 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) + (0.66) = 142.50

Federer = (20 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (22 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (15 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (24 x 0.50) + (0)= 131.0

Nadal = (22 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (36 x 1) + (17 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) + (0) = 119.66

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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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**) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (9 x 0.50) + (0) = 46.88

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) + (0) = 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****) + (0) = 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

*ATP Cup can have a player exceed 500 singles points - I have listed the points individually (ATPC)

* 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)

**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. Example is Connors with around fify-nine 250 equivalent level tournament wins vs Federer with less than half of that.

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 1.3) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.8) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50) + (ATPC)

Djokovic = (24 x 2) + (4 x 1.5) + (3 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (12 x 1.2) + (40 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (12 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) + (0.66) = 142.50

Federer = (20 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (22 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (15 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (24 x 0.50) + (0)= 131.0

Nadal = (22 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (36 x 1) + (17 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) + (0) = 119.66

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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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**) + (0) = 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) + (0) = 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) + (9 x 0.50) + (0) = 46.88

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) + (0) = 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****) + (0) = 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

*ATP Cup can have a player exceed 500 singles points - I have listed the points individually (ATPC)

* 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: