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

[LawnTennisGod]

Why? Some players don't go or are mentally/physically checked out by then. I'd say (at least in recent years) it's easier to win a WTF than a masters

I get that its at the end of the season and some players are injured or mentally checked out by then, but it is still ‘The ATP Finals’.
Only the year’s top 8 players are allowed to compete. So it has to be worth clearly more than Masters.

I know players can win it despite losing a game in round robin but it is still the only competition against the best and the prestige behind the tournamen is definitely much more than any single masters. There are 9 Masters in a year but only 1 WTF. It’s the finals.
So WTF definitely > Masters

 

[vamos22]

Open era ranking :
22>20=20… simple as that. With slam h2h dominance over main rivals, most title at one slam, 2 Olympic gold medals to back it up

 

[jackson vile]

Maybe we can weight each player with the point weighting system you’re already using?

It helps express how difficult each title was to win. Especially when it comes to the top three or four players, sometimes the player that won the title is going through two or more of those top ranked players in order to even win the title. That’s a lot more impressive than the winner that went through more lower ranked players in order to win a title.

Effectively it helps give each title winning a more appropriate amount of weighting on top of what’s already there from the traditional point system. The great part is that still uses the traditional point system in order to create the weighting for each title won.

Especially when it comes to how you’re using the weighting system which is the accumulated career. As we all know the big four especially have had their ups and downs to the point where their ranking is incorrect as it’s for the previous year and doesn’t consider them avoiding point accumulation in order to save their bodies for the bigger titles while still being incredibly dangerous and capable of winning those titles.

You mean H2H within the people in the list only. this is away from the point of the list, but a useful thing to pursue. How woul you quantify it? Be prepared for some strange anomalies. Like some people thinking that Becker and Edberg are on -at, but actual Becker leads 25-10

 

[timnz]

Open era ranking :
22>20=20… simple as that. With slam h2h dominance over main rivals, most title at one slam, 2 Olympic gold medals to back it up

Slam priority wasn’t as strong pre-1990’s in the open era. If that was the case why did so many miss the Australian open or the French open (like connors did for years) prior to 1983? Players in the 1970s really thought that winning the Wct finals was a really big deal. so do we ignore those totally? Borg said that he treated the WTF as a major. My point is a range of events , not just our current majors need to be factored in if we are looking at all the open era

 

[zvelf]

As for the worth of slams in relation to Masters, it‘s definitely not 2 Masters = 1 Slam. It’s just ATP assigning points that way to give their tournaments some value. But everyone knows 2 or 3 Masters does not equal 1 Slam. In fact you even see the very Top players treat Masters as warm up tournaments in preparation for slams.

So based on what we know, I would say

1) A Slam is worth at least 4 Masters 1000
2) WTF is worth at least 2 Masters 1000.
3) A Slam is worth at least 2 WTFs.

As for slam in relation to Gold at Olympics, the question to ask is if you would trade a Gold Medal for a Slam? Probably, but would you trade 2 Gold Medals for 1 Slams? Unlikely. So it tells us that-

The problem with this is that you are projecting how you value these achievements TODAY. Tennis has changed a lot over the decades in the Open Era. The Olympics didn't use to be that important in tennis. In 1988, half the top 10 men didn't even play it. The WTF in the 70s was seen as more important than the Australian Open by many. Assigning value to these achievements should be more than subjective/personal projection of value. The difficulty of the achievement should also be a factor and outlasting 7 of the top 8 players in the world in the WTF is more difficult than winning the Olympics aside from the Olympics only being held once every 4 years.

 

[jhhachamp]

An interesting debate on whether Djokovic's Wimbledon title this year should actually count for 2 points, since the ATP awarded no points and this is based on ATP awarded points. I agree that it should be counted, but some may argue that to be consistent with the methodology it should not.

He is closing in on Federer and will very likely be ahead eventually, although it may take longer if he keeps missing big tournaments due to vaccine requirements. Federer is going to need to come back and start adding to his total if he hopes to stay at the top of this list.

 

[helterskelter]

An interesting debate on whether Djokovic's Wimbledon title this year should actually count for 2 points, since the ATP awarded no points and this is based on ATP awarded points. I agree that it should be counted, but some may argue that to be consistent with the methodology it should not.

He is closing in on Federer and will very likely be ahead eventually, although it may take longer if he keeps missing big tournaments due to vaccine requirements. Federer is going to need to come back and start adding to his total if he hopes to stay at the top of this list.

Federer's not going to add to his totals. It does indeed look like Djokovic will end up ahead.

 

[timnz]

Federer's not going to add to his totals. It does indeed look like Djokovic will end up ahead.

federer eventually may add some points. But you basic point is correct - it is likely that Djokovic will move ahead and possibly/probably this year.

 

[helterskelter]

federer eventually may add some points. But you basic point is correct - it is likely that Djokovic will move ahead and possibly/probably this year.

Remind me which round players start accumulating points in your system, please. Federer will really struggle to go deep in future but he might be able to win the occasional match or two. If third round of a slam earns you points, maybe he can make a very small addition to his tally, but no more than that. He is basically done.

 

[timnz]

Remind me which round players start accumulating points in your system, please. Federer will really struggle to go deep in future but he might be able to win the occasional match or two. If third round of a slam earns you points, maybe he can make a very small addition to his tally, but no more than that. He is basically done.

The first post in this discussion explains the entire system but in short - any activity where a player earns 500 points or more gets included. So ATP 500 event wins (500) or masters 1000 runnerups(600), slam semis (720) but not slam quarters as that is less than 500 etc etc. again first post in this thread explains everything. That post also explains why the 500 point cuttoff

 

[LawnTennisGod]

Trying to be as objective as possible, the Weightage should be more or less something like this-


5 Points for Grand Slam
3 Points for Olympics Gold
2 Points for WTF
1 Point for Masters 1000
1 Point for Grand Slam Finalist
1 Point for Olympics Silver


Let’s see what result it‘s going to produce:


Djokovic = (20 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (5 * 2) + (38 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 159 Points
R Nadal = (22 * 5) + (1 * 3) + (0 * 2) + (36 * 1) + (8 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 157 Points
Federer = (20 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (6 * 2) + (28 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (1 * 1) = 152 Points


Hmmm, Big 3 have to rank really close to each other…….so I am content with the outcome.

Updated.

Djokovic = (21 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (5 * 2) + (38 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 164 Points
R Nadal = (22 * 5) + (1 * 3) + (0 * 2) + (36 * 1) + (8 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 157 Points
Federer = (20 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (6 * 2) + (28 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (1 * 1) = 152 Points

 

[helterskelter]

The first post in this discussion explains the entire system but in short - any activity where a player earns 500 points or more gets included. So ATP 500 event wins (500) or masters 1000 runnerups(600), slam semis (720) but not slam quarters as that is less than 500 etc etc. again first post in this thread explains everything. That post also explains why the 500 point cuttoff

I very much doubt Federer will get any points in future, then.

 

[timnz]

Updated.

Djokovic = (21 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (5 * 2) + (38 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 164 Points
R Nadal = (22 * 5) + (1 * 3) + (0 * 2) + (36 * 1) + (8 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 157 Points
Federer = (20 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (6 * 2) + (28 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (1 * 1) = 152 Points

With full respect, It’s interesting to me that people are happy to accept the atp weighting eg slam = 2 x masters 1000, if it is within the last 52 weeks, but if is a career statistic people can want to change the weightings. But each to their own - absolutely you are entitled to your own opinion.

but opinion is the problem, because there a so many opinions. I felt because of this the best I could do was to use the atp weightings.

wtf should always be higher than olympics. You have to win 4 matches against top 8 opposition whereas you can win against only one top 8 to win the olympics like Nadal did in 2008

 

[timnz]

I very much doubt Federer will get any points in future, then.

Might win a 500 or reach a slam semi - which get counted

 

[helterskelter]

Might win a 500 or slam semi - which get counted

Don't see him being anywhere near that competitive, but we'll see. I think round of 16 in a slam would be a very impressive achievement for him.

 

[jhhachamp]

Might win a 500 or reach a slam semi - which get counted

It doesn't seem too likely right now, but if he can get healthy and play for a fair amount of time, he may get a nice draw and add some points. An ATP 500 is definitely possible, depending on the draw. A slam semi would probably require a good draw and Federer playing well/getting healthy.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Guess you need to update djokovic’s 500 total.

 

[Ivan69]

An interesting debate on whether Djokovic's Wimbledon title this year should actually count for 2 points, since the ATP awarded no points and this is based on ATP awarded points. I agree that it should be counted, but some may argue that to be consistent with the methodology it should not.

He is closing in on Federer and will very likely be ahead eventually, although it may take longer if he keeps missing big tournaments due to vaccine requirements. Federer is going to need to come back and start adding to his total if he hopes to stay at the top of this list.

Nobody can argue about that. The methodology is not violated. It is based on the ATP general pointing system and not on political decisions. Wimbledon is/will be a slam and it generates points no matter if ATP gives them or not. And this is valid for every tournament now and in the past.

 

[thrust]

Trying to be as objective as possible, the Weightage should be more or less something like this-


5 Points for Grand Slam
3 Points for Olympics Gold
2 Points for WTF
1 Point for Masters 1000
1 Point for Grand Slam Finalist
1 Point for Olympics Silver


Let’s see what result it‘s going to produce:


Djokovic = (20 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (5 * 2) + (38 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 159 Points
R Nadal = (22 * 5) + (1 * 3) + (0 * 2) + (36 * 1) + (8 * 1) + (0 * 1) = 157 Points
Federer = (20 * 5) + (0 * 3) + (6 * 2) + (28 * 1) + (11 * 1) + (1 * 1) = 152 Points


Hmmm, Big 3 have to rank really close to each other…….so I am content with the outcome.

3 points for WTF
2 points for Masters 1000
1 point for OG
]

 

[Tarkovsky]

Djokovic overtakes Federer today!

Djokovic 131.28

Federer 131.0

Nadal 119.66

 

[timnz]

For the first time ever, since I started doing these rankings (an earlier thread started this in 2012), Federer is no longer on the top of the board. Djokovic back in 2012 was 10th in the list. For the first time, he is now on top of the list of points accumulated at 500 level and better (see the first post in this thread for the full list):

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) + (ATPC)

Djokovic = (21 x 2) + (4 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (38 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) + (0.66) = 131.28

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

•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)

 

[Nadal_Django]

Djokovic is now officially on the top of the Goat list. Amazing.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

In virtually everyone of these tabulations that include more than slam victories, Djokovic is No 1. Most have Federer No. 2 and Nadal 3.

 

[timnz]

In virtually everyone of these tabulations that include more than slam victories, Djokovic is No 1. Most have Federer No. 2 and Nadal 3.

And now so do I

 

[jhhachamp]

Djokovic has a chance to reach 150 and really separate himself with a couple more good years. Congrats to him.

 

[timnz]

3 points for WTF
2 points for Masters 1000
1 point for OG
]

And there’s the issue. No one can come to Agreement on weighting . That is why I just use the atp weightings.

 

[TMF]

And there’s the issue. No one can come to Agreement on weighting . That is why I just use the atp weightings.

I think you should include the points for the ATP250 too. Your line of reasoning is that this tournament level is easy so it isn't fair to count them. But the fact it's still part of the ATP, and the players has to compete and win to earn the points. Especially the players in the past, they value these small tournaments so they deserve the points they earned. And it's not that it's a huge amount of points, it's only 250 vs 2000 for the slams. I think you should count everything that's part of the ATP and ITF to complete the system weighing. Halle is now an ATP500. Federer won this tournament 10 times when it was ATP250, but leave this out short change him and other players who has won these tournaments. Do you think Halle is a harder to win now because it's been upgraded? I don' think so. Small tournament doesn't always equate to easier draw than a bigger tournaments. For example, Dubai is a ATP500 but some of the draws are tougher than some of the ATP1000 tournaments, and Qatar is sometime harder to win than some ATP500.

 

[itrium84]

I think you should include the points for the ATP250 too. Your line of reasoning is that this tournament level is easy so it isn't fair to count them. But the fact it's still part of the ATP, and the players has to compete and win to earn the points. Especially the players in the past, they value these small tournaments so they deserve the points they earned. And it's not that it's a huge amount of points, it's only 250 vs 2000 for the slams. I think you should count everything that's part of the ATP and ITF to complete the system weighing. Halle is now an ATP500. Federer won this tournament 10 times when it was ATP250, but leave this out short change him and other players who has won these tournaments. Do you think Halle is a harder to win now because it's been upgraded? I don' think so. Small tournament doesn't always equate to easier draw than a bigger tournaments. For example, Dubai is a ATP500 but some of the draws are tougher than some of the ATP1000 tournaments, and Qatar is sometime harder to win than some ATP500.

Yeah, sometimes it does. But it generally doesn't.
Sometimes Tsitsipas wins over Djokovic, but he generally doesn't - we can't say he is the same ATG level as big3, right?

 

[Ogi44]

Yeah, sometimes it does. But it generally doesn't.
Sometimes Tsitsipas wins over Djokovic, but he generally doesn't - we can't say he is the same ATG level as big3, right?

He is just trying to keep Federer on top of probably last relevant GOAT list on this on any other forum for few more months. Dont blame him for that. His hardcore fans like TMF will never accept the fact that he simply will not be remembered as the most accomplished tennis player in history and thats perfectly fine.

 

[timnz]

He is just trying to keep Federer on top of probably last relevant GOAT list on this on any other forum for few more months. Dont blame him for that. His hardcore fans like TMF will never accept the fact that he simply will not be remembered as the most accomplished tennis player in history and thats perfectly fine.

Never manipulated the scores - the points are the points. Federer isn’t on top Djokovic is. As mentioned in the first post - 250s possibly were a lot easier to win in the past evidenced by connors 250 numbers vs todays greats

 

[TMF]

Yeah, sometimes it does. But it generally doesn't.
Sometimes Tsitsipas wins over Djokovic, but he generally doesn't - we can't say he is the same ATG level as big3, right?

Whether it's easier to win or not, players shouldn't be penalized for not receiving any point for their effort. You got Djkodal playing all 4 slams and all MS1000 as if their lives depend on it, and earned hefty points. Yet there are players of the past have committed to play small tournaments, accruing a measly 250 points max but yet they deserve NOTHING. You call that being fair?? I don't think so. To neglect these tournaments because they are the smallest ATP tournaments is unreasonable, and the fact that the points worth only 1/4 of the MS1000 to begin with. I mean they have to win 4-5 matches, it wasn't handed to them on a silver plater just to get 250 points.

I am not forcing @timnz to add these small tournaments to the system since it's his thread, it's up to him. I'm just suggesting that it should be included to make it complete and fair to all open era players.

 

[DIMI_D]

My ranking system - open era*
Slams =100% 1 slam = 1
Slam RUP = 20% of a slam 5 RUP = 1 slam
Tour finals = 33% of 1 slam 3 tour finals =1 slam
Olympics = 33% of a slam 3 Golds = 1 slam
Masters = 20% of 1 slam 5 masters = 1 slam
ATP 500 = 4% of 1 slam 25 ATP 500 = 1 slam
ATP 250 = 2% of 1 slam 50 ATP 250 = 1 slam
100 weeks at number 1 = 1 slam or 1% per week
YE No1 = 33% of a slam 3 YENO1 = 1 slam

 

[DIMI_D]

My ranking system -
Tour finals = 20% of a slam 5 tour finals =1 slam
Masters = 10% of a slam 10 masters = 1 slam
ATP 500 = 4% of a slam 25 ATP 500 = 1 slam
ATP 250 = 2% of slam 50 ATP 250 = 1 slam
Olympics = 50% of a slam 2 Golds = 1 slam
100 weeks at number 1 = 1 slam or 1% per week
YE No1 = 50% of a slam 2 YENO1 = 1 slam

Now someone can do a nice spreadsheet today with ranking table…

You can even expand on this with Olympic silver and bronze, and slam RUP etc based on that methodology and it’s objective and transparent

 

[timnz]

I think you should include the points for the ATP250 too. Your line of reasoning is that this tournament level is easy so it isn't fair to count them. But the fact it's still part of the ATP, and the players has to compete and win to earn the points. Especially the players in the past, they value these small tournaments so they deserve the points they earned. And it's not that it's a huge amount of points, it's only 250 vs 2000 for the slams. I think you should count everything that's part of the ATP and ITF to complete the system weighing. Halle is now an ATP500. Federer won this tournament 10 times when it was ATP250, but leave this out short change him and other players who has won these tournaments. Do you think Halle is a harder to win now because it's been upgraded? I don' think so. Small tournament doesn't always equate to easier draw than a bigger tournaments. For example, Dubai is a ATP500 but some of the draws are tougher than some of the ATP1000 tournaments, and Qatar is sometime harder to win than some ATP500.

Trick is

Whether it's easier to win or not, players shouldn't be penalized for not receiving any point for their effort. You got Djkodal playing all 4 slams and all MS1000 as if their lives depend on it, and earned hefty points. Yet there are players of the past have committed to play small tournaments, accruing a measly 250 points max but yet they deserve NOTHING. You call that being fair?? I don't think so. To neglect these tournaments because they are the smallest ATP tournaments is unreasonable, and the fact that the points worth only 1/4 of the MS1000 to begin with. I mean they have to win 4-5 matches, it wasn't handed to them on a silver plater just to get 250 points.

I am not forcing @timnz to add these small tournaments to the system since it's his thread, it's up to him. I'm just suggesting that it should be included to make it complete and fair to all open era players.

you are possibly right but that would up my workload considerably. It’s not just 250 tournament wins - it also would be because these are 250 points or more) - slam quarter finals (360 points), 500 series runner-ups (300 points) , masters 1000 sf (360 points) , wtf winning 2 rounds (400 points). And also for older player hard to find equivalents to 250 level (though not impossible) . So for that amount of work I don’t think you would see a sizeable change of outcome

 

[itrium84]

Whether it's easier to win or not, players shouldn't be penalized for not receiving any point for their effort. You got Djkodal playing all 4 slams and all MS1000 as if their lives depend on it, and earned hefty points. Yet there are players of the past have committed to play small tournaments, accruing a measly 250 points max but yet they deserve NOTHING. You call that being fair?? I don't think so. To neglect these tournaments because they are the smallest ATP tournaments is unreasonable, and the fact that the points worth only 1/4 of the MS1000 to begin with. I mean they have to win 4-5 matches, it wasn't handed to them on a silver plater just to get 250 points.

I am not forcing @timnz to add these small tournaments to the system since it's his thread, it's up to him. I'm just suggesting that it should be included to make it complete and fair to all open era players.

There's no reason to include them. If you do it, there's no point in counting points and doing the math - you just look at the total career titles number and that's it.
This thread is about biggest titles which matter most, and the line between those and smaller less important ones - that line has to be drawn somewhere. Drawing it below 250 makes no sense, because there's nothing below.
In terms of greatness, 10x 250s are worth less than one m1000, and 100x 250 are worth less than one GS title.

 

[DIMI_D]

I think my system is superior to anything on this thread. It comes down to simply how you weight these titles in comparison to the biggest achievement in the sport which is slams..
how many of these tournaments = 1 slam, it’s not rocket science ppl
Ps my brother is arguing with me that I have undervalued masters and he thinks that weighting is wrong - he thinks. Pro would trade 1 slam for 5 masters…

 

[DIMI_D]

Pretty obvious that Lendl, connors McEnroe can’t be above Sampras and Borg LOL which very much makes this whole list ridiculously flawed - logically it means the weighting is wrong by ATP.. hence the ranking list is meaningless anyone with even a quarter of brain would not acknowledge this list as accurate…

 

[Bartelby]

You're forgetting about career longevity in all this. Connors is not a better player than Borg, but he played and won more. It's a list based on "career performance".

Pretty obvious that Lendl, connors McEnroe can’t be above Sampras and Borg LOL which very much makes this whole list ridiculously flawed - logically it means the weighting is wrong by ATP.. hence the ranking list is meaningless anyone with even a quarter of brain would not acknowledge this list as accurate…

 

[timnz]

Pretty obvious that Lendl, connors McEnroe can’t be above Sampras and Borg LOL which very much makes this whole list ridiculously flawed - logically it means the weighting is wrong by ATP.. hence the ranking list is meaningless anyone with even a quarter of brain would not acknowledge this list as accurate…

Why not? In the first post in this thread I said it wasn’t a greatness index, but rather a totalling of achievements at 500 points or above. The points are the points.

 

[jhhachamp]

I think you should include the points for the ATP250 too. Your line of reasoning is that this tournament level is easy so it isn't fair to count them. But the fact it's still part of the ATP, and the players has to compete and win to earn the points. Especially the players in the past, they value these small tournaments so they deserve the points they earned. And it's not that it's a huge amount of points, it's only 250 vs 2000 for the slams. I think you should count everything that's part of the ATP and ITF to complete the system weighing. Halle is now an ATP500. Federer won this tournament 10 times when it was ATP250, but leave this out short change him and other players who has won these tournaments. Do you think Halle is a harder to win now because it's been upgraded? I don' think so. Small tournament doesn't always equate to easier draw than a bigger tournaments. For example, Dubai is a ATP500 but some of the draws are tougher than some of the ATP1000 tournaments, and Qatar is sometime harder to win than some ATP500.

I disagree that we need to include such low level points in the discussion of all time greats. You have to draw the cutoff somewhere and I agree with where timnz has drawn it.

Halle was more competitive than a typical 250 tournament when Federer won it, but it would be unfair to give him extra points for this. That would make the analysis more biased and therefore less meaningful. It is good the way it is. Federer is my favorite player, but I wouldn't support increasing his 250s to 500 level to put him back in front of Djokovic. Federer was amazing and Djokovic is simply a level better than he was. Nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[jhhachamp]

*deleted

 

[DIMI_D]

Why not? In the first post in this thread I said it wasn’t a greatness index, but rather a totalling of achievements at 500 points or above. The points are the points.

And again it comes to the weighting which is totally out of whack!

 

[DIMI_D]

You're forgetting about career longevity in all this. Connors is not a better player than Borg, but he played and won more. It's a list based on "career performance".

Do we need this list to quantify that.. you can look up career achievements and see that in 2 mins..

 

[Bartelby]

Yes, the list is necessary. It weights different achievements and then gives us a more objective, if not definitive, basis for discussions.

Do we need this list to quantify that.. you can look up career achievements and see that in 2 mins..

 

[timnz]

And again it comes to the weighting which is totally out of whack!

Check the atp weightings - they are identical

 

[DIMI_D]

Check the atp weightings - they are identical

Yes but at the core of it those points are flawed

 

[NatF]

Yes but at the core of it those points are flawed

Few people think the ATP's point system is a fair reflection of true value to ones legacy, the fact is it's a system designed to facilitate seeding and to support the day to day of the tour. This is just a tally of those points, @timnz as far as I know isn't suggesting this is a stand in for a GOAT index or anything of the sort - it's just a point of interest.

Having said that I'd be interested in seeing all points, not just 500 and above though perhaps UTS has that?

 

[timnz]

Few people think the ATP's point system is a fair reflection of true value to ones legacy, the fact is it's a system designed to facilitate seeding and to support the day to day of the tour. This is just a tally of those points, @timnz as far as I know isn't suggesting this is a stand in for a GOAT index or anything of the sort - it's just a point of interest.

Having said that I'd be interested in seeing all points, not just 500 and above though perhaps UTS has that?

thanks yes - not a goat index. However, I do find it interesting that over a 1 year period most are perfectly happy with the atp weightings to determine rankings - who is number 1 etc, but not happy with exactly the same weightings if the period of time is extended.

 

[jhhachamp]

thanks yes - not a goat index. However, I do find it interesting that over a 1 year period most are perfectly happy with the atp weightings to determine rankings - who is number 1 etc, but not happy with exactly the same weightings if the period of time is extended.

I would say most are generally happy with ATP weightings over time as well, your post wouldn’t have lasted long if everyone disagreed with your premise.

 

[Bartelby]

Even if you were right that's irrelevant. It's better to go off official weightings rather than invent your own. If you want to do that then you need to convince the ATP.

Yes but at the core of it those points are flawed