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

[timnz]

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.

Hi Bobby. As I mentioned in the opening thread, I only count WCT Fianls or Grand Slam Cups IF the player didn't play all of the slams that year. The reason is to even the playing field between the older players and the newer. If a player played all 4 slams in 1982 and the WTF and the WCT finals - that means they get 6 elite events to gain points from. Modern players only get 5 elite events to gain points from. However, if I only include it in years they did't play all the slams, then that evens the playing field up. In 1982 Lendl didn't play all the slams that year, in 1985 he did. Hence season end finals for Lendl is

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 WTF + 1 WCT Finals (1982)) 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 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (2 x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 98.88

Regarding his runner-ups in the SERUNL category (Season end finals runner-ups with no losses before the final). He was runner-up at the WCT finals in 1983 - but he played all the slams that year - so doesn't get included. He was runner-up at the WTF in 1980 and 1988 - but he lost in the round robin 1 match both times - so these appear in the SEFRUOL category (Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final). The two that appear there for him in the SERUNL category are the 1983 and 1984 WTF.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[droliver]

I think you have to value 250 level titles as something. It makes no sense to conclude they have a value of zero.

 

[timnz]

I think you have to value 250 level titles as something. It makes no sense to conclude they have a value of zero.

Yes indeed they are worth something - the problem is that to include them sets up an uneven playing field between players of old and current players. It simply was a lot easier to win one back in the 1970s. Let me illustrate. Connors has 32 250s whereas Nadal has 9 250s. The challenge I have is to find some equivalency over a large time....including 500s was a stretch, but 250s is a stretch too far.

 

[Bartelby]

When you collect statistics you are in a sense always engineering an outcome. Five hundred points or seven hundred and fifty points? There's an argument for both, so I'd compute both.

The argument against under 750 is that the events aren't compulsory or de facto unmissable and the fact is that 500 points are mid tier and 250 bottom tier.

As mentioned above, if you are about lifetime achievement maybe 250 should be included. If you want to engineer a list of greats then 750 might be better.

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.

 

[Bartelby]

The top players have stopped playing 250 events unless they get an appearance fee and even 500 events do not always attract the very top.

Djokovic just decided to avoid a juicy 500 grass leadup to Wimbledon, whereas Federer scoops up 500 points in a none too stellar field.

Yes indeed they are worth something - the problem is that to include them sets up an uneven playing field between players of old and current players. It simply was a lot easier to win one back in the 1970s. Let me illustrate. Connors has 32 250s whereas Nadal has 9 250s. The challenge I have is to find some equivalency over a large time....including 500s was a stretch, but 250s is a stretch too far.

 

[timnz]

The top players have stopped playing 250 events unless they get an appearance fee and even 500 events do not always attract the very top.

Djokovic just decided to avoid a juicy 500 grass leadup to Wimbledon, whereas Federer scoops up 500 points in a none too stellar field.

That is an argument for not including 250's. For whatever the reason players of old had a whole lot more of them than current players (32 for Connors, 9 for Nadal). Hence to include them is not working off the principle of trying to get to a level playing field.

 

[eldanger25]

Hey timnz, glad to see you moved your list from 1000 to a 500 point threshold - I recall some good dialogue b/w us on that issue in your prior thread.

As usual, great, thought-provoking effort - more thoughts to come.

 

[Smasher08]

The top players have stopped playing 250 events

Lol precisely.

http://www.**************.org/Editor/Img/Rafael-Nadal-img28393_668.jpg

 

[timnz]

I wonder how long it will take Nadal and Djokovic to get to Connors points level?:

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SERUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

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 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) = 83.01

Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (10 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 76.1

 

[DMP]

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?

Fair enough, but restricted timespans have all sorts of problems to do with choosing which timespans e.g. why 5 years, or 7? Why not 3, or 4, or 6? And when do you start - January, March, June, September, some other month? The statistics as they stand have a sort of purity that overcomes all those issues.

 

[DMP]

I feel the same, but others don't. So we can't get a consenus. Hence, the best we can do is use the ATP weightings (which is what the list does here).

Funnily enough the weightings are not way out of line with how tournaments were viewed in the pre and early Open era. The Italian Open (now Rome Masters) for instance was seen as very important, and not that far behind the French.

 

[timnz]

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?

My view is that you should never give credit to a player for what they potentially could achieve but haven't achieved yet. I have seen people try this many times in this forum. Imagine yourself in early June 1981. Borg had just turned 25 and won his 11th slam at the French open. How many of us would have believed that would be his last slam victory? No, I believe that 5 slams over 10 years is just as impressive as 5 slams over 5 years (the former could be viewed as slightly more impressive given the discussion on longevity..either way it as at least as impressive).

 

[Deleted member 55539]

My view is that you should never give credit to a player for what they potentially could achieve but haven't achieved yet. I have seen people try this many times in this forum. Imagine yourself in early June 1981. Borg had just turned 25 and won his 11th slam at the French open. How many of us would have believed that would be his last slam victory? No, I believe that 5 slams over 10 years is just as impressive as 5 slams over 5 years (the former could be viewed as slightly more impressive given the discussion on longevity..either way it as at least as impressive).

well said... hypotheticality only brings in the trolls from all corners..

 

[mattennis]

That is an argument for not including 250's. For whatever the reason players of old had a whole lot more of them than current players (32 for Connors, 9 for Nadal). Hence to include them is not working off the principle of trying to get to a level playing field.

ATP-250 only exist since 2000 (or even later). A large amount of tournaments Connors and Lendl won that you call "ATP-250" were not ATP-250 because that did not exist back then.

An ATP-250 tournament today is worth just 1/8 of a GS (in ATP points), and many of those dozens of tournaments Connors and Lendl won were worth 1/2 of a GS ( in ATP points ), 1/3 , and some of then 1/4 (depending A LOT on BONUS POINTS).

Today it does not make sense for a very top player to play many 250 because it is worth very few points and in fact he can only count 2 of such tournaments for his rankings.

Prior to 2000 (o prior to the last few years, under previous different ranking systems), a top player could play many more non-GS tournaments because:

a) they could count whatever amount of those tournaments they had good results in (very important for the ranking, unlike today), "the best 14 results" during the 90s and ALL your results during the 80s and 70s (but dividing by nº of tournaments played).

b) Back in time (in the 90s, 80s, and more so during the 70s) there was NOT a huge different in points between a GS and many many many other tournaments you NOW are calling "ATP-250-like".

For Connors, Lendl, Vilas, McEnroe, Borg.....to win just 2 or 3 or 4 of those "other tournaments" (you call "ATP-250") could be worth in points MORE than to win 1 GS tournament (depending on Bonus points and the amount of early rounds losses you also had, because that system counted an average, not total sum).

People still don't get why Connors was nº1 during many periods of time in the 70s, where he was not winning GS tournaments (he was winning a lot of OTHER tournaments that, 2 or 3 of them were worth MORE in points than 1 GS tournament, of the fact that making 3 GS finals back then was worth much more in points than 2 GS titles, unlike today), and he was constantly good (no matter how many big tournaments one won back then, if they also had many early round losses, the average would not be THAT HIGH, that is why Vilas never was nº1).

In short: during Connors time, those "other tournaments" were infinitely more important (for a top player ranking) than todays "ATP-250" for a top player today.

So trying to compare those tournaments to an ATP-250 tournament of today is.....one more senseless thing.

 

[timnz]

ATP-250 only exist since 2000 (or even later). A large amount of tournaments Connors and Lendl won that you call "ATP-250" were not ATP-250 because that did not exist back then.

An ATP-250 tournament today is worth just 1/8 of a GS (in ATP points), and many of those dozens of tournaments Connors and Lendl won were worth 1/2 of a GS ( in ATP points ), 1/3 , and some of then 1/4 (depending A LOT on BONUS POINTS).

Today it does not make sense for a very top player to play many 250 because it is worth very few points and in fact he can only count 2 of such tournaments for his rankings.

Prior to 2000 (o prior to the last few years, under previous different ranking systems), a top player could play many more non-GS tournaments because:

a) they could count whatever amount of those tournaments they had good results in (very important for the ranking, unlike today), "the best 14 results" during the 90s and ALL your results during the 80s and 70s (but dividing by nº of tournaments played).

b) Back in time (in the 90s, 80s, and more so during the 70s) there was NOT a huge different in points between a GS and many many many other tournaments you NOW are calling "ATP-250-like".

For Connors, Lendl, Vilas, McEnroe, Borg.....to win just 2 or 3 or 4 of those "other tournaments" (you call "ATP-250") could be worth in points MORE than to win 1 GS tournament (depending on Bonus points and the amount of early rounds losses you also had, because that system counted an average, not total sum).

People still don't get why Connors was nº1 during many periods of time in the 70s, where he was not winning GS tournaments (he was winning a lot of OTHER tournaments that, 2 or 3 of them were worth MORE in points than 1 GS tournament, of the fact that making 3 GS finals back then was worth much more in points than 2 GS titles, unlike today), and he was constantly good (no matter how many big tournaments one won back then, if they also had many early round losses, the average would not be THAT HIGH, that is why Vilas never was nº1).

In short: during Connors time, those "other tournaments" were infinitely more important (for a top player ranking) than todays "ATP-250" for a top player today.

So trying to compare those tournaments to an ATP-250 tournament of today is.....one more senseless thing.

Thanks for your comments mattennis. Always insightful.

My thoughts are as follows:

What you are saying is that in different eras different weightings of tournaments compared to today were in place. You are exactly right. However, to devise a ranking system comparing all open era greats, factoring in a constantly changing weighting system, though possible to devise, would be highly complex to do. I am not sure I have the resources to do this. It would be very valuable to see, so I would definitely encourage anyone who feels up to the task.

Regarding then, the value of this system.....though you say that tournaments were weighted differently, it is also true to say that there is a very definite hierachy of achievement for all players. Lets look at Connors. I think that everybody would say that his slams (perhaps excepting his Australian Open victory in 1974) should rate first, and then there is his Masters victory in 1977 - that definitely should be ranked above winning Tel Aviv in 1989. WCT Finals? ..Well perhaps they should be ranked alongside his Philadelphia victories....one could debate that...but there were prestigious, none the less. And then within the next rank of tennis touranments below. Yes, there are tournaments like Philadelphia that should be ranked like Masters 1000's today like Las Vegas in 1976, these tournaments are obviously more important than Jacksonville in 1972. This is all to say, there is a hierarchy of achievement for every player. Hence, if I drop off out of Connors ranking all of the tournaments that wouldn't be regarded as significant (like Jacksonville and Tel Aviv) then we don't even have to talk about their relative value. They weren't viewed as valuable as Super 9, Slams or Season end finals - and that is all we need to know. And we drop off every players low level tournaments across the board - so we are only looking at their more prestigious titles. This isn't perfect. Some of the tournaments I have rated as 500's (I can think of 4 in Sampras' case, 2 in Agassi's case) should actually be rated as equivalents to Masters 1000. But that is to get into a debate. I am at least including them now as '500's'.

So in summary, I am chopping off all of the lower prestige tournaments off all players. (Jacksonville was never a great point scorer for Connors regardless of when it occurred). Like it for not people compare across time periods. Hence, how many slams did he get vs a more modern player. Yes, that is fraught with difficulty ......(and I have tried to compensate by counting WCT finals & Grand Slam Cups where players didn't compete in all the slams)......but it is a solid attempt, I believe, in getting some comparison going.

I value your insights. It keeps me on my toes!

 

[DMP]

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.

I think you are right to do so. I do think the players have a better idea of how difficult it is to win an event, irrespective of the 'prestige'of the event. So the WTF does not only involve winning when tired against other tired players, it also involves playing well enough over a whole season to get there. And can a Major really be more than twice as hard as another 124 player field?

Prestige is a whole different issue, but should people interested enough in tennis to post on here be as swayed as the general public who, in general, have no great interest in the detail of tennis, its history, etc? I think we should be able to look past all the hype (such as the Sampras chase for 12 slams).

 

[timnz]

Nadal moving up

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 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

 

[timnz]

Novak moving up

• 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 750 points
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

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 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

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 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

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 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (11 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 76.7

 

[timnz]

Federer and Djokovic move up this week:


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 0.75) + (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) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 107.72

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 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

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 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 77.3

So Djokovic is around the equivalent of 3 slams behind Rafa at the moment.

 

[timnz]

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 *) (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 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) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (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) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 107.72

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 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

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 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 77.3

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 0.75) + (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 0.75) + (5 x 0.72) + ((4 - 1) x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 69.0

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 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 0.75) + (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 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 61.77

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 57.36

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 0.75) + (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 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) = 37.96

**** 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.

I wonder where you think these players will end up. There is only 3 active players on this list of 12 - Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

I see Djokovic pulling in Nadal and Connors....not sure him going above them though.

 

[TMF]

So Djokovic is around the equivalent of 3 slams behind Rafa at the moment.

I wouldn't be surprise if Nole someday moves ahead of Nadal.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

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.

So your system values winning Atlanta equal to Indian Wells?

 

[tennis_pro]

I wouldn't be surprise if Nole someday moves ahead of Nadal.

I'd be surprised if he didn't.

 

[timnz]

So your system values winning Atlanta equal to Indian Wells?

My system doesn't - what made you think it does? Or are you referring to this 'Larry' system?

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

My system doesn't - what made you think it does? Or are you referring to this 'Larry' system?

I was quoting usc's system which accounts for "total non slam titles" irrespective of what level of title they were.
I am in 99% support of your system. I even suggested this 500 point inclusion to provide value to slam SF and also credit old timers due to the unstable era of the 70s/80s way back in the summer of 2014 along with eldanger, but you weren't amenable at that time

Obviously my gripe is that slams are weighed too little.
You keep saying that we can't get an agreement on the weight (which is true), but are there people on here who actually think 2 slam RU are worth more than a slam win? Because if not you can at least make that reflection.

 

[timnz]

I was quoting usc's system which accounts for "total non slam titles" irrespective of what level of title they were.
I am in 99% support of your system. I even suggested this 500 point inclusion to provide value to slam SF and also credit old timers due to the unstable era of the 70s/80s way back in the summer of 2014 along with eldanger, but you weren't amenable at that time

Obviously my gripe is that slams are weighed too little.
You keep saying that we can't get an agreement on the weight (which is true), but are there people on here who actually think 2 slam RU are worth more than a slam win? Because if not you can at least make that reflection.

Thanks for the clarification SpicyCurry And thanks for your earlier discussion with me. Definitely helped my thinking.

Re. Slam weighting. I feel the same. But that is what the ATP weights it as. Without agreement across the board (believe me - I created threads on this and could get no agreement), I have to go with what the ATP says.

Re. Runner-ups. Well the ATP thinks this (1200 points vs 2000 points for a Slam). If a two players had all their top achievements in one year ie for everything above 500 points - then the ATP ranking would exactly match my system (omitting things less than 500 of course). So if that is the case, what is the difference between 1 year achieving something vs achieving it over multiple years - they are still the same achievements.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Thanks for the clarification SpicyCurry And thanks for your earlier discussion with me. Definitely helped my thinking.

Re. Slam weighting. I feel the same. But that is what the ATP weights it as. Without agreement across the board (believe me - I created threads on this and could get no agreement), I have to go with what the ATP says.

Re. Runner-ups. Well the ATP thinks this (1200 points vs 2000 points for a Slam). If a two players had all their top achievements in one year ie for everything above 500 points - then the ATP ranking would exactly match my system (omitting things less than 500 of course). So if that is the case, what is the difference between 1 year achieving something vs achieving it over multiple years - they are still the same achievements.

No problem. refreshing to see someone on here take into account contrasting points from an intelligent discussion and actually implement them

I wasn't referring necessarily to achievements in varied years. I was simply stating that this current system values 2 slam RU (2400 points) as worth substantially more than 1 slam win (2000 points). I was wondering who on here believes that to be an accurate reflection of achievement. I get there is arguments on should a slam be 2000 or 2500 or 3000 etc...but I don't think anyone (fans, media, players themselves, or anyone on this forum) would say with a straight face F + F > W + QF.

 

[norbac]

This is useless. @SoBad can you provide the GOAT chart please?

 

[timnz]

How Murray compares to Wilander

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 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

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 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) = 37.96
**** 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.

Murray = (2 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (4 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (5 x 0.50) = 34.93

 

[timnz]

This is useless. @SoBad can you provide the GOAT chart please?

Why do you think it is useless? Do you not agree that I do what I set out to do in the title ? 'Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting'. What feedback have you?

 

[timnz]

No problem. refreshing to see someone on here take into account contrasting points from an intelligent discussion and actually implement them

I wasn't referring necessarily to achievements in varied years. I was simply stating that this current system values 2 slam RU (2400 points) as worth substantially more than 1 slam win (2000 points). I was wondering who on here believes that to be an accurate reflection of achievement. I get there is arguments on should a slam be 2000 or 2500 or 3000 etc...but I don't think anyone (fans, media, players themselves, or anyone on this forum) would say with a straight face F + F > W + QF.

But they are happy to go along with an ATP ranking system that says that F + F > W + QF in a particular year.

On the whole I agree with you. I remember 5 or 6 years ago when I started doing this - really reflecting on what weighting to use. Then I realised that no-matter what I did, people would discount it as, just my opinion. That is when I decided to use the ATP system - even though I personally disagree with their weightings - it is the only system we have.

 

[SoBad]

This is useless. @SoBad can you provide the GOAT chart please?

Ooohh, I’ve never been tagged before~!~

Yeah, let me look for some charts. Some of them probably need updating for that whole Wawrinka/Djokovic/Murray lot that’s been making slam noise lately.

 

[SoBad]

Yeah, here's a good visual:

 

[SoBad]

Obviously, Nadal has surpassed Sampras at this point, not to mention Rafter/Kuerten.

 

[SoBad]

Okay, found a more recent one with the Rafter-Kuerten moved down:

 

[SoBad]

And here’s a couple of indirectly related exhibits I happened to find while digging in the archives:

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

But they are happy to go along with an ATP ranking system that says that F + F > W + QF in a particular year.

On the whole I agree with you. I remember 5 or 6 years ago when I started doing this - really reflecting on what weighting to use. Then I realised that no-matter what I did, people would discount it as, just my opinion. That is when I decided to use the ATP system - even though I personally disagree with their weightings - it is the only system we have.

The ATP system does a good job of assigning relative weights of most tournament placings to each other (1000 vs 500 vs 250 vs wtf vs olympics titles/finals/SF/QF etc vs slam QF/ slam SF/slam F), but the system does not accurately award a proper point total for its pinnacle achievements (slam title win) because doing so would allow someone to bank a year's worth of a ranking that is highly inflated towards his capability and mess up the integrity of draws for the whole year based on that 1 title.

Case in point is Cilic and what he has done since winning USO. If slam wins awarded 3000 points Cilic would have been even higher (probably even top 4) for a long time and created some really skewed draws throughout the masters/slams this year. That balance is more important to the ATP for the purposes of its tour rather than properly awarding the achievement value of a slam.

Its kind of like in school how whether you get an 85 or a 100 you get an "A" and you get a 4.0 credit for the class. If the 100s true value was credited to your GPA, you could slack in other classes and still potentially maintain a 4.0 with an avg of 85, but instead you need 85s in all.

 

[timnz]

Djokovic - slam numbers in the double digits. Not a lot of people have done that in the Open era:


Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 108.92

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 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

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 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 79.3

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic - slam numbers in the double digits. Not a lot of people have done that in the Open era:


Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 108.92

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 0.75) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

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 0.75) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 79.3

Nole's getting so close to Nadal now!

 

[timnz]

Do you think that Djokovic will overtake Nadal in this scale. If so, when?

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 0.75) + (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) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 108.92

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 79.3

• 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 750 points
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

 

[xFedal]

Add 5 WTF To Nole record and 25/26 Masters and he be breathing on Rafas neck....

 

[timnz]

Inching ahead

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 79.8

 

[timnz]

When/if do you think Djokovic could pass Nadal in these rankings?

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

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 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (25 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 80.8

• 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 750 points
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

 

[xFedal]

When/if do you think Djokovic could pass Nadal in these rankings?

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

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 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (25 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 80.8

• 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 750 points
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

Novak has 4 WTF TITLES. Not 3! First you need to include 4 WTF titles Djokovic has, Federer forfeited not Novaks fault.

 

[helterskelter]

A few questions about your scale:

1) Do you give no points at all to a Slam quarter-finalist? If not, why not? You ought to distinguish every single round and award some points - sure, not many - for every match win. Even making a Slam second round merits some points.
2) Why don't you count 250s?

Do you think that Djokovic will overtake Nadal in this scale. If so, when?

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 0.75) + (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) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 108.92

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (11 x 0.50) = 79.3

• 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 750 points
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

 

[GabeT]

A few questions about your scale:

1) Do you give no points at all to a Slam quarter-finalist? If not, why not? You ought to distinguish every single round and award some points - sure, not many - for every match win. Even making a Slam second round merits some points.
2) Why don't you count 250s?

I like what timnz is doing here but your questions are good ones. Why stop at finals, or at 500s? But once you start adding tournaments and including more than just reaching a final then you really are just replicating the ATP system. In that case might as well just use that.

 

[timnz]

Novak has 4 WTF TITLES. Not 3! First you need to include 4 WTF titles Djokovic has, Federer forfeited not Novaks fault.

I did include 4. He has 3 WTF's where he was unbeaten and 1 WTF where he lost one match in the round robin. Hence, (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3).

 

[xFedal]

I did include 4. He has 3 WTF's where he was unbeaten and 1 WTF where he lost one match in the round robin. Hence, (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3).

Okay my bad, thanks.

 

[timnz]

A few questions about your scale:

1) Do you give no points at all to a Slam quarter-finalist? If not, why not? You ought to distinguish every single round and award some points - sure, not many - for every match win. Even making a Slam second round merits some points.
2) Why don't you count 250s?

I don't count 250's (or anything below 500's actually) for a very specific reason. I am comparing players over the whole Open era period. It is very clear that it was much easier for the great players to accumulate many 250's in the 70's and 80's than now - hence, to level the playing field I exclude them.

 

[helterskelter]

I don't count 250's (or anything below 500's actually) for a very specific reason. I am comparing players over the whole Open era period. It is very clear that it was much easier for the great players to accumulate many 250's in the 70's and 80's than now - hence, to level the playing field I exclude them.

That makes sense, but I just don't think you can make a very close comparison between the 70s/80s and today whatever you do. It's also clear that comparing Masters 1000s and even Slams isn't comparing like with like. In the 70s and (early) 80s, they clearly took the Masters more seriously than the Australian Open. So, should you reverse points and make the Masters worth a Slam? I don't know.

I just don't think that everything is quantifiable. I know it's a widespread goal in our culture to make everything quantifiable, but I think it's a goal that must remain an unrealized dream.