Feel free to go ahead and create a new post with your completely subjective criteria on what the weightings should be. It probably won’t last long because it is impossible to get people to agree on these types of things and therefore your opinions on this matter aren’t really that interesting to other people besides yourself. This post does something different and more objective and therefore adds significant value to the discussion. There’s a reason it’s been continuously going for many years while others die out quickly.
REVISED: Updated Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Feel free to go ahead and create a new post with your completely subjective criteria on what the weightings should be. It probably won’t last long because it is impossible to get people to agree on these types of things and therefore your opinions on this matter aren’t really that interesting to other people besides yourself. This post does something different and more objective and therefore adds significant value to the discussion. There’s a reason it’s been continuously going for many years while others die out quickly.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
It’s hard to convince the masses of logic right
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
You'd have to weight these three types of events somehow, and if you did so Federer would surpass Nadal in all probability.
Thus confirming the weighted system on offer in this tread.
Thus confirming the weighted system on offer in this tread.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Ive probably commented on this long thread, and as I think of it, accomplishment-wise, the Big 3 have left every other OE player way behind.
This system isn't bad, though I'd do it a bit differently.
Within the Big 3, Djokovic - with almost any reasonably weighted system - is the most accomplished. That will happen when you're only 1 slam behind, have the most 1000s, tied for the most YECs...and that's not even looking at most YE#1s, most weeks at #1 and his NCYGS. Like him or not, if going by accomplishments (in a general way, I see them as equally great), it's very hard to make much of a case, right now, for either Rafa or Roger.
This system isn't bad, though I'd do it a bit differently.
Within the Big 3, Djokovic - with almost any reasonably weighted system - is the most accomplished. That will happen when you're only 1 slam behind, have the most 1000s, tied for the most YECs...and that's not even looking at most YE#1s, most weeks at #1 and his NCYGS. Like him or not, if going by accomplishments (in a general way, I see them as equally great), it's very hard to make much of a case, right now, for either Rafa or Roger.
I started this 10 years ago when Djokovic was 10th on the list and Federer was first. But Djokovic just piled up the achievements year after year. Yes he has the most now.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
I remember when you made it man and where djoko was positionen then.
Like @RaulRamirez said earlier any system made will put Djoko on top when you take the whole tennis universe in consideration, simply cause he is the most accomplished.
Which makes the most sense.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
My rating system is sound…
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
So if we do this as a proper weighting system not ATP points we get this result -
Novak 39.66
Fed 36.01
Nadal 35.99
My system is more a reflection of GOAT achievements and more balanced way of true weight to the events won rather than ATP points
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
And you were right by an ATP 250 LOL! I included slam RUP in this as I believe they are as valuable as a masters win..
Ps - I think nadal edges Fed out by a slither due to H2H which isn’t measured in this system as it’s pure career based..
Last edited:
Even if we use your system Djokovic is on top of the list.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes stats don’t lie, I’m happy to accept that 1extra slam doesn’t compensate for everything else Djoker has done…
It all comes down to what you value more I’m only conflicted to the true value or inclusion of the slam RUPs but in essence when u see players even reach a slam final it’s a milestone and it’s mentioned as an achievement that run to the finals - Anderson hugging the team Tsitsi crying, Baghdatis marvellous AO 06 run was the highlight of his career etc and comparing between players with less achievements I think it warrants a weighting… Also Murray gets higher up the list with all those slam RUPs vs other players and gives him a nice bump in all time lists with my methodology
Last edited:
Thats true. Its very difficult today to disupute he is the most accomplished, but we are still not on the end of the road. Both of them have few more years left.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes no doubt Novak right now is the most accomplished player but their is still more to come.
In saying that this will always be subjective as career wise for example we can see Hewitt would be better than say Stan but for me me Stan would be higher on a list purely based on level of competition he faced so that extra slam means more to me than 2 YE no1 and TF and extra masters Hewitt has.. But purely on numbers and accomplishments Hewitt would be above him. Who is the better player we can argue that for eternity
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
They forgot nadals Olympic title
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Nadal is on 59
I didn’t - see first post in this thread. It is just that the atp gives it zero pointsThey forgot nadals Olympic title
_phantom
Hall of Fame
When Nadal won it in 2008, it had 400 points. Masters were 500 points back then.
If you are using only current ATP weighing, then Fed's Halle titles (won before the tournament was upgraded to 500) should be included too, imho.
Last edited:
Using current atp weightings. In the official records Federer has 24 500’s and that is what I am counting.
_phantom
Hall of Fame
Okay, but I still find inconsistency in the list if you remove Nadal's 800 points from that OG. For example, you have included 750 maximum points for the ATP cup. There is no historical category (250s, 500s...) for this team event. Furthermore, it is now defunct and so ATP awards it zero points. How will you explain inclusion of it and not 2008 Olympics?
It is near impossible to keep a list of careers of players and ascribe them the points for the year they made the achievement. Without spending 100's of hours, I decided to use the current ATP points. (Note: I didn't like that the Olympics were reduced to zero, but to be consistent - I changed it to zero).
The ATP cup equivalent is now the United Cup. The ATP cup had a couple of years ago the possibility of winning more than 500 points - and in fact Djokovic did so. I see that the United Cup has moved to 500 points maximum. I will check on that. I will reduce Djokovic's points down (from the 660 points he earned in 2021) to the United Cup's 2023 equivalent, when we get to 2023 (if it is 500 points, if less it will not get included).
Last edited:
0 ranking points is what the Olympic Tennis Gold Medal deserves.
Federer points should be included. Because from now, if someone wins 10 Halle he will earn all of those 500 points.
This point system benefits the modern players but a drawback for the past players.
Many past players played a lot of small tournaments but aren't included into the system. These players also don't compete at all 4 slams but rather preferred to play other tournaments in which are ignored completely.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
However if you change the system it completely rewrites history. If say the Sofia Open becomes a Masters in 30 years, you wouldn't give the past winners 1000 points for winning it. The competition (and the points at the time) were 250 level. It would be unreasonable to grant 1000 points just because someone later decided that tournament will be upgraded. At the time it was played it was still a 250.
Timnz explained why the Olympics and ATP Cup are weighted as they are. It's a good explanation.
Yes that’s the thinking behind this.
_phantom
Hall of Fame
Let's consider just four events. From ATP's point of view -
Davis Cup 625 has been replaced by Davis Cup 0.
Summer Olympics 800 has been replaced by summer Olympics 0.
ATP Cup 750 has been replaced by United Cup 500.
Halle 250 has been replaced by Halle 500.
In every case except the last one the OP is calculating the current points. And competition at Halle hasn't changed since its upgrade either.
The best option would be to calculate (present day equivalent) points players knew they could earn at the start of a tournament But as @timnz has explained it will take 100s of hours more.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
But Davis Cup and Olympics are very prestigious events. They'd have similar tiers of players regardless of their points. United/ATP Cup is too new to know for sure, but Halle definitely doesn't fall into that same category.
If Halle was worth 0 points, you could bet that 90% of the competition is headed to Queens instead during that week.
Obviously the "use the current points equivalent for points the event used to be worth relative to others" system is best, no dispute there. But counting Halle 250s as 500s now is inaccurate. If Chennai was suddenly picked to host a new 500, you wouldn't retroactively say the people who won the Chennai Challenger won a 500.
In any case, the point system in the DC, Olympics, and the ATP Cup is wonky. Full point potential isn't dependent solely on the player but on their teammates/country of origin (DC you might lose R1 despite winning all your matches, same with ATP Cup. Olympics you might not even qualify if you're not the best in your country, but someone worse than you can qualify). This alone is reason enough to not count the points for them. Halle has no such problems, however. It just used to be a smaller tournament.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Why take points away from Novak. When he played the ATP Cup he won 660 points, it is not his fault the ATP changed their points awarded. Also, why is the ATP Cup, Olympics and United Cup even considered as to a players greatness. What REALLY counts are: Slams, Big Titles Won, YE and weeks at 3!. Semi, quater finals and finals are not nearly as important as WINNING.
Who cares about Halle? It is the slams, WTF and Masters that are the most important tournaments.
That's why I said this system is far from perfect. Too many factors that give modern players the advantage and almost impossible to find every tournaments that should be included to be fair for all players. Tournaments being upgraded/downgraded is also a big problem thus not an apple-to-apple comparison.
It's a fun exercise made by the OP and I respect that. But it's not a measuring stick for evaluating the player's placement in ATG. Any Djoko fan who think this point system determines who's the best/greatest needs to get his/her head examine
Topspin_80
Hall of Fame
When Nadal won he received 800 points.
Rafael Nadal | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis
Official tennis match records of Rafael Nadal including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.
www.atptour.com
Topspin_80
Hall of Fame
When Murray won at London games he received 750 points.
It was the last time points were awarded.
www.atptour.com
It was the last time points were awarded.
Andy Murray | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis
Official tennis match records of Andy Murray including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.
www.atptour.com
Pheasant
Legend
I'll say this again. I love the work that @timnz put in. This is the most objective way to look at accomplishments.
Now granted, if one wants to adjust for era(current era=much longer peak period), then he/she can do just that. But I love the foundation that the OP laid here. It's a good one.
That is a job well done!
Now granted, if one wants to adjust for era(current era=much longer peak period), then he/she can do just that. But I love the foundation that the OP laid here. It's a good one.
That is a job well done!
And as said in the opening post in this thread and throughout this thread - this is not a thread about Player Greatness. It is simply a thread about players achievements at 500 level and above, ascribed current ATP point weightings
RE. why take points away. It is too difficult to create a dynamic list. For example for many years the masters (now the World tour finals) had no points at all. Should I give no points to Lendl, McEnroe, Borg for their achievements there? Hence, that is why I am going with current points. If we only went with points at the time we would end up with some strange anomalies. The thinking is that that equivalent event is worth that now, so we will give it the current points.
Last edited:
Again refer to the first post in this thread where I talk about this. I just use the current ATP weightings. The work to assess historical points for every event for every player at every level would be immense. And not very good for an historical comparison. I think that Lendl/Connors/Borg Winning a Masters back in the 70's and 80's is equivalent to Djokovic winning the tour final this year where he got 1500 points, even though in the former case 0 points was often specified at the time. Hence, current weightings are used.When Nadal won he received 800 points.
Rafael Nadal | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis
Official tennis match records of Rafael Nadal including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.
Topspin_80
Hall of Fame
Awright, good job anyways, keep it up.
That is clear and fully logical, but it works in oposite way also. If Olympics and ATP cup granted more than 500 points for the winner in that particular edition they shall be included. You dont deduct points retroactively if lets say Cinncinati becomes ATP 250 in the future. Olympics had atp points in the past, maybe competition was stronger for that reason and the points shall be included. It will be almost no difference in grand scheme of things, but still it makes perfect sense.
That’s not the way it is being done. I use the category of event to assign the points to not the specific city it is in See first post in this thread. Eg is it a slam - so many points, is it a season end finals - so many points, is it a masters 1000 or equivalent - so many points. So if a particular city was a masters 1000 level for particular years, then only in those years is it counted. An example - Stockholm was in the early 80s a prestigious event - I only count it the years it had the high stafus as a masters 1000 equivalent event (I say equivalent because the name masters 1000 didn’t exist then)
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
For instance, Hamburg was a M1000 before 2009. Once it got downgraded, Federer didn't lose the 4 M1000s he won there - he's still counted with 28 TOP9 tournaments, and that adds 28 points to his total. However, Basel was a 250 for some years, so for those years it isn't counted. He also didn't win the Olympics, but if he did it would've counted in the Olympics tier, which is now worth 0 points.
@timnz is being consistent.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
My formula weighted everything pretty fairly.. problem solved
Thank you, good summary
Anyone would say the same about their own. It works for you but lot others, sorry.
Similar threads
