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

[crazyups]

Do open era achievments for the big three using historical ATP wighting, that would be more interesting.

 

[timnz]

Do open era achievments for the big three using historical ATP wighting, that would be more interesting.

maybe but I would imagine it isn’t much different that what you see here. I mean Nadal would have 120 points instead of 119 if the olympics were still counted with points. Still third in the overall list

 

[DIMI_D]

Anyone would say the same about their own. It works for you but lot others, sorry.

Basically comes down to how much weight we assign these titles -
Vast majority and you prob included would not agree that 2 masters = 1 slam
Or 1 slam is 0.75% of world tour title or
4 ATP 500s = a slam
This is just putting together career title achievements where guys like connors and McEnroe will rate highly because they won hand over fist of small titles which is easy to see without even looking at the list which I glanced at for like 2 secs and forgot about it as it’s pointless..
ATP rankings are good for points and seedings if you want to rate how successful their career in comparison you need something closer to what I put together that reflects a general consensus of how much the slams really weight up against the other titles and incorporate weeks and YR end number 1s etc.
I would also stress it would still not be some silver bullet or GOAT list as basically pre open era really wouldn’t be a good enough reflection of there time. Those formulas were more relevant for open era..
In terms of properly comparing players it will always be somewhat subjective due to our personal bias..
Plus no formulas can account for guys like laver and rosewall being excluded from slams in their prime as well as connors missing FO with similar issues etc.
Again you can dig deeper and look at Levels of difficulty and competition etc. their isn’t anything simple about coming up with some perfect weighing system…

 

[TMF]

Except mine works

You came up with your own method, but you need people to agree on.

Problem is...you have none

 

[DIMI_D]

You came up with your own method, but you need people to agree on.

Problem is...you have none

There were some polls done on where general consensus of weighting’s of titles.. It’s a lot better than the ATP rankings which is obvious no one agrees -
4 ATP 500 = a slam
Otherwise Rublev would have the equivalent of 2 slam wins by now

 

[xFedal]

#22 … few weeks left to break Grafs weeks at no. 1 record .

 

[uscwang]

Wow, Novak finally makes it to the top!

 

[mattennis]

No one can deny now that achievements-wise, he is above all the rest. Nobody can take that from him.

 

[thrust]

Do open era achievments for the big three using historical ATP wighting, that would be more interesting.

What is there to discuss? Novak and Nadal have 22 slams. Novak leads Rafa by 164 weeks at #1 and 2 YE at #1, also Big Titles-66-59. Roger leads Nadal in weeks at #1 by about 100 weeks, otherwise, Rafa's achievements are superior to Roger's Therefore, the Open Erat GOAT is Novak, then Rafa, then. Roger.

 

[RaulRamirez]

What is there to discuss? Novak and Nadal have 22 slams. Novak leads Rafa by 164 weeks at #1 and 2 YE at #1, also Big Titles-66-59. Roger leads Nadal in weeks at #1 by about 100 weeks, otherwise, Rafa's achievements are superior to Roger's Therefore, the Open Erat GOAT is Novak, then Rafa, then. Roger.

Pretty much. If the best is determined by career achievements (I would agree), then Novak has a somewhat decisive edge (as of now) on Rafa who has pulled a little ahead of Fed. Most of the other context (eye test; "mugs"; weak eras", etc.) is highly subjective.

 

[xFedal]

Nice, I think the current gap between Nole and Rafa is sufficient?

 

[vex]

The numbers at the moment are about what you’d expect.

First and foremost, the B3 are in a completely different league from everyone else.

Second, the numbers really emphasize Rafa’s WTF issues. Still can’t believe he never made it a point to win one.

 

[Neptune]

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.

Good work OP, not easy.
BTW, do you pay attention to ultimatetennisstatistics?

 

[timnz]

H

Good work OP, not easy.
BTW, do you pay attention to ultimatetennisstatistics?

I haven’t really explored it much. Looks interesting

 

[Ivan69]

Good work OP, not easy.
BTW, do you pay attention to ultimatetennisstatistics?

A lot of missing tournaments there. Not reliable.

 

[Neptune]

A lot of missing tournaments there. Not reliable.

For example?

 

[timnz]

The numbers at the moment are about what you’d expect.

First and foremost, the B3 are in a completely different league from everyone else.

Second, the numbers really emphasize Rafa’s WTF issues. Still can’t believe he never made it a point to win one.

What evidence is there that he hasn’t made an effort? He got close in 2010 and 2013. And I recall him saying that it was a priority for him.

 

[Ivan69]

For example?

uts has 89 tournaments for 1970. I have 168.

 

[timnz]

Djokovic continues to break records with a 40th Masters 1000 crown. He is increasing his total points lead (for 500 level and above) over Federer. (See thread 1 for detail):-

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 = (24 x 2) + (4 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (12 x 1.2) + (40 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) = 140.48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50) + (0) = 46.88

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

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

 

[jhhachamp]

Djokovic looks like he can extend his lead significantly in the coming years to put it out of reach or near out of reach to players coming up afterwards. It looks like he will easily reach 150 and like 160+ before he is done. Nadal may add a few more points, but I don't see him catching Federer.

 

[Neptune]

Djokovic looks like he can extend his lead significantly in the coming years to put it out of reach or near out of reach to players coming up afterwards. It looks like he will easily reach 150 and like 160+ before he is done. Nadal may add a few more points, but I don't see him catching Federer.

@timnz did a great job here, so much better than those slam counting noobs.

 

[timnz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (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 = (24 x 2) + (4 x 1.5) + (3 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (12 x 1.2) + (40 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) + (0.66) = 141.78

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50) + (0) = 46.88

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

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

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

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

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

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

REMEMBER: There is no agreed weighting of events. In this forum I have tried to get an agreed weightings but opinions as to the weighting vary greatly. The best I can do is use the current ATP weightings. Everytime I post these rankings people disagree with the weightings, but what can I do? - there is no agreed standard beyond the ATP weightings.

Djokovic still extending his lead.

 

[Neptune]

Beyond GOAT

 

[GrandSlam24]

Djokovic still extending his lead.

412 Weeks at NUMBER ONE

More than Connors

 

[timnz]

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.

I agree it’s tricky. But worth A go, even if imperfect.

 

[helterskelter]

I agree it’s tricky. But worth A go, even if imperfect.

A decade after I wrote the post to which you replied, I can no longer find the energy to argue the point! (Though I do still agree with what I wrote then).

 

[Jonesy]

It would be interesting to see a system that rewards positive h2h against players that surpass a certain amount of points (ATGs?). I'm sure many systems if not all don't have h2h as a criteria.

 

[Neptune]

It would be interesting to see a system that rewards positive h2h against players that surpass a certain amount of points (ATGs?). I'm sure many systems if not all don't have h2h as a criteria.

H2H is tricky, a system also rewarding top5/10 wins, and percent of matches against top5/10 would be nice.

 

[timnz]

A decade after I wrote the post to which you replied, I can no longer find the energy to argue the point! (Though I do still agree with what I wrote then).

Apologies if I accidentally replied to an old post of yours.

 

[aellison33]

djoker is a pusher end thread/

 

[Bartelby]

Novak is greater than Fed who is greater than Nadal.

 

[xFedal]

Where is Carlos in this?

 

[Moose Malloy]

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

Poor Novak...

 

[Lleytonstation]

Where is Carlos in this?

@I Am Finnish I do not see Carlos the Shepherd either. Yikes.

 

[timnz]

Poor Novak...

Still a great achievement. That’s why I list it

 

[timnz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.3) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.65) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.8) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50) + (ATPC)

Djokovic = (24 x 2) + (4 x 1.5) + (3 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (13 x 1.3) + (40 x 1) + (18 x 0.65) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (12 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (15 x 0.50) + (0.66) = 152.86

Federer = (20 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (11 x 1.3) + (28 x 1) + (22 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (15 x 0.80) + (2 x 0.60) + (24 x 0.50) + (0) = 134.4

Nadal = (22 x 2) 44 + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) 2+ (8 x 1.3) 10.4 + (36 x 1) 36 + (17 x 0.65) 11.05 + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (8 x 0.80) 6.4 + (1 x 0.60) 0.60 + (23 x 0.50) 11.5 + (0) = 121.95

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 2 - 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.3) + (22 x 1) + (11 x 0.65) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (9 x 0.80) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (22 x 0.50) + (0) = 92.05

Connors = (8 x 2) 16 + (2 x 1.5) 3 + (1 x 1.3) 1.3 + (1 x 1) 1+ (7 x 1.3) 9.1+ (17 x 1) 17 + (9 x 0.65) 5.85 + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (16 x 0.80) 12.8 + (4 x 0.60) 2.4+ (22 x 0.50) 11+ (0) = 79.45

McEnroe = (7 x 2) 14 + ((3 + (5 - 1)) x 1.5)) 10.5 + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) 4 + (4 x 1.3) 5.2+ (19 x 1) 19 + (7 x 0.65) 4.55 + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.80) 6.4 + (0 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) 11.5 + (0) = 75.15

Sampras = (14 x 2) 28 + (0 + (2 - 1) x 1.5) 1.5 + (5 x 1.3) 6.5 + ((2 - 1) x 1) 1 + (4 x 1.3) 5.2 + (11 x 1) 11 + (8 x 0.65) 5.20+ (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (5 x 0.80) 4.0+ ((4 - 1) x 0.60) 1.8 + (12 x 0.50) 11 + (0) = 72.20

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((3 - 1) x 1) + (7 x 1.3) + (17 x 1) + (5 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (11 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50**) + (0) = 64.85

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + (2 -1)) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + (3 - 1)) x 1) + (5 x 1.3) + (15 x 1) + (4 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) + (0) = 64.1

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.3) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.65) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.80) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50) + (0) = 58.8

Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.3) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.65) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50) + (0) = 48.75

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (5 x 1.3) + (8 x 1) + (12 x 0.65) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.80) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) + (0) = 47.6

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.3) + (8 x 1) + (7 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (3 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) + (0) = 39.25

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

•Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
•Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1300 ATP points
•Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 800 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 650 points
•Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
•500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points
*ATP Cup can have a player exceed 500 singles points - I have listed the points individually (ATPC)

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

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

REMEMBER: There is no agreed weighting of events. In this forum I have tried to get an agreed weightings but opinions as to the weighting vary greatly. The best I can do is use the current ATP weightings. Everytime I post these rankings people disagree with the weightings, but what can I do? - there is no agreed standard beyond the ATP weightings.

I have reworked this list in the light of the ATP’s changes to the weighting of slam runner-up (now 1300 points), slam semi-finals (now 800 points), masters 1000 runner-up equivalents (Now 650 points). Interestingly there was only 1 change in the rankings, with Agassi now just edging out Borg. Analysis shows that this happened due to the large increase of points of slam semi finals of which Agassi has 11 semi-finals, vs only 1 for Borg.


Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.3) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.65) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.8) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50) + (ATPC)

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((3 - 1) x 1) + (7 x 1.3) + (17 x 1) + (5 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (11 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50**) + (0) = 64.85

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + (2 -1)) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + (3 - 1)) x 1) + (5 x 1.3) + (15 x 1) + (4 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) + (0) = 64.1

 

[timnz]

I have reworked this list in the light of the ATP’s changes to the weighting of slam runner-up (now 1300 points), slam semi-finals (now 1800 points), masters 1000 runner-up equivalents (Now 650 points). Interestingly there was only 1 change in the rankings, with Agassi now just edging out Borg. Analysis shows that this happened due to the large increase of points of slam semi finals of which Agassi has 11 semi-finals, vs only 1 for Borg.


Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.3) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.65) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.8) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50) + (ATPC)

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((3 - 1) x 1) + (7 x 1.3) + (17 x 1) + (5 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (11 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50**) + (0) = 64.85

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + (2 -1)) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + (3 - 1)) x 1) + (5 x 1.3) + (15 x 1) + (4 x 0.65) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) + (0) = 64.1

What do people Think about the changes of the weightings for slam runner-ups, semi-finals and masters 1000 runner-ups?

 

[timnz]

800 points for a slam semi-finals seems a tad too much for me

 

[TripleATeam]

What do people Think about the changes of the weightings for slam runner-ups, semi-finals and masters 1000 runner-ups?

800 points for a slam semi-finals seems a tad too much for me

Personally I'm fine with it. They're very minor adjustments in the values and they end up making the point calculations a lot easier by using multiples of 100 instead of multiples of 90. 1300 points for a runner up seems about right, I always felt like losing the slam title in a very close match against your main rival was devastating because it sent you back 1600 points compared to the other way around. Now it's just 1400, which isn't much better but it feels easier to stomach in a close year.

And I think semifinals are weighed around the right spot. That's where you hit the top 3-4 players in the world, which is typically the best tier in the game. Big 4, and now Djokovic, Alcaraz, and Sinner. If there are 3 of them, then whoever's in the opposite side gets a major heads up in points by being on the other side. By weighting the semifinal up a bit compared to the final, it reduces that advantage. Not too significantly, but somewhat - and I appreciate that.