Should winning Slams be worth more ATP points?
- Thread starter Madinolf
- Start date
No, I think it’s okay how it is. They are the biggest tournaments obviously and with clearly most ranking points, but the ranking represents the whole season. A Slam title is an achievement as such, it doesn’t necessarily need to be shown in (even better) rankings.
I always think it’s nonsense to say “but player X was the real #1 for a certain year, because he was the only one to win 2 Slams” or “a player with zero Slams should never become #1”. No, if a player accumulates all those points, then it’s legit, no matter how and where.
Also remember rankings don’t always represent what a player would prefer, but should objectively represent consistency and every single tournament/round/match someone competes in. For example reaching all 4 Slam finals is better in rankings than 2 Slam titles and nothing else, and yet a player would prefer the 2 titles.
And I think it’s legit that winning all 9 Masters would even bring 1000 more points than winning the CYGS. Will never happen though because it’s too difficult, but this actually confirms my point.
I always think it’s nonsense to say “but player X was the real #1 for a certain year, because he was the only one to win 2 Slams” or “a player with zero Slams should never become #1”. No, if a player accumulates all those points, then it’s legit, no matter how and where.
Also remember rankings don’t always represent what a player would prefer, but should objectively represent consistency and every single tournament/round/match someone competes in. For example reaching all 4 Slam finals is better in rankings than 2 Slam titles and nothing else, and yet a player would prefer the 2 titles.
And I think it’s legit that winning all 9 Masters would even bring 1000 more points than winning the CYGS. Will never happen though because it’s too difficult, but this actually confirms my point.
King_olaf_the_hairy
Semi-Pro
That's the whole point the OP is making though; if the weightings were different to give slams more points, then those rankings wouldn't be "legit". Your statement presupposes that the points-per-event are objectively correct. OP is asking if they perhaps are not. They've certainly changed enough over the years, no harm in adjusting them further if required.
Personally, I think winning five/six Bo3 matches (i.e. winning a Masters) is no more impressive than winning five Bo5 matches (i.e. grand slam semi-finalist), so if a Masters win is worth 1000 points, a GS SF should be about the same. Starting from that premise, you then end up with about 1500-1750 for a GS finalist, and 2500-3000 for the winner.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 783101
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
NatF
Bionic Poster
In terms of value to a legacy a slam is worth infinitely more than a masters but that's not what the ATP ranking is for. If slams were given any more weight it would heavily skew the rankings.
E.g. if you think the ATP rankings is a measure of value then yes slams shall be worth more. If you see it simply as a construct to manage seeding and the tour then it's fine.
E.g. if you think the ATP rankings is a measure of value then yes slams shall be worth more. If you see it simply as a construct to manage seeding and the tour then it's fine.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Is there really that big of a chance?
I think 2000 points is plenty.
I think 2000 points is plenty.
Sunny014
Legend
Points system has been given to keep the balance between the events and to prevent players from skipping tournaments.
If you give 3000 points to a slam then players will skip masters, they will lose their importance.
Winning 3 masters is definitely tougher than winning 1 slam
itrium84
Hall of Fame
Since winning Slams is what defines greatness in tennis, shouldn't the Slams be worth more ATP points?
No.
There's the chance of Djokovic winning the CYGS and not ending the year as #1.. LOL
It would be unfortunate, but fair.
The CYGS alone should give extra ATP points..
I agree.
IF Djokovic were to win the USO, he should get a 1000 point bonus for winning the CYGS.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
This!
Maybe 2500 for winning a slam. 3000 is a bit much.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
There’s plenty of debate about how much to weigh time at number 1 vs slams but is anyone arguing that ATP rankings (weekly, YE1, or both) are not a measure of player value?
NatF
Bionic Poster
They are for the most part but it's not am exact tally of the worth of the achievements to a players legacy imo.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Slippery slope. We already have master's becoming jokes. Imagine if you added more value to the slams.
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
Professional
No, it should be:
GS 1500
OG 1200
Masters 1000
WTF 800
GS 1500
OG 1200
Masters 1000
WTF 800
Not really, because for winning a Masters you need to beat the whole field, but for reaching a Slam final only players up to #5 at the highest (if you are Top 4 yourself).
