New User
I'd be interested to see players' greatness ranked by summing Elo scores over their career. For example a hypothetical player with an 52-week career would have a score of Elo1 + Elo2 + Elo3 + ... + Elo52 where EloX is the Elo score in the Xth week of their career.

However, there may be a need to account for the fact that for example a 200 difference in Elo is much much more impressive at the top of the rankings than lower down. I don't know enough about the maths of it to know if this is already accounted for in the system somehow, or if the only consequence is that the top players are not separated by much from others in terms of the percentage of the score.

Also this score, before adjustment, could overweight players with long and relatively unnoteworthy careers.

I am not saying anything about the validity of this or any other measures of greatness - the GOAT debate is subjective and anyone can justify any measure/player they like. This is just another measure which I have not seen discussed.

Red Rick

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 688153

I don't get how this would tell us much that ELO wouldn't, although I put very little stock in the idea of using ELO ratings for tennis anyway. As you say, this would grossly amplify the careers of consistent Tier 2 and 3 players, kind of like that system a guy had here a while ago where you basically sum the ATP points of players over their career.
Last edited by a moderator: