Updated Open era tournament achievement rankings at current ATP weightings

[kandamrgam]

Should we then include the runner up finishes for the Masters 1000 and include the Masters 500 as well ? It's only fair isn't it ? But I guess they will have difficulty with the older tournaments since the class were instituted recently

He says OP has an arbitrary 1000 points cut off.

 

[kOaMaster]

No, not only are they worth less than 1000 points but also for different reasons. The main reason is (as explained at least 3 times in this thread): The more deeper you go in tennis history, the harder it gets to compare achievements. You can see this already with the Australian Open (who used to be rather unimportant for the top players compared to the three other grand slams). The tournament structure and the "tour" was a different one 30 years ago. With the limitation of those 1000-point-equivalents, the unevenness is at least brought down to the least common denominator (is that a figure of speech in English?).

 

[Bukmeikara]

Oh fair enough then. I like mine more though.

How excatly is worse, because F+R1>>SF+SF money wise and the only reason why the points arent 2x because the gap would be too small between the winnber and the finalist.

I guess for you Grosjean is a better player than Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Coria....

 

[beast of mallorca]

He says OP has an arbitrary 1000 points cut off.

I recognized that. See my post.

 

[kandamrgam]

I recognized that. See my post.

If you recognize that why would you ask about Masters runner up points as well as 500s? They are less than 1000 points.

 

[kandamrgam]

How excatly is worse, because F+R1>>SF+SF money wise and the only reason why the points arent 2x because the gap would be too small between the winnber and the finalist.

I guess for you Grosjean is a better player than Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Coria....

1. You are an idiot to bring money here when the discussion is on greatness.

2. Win-loss record of SF + SF > 1R + F

3. Ranking points suggest SF + SF = 1400 > 1R + F = 1200

So worse. You can have another criterion, but please no money here.

 

[beast of mallorca]

If you recognize that why would you ask about Masters runner up points as well as 500s? They are less than 1000 points.

It was just an idea that i had and voiced it out, and made a suggestion and retracted it. I can do that, right ? :twisted:

 

[kandamrgam]

It was just an idea that i had and voiced it out, and made a suggestion and retracted it. I can do that, right ? :twisted:

Sure, but you cant say "see my post". I went and saw your post and found no evidence for you "recognizing that". Instead raises a question which indicates you have not recognized that

 

[beast of mallorca]

Sure, but you cant say "see my post". I went and saw your post and found no evidence for you "recognizing that". Instead raises a question which indicates you have not recognized that

my second statement implied it as the reason for the arbitrary decision of the OP. :mrgreen:
That's why i said, read my post

 

[Bukmeikara]

1. You are an idiot to bring money here when the discussion is on greatness.

2. Win-loss record of SF + SF > 1R + F

3. Ranking points suggest SF + SF = 1400 > 1R + F = 1200

So worse. You can have another criterion, but please no money here.

Why no money, they play for money is their job. Do you think that greatness providess for their family or money do. I guess you are too young or an "idiot" not to understand that. Using your stupid logic, with a final you have a shot to greatness but with 2 SF you just remain another name on the list.

As a said the only reason why Runner up finish doesnt give 1440 points is that gap between the first and the second would be very small. As you can see in all of the previous rounds the points are 2x.

 

[falstaff78]

This thread is solid gold. Pure magic. 5 stars.

Thanks so much mate!

 

[kandamrgam]

Why no money, they play for money is their job. Do you think that greatness providess for their family or money do. I guess you are too young or an "idiot" not to understand that. Using your stupid logic, with a final you have a shot to greatness but with 2 SF you just remain another name on the list.

As a said the only reason why Runner up finish doesnt give 1440 points is that gap between the first and the second would be very small. As you can see in all of the previous rounds the points are 2x.

1. Hey bookmaker, ATP stats and points account to greatness. Not money. Money is the business side of things. They play for greatness, not money. I mean the top pros. Guys who would boast of money as their greatness would be players like Karlovics and Fogninis. Not Federer or Nadal. The question here is about all time greats. When it's them we gotta consider ATP points and stats.

2. That's a poor argument. It's like saying,

Me: Cheetahs run faster than lions.
You: That's because Cheetahs are faster than lions. They were created that way.

You're essentially repeating my point and not countering it. Indeed ATP assigned so and so points and that is why they are bigger achievements. ATP knows the tennis side of things better, dont you think? In fact the whole discussion here revolves around ATP point weightage.

Indeed ATP made the gap between runner up and winner bigger because there is a big difference. That difference which doesnt matter much between SF and F. Which is why they are closer. Which is why making it to two consecutive SF is a bigger achievement. Only next to a title win. As is the ATP points. In the grand scheme of things F is one more match above SF. A title is a lot more.

Also as I said even the win-loss ratio favours SF+SF.

3. I dont get the highlighted part at all. No according to my logic, being in a final is no more better than two SF. In fact two SF is better is my point. Exactly the opposite of it. Not sure how you get the polar opposite of what we were talking until now.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Looks awesome OP, but #1 weeks should be added somehow.

Fully agree that GS are far from the whole story, this system is much fairer.
That said, this system means that stacking a few MS tourneys allows one to get ahead of folks with several more slams, which is weird.

Also consistency achievements aren't allowed for. Federer's 302 #1 weeks, 18 of 19 finals etc. count for a lot IMO and he should realistically be a lot further ahead of the pack with those included.

Other than that, this is as close to completely objective as we can really get.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Looks awesome OP, but #1 weeks should be added somehow.

Fully agree that GS are far from the whole story, this system is much fairer.
That said, this system means that stacking a few MS tourneys allows one to get ahead of folks with several more slams, which is weird.

Also consistency achievements aren't allowed for. Federer's 302 #1 weeks, 18 of 19 finals etc. count for a lot IMO and he should realistically be a lot further ahead of the pack with those included.

Other than that, this is as close to completely objective as we can really get.

So, what scoring changes do you recommend with what you're pointing at ?

 

[timnz]

Looks awesome OP, but #1 weeks should be added somehow.

Fully agree that GS are far from the whole story, this system is much fairer.
That said, this system means that stacking a few MS tourneys allows one to get ahead of folks with several more slams, which is weird.

Also consistency achievements aren't allowed for. Federer's 302 #1 weeks, 18 of 19 finals etc. count for a lot IMO and he should realistically be a lot further ahead of the pack with those included.

Other than that, this is as close to completely objective as we can really get.

I have had a number of posts with people asking about weeks at number 1. I haven't included because

1/ there is no accurate measure of weeks at number 1 surprisingly. Investigation reveal that prior to about 1985 the ATP rankings were very inconsistently applied (they didn't count all tournament wins) eg end of year 1982 having McEnroe as number 1 with 1/3 of the tournament wins of Lendl, or only having Borg as number 1 for 1 week prior to April 1979 (no one believes that)

2/ it is a kind of double counting ie players get to number 1 largely because of their success at the top events being counted in this system.

3/ time at number 1 is highly dependent on who a players contemporaries are. For instance who would have picked that Roddick was number 1 longer than Becker?

4/ what numeric value would you assign it? The whole purpose of this system is just count the objective wins and weight it according to current ATP weightings. There is no agreed weightings for time at number 1

That is all just my point of view. I really appreciate your comments about ranking etc.

Thanks very much

 

[Federer302]

Preffer a bronze medal to a Master? What we are talkin about .... judo? You think that a profesional player would prefer a 3rd place with close to zero money over ... let say Indian Wells title which gives 1mln and provides a top 20 rank for a year?

It isn't third place, it is an Olympic Bronze Medal. FROM THE OLYMPIC GAMES!
Masters hold little prestige lets be honest. Tsonga's grandkids won't be impressed by his Masters shields but they will look in awe at his Silver from London doubles.

I don't know where you're coming from with your statement. I have not alluded to, that winning silver or bronze is not important.

And an Olympic medal is one of the biggest at this day and age. Also, Nadal winning Olympics did not make the medal great. Nadal did not start that prestige. It started when tennis became a REGULAR part of the Olympics.

My point was we can't just gave something a rating due to prestige. Then we would have to gave Wimbledon more points than the other slam. Just pointing out it is very complicated.

IMO Olympics is incredibly desirable and hugely prestigious but don't know what impact it should have on greatness. By don't know I genuinely mean don't know.

 

[timnz]

He says OP has an arbitrary 1000 points cut off.

The reason I use the 1000 point cut off was simple. When I investigated players records from the 1970s and 1980s compared to today - I noticed their wins at events equivalent to 500s and 250s were radically different from those of today. Eg Connors has 49 wins at 500 level and Lendl has 42 , whereas Djokovic/Federer/Nadal are in the 11 to 15 range. This suggests to me that winning those events by great players in times gone by was a lot easier. Whereas number of wins at 1000 equivalent at higher seemed much more on par.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Federer 302

This is Djokovic first Master title, look at his reaction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F9j52omb2E

Federer after Hamburg 2002

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7reAcCAE0l0

Nadal 2005 Monte Carlo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=553_AQ-s5Fw

 

[Federer302]

Federer 302

This is Djokovic first Master title, look at his reaction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F9j52omb2E

Federer after Hamburg 2002

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7reAcCAE0l0

Nadal 2005 Monte Carlo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=553_AQ-s5Fw

Fair point but I do maintain my argument. I believe most would choose a Bronze over a masters. I just can't see players looking at their masters trophies when they are 50, showing them to the grandkids etc.

 

[beast of mallorca]

It isn't third place, it is an Olympic Bronze Medal. FROM THE OLYMPIC GAMES!
Masters hold little prestige lets be honest. Tsonga's grandkids won't be impressed by his Masters shields but they will look in awe at his Silver from London doubles.

My point was we can't just gave something a rating due to prestige. Then we would have to gave Wimbledon more points than the other slam. Just pointing out it is very complicated.

IMO Olympics is incredibly desirable and hugely prestigious but don't know what impact it should have on greatness. By don't know I genuinely mean don't know.

My point was, Olympics is big enough tournament to merit a pointing system. It certainly a more sought after title than say a Masters 1000 or WTF in
SOME circles. I'm not alluding to its prestige, just the ranking points. As I said, it does not matter. Tim's system works nonetheless.

 

[eldanger25]

The reason I use the 1000 point cut off was simple. When I investigated players records from the 1970s and 1980s compared to today - I noticed their wins at events equivalent to 500s and 250s were radically different from those of today. Eg Connors has 49 wins at 500 level and Lendl has 42 , whereas Djokovic/Federer/Nadal are in the 11 to 15 range. This suggests to me that winning those events by great players in times gone by was a lot easier. Whereas number of wins at 1000 equivalent at higher seemed much more on par.

TimNZ, we've discussed this in the past - I think that retroactively applying 2009-present ranking ratios, and relying on 21st century consensus about event prestige (everybody pretty much agrees on the top 15 events now - 4 slams, 1 YEC, 9 MS1000 events, and Olympics), penalizes greats who played in the first 15-20 years of the Open Era.

The pro tour has been in a process of civilizing itself since the dawn of the Open Era. In 1968, the ATP didn't exist, and there was a total power vacuum into which entrepreneurial fellows and hucksters like Donald Dell, Bill Riordan, Lamar Hunt, etc. rushed, creating an alphabet soup of entities like the ATP, ITF, WTT, WCT, and events like Riordan's Challenger Series (a hybrid of the old Kramer tours and boxing's heavyweight championship concept) that splintered the week-in, week-out concept of men's tennis through the 70s. Really only Wimbledon and the US Open were guaranteed full fields at this time (and even SW19 dealt with boycotts and bans in the early 70s).

By 1980, the ATP had emerged triumphant (with WTT a sideshow, Riordan sidelined, and the WCT being slowly strangled), and the ITF had reasserted itself for the most part (as Chatrier powered RG back to GS relevance after embarrassments like the two greatest clay courters among the men and women, Bjorn Borg and Chris Evert, skipping the grand old event in 1977). Nevertheless, the AO was a mess, and the top guys still were scheduling themselves idiosyncratically, including the 1-2-3 players of 1979-81 all skipping the AO etc.

By 1990, the ATP/ITF were consolidating power and imposing further order onto the tour via the Super 9 series, rankings updates (the "best 14" concept), etc. - and the players, led by Lendl and Wilander, were playing all 4 majors (with exceptions like Agassi skipping AO during the first half decade of his prime, etc.) and most of the big events.

By 2000, these unifying changes were continuing - I think this is around when they revised the "best 14" concept to the "mandatory 13" concept, where players are gonna get points from the majors and 9 MS1000 events counted regardless of whether they showed etc. This obviously had a big impact on how guys scheduled themselves.

And, of course, by 2009, you had updates to ranking ratios - 1000/500/250. A far cry from the times when Wimbledon, the Open, RG etc. all were worth different ranking points.

I really do appreciate your ranking system - but I think it penalizes older players. When you have Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal playing all or almost all of the 15 events that your system provides credit for, and Bjorn Borg or Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe playing 7 or 8 of those 15 events (including 2 or 3 max of the 4 majors) during their peak years, how do you square that?

 

[Boom-Boom]

TimNZ, we've discussed this in the past - I think that retroactively applying 2009-present ranking ratios, and relying on 21st century consensus about event prestige (everybody pretty much agrees on the top 15 events now - 4 slams, 1 YEC, 9 MS1000 events, and Olympics), penalizes greats who played in the first 15-20 years of the Open Era.

The pro tour has been in a process of civilizing itself since the dawn of the Open Era. In 1968, the ATP didn't exist, and there was a total power vacuum into which entrepreneurial fellows and hucksters like Donald Dell, Bill Riordan, Lamar Hunt, etc. rushed, creating an alphabet soup of entities like the ATP, ITF, WTT, WCT, and events like Riordan's Challenger Series (a hybrid of the old Kramer tours and boxing's heavyweight championship concept) that splintered the week-in, week-out concept of men's tennis through the 70s. Really only Wimbledon and the US Open were guaranteed full fields at this time (and even SW19 dealt with boycotts and bans in the early 70s).

By 1980, the ATP had emerged triumphant (with WTT a sideshow, Riordan sidelined, and the WCT being slowly strangled), and the ITF had reasserted itself for the most part (as Chatrier powered RG back to GS relevance after embarrassments like the two greatest clay courters among the men and women, Bjorn Borg and Chris Evert, skipping the grand old event in 1977). Nevertheless, the AO was a mess, and the top guys still were scheduling themselves idiosyncratically, including the 1-2-3 players of 1979-81 all skipping the AO etc.

By 1990, the ATP/ITF were consolidating power and imposing further order onto the tour via the Super 9 series, rankings updates (the "best 14" concept), etc. - and the players, led by Lendl and Wilander, were playing all 4 majors (with exceptions like Agassi skipping AO during the first half decade of his prime, etc.) and most of the big events.

By 2000, these unifying changes were continuing - I think this is around when they revised the "best 14" concept to the "mandatory 13" concept, where players are gonna get points from the majors and 9 MS1000 events counted regardless of whether they showed etc. This obviously had a big impact on how guys scheduled themselves.

And, of course, by 2009, you had updates to ranking ratios - 1000/500/250. A far cry from the times when Wimbledon, the Open, RG etc. all were worth different ranking points.

I really do appreciate your ranking system - but I think it penalizes older players. When you have Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal playing all or almost all of the 15 events that your system provides credit for, and Bjorn Borg or Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe playing 7 or 8 of those 15 events (including 2 or 3 max of the 4 majors) during their peak years, how do you square that?

Yes pretty obvious. The system is good as it clearly differentiate between Becker who has one Dallas WCT and 3 WTF and Edberg for example but the weakness is on the top10 "regular" tournaments. Out of Connors 109 titles I guess he has certainly won more "top 10" tournaments than what is indicated in your rankings. ATP has clearly identified super 9 then Masters 1000 but that wasn't the case before. It is over-weighting Masters 1000 in the rankings of the current Fed/Nad/Djoker.

And I still can't see how Nadal can be ranked over Sampras who has same number of slams, but 5 WTF and 6 YE number 1 :shock:

 

[timnz]

Yes pretty obvious. The system is good as it clearly differentiate between Becker who has one Dallas WCT and 3 WTF and Edberg for example but the weakness is on the top10 "regular" tournaments. Out of Connors 109 titles I guess he has certainly won more "top 10" tournaments than what is indicated in your rankings. ATP has clearly identified super 9 then Masters 1000 but that wasn't the case before. It is over-weighting Masters 1000 in the rankings of the current Fed/Nad/Djoker.

And I still can't see how Nadal can be ranked over Sampras who has same number of slams, but 5 WTF and 6 YE number 1 :shock:

I counted Sampras' WTF's (and also added in the 1990 Grand Slam cup) - they weren't left out. (See in red).

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) = 64.2

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 52.8


The primary reason Nadal is ahead is because he has won 16 more Masters 1000's than Sampras - that isn't a small thing. Regarding time at number 1, I explained earlier in this thread that rankings aren't used in this system, just top tournament achievements.

FYI Given that the Masters 1000's weren't compulsory in the 1990's - I have subsequently done a detailed analysis and found Sampras has won a maximum of 4 extra tournaments that were at Masters 1000 level (in the 1990-1992 period - Philadelphia and Indianapolis). Hence, even if you included those Sampras is still behind Nadal.

 

[timnz]

TimNZ, we've discussed this in the past - I think that retroactively applying 2009-present ranking ratios, and relying on 21st century consensus about event prestige (everybody pretty much agrees on the top 15 events now - 4 slams, 1 YEC, 9 MS1000 events, and Olympics), penalizes greats who played in the first 15-20 years of the Open Era.

The pro tour has been in a process of civilizing itself since the dawn of the Open Era. In 1968, the ATP didn't exist, and there was a total power vacuum into which entrepreneurial fellows and hucksters like Donald Dell, Bill Riordan, Lamar Hunt, etc. rushed, creating an alphabet soup of entities like the ATP, ITF, WTT, WCT, and events like Riordan's Challenger Series (a hybrid of the old Kramer tours and boxing's heavyweight championship concept) that splintered the week-in, week-out concept of men's tennis through the 70s. Really only Wimbledon and the US Open were guaranteed full fields at this time (and even SW19 dealt with boycotts and bans in the early 70s).

By 1980, the ATP had emerged triumphant (with WTT a sideshow, Riordan sidelined, and the WCT being slowly strangled), and the ITF had reasserted itself for the most part (as Chatrier powered RG back to GS relevance after embarrassments like the two greatest clay courters among the men and women, Bjorn Borg and Chris Evert, skipping the grand old event in 1977). Nevertheless, the AO was a mess, and the top guys still were scheduling themselves idiosyncratically, including the 1-2-3 players of 1979-81 all skipping the AO etc.

By 1990, the ATP/ITF were consolidating power and imposing further order onto the tour via the Super 9 series, rankings updates (the "best 14" concept), etc. - and the players, led by Lendl and Wilander, were playing all 4 majors (with exceptions like Agassi skipping AO during the first half decade of his prime, etc.) and most of the big events.

By 2000, these unifying changes were continuing - I think this is around when they revised the "best 14" concept to the "mandatory 13" concept, where players are gonna get points from the majors and 9 MS1000 events counted regardless of whether they showed etc. This obviously had a big impact on how guys scheduled themselves.

And, of course, by 2009, you had updates to ranking ratios - 1000/500/250. A far cry from the times when Wimbledon, the Open, RG etc. all were worth different ranking points.

I really do appreciate your ranking system - but I think it penalizes older players. When you have Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal playing all or almost all of the 15 events that your system provides credit for, and Bjorn Borg or Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe playing 7 or 8 of those 15 events (including 2 or 3 max of the 4 majors) during their peak years, how do you square that?

As usual eldanger25, you raise some very well thought out points. Regarding the Majors (players playing 3 out of 4 majors in the 1970's and 1980's), I believe I have dealt with that (see posting 1 in this thread) by introducing WCT finals wins and runner-ups when players didn't play 4 slams in a year they won Dallas. (Same for Grand Slam cup in the 1990's - but that turned out to only add a very small amount to Sampras and Becker's totals - again see the first post in this thread).

Regarding the 'Top 9'. I have recently started a project on just that. I found out, for instance that Lendl competed in just 2 of the 9 possible Masters 1000's in 1990, and in the 1990-1992 period he competed in just 10 of a possible 27 Masters 1000 tournaments. His is the most extreme example of that. I am doing an analysis of the top players wins in comparable events (prize money/points) outside of the usually regarded 'Top 9'. For example I have completed this analysis on Sampras. I have found that he has a maximum of 4 defacto Masters 1000's - to move him from his 11 to 15 (these are all from the 1990 to 1992 period). He doesn't have any more tournament wins in his entire career at that level. (Again defining top 9 as the top 9 events per year outside the Slams and the various season end finals). FYI If you were to add these 4 to his total - it doesn't change his current standing. See ***** below for detail about those 4 extra.

In thinking about this issue - I think I have reflected on these things:

1/ Yes, it wasn't established in the older players minds what the top 9 events outside of the Slams and season end finals were.
2/ None of the top events were compulsory. So they didn't have as deep a field as today.

Hence, this seemed to create the answer. Yes, the Top players of yesteryear played less of the 'Top 9' but at the same time, the events they did compete in didn't have as deep a fields because of the lack of compulsory attendence of the top players. Now whether those factors balance each other out - who knows.

I could just not include events at the top 9 level at all - but then I would be missing some important achievements.

To refer again to the analysis I am doing, it is to find all the events of Top 9 level that the great players won - and give them the points for a maximum of 9 of those. Here is another example of my analysis - in 1990 Becker competed in 6 out of the 9 official Masters 1000's. At the same time he won 3 tournaments that were at the level of Masters 1000's (that weren't part of the official top 9 group). I could include those in Becker's total. I also have found a number of tournament wins of Edberg that haven't been included yet. Again, this doesn't solve the problem that none of these tournaments were compulsory and therefore possible of lesser depth than today...but what can you do - history is history and you can't change it.

*****

Sampras - normally thought as being on 11 Masters 1000's - here are 4 extra
=====================================

1990 - 6 out of the 9 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $825,000 – 48 man draw - 334 points

(Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $750,000 total prize money
- Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Hamburg – all with 56 Man Draws. Indian Wells winner earned 314 points, Monte Carlo winner earned 314 points)

1991 - 7 out of the 9 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
Indianapolis - $825,000 – 56 man draw - 339 points

(Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $750,000 total prize money - Indian Wells (377 points), Monte Carlo (319 points), Hamburg (338 points) – all with 56 Man Draws)

1992 - 7 out of the 9 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament wins:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $865,000 – 48 man draw - 272 points
Indianapolis, IN, USA - $865,000 - 56 draw - 321 points

(Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $825,000 total prize money - Indian Wells with 56 Man Draw and 314 points. Canada 311 points $1,025,000, Monte Carlo $1,020,000 335 points)

(This is from my http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=516777 thread)

and that is it for Sampras - he doesn't have any other tournament wins in his career (outside of the Slams and the two season end finals - ATP and ITF) that were comparable in level.

 

[kandamrgam]

The reason I use the 1000 point cut off was simple. When I investigated players records from the 1970s and 1980s compared to today - I noticed their wins at events equivalent to 500s and 250s were radically different from those of today. Eg Connors has 49 wins at 500 level and Lendl has 42 , whereas Djokovic/Federer/Nadal are in the 11 to 15 range. This suggests to me that winning those events by great players in times gone by was a lot easier. Whereas number of wins at 1000 equivalent at higher seemed much more on par.

Fair enough on that part. But I dont get why would that 1000 point cutoff would translate to you accounting for Slam and WTF final losses.

 

[kandamrgam]

I have had a number of posts with people asking about weeks at number 1. I haven't included because

1/ there is no accurate measure of weeks at number 1 surprisingly. Investigation reveal that prior to about 1985 the ATP rankings were very inconsistently applied (they didn't count all tournament wins) eg end of year 1982 having McEnroe as number 1 with 1/3 of the tournament wins of Lendl, or only having Borg as number 1 for 1 week prior to April 1979 (no one believes that)

2/ it is a kind of double counting ie players get to number 1 largely because of their success at the top events being counted in this system.

3/ time at number 1 is highly dependent on who a players contemporaries are. For instance who would have picked that Roddick was number 1 longer than Becker?

4/ what numeric value would you assign it? The whole purpose of this system is just count the objective wins and weight it according to current ATP weightings. There is no agreed weightings for time at number 1

That is all just my point of view. I really appreciate your comments about ranking etc.

Thanks very much

1/ Agree

2/ Agree. The main reason I didnt include it in mine.

3/ Disagree. That applies to Slam wins as well.

4/ Right about it, but I think you could do Weight x YEN1 for something related to ranking. I had calculated something like that before. Weight was 3, since winning a Slam and more guarantees you top spot, well almost. In the end I avoided it because of the double counting factor.

 

[merlinpinpin]

And an Olympic medal is one of the biggest at this day and age. Also, Nadal winning Olympics did not make the medal great. Nadal did not start that prestige. It started when tennis became a REGULAR part of the Olympics.

No. It started when top tennis players began to take an interest in it (ie with Federer and Nadal), not before. From 1988 to 2004, it wasn't much more than a footnote, tbh. Note that it would also probably gotten a push earlier had Federer won it in 2004. But Massi wasn't a high-profile player, so his win didn't do much to hype the importance of the Olympics in tennis (except in Chile, of course).

 

[timnz]

Fair enough on that part. But I dont get why would that 1000 point cutoff would translate to you accounting for Slam and WTF final losses.

Slam runner-up gets 1200 points according to the ATP

WTF runner-up with no round robin losses gets 1000 points according to the ATP

Hence both are at least 1000 points.

Both are significant achievements themselves (though not as significant as winning the tournament obviously but that is why the tournament winner gets more points)

 

[cknobman]

Regarding time at number 1, I explained earlier in this thread that rankings aren't used in this system, just top tournament achievements.

I applaud your time and effort spent putting this thread together.

With that said not factoring in the #1 ranking at all makes this entire thread completely invalid.

 

[timnz]

I applaud your time and effort spent putting this thread together.

With that said not factoring in the #1 ranking at all makes this entire thread completely invalid.

Why? Remember the title of this thread is:

"Updated Open era tournament achievement rankings at current ATP weightings" - it is not purporting to be anything more than that.

Did you read my comments about incorporating number 1 earlier? I will paste them here again below. What are your thoughts on these?

==========================================
I haven't included because

1/ there is no accurate measure of weeks at number 1 surprisingly. Investigation reveal that prior to about 1985 the ATP rankings were very inconsistently applied (they didn't count all tournament wins) eg end of year 1982 having McEnroe as number 1 with 1/3 of the tournament wins of Lendl, or only having Borg as number 1 for 1 week only prior to April 1979 (no one believes that)

2/ it is a kind of double counting ie players get to number 1 largely because of their success at the top events being counted in this system.

3/ time at number 1 is highly dependent on who a players contemporaries are. For instance who would have picked that Roddick was number 1 longer than Becker?

4/ what numeric value would you assign it? The whole purpose of this system is just count the objective wins and weight it according to current ATP weightings. There is no agreed weightings for time at number 1

That is all just my point of view. I really appreciate your comments about ranking etc.
===========================================

 

[Djokovic2011]

Out of interest timnz, how many more weeks at #1 do you think Borg would have had if the ATP rankings had been more consistent back in the 70s?

 

[eldanger25]

As usual eldanger25, you raise some very well thought out points. Regarding the Majors (players playing 3 out of 4 majors in the 1970's and 1980's), I believe I have dealt with that (see posting 1 in this thread) by introducing WCT finals wins and runner-ups when players didn't play 4 slams in a year they won Dallas. (Same for Grand Slam cup in the 1990's - but that turned out to only add a very small amount to Sampras and Becker's totals - again see the first post in this thread).

Regarding the 'Top 9'. I have recently started a project on just that. I found out, for instance that Lendl competed in just 2 of the 9 possible Masters 1000's in 1990, and in the 1990-1992 period he competed in just 10 of a possible 27 Masters 1000 tournaments. His is the most extreme example of that. I am doing an analysis of the top players wins in comparable events (prize money/points) outside of the usually regarded 'Top 9'. For example I have completed this analysis on Sampras. I have found that he has a maximum of 4 defacto Masters 1000's - to move him from his 11 to 15 (these are all from the 1990 to 1992 period). He doesn't have any more tournament wins in his entire career at that level. (Again defining top 9 as the top 9 events per year outside the Slams and the various season end finals). FYI If you were to add these 4 to his total - it doesn't change his current standing. See ***** below for detail about those 4 extra.

In thinking about this issue - I think I have reflected on these things:

1/ Yes, it wasn't established in the older players minds what the top 9 events outside of the Slams and season end finals were.
2/ None of the top events were compulsory. So they didn't have as deep a field as today.

Hence, this seemed to create the answer. Yes, the Top players of yesteryear played less of the 'Top 9' but at the same time, the events they did compete in didn't have as deep a fields because of the lack of compulsory attendence of the top players. Now whether those factors balance each other out - who knows.

I could just not include events at the top 9 level at all - but then I would be missing some important achievements.

To refer again to the analysis I am doing, it is to find all the events of Top 9 level that the great players won - and give them the points for a maximum of 9 of those. Here is another example of my analysis - in 1990 Becker competed in 6 out of the 9 official Masters 1000's. At the same time he won 3 tournaments that were at the level of Masters 1000's (that weren't part of the official top 9 group). I could include those in Becker's total. I also have found a number of tournament wins of Edberg that haven't been included yet. Again, this doesn't solve the problem that none of these tournaments were compulsory and therefore possible of lesser depth than today...but what can you do - history is history and you can't change it.

*****

Sampras - normally thought as being on 11 Masters 1000's - here are 4 extra
=====================================

1990 - 6 out of the 9 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $825,000 – 48 man draw - 334 points

(Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $750,000 total prize money
- Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Hamburg – all with 56 Man Draws. Indian Wells winner earned 314 points, Monte Carlo winner earned 314 points)

1991 - 7 out of the 9 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
Indianapolis - $825,000 – 56 man draw - 339 points

(Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $750,000 total prize money - Indian Wells (377 points), Monte Carlo (319 points), Hamburg (338 points) – all with 56 Man Draws)

1992 - 7 out of the 9 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament wins:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $865,000 – 48 man draw - 272 points
Indianapolis, IN, USA - $865,000 - 56 draw - 321 points

(Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $825,000 total prize money - Indian Wells with 56 Man Draw and 314 points. Canada 311 points $1,025,000, Monte Carlo $1,020,000 335 points)

(This is from my http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=516777 thread)

and that is it for Sampras - he doesn't have any other tournament wins in his career (outside of the Slams and the two season end finals - ATP and ITF) that were comparable in level.

Some good stuff - sounds like at the very least you're moving the needle on post-1990 MS1000 events, which is absolutely useful for the Sampras/Agassi generation.

My bottom line is that I don't see how a purely numbers-based system can capture what was going on in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. Thinking about how to do so makes my head hurt - do you boost the value of the Open and Wimbledon in the 70s to account for the fact that they were basically super-majors at the time? Do you go back and find the 9 strongest tour-level events by field, prize money etc. for each year before 1990? Do you count invitationals that the ATP currently doesn't sanction, despite them being some of the strongest and hardest-fought events of the season in those years? What about one-offs like the Connors-Laver and Connors-Newcombe Las Vegas matches in 1975, which were huge at the time?

I don't know - I just feel like Borg would've had as many majors as Sampras/Nadal, Connors would've been at 11-12 majors himself, and Mac may've approached double digits had they been playing in an era where there was one tour (ATP), and 15 mandatory or basically mandatory "tier 1" events each year.

It's not hard to imagine this (changes in bold):

AO

1974 - Connors
1975 - Newk
1976 - Connors
1977 - Connors (Jan); Borg (Dec)
1978 - Borg
1979 - Borg
1980 - Mac
1981 - Mac
1982 - Connors
1983 - Mats
1984 - Mac

RG

1974 - Borg
1975 - Borg
1976 - Connors
1977 - Borg
1978 - Borg
1979 - Borg
1980 - Borg
1981 - Borg

That's four more majors each for Connors and Borg, and three more for Mac. Throw in the 1990 RG for Lendl, and an early 90s AO for Agassi, and here's your majors list:

Fed - 17
Borg - 15
Sampras - 14
Nadal - 14
Connors - 12
McEnroe - 10
Lendl - 9
Agassi - 9

Kind of paints a different picture, and isn't entirely implausible given how great those 70s/80s guys really were.

Anyway, I understand that history rewards those who show up, and the Lendl/Mats generation (and those that followed) are always gonna fare better than the Borg/Connors generation in these stats-based analyses. Such is life - I just wanted to sound a brief yawp from an electronic rooftop in favor of the geezers. Carry on, good sir - great efforts as usual.

 

[timnz]

Some good stuff - sounds like at the very least you're moving the needle on post-1990 MS1000 events, which is absolutely useful for the Sampras/Agassi generation.

My bottom line is that I don't see how a purely numbers-based system can capture what was going on in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. Thinking about how to do so makes my head hurt - do you boost the value of the Open and Wimbledon in the 70s to account for the fact that they were basically super-majors at the time? Do you go back and find the 9 strongest tour-level events by field, prize money etc. for each year before 1990? Do you count invitationals that the ATP currently doesn't sanction, despite them being some of the strongest and hardest-fought events of the season in those years? What about one-offs like the Connors-Laver and Connors-Newcombe Las Vegas matches in 1975, which were huge at the time?

I don't know - I just feel like Borg would've had as many majors as Sampras/Nadal, Connors would've been at 11-12 majors himself, and Mac may've approached double digits had they been playing in an era where there was one tour (ATP), and 15 mandatory or basically mandatory "tier 1" events each year.

It's not hard to imagine this (changes in bold):

AO

1974 - Connors
1975 - Newk
1976 - Connors
1977 - Connors (Jan); Borg (Dec)
1978 - Borg
1979 - Borg
1980 - Mac
1981 - Mac
1982 - Connors
1983 - Mats
1984 - Mac

RG

1974 - Borg
1975 - Borg
1976 - Connors
1977 - Borg
1978 - Borg
1979 - Borg
1980 - Borg
1981 - Borg

That's four more majors each for Connors and Borg, and three more for Mac. Throw in the 1990 RG for Lendl, and an early 90s AO for Agassi, and here's your majors list:

Fed - 17
Borg - 15
Sampras - 14
Nadal - 14
Connors - 12
McEnroe - 10
Lendl - 9
Agassi - 9

Kind of paints a different picture, and isn't entirely implausible given how great those 70s/80s guys really were.

Anyway, I understand that history rewards those who show up, and the Lendl/Mats generation (and those that followed) are always gonna fare better than the Borg/Connors generation in these stats-based analyses. Such is life - I just wanted to sound a brief yawp from an electronic rooftop in favor of the geezers. Carry on, good sir - great efforts as usual.

Thanks for this.

Regarding the Slams the older guys missed - what do you think of my scheme of including WCT finals wins and runner-ups for those players who didn't play all the slams in a particular year? If you go back to the first post in this thread you can see it helps McEnroe, Connors and Borg considerably.

Regarding different weightings system in times past - you are right - it would do your head it to work out the relative weights - very much a moving target. But when you reflect on it, is this needed? The fact is that people today use a standard measure in their thinking - they compare Borg's 5 Wimbledon's to Sampras 7 etc - without stopping to think about whether Wimbledon in 1979 was worth more that year than in 1999. Most people find it acceptable to treat all Wimbledons in the Open era (with perhaps the exceptions of 1972 and 1973) as having the same weight. I agree that the Masters 1000 sort of events are another complexity altogether - and that is why I will continue in my project.

 

[timnz]

Out of interest timnz, how many more weeks at #1 do you think Borg would have had if the ATP rankings had been more consistent back in the 70s?

It is hard to say, but Borg was at least in the discussion for year end number 1's in 1976 (Tennis Magazine (France) and the ATP awarded Borg "Player of The Year". I disagree - I think Connors had that one), 1977 (most people give it to Vilas), 1978 (this is where I think Borg had a case for some more weeks at number 1). In 1978 Borg had 2 Slams and 1 Slam runner-up and also won the important tournaments - Rome and Tokyo Indoor. His nearest rival was Connors (who was the ATP YE number 1) - 1 Slam, 1 runner-up and best next tournament win was Philadelphia (the January Masters is normally thought of being part of the previous season).

 

[kandamrgam]

Slam runner-up gets 1200 points according to the ATP

WTF runner-up with no round robin losses gets 1000 points according to the ATP

Hence both are at least 1000 points.

Both are significant achievements themselves (though not as significant as winning the tournament obviously but that is why the tournament winner gets more points)

Hmm, so essentially you do weigh the significance of runner up shows based on the "1000" point ATP assigns. So in essence you do have a point cut off there. I quite disagree with that. For the reason I will rate SF + SF is better than F + 1R. A title win is a whole lot a different thing. It's up to you, I like just the title based ranking.

 

[kandamrgam]

Am I the only one here thinking we should consider Connors's ranking was valid? ATP had a system then. Every player was told so. And Connors ended up winning it. So its only fair, no?

Or was there an inconsistency in point system back then, like one tournament was higher in prestige while it was awarded lesser points for winning?

 

[eldanger25]

Am I the only one here thinking we should consider Connors's ranking was valid? ATP had a system then. Every player was told so. And Connors ended up winning it. So its only fair, no?

Or was there an inconsistency in point system back then, like one tournament was higher in prestige while it was awarded lesser points for winning?

I tend to agree with you - the players made their choices as to scheduling with, I believe, awareness of the relative value of the ATP tournaments. Doesn't mean I consider a player who ended a given year at the top of the ATP rankings the best of the best that season (see 1975, 1977/78, 1982), but I do think the weeks at #1 metric has value even back then for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[timnz]

Am I the only one here thinking we should consider Connors's ranking was valid? ATP had a system then. Every player was told so. And Connors ended up winning it. So its only fair, no?

Or was there an inconsistency in point system back then, like one tournament was higher in prestige while it was awarded lesser points for winning?

Some years there was no logic at all. Let's look at the end of 1982.

Number 1 - McEnroe - 5 titles (top 3 tournaments Philadelphia, Tokyo Indoor, Wembley) + 1 Slam final

Number 3 - Lendl - 15 titles (top 3 tournaments Masters, WCT Finals, Cincinatti) + 1 Slam final

 

[eldanger25]

Some years there was no logic at all. Let's look at the end of 1982.

Number 1 - McEnroe - 5 titles (top 3 tournaments Philadelphia, Tokyo Indoor, Wembley) + 1 Slam final

Number 3 - Lendl - 15 titles (top 3 tournaments Masters, WCT Finals, Cincinatti) + 1 Slam final

Yeah, I've tried to parse out 1982 myself - I know Mac had a heck of a fall season that year, and maybe Lendl camping out on the WCT circuit earlier in the year somehow capped out what he could earn from tournaments of that size? I know the WCT withdrew from its merger with the Grand Prix tour in late 1981, maybe the ATP just didn't give WCT events much weight that year. Another example of the craziness going on as the ATP subdued its competitors during the first 15-20 years of the Open Era.

 

[eldanger25]

Thanks for this.

Regarding the Slams the older guys missed - what do you think of my scheme of including WCT finals wins and runner-ups for those players who didn't play all the slams in a particular year? If you go back to the first post in this thread you can see it helps McEnroe, Connors and Borg considerably.

Regarding different weightings system in times past - you are right - it would do your head it to work out the relative weights - very much a moving target. But when you reflect on it, is this needed? The fact is that people today use a standard measure in their thinking - they compare Borg's 5 Wimbledon's to Sampras 7 etc - without stopping to think about whether Wimbledon in 1979 was worth more that year than in 1999. Most people find it acceptable to treat all Wimbledons in the Open era (with perhaps the exceptions of 1972 and 1973) as having the same weight. I agree that the Masters 1000 sort of events are another complexity altogether - and that is why I will continue in my project.

As to your first point, I think it gets us part of the way there, though of course Dallas had draws of varying quality for most of its lifespan, as did the Masters until the late 1970s. Still, I do think it helps narrow the gap a bit.

I remember SpicyCurry and I bantering about the idea of awarding some kind of bonus for the Dallas/Masters double in a season where a player didn't enter all four majors (I think Connors, Mac, and Lendl would each get a bonus), but it was just spitballing at the time.

As to your second point, I know what you mean, but the problem isn't really Wimbledon or the Open, it's the other two (particularly the AO). Figuring out what to do about the varying quality of AO and RG early on is sort of the great white whale for amateur Open Era tennis historians. My latest thought - which is a derivation of the Sgt. John model - is to award four points total among the four GS events, but vary the amounts each year based on the strength of each edition. So, for instance, each of the four GS events would get 1 point in 2014, while Wimbledon and the Open would get 1.25 each in 1977, with RG getting .75, the January AO getting .5, and the December AO getting .25.

Again, just spitballing.

 

[cknobman]

Why? Remember the title of this thread is:

"Updated Open era tournament achievement rankings at current ATP weightings" - it is not purporting to be anything more than that.

Did you read my comments about incorporating number 1 earlier? I will paste them here again below. What are your thoughts on these?

==========================================
I haven't included because

1/ there is no accurate measure of weeks at number 1 surprisingly. Investigation reveal that prior to about 1985 the ATP rankings were very inconsistently applied (they didn't count all tournament wins) eg end of year 1982 having McEnroe as number 1 with 1/3 of the tournament wins of Lendl, or only having Borg as number 1 for 1 week only prior to April 1979 (no one believes that)

2/ it is a kind of double counting ie players get to number 1 largely because of their success at the top events being counted in this system.

3/ time at number 1 is highly dependent on who a players contemporaries are. For instance who would have picked that Roddick was number 1 longer than Becker?

4/ what numeric value would you assign it? The whole purpose of this system is just count the objective wins and weight it according to current ATP weightings. There is no agreed weightings for time at number 1

That is all just my point of view. I really appreciate your comments about ranking etc.
===========================================

So I do see your point to some extent and that is why I worded my point as "factor #1 ranking at all".

I do agree weeks @#1 would be tricky to incorporate.
I do feel that year end #1 should be quantified though.
#1 ranking (especially year end) is a good metric of showing how dominant (and more often than not) a player was over the entire year versus the entire field of players.
It shows that a player did more than peak for a tournament or two (I mean look at our 1 slam wonders that never did squat besides that 1 win) and kept a consistent high level of play for an entire year.

Your point of not using #1 ranking because of a players field (your bold point #3) falls in on itself because winning a grand slam(or any title) could also just as easily be attributed to a weak field of competition. I never like any argument that tries to use this false measure otherwise there are many many things we would need to throw out for past greats (Tilden, Laver, Gonzales, etc...)

As for point #2 I slightly disagree. Nadal is a perfect example. Look at his title count and his time spent at #1. His title count is enormous because of his utter dominance on clay but falls short elsewhere due to injury, record, etc..... This is why Nadal has less time @#1 and less ye #1. Nadal is only 1 example of this and I could list more.
My point is the title count & #1 ranking is not a direct reflection of each other and why I feel there should be some kind of quantifiable points given to the #1 ranking.

How would you feel about giving some kind of point distribution to YE #1?

 

[beast of mallorca]

No. It started when top tennis players began to take an interest in it (ie with Federer and Nadal), not before. From 1988 to 2004, it wasn't much more than a footnote, tbh. Note that it would also probably gotten a push earlier had Federer won it in 2004. But Massi wasn't a high-profile player, so his win didn't do much to hype the importance of the Olympics in tennis (except in Chile, of course).

Are you saying that Nadal started it all ? iS Agassi not considered a top player ?

 

[kandamrgam]

Some years there was no logic at all. Let's look at the end of 1982.

Number 1 - McEnroe - 5 titles (top 3 tournaments Philadelphia, Tokyo Indoor, Wembley) + 1 Slam final

Number 3 - Lendl - 15 titles (top 3 tournaments Masters, WCT Finals, Cincinatti) + 1 Slam final

Hmm I see. It was weird then. But still Mac deserved no.1 ranking, no? Like he did what had to be done according to the rule then? You can argue the system then was wrong, but not it was unfair to Mac, no?

 

[helloworld]

Djokovic moving up!

Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000* rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players Open era careers. The season end finals is now a tournament with a rich and strong tradition with great depth of players (over 40 years and top 8 respectively) and the masters 1000's or equivalents * pre-1990 had very deep fields. Also there is the WCT finals to consider.

I have only included tournaments of Masters 1000 equivalency and greater to take away the discussion about the depth of field, in particularly the smaller events, that the older players had to deal with vs today. The thinking is that if we only consider these tournaments of top value then that goes someway to levelling the playing field. The only entries marked down are where the player would have earned at least 1000 points (in today's ranking parlance). This is a significant achievement and hence needs to be 'in the mix' when considering the achievements of the Open era greats.

* With regard to Masters 1000's I have decided instead to use the term 'Top 9' titles. Currently the Masters 1000 series represents the top 9 titles outside of Slams and Season end finals. Historically (certainly pre-2000) there wasn't an exact match to today's Masters 1000's but I thought that it would be entirely useful, and reasonable, to talk about the top 9 titles, in any one particular year, outside of the Slams and the Season end finals (WTF (ATP), WCT Finals (WCT), Grand Slam Cup (ITF)). Even though I don't believe there was such a thing as the 'Championship series' from 1970 - the following link I believe is a credible list of the 'Top 9' events outside of the Slams and Season end finals, from year to year:

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

So how to go somewhere to creating a level playing field between current players who tend to play 4 slams a year vs older players of the 70's and early 80's who tended to play only 3 slams a year? Players pre-mid 1985 tended to only play 3 Slams a year versus players today playing 4. There is also the other issue of the WCT finals which was a very important event and the need to include it. Winning it was a great achievement and that fact shouldn't be lost in Open era history. (I have included the Grand Slam cup in the same reasoning - because having seen a lot of them , I know how hard the players fought to win it and the high level of the competition). Having said that, players shouldn't get 6 events (Slams + WTF + (WCT Finals or Grand Slam Cup)) + Top 9 title events, where they can gain points in this methodology, because that would be unfair to modern players who only get 5 events (Slams + WTF) + Masters 1000's where they can gain points. The solution proposed is to ONLY include Dallas or Munich if a player who won the WCT finals or Grand Slam Cup didn't play all the slams in that year. That way the modern players are not disadvantaged. So for example, Lendl's 1982 WCT finals win gets included because he didn't play all the slams that year but his 1985 win doesn't get included because he played all the slams that year. In McEnroe's case only 4 out of 5 of his WCT finals get included as he played all the slams in 1983 when he won the 1983 Dallas event. Becker in 1988 didn't play in all the slams but he did win the WCT finals (over Edberg), as was the case with Connors in 1977 and 1980 and Borg in 1976. I have applied the same rules to the Grand Slam Cup. The only two players who gets ranking benefit for that event is Sampras in 1990 as he didn't play the French Open that year (his win in 1997 isn't included because he played all the Slams that year) and Becker in 1996 (since he missed the French and US Opens). Note: There is no overlap between the WCT finals (1970's/1980's) and the Grand Slam Cup (1990's) so this consideration is robust.

There is another way for a player today to earn 1000 or more points other than Masters 1000 win, Grand Slam runner-up, WTF win or Slam win. That is to be runner-up at the season end finals without losing a round robin match. For that a player receives 1000 points. Hence, I have only included WTF runner-up's when they didn't lose any matches prior to the final.

Weightings & Including events in the rankings
----------------------------------------------------------
Slams + WTF's & WCT finals/Grand Slam Cups (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + WTF's runner-up's (only if the player didn't lose before the final) & WCT finals/Grand Slam Cups runner-ups' (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Top 9 event wins, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.5 or 1.3 for Season end finals **, Season end final runner-ups with no losses prior x 1 ****, 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Top 9 Events

** I weight the Season end finals at 1.5 ie 1500 points if there was no loss by the winner of the tournament. And 1.3 ie 1300 points, if there was 1 round robin loss by the tournament winner. The reason for this is that not all of the Masters Cup winners won the tournament in an unbeaten fashion. For instance 1 of Federer's 6 wins he lost a match in the round robin. In 2001 Hewitt was an unbeaten winner but as the 2002 winner he lost one round robin match. Note: No one, in the entire history of the WTF, has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the tournament. For those WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup winners - weight at 1.5. (As mentioned above, these latter two events are only included if the winner didn't play all the slams in the year they won the event)

NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments. Every time I post these rankings using these weightings people disagree with them, which of course they have a right to do. The problem is, how can we come to an agreement about them with so many opinions? We can't of course. The best I can do is just use the current ATP weightings.

Calculations (reduced by a factor of 1000) - Slams wins + Season end final wins (with no round robin losses)+ Season end final wins (with 1 round robin loss) + Season end final runner-ups (only if no round robin losses) + Slam runner-ups + Top 9:

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) = 77.4

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) = 64.2

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 62.2

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 52.8

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 52.3

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 50.3

Djokovic = (7 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (20 x 1) = 48.2

Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 46.7

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 44.7

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 41.7

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 28.3

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8


**** Of the player on the list, the times they made the WCT Finals final match and then lost the final, but didn't compete in all of the slams that year (have this criteria to be fair to modern players who have less top events to score points from - see above notes) were:

McEnroe - WCT Finals - 1980, 1982, 1987
Borg - WCT Finals - 1975, 1979
Connors - WCT Finals - 1984
Becker - WCT Finals -1986 (the Australian Open wasn't held that year)

Regarding the Grand Slam Cup - Only two of the players under consideration, in this list, show up as Runner-ups - Sampras in 1994 and Agassi in 1998. However, in those years both of them competed in all of the Slams - so we won't include.

There is serious flaw in your method. You give points to players who lost in finals. Based on your ranking, A player who made 2 slam final is greater than a grand slam winner, which is laughable. In reality, a player with 1 grand slam victory is greater than a player with 10 slam finals with zero victory, but according to your logic, a guy with 10 slam finals will have 8 times more points than the slam winner, which is totally absurd.

 

[timnz]

There is serious flaw in your method. You give points to players who lost in finals. Based on your ranking, A player who made 2 slam final is greater than a grand slam winner, which is laughable. In reality, a player with 1 grand slam victory is greater than a player with 10 slam finals with zero victory, but according to your logic, a guy with 10 slam finals will have 8 times more points than the slam winner, which is totally absurd.

I just use the ATP weightings. How is it laughable, when the potential for it happens every year in the ATP. if in 2015, Nadal makes 4 runner-up's in slams and Djokovic wins 2 slams and loses in the first round of the other two - then all other things being equal, Nadal is ahead on points for 2015. This isn't my opinion, this is fact on how the points will stack up.

Now I myself believe that slam wins should be weighted higher by the ATP, but that is just my opinion. As I mentioned in the post you quote, people range on opinions on how weightings should be done. There are as many opinions as people on this forum. In the end it was impossible to come to agreement about it - so I went with the ATP weightings.

The title of the thread is:-

'Updated Open era tournament achievement rankings at current ATP weightings'- it is what it is

If you would prefer to use other weightings, that is absolutely fine. However, I would suggest (and this has been my experience) you will find it difficult to get a consensus of agreement on the weightings you have chosen - because everybody has their own opinion. In the end it ended up impossible to get agreement, so I went with the ATP weightings.

 

[TMF]

There is serious flaw in your method. You give points to players who lost in finals. Based on your ranking, A player who made 2 slam final is greater than a grand slam winner, which is laughable. In reality, a player with 1 grand slam victory is greater than a player with 10 slam finals with zero victory, but according to your logic, a guy with 10 slam finals will have 8 times more points than the slam winner, which is totally absurd.

But it's not like making slam final is a walk in the park. There aren't a whole lot of players that have reached a slam final throughout his entire career. Haas, Henman have never made the final.

 

[helloworld]

I just use the ATP weightings. How is it laughable, when the potential for it happens every year in the ATP. if in 2015, Nadal makes 4 runner-up's in slams and Djokovic wins 2 slams and loses in the first round of the other two - then all other things being equal, Nadal is ahead on points for 2015. This isn't my opinion, this is fact on how the points will stack up.

Now I myself believe that slam wins should be weighted higher by the ATP, but that is just my opinion. As I mentioned in the post you quote, people range on opinions on how weightings should be done. There are as many opinions as people on this forum. In the end it was impossible to come to agreement about it - so I went with the ATP weightings.

The title of the thread is:-

Updated Open era tournament achievement rankings at current ATP weightings

If you would prefer to use other weightings, that is absolutely fine. However, I would suggest (and this has been my experience) you will find it difficult to get a consensus of weightings. And then the problem comes with disputes over the weightings you have chosen. In the end it ended up impossible to get agreement, so I went with the ATP weightings.

I understand your method of referencing the ATP points. The better way to do this is to complete eliminate the finals points. This is to avoid the bias of slam finalists >> slam winner. Based on the current score, a person with 10 slam finals is as great as Edberg or Becker.

 

[kandamrgam]

But it's not like making slam final is a walk in the park. There aren't a whole lot of players that have reached a slam final throughout his entire career. Nalbandian, Haas, Henman, Moya are a few that have never made the final.

Nalbandian was in Wimbledon F when he lost to Hewitt in 2002. Moya has won RG actually in 1998 and made to another Slam final too.

 

[kandamrgam]

I understand your method of referencing the ATP points. The better way to do this is to complete eliminate the finals points. This is to avoid the bias of slam finalists >> slam winner. Based on the current score, a person with 10 slam finals is as great as Edberg or Becker.

See my list here. I made a similar list for people like you and me who think final shows shouldn't be counted.

 

[cknobman]

See my list here. I made a similar list for people like you and me who think final shows shouldn't be counted.

You have anything that factors in the #1 ranking somehow (whether it be weeks or year end)?