kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
No I dont have. I had attempted it. But mid exercise I realised it's a pointless one. See OP's reasoning for it. I especially agree with his point 2. Which I commented on here.
Updated Open era tournament achievement rankings at current ATP weightings
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
No I dont have. I had attempted it. But mid exercise I realised it's a pointless one. See OP's reasoning for it. I especially agree with his point 2. Which I commented on here.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
This is a better list if we are going to stick with the ATP scoring. It avoids the bias of having the finalist, which is essentially a loser of the tournament becoming greater than the winner. ATP scoring serves only one purpose, which is to determine the rankings and seedings of the tournament. They are by no means an indication of the true measurement of player's greatness. A player with a Wimbledon title is always going to be greater than a player who made 5 AO finals, but lost in all the finals.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Do you care to make a thread with your scoring, and see what the response would be ? Just a thought.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Hey can you do it? I am new here, never started a thread. Feeling a lil' uneasy
You do please. Share it, no problem
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Hey can you do it? I am new here, never started a thread. Feeling a lil' uneasy
its easy mate. Just click the main page for the general pro section. You'll see the NEW THREAD icon, and take it from there. I'm not sure about the particulars of your scoring system, so can't really do it for you, and i'm not at home to have the time to do do 'em.
Thanks for your confidence tho'
Anti-Fedal
Professional
You really need to include the years finished No.1 IMO
Not quite sure how to weight it though.
Not quite sure how to weight it though.
Which is better - losing in the first round of a slam or making the final?
I have been saying for a number of years on these forums (forgive me if you have heard before) that I believe that making a Slam final is a better performance than losing in the first round of a Slam. But if you don't count making a slam final, then it is as if the player lost in the first round of the slam - there is no difference. Being the number 2 guy in a Slam is still a great achievement (though not as good as winning the tournament obviously) and shouldn't be forgotten.
Do you know many players who have made 10 slam finals without winning one? Lendl is the most extreme example of making 19 finals - but at least he won 8. Here is a question for you? Which would have been the better achievement - in those 11 tournaments that he was runner-up, he instead lost in the first round - is that the equivalent level of performance to what he actually achieved in those 19 tournaments? There is a reason the ATP gives 60% (1200/2000) of the points of winning a slam to slam runner-ups - it is because it is a significant achievement in itself. Many view being a Slam runner-up as a superior achievement to winning a Masters 1000 (including the ATP themselves 1200 points vs 1000). Many people are factoring in Masters 1000 wins in their comparisons of players 'greatness', why wouldn't they also include Slam runner-ups - which many view as a superior achievement?
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.
I have been saying for a number of years on these forums (forgive me if you have heard before) that I believe that making a Slam final is a better performance than losing in the first round of a Slam. But if you don't count making a slam final, then it is as if the player lost in the first round of the slam - there is no difference. Being the number 2 guy in a Slam is still a great achievement (though not as good as winning the tournament obviously) and shouldn't be forgotten.
Do you know many players who have made 10 slam finals without winning one? Lendl is the most extreme example of making 19 finals - but at least he won 8. Here is a question for you? Which would have been the better achievement - in those 11 tournaments that he was runner-up, he instead lost in the first round - is that the equivalent level of performance to what he actually achieved in those 19 tournaments? There is a reason the ATP gives 60% (1200/2000) of the points of winning a slam to slam runner-ups - it is because it is a significant achievement in itself. Many view being a Slam runner-up as a superior achievement to winning a Masters 1000 (including the ATP themselves 1200 points vs 1000). Many people are factoring in Masters 1000 wins in their comparisons of players 'greatness', why wouldn't they also include Slam runner-ups - which many view as a superior achievement?
Last edited:
Interesting
What I found very interesting about your modification of the list is that your modification didn't change the order of the players, compared to my list, at all. They stayed exactly the same.
What I found very interesting about your modification of the list is that your modification didn't change the order of the players, compared to my list, at all. They stayed exactly the same.
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
It changed for Edberg and Wilander, they swapped positions. I did mention it in my post. Also Sampras gets on level terms with Lendl.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I said this before too. The problem Timnz as I see is that it doesn't end there. For one, SF+SF is better than F+1R show, but in your scoring system you give the latter an advantage. And two, if you count of final of Slams, then why not WTF? Ok you do count that too. Then why not of that of Masters?
As I see it, the big differentiator for you is the 1000+ points assigned. You rate it good enough to be in the ranking. Which like me many guys cant digest.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
It's just sum of ATP points of Slam + WTF + Masters. Nothing more.
The big problem I see is I cant care to update it after every Major win
I will do it when I get some time free. But I always wish someone else does the honours Threshold
Can I ask why you can't digest it?
Slam runner-up - 1200 points
WTF runner-up with no round robin losses - 1000 points
Masters 1000 win - 1000 points
(Why would we include Masters 1000 tournament win but not WTF runner-up with no round robin-losses or Slam runner-ups that get more points still?)
--------------------------------------MY THRESHOLD
Slam Semi-finals - 720 points
Masters 1000 runner-up - 600 points
The lower we go down - the less significant the achievement. And as I have already outlined previously about ATP 500 and 250 wins - they don't work when you spread them over the entire Open era history - (With Connors on 49 500's and Lendl on 42 500's and Djokovic/Federer/Nadal on 11-15 each -seems it was much easier to win those events in times past). Masters 1000 runner-up's are approaching 500's in terms of points - so if on the one hand we don't include 500's because it seems they are too different in the 1970/1980's from now, but do include 600 point achievements (which is close to 500 point achievements) - it just isn't consistent.
Can I ask why you can't digest it?
Slam runner-up - 1200 points
WTF runner-up with no round robin losses - 1000 points
Masters 1000 win - 1000 points
(Why would we include Masters 1000 tournament win but not WTF runner-up with no round robin-losses or Slam runner-ups that get more points still?)
--------------------------------------MY THRESHOLD
Slam Semi-finals - 720 points
Masters 1000 runner-up - 600 points
The lower we go down - the less significant the achievement. And as I have already outlined previously about ATP 500 and 250 wins - they don't work when you spread them over the entire Open era history - (With Connors on 49 500's and Lendl on 42 500's and Djokovic/Federer/Nadal on 11-15 each -seems it was much easier to win those events in times past). Masters 1000 runner-up's are approaching 500's in terms of points - so if on the one hand we don't include 500's because it seems they are too different in the 1970/1980's from now, but do include 600 point achievements (which is close to 500 point achievements) - it just isn't consistent.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
It's strange you ask that. Everybody is telling the same, no? Because 1000 points is arbitrary. If it's 1000, it can also be 750, it can also be 1200. While a title win in prestigious categories like Masters, Finals and Majors are de facto big tickets to goat-ness.
says who? it's as arbitrary as the points system you have a problem with. case in point: to some, only Wimbledon matters. To others, FO is down the ladder of achievements (I don't share that view, btw).
Is it arbitary
So you don't have a problem with Slam runner-ups and WTF runner-ups being included? (If you do then you will need to explain why you think it is okay to include Masters 1000 tournament wins but not slam runner-ups or WTF runner-ups which are worth at least as much or more). You just have a problem with 1000 points being the break-off? Why do you think it is arbitrary? I have very specific reasons for choosing that cut-off. I have already discussed the reasons for not included 500/250 events - these are the events immediately below Masters 1000's in value. The task at hand is to develop a system of comparing player achievement over the whole of the open era. If a measure doesn't seem a fair comparison over the whole of those years - then we must find a way to mitigate it (like I did with including WCT Finals for the 1970/1980's for those players who didn't play all of the slams) or not include it at all like 500/250's (because it seemed they were completely different in the 1970's/1980's to now).
A decision has to be made on a cut-off. I have chosen 1000 points (because it seemed that that helped for a more fair comparison of players over various eras since 1968 ). If you don't want a cut off at all - should we include quarter finals reached at challenger events? The impact on the players ranking in this list goes down with every step down from the 1000 point break you make - hence, it really becomes worth asking if it is worth the time and research to see how players went in the challenger events. And if you say, no don't include challenger events but everything above them - then aren't you establishing your own cut-off arbitrarily?
So you don't have a problem with Slam runner-ups and WTF runner-ups being included? (If you do then you will need to explain why you think it is okay to include Masters 1000 tournament wins but not slam runner-ups or WTF runner-ups which are worth at least as much or more). You just have a problem with 1000 points being the break-off? Why do you think it is arbitrary? I have very specific reasons for choosing that cut-off. I have already discussed the reasons for not included 500/250 events - these are the events immediately below Masters 1000's in value. The task at hand is to develop a system of comparing player achievement over the whole of the open era. If a measure doesn't seem a fair comparison over the whole of those years - then we must find a way to mitigate it (like I did with including WCT Finals for the 1970/1980's for those players who didn't play all of the slams) or not include it at all like 500/250's (because it seemed they were completely different in the 1970's/1980's to now).
A decision has to be made on a cut-off. I have chosen 1000 points (because it seemed that that helped for a more fair comparison of players over various eras since 1968 ). If you don't want a cut off at all - should we include quarter finals reached at challenger events? The impact on the players ranking in this list goes down with every step down from the 1000 point break you make - hence, it really becomes worth asking if it is worth the time and research to see how players went in the challenger events. And if you say, no don't include challenger events but everything above them - then aren't you establishing your own cut-off arbitrarily?
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Hmm may be in the past. But I have never heard any former player say that for today.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
This is where the dissent is. I do believe it's fair to include Masters wins and not Majors and Finals runner-up shows, the reason being a title finish in an important/mandatory tournament is not comparable to runner-up finishes, also considering there is no sizable difference between points assigned. It's like Olympics having less points than Masters but I rate it higher, for today's players. I believe a final finish is just one notch higher than a SF finish, both of them are not comparable to winning the title. As I said before your system gives more weight to F+1R than SF+SF though latter has more points.
But fair enough, your reasoning is at least objective. You go the ATP route assuming they know the "value" more than we do.
Fair enough, I'm clarified. Thanks.
Nope nope. No Challengers here ok. I hold the mandatory events in special esteem. Slams/Majors, Finals/Championships, Masters/Supers are special. But one guy above argues even that is subjective and not objective!
---------
I have a q. Were Masters mandatory back in 80s? When did it become mandatory for top pros? I believe it was mandatory even from 2000s but player's weren't penalized for skipping. Am I right?
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think this young detractor understands the comparison between number of Masters tournaments and number of Slam finalists. There are, annually, fewer Slam finalists than Masters winners. The clue is in there somewhere.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I do think there are zombie figures here who talk in bits and parts here and there through innuendos and clues and never directly to hom-o-sapiens. There are, annually, fewer double bagels than Masters winners. The clue is in there in the fact there is no necessary correlation between frequency of occurrence and weight of accomplishment; however will not question the logical merit of equating feats open for 9 vs 4.
Sensible Federer figures below however do realize it's a matter of personal opinion.
Sensible Federer figures below however do realize it's a matter of personal opinion.
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Here lie a big difficulty. Masters 1000 and equivalents haven't been mandatory for most of their history. Lendl for example missed a lot of Masters 1000 equivalent (and yet won 22). Another example are Hamburg and Monte-Carlo during the 90's, when americans were either playing in USA or Asia (Hong-Kong, Tokyo). That's very relevant considering that Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang are among the very best of the decade.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Good point. I'm wondering from when did it become mandatory. Late 90s? Early 00s? Even in 00s players used to skip Masters. I do not think they were penalized.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
For the record, I dont believe a Masters win is above Slam final. In fact it's not. I do believe however that in a point ranking system like OP's its more fair to consider just the "title wins" for reasons I mentioned in my original post.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Slicing through your mumbo-jumbo will not be difficult. Slam finals are more prestigious precisely because they are harder to reach than Masters finals. Anyone who argues otherwise, or conversely likens that to a double bagel, is fooling himself he belongs here. The points at stake, money at stake, format, propensity to compete for the top players, everything makes for a grueling environment. It is not accidental that the ATP awards more points for a Slam final than it does for a Masters win. That is not a personal opinion.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Now that is a better argument than, you know, There are, annually, fewer Slam finalists than Masters winners which is what I was replying to. As a reply to your this post, now go back to read my original comment to OP. May be you have something to reply to that?
Last edited:
Your reasons were that a certain multiple of slam runner-ups would deliver more points than some slam wins. But you could say that about Masters 1000 tournament wins also (which you are okay with including) eg if a player won 6 Masters 1000's and zero slams that would be the same points as winning 3 slams. Unless you make everything other than a slam win worth zero points then a certain multiple of any event will be worth more than a slam. Then, you might say "well then Slam wins should be worth more relatively" - well I would agree with you - but that's just our opinion - as I have said there are many opinions on weightings and impossible to establish agreement broadly on them. That is why I use the ATP weightings.
We all have different opinions on ranking methodology, and I have appreciated your comments here - but I just can't see any compelling reason to leave off slam runner-ups and unbeaten before the final WTF runner-ups off the rankings formulation
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Ok, I will state my reasonings clearly. One last time. First things first.
1. I dont see your ranking objectively, absolutely poor. I did once. But since you clarified your criteria, I know it is fair according to your subjective understanding of what is objective here. However I disagree with your logic to a small extent.
2. I will repeat this again. I do believe, from an accomplishment point of view, that it's bigger to make a Major final than win a Masters. I have no doubts about it.
3. However I do believe it's better to not tally Slam finals in a point ranking system like you have attempted. I will tell again why.
Any point based ranking system will have the "unfairness" of lesser achievements piling up to outscore Slam win, as you put it, so I wont talk about it more. That is an unfairness we cant get away with in a scoring system like this. Let's leave it to ATP points. Btw, it wasn't me who specifically talked about multiple Masters wins or Slam finals outscoring Slam win, but I do get the point. My point was that once you go a rung below title wins which is final shows then that raises the question why not SFs then. A final show, wherever it comes from, is closer to SF than a title win. I for one know 2 SF in Majors is bigger than a Masters win too. I know it's also bigger than a Slam final. And ATP points back it. I would like to make the point system more pure by counting only the title wins, since anyway it's not easily possible to count everything. While you say, ok let me go one level deeper and include the finals as well.
Just basic philosophical differences. The gist of our arguments goes like this:
- you think like, while I can not make it wholly perfect, let me do as much as I can.
- I think like, while it's limited, let me make the scoring criterion pure.
It boils down to how we both see final appearance.
Last edited:
Each to there own
Each to their own Thanks for the discussion
I do wonder how achieving a Slam runner-up is less 'pure' than winning a Masters 1000 - especially since it has greater points (1200 vs 1000) - but you may have meant being been 'pure' to what your system is - rather than in any absolute sense.
I think that what some people think of as a failure (losing the final) is actually a great success. To win a Slam or the WTF isn't just playing one match (the final) it is playing 7 (for slams) or 5 (for the WTF). Hence, a Slam runner-up didn't just show up at the final and lose. No, they won 6 matches first. And that is their achievement. Same with a WTF runner-up who didn't lose before the final - they didn't just show up at the final without playing beforehand, they beat 4 players from the top 8 in a row. And that is an achievement in itself - so much so, the ATP gives 1000 points for it. It is not as much as winning the final - but that is why they get less points. Semi-finals and below become less and less significant and in turn earn less points - and someone has to make a call as to when to make a cut off, as to what not to include, when developing a ranking system (because, as I have said, otherwise you are counting quarter final finishes in challenger events otherwise - and is it worth it for the small point contribution it provides?)
Again, thank you
Each to their own
Thanks for the discussion I do wonder how achieving a Slam runner-up is less 'pure' than winning a Masters 1000 - especially since it has greater points (1200 vs 1000) - but you may have meant being been 'pure' to what your system is - rather than in any absolute sense.
I think that what some people think of as a failure (losing the final) is actually a great success. To win a Slam or the WTF isn't just playing one match (the final) it is playing 7 (for slams) or 5 (for the WTF). Hence, a Slam runner-up didn't just show up at the final and lose. No, they won 6 matches first. And that is their achievement. Same with a WTF runner-up who didn't lose before the final - they didn't just show up at the final without playing beforehand, they beat 4 players from the top 8 in a row. And that is an achievement in itself - so much so, the ATP gives 1000 points for it. It is not as much as winning the final - but that is why they get less points. Semi-finals and below become less and less significant and in turn earn less points - and someone has to make a call as to when to make a cut off, as to what not to include, when developing a ranking system (because, as I have said, otherwise you are counting quarter final finishes in challenger events otherwise - and is it worth it for the small point contribution it provides?)
Again, thank you
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Each to their own
I do wonder how achieving a Slam runner-up is less 'pure' than winning a Masters 1000 - especially since it has greater points (1200 vs 1000) - but you may have meant being been 'pure' to what your system is - rather than in any absolute sense.
I think that what some people think of as a failure (losing the final) is actually a great success. To win a Slam or the WTF isn't just playing one match (the final) it is playing 7 (for slams) or 5 (for the WTF). Hence, a Slam runner-up didn't just show up at the final and lose. No, they won 6 matches first. And that is their achievement. Same with a WTF runner-up who didn't lose before the final - they didn't just show up at the final without playing beforehand, they beat 4 players from the top 8 in a row. And that is an achievement in itself - so much so, the ATP gives 1000 points for it. It is not as much as winning the final - but that is why they get less points. Semi-finals and below become less and less significant and in turn earn less points - and someone has to make a call as to when to make a cut off, as to what not to include, when developing a ranking system (because, as I have said, otherwise you are counting quarter final finishes in challenger events otherwise - and is it worth it for the small point contribution it provides?)
Again, thank you
1. No problem, my pleasure. It makes me rethink this whole thing.
2. It makes the scoring system impure because u r counting non-wins. The moment you add finals it raises the question why not sf then? Merely counting title wins is one solid criterion though it tells lesser than what ur scoring system tells.
Its like I making a ranking based on weeks at no.1 and then adding year ending championships won to it. Of course weeks at no.1 is not all, and adding any criterion to it makes it more complete but the overall point system looks a bad attempt isnt it? I just cooked up one extreme example to convey my point
Yours I believe is more complete and more flawed, mine is less complete and less flawed IMO.
3. Regarding challenger levels, I do not think they would add up to outscore 1000 points. While SF of slams will. Nalbandian made it to all 4 slam sf which includes a final and Soderling made it to 2 Slam finals. Your point system gives more emphasis to soderling. I disagree wit that. That sort of disagreement is stronger when runner up shows are included IMO.
4. All that boils down to how special you see F. Is it closer to a title win or a sf? I think latter. ATP points alone shouldn't be an excuse since 2 sf makes for more than 1 f by the same point system.
1. No problem, my pleasure. It makes me rethink this whole thing.
2. It makes the scoring system impure because u r counting non-wins. The moment you add finals it raises the question why not sf then? Merely counting title wins is one solid criterion though it tells lesser than what ur scoring system tells.
Its like I making a ranking based on weeks at no.1 and then adding year ending championships won to it. Of course weeks at no.1 is not all, and adding any criterion to it makes it more complete but the overall point system looks a bad attempt isnt it? I just cooked up one extreme example to convey my point
Yours I believe is more complete and more flawed, mine is less complete and less flawed IMO.
3. Regarding challenger levels, I do not think they would add up to outscore 1000 points. While SF of slams will. Nalbandian made it to all 4 slam sf which includes a final and Soderling made it to 2 Slam finals. Your point system gives more emphasis to soderling. I disagree wit that. That sort of disagreement is stronger when runner up shows are included IMO.
4. All that boils down to how special you see F. Is it closer to a title win or a sf? I think latter. ATP points alone shouldn't be an excuse since 2 sf makes for more than 1 f by the same point system.
I am counting individual achievements - so I don't think the 2 Semi-finals thing holds up. Again, 2 Masters 1000's (that you are counting) is the same number of points as a Slam - so multiples of lower things eg Masters 1000 tournament wins, Finals etc will always be more than a slam. I am only counting individual events. The question is, what is your cut-off? You have said it is Masters 1000 tournament victories - and nothing lower. That is fine. But that then begs the question - why cut-off Slam finals that are worth more (1200)? Or WTF runner-ups that are the same (1000)? They are not less 'pure'.
Anyway, it is clear we disagree - and that is fine. However I would encourage you to think of a Slam runner-up as an achievement worth noting.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. Fair enough. Your criterion is like 'individual achievements that at least is a Masters win in ATP points'.
2. Dunno how many more times I will have to repeat. One last time. I don't count those finals for the same reason I won't count yec in weeks at no.1 ranking. Because including finals for me raises the question why not sf. Because I find final is closer to sf than title win and because I don't find individual achievements a special criterion.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Still not making sense. Please stop trying.
Since the agreement at 1,000 cut-off per tournament then you can't include one and while leave out the other. YEC finalist gets 1000+ points and Master Series gets 1000 points so they both add to the list.
Slam semifinal is worth 750 points so it doesn't qualify.
Slam semifinal is worth 750 points so it doesn't qualify.
Last edited:
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
TimNZ, after some reflection, I'd like to propose that you drop your minimum points cutoff to current results worth 500 points or more, as I think that would ultimately benefit your system, and strike a better balance between the Wild West approach to scheduling the early Open Era greats took and the more unified prestige rulebook of the last few decades.
At current weighting, this would therefore include: GS semifinals reached; MS1000 finals reached; 500 series titles; and Olympic gold medals. Most of these categories will still favor the newer generations, but in particular I think that including 500 series titles is fairest to the old guard (who were truly operating under a different rulebook). And, building on your point about GS finalist prestige, there is something to be said for winning one's quarter of a draw and making the final weekend of a slam (think Fed's wonderful results in Australia, for instance).
Anyway, just to give you a sense of how your current system penalizes Open Era greats born b/w 1952 and 1960, take a look at these stats I compiled, organized by age:
Jimmy Connors
born: 1952
prime: 1973-1984
Grand Slams missed/skipped/banned: 16 out of 49 (11 AO, 5 RG)
YEC missed/skipped: 3
Dallas WCT missed/skipped: 8
MS1000 "equivalents" missed or skipped: 61/108
1973 - 4
1974 - 6
1975 - 8
1976 - 3
1977 - 5
1978 - 6
1979 - 6
1980 - 6
1981 - 3
1982 - 5
1983 - 5
1984 - 4
Notes: Connors did not enter well over half of the so-called MS1000 equivalents played b/w 1973 and 1984. Of the 47 he did play, he won the event or made the final well over half the time (17 titles, 9 finalist appearances). He skipped or missed (or was banned from) 16 grass and clay court majors during his prime, despite winning 5 grass/clay GS titles and making a dozen GS finals on those surfaces.
Bjorn Borg
born: 1956
prime: 1974-1981
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 9 out of 33 (8 AO, 1 RG)
YEC missed/skipped: 3
Dallas WCT missed/skipped: 3
MS1000 equivalents missed/skipped: 38/72
1974: 4
1975: 3
1976: 5
1977: 6
1978: 5
1979: 4
1980: 4
1981: 7
Notes: Borg too skipped over half of the MS1000 equivalents of his day (despite winning or making the final half the time at those he did enter), as well as Dallas and the YEC about half the time. He won 11 GS events exclusively on grass and clay (and made 13 finals), despite skipping 8 grass court majors and 1 clay court major during his prime.
John McEnroe
born: 1959
prime: 1978-1985
Grand Slams skipped/missed: 9 (6 AO, 3 RG)
YEC skipped/missed: 0
Dallas skipped/missed: 1
MS1000 equivalents skipped/missed: 32/72
1978: 4
1979: 4
1980: 3
1981: 5
1982: 3
1983: 4
1984: 4
1985: 5
Notes: Here you start to see somewhat of a scheduling evolution - McEnroe appears at just about all of the YEC/Dallas editions, and more than half of the MS1000 equivalents (though still averaging no more than 5 of the 9 each year). Still, he didn't appear at 9 GS events on grass/clay, despite winning 3 GS titles and making 6 finals on those surfaces.
Ivan Lendl
born: 1960
prime: 1980-1991
Grand Slams skipped/missed: 5 (2 AO, 2 RG, 1 Wimbledon)
YEC skipped/missed: 0
Dallas skipped/missed: 7
MS1000 equivalents skipped/missed: 56/108
1980: 3
1981: 6
1982: 5
1983: 2
1984: 4
1985: 5
1986: 4
1987: 4
1988: 6
1989: 5
1990: 7
1991: 5
Notes: With Lendl, you start to see the shape of modern scheduling: generally, playing all 4 majors and the YEC most seasons. Still, he missed/skipped half of the MS1000 equivalents contested during his prime, despite being the all-time record holder prior to Nadal.
And, for point of reference, here are the stats for Fed/Nadal/Djokovic:
Roger Federer
born: 1981
prime: 2003-2014
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 0
YEC missed/skipped: 0
Olympics missed/skipped: 0
MS1000s missed/skipped: 20/108
2003: 1
2004: 3
2005: 4
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 0
2009: 1
2010: 1
2011: 1
2012: 3
2013: 3
2014: 1
Notes: Federer has bailed on his share of MS1000 events, but he appears at the 5 biggest tournaments of the year like clockwork.
Rafael Nadal
born: 1986
prime: 2005-2014
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 5 out of 40 (2 AO, 1 Wimbledon, 2 US Open)
YEC missed/skipped: 4 out of 10
Olympics missed/skipped: 1 out of 2
MS1000s missed/skipped: 15/90
2005: 3
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 0
2009: 0
2010: 1
2011: 1
2012: 4
2013: 1
2014: 3
Notes: Lots of injuries and missed events, but nothing compared to the old guys.
Novak Djokovic
born: 1987
prime: 2007-2014
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 0
YEC missed/skipped: 0
Olympics missed/skipped: 0
MS1000s missed/skipped: 4 out of 72
2007: 0
2008: 0
2009: 0
2010: 1
2011: 2
2012: 0
2013: 0
2014: 1
Notes: The prototypical modern player, Djokovic should be the model for all to come in terms of scheduling oneself. He appears like clockwork at the big 15 events, and goes light on current 500 series and smaller tuneups. Unlike Federer, who skipped plenty of MS1000s in his prime, and unlike Nadal, who, when not injured, has been famously judicious about his non-clay tournament appearances, Djokovic knows where the big events are, and makes sure he gets there.
Anyway, as all this shows (I hope), it seems to me that the older guys are penalized in your system, and I think that broadening the cutoff to 500 points is a step in the right direction. Their non-appearances at the majors are what they are - can't do much there. But we can at least recognize their barnstorming greatness via inclusion of 500 series titles, as well as other prestigious outcomes (GS final weekends, etc.)
Just a thought - happy to hear anyone else's take too.
At current weighting, this would therefore include: GS semifinals reached; MS1000 finals reached; 500 series titles; and Olympic gold medals. Most of these categories will still favor the newer generations, but in particular I think that including 500 series titles is fairest to the old guard (who were truly operating under a different rulebook). And, building on your point about GS finalist prestige, there is something to be said for winning one's quarter of a draw and making the final weekend of a slam (think Fed's wonderful results in Australia, for instance).
Anyway, just to give you a sense of how your current system penalizes Open Era greats born b/w 1952 and 1960, take a look at these stats I compiled, organized by age:
Jimmy Connors
born: 1952
prime: 1973-1984
Grand Slams missed/skipped/banned: 16 out of 49 (11 AO, 5 RG)
YEC missed/skipped: 3
Dallas WCT missed/skipped: 8
MS1000 "equivalents" missed or skipped: 61/108
1973 - 4
1974 - 6
1975 - 8
1976 - 3
1977 - 5
1978 - 6
1979 - 6
1980 - 6
1981 - 3
1982 - 5
1983 - 5
1984 - 4
Notes: Connors did not enter well over half of the so-called MS1000 equivalents played b/w 1973 and 1984. Of the 47 he did play, he won the event or made the final well over half the time (17 titles, 9 finalist appearances). He skipped or missed (or was banned from) 16 grass and clay court majors during his prime, despite winning 5 grass/clay GS titles and making a dozen GS finals on those surfaces.
Bjorn Borg
born: 1956
prime: 1974-1981
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 9 out of 33 (8 AO, 1 RG)
YEC missed/skipped: 3
Dallas WCT missed/skipped: 3
MS1000 equivalents missed/skipped: 38/72
1974: 4
1975: 3
1976: 5
1977: 6
1978: 5
1979: 4
1980: 4
1981: 7
Notes: Borg too skipped over half of the MS1000 equivalents of his day (despite winning or making the final half the time at those he did enter), as well as Dallas and the YEC about half the time. He won 11 GS events exclusively on grass and clay (and made 13 finals), despite skipping 8 grass court majors and 1 clay court major during his prime.
John McEnroe
born: 1959
prime: 1978-1985
Grand Slams skipped/missed: 9 (6 AO, 3 RG)
YEC skipped/missed: 0
Dallas skipped/missed: 1
MS1000 equivalents skipped/missed: 32/72
1978: 4
1979: 4
1980: 3
1981: 5
1982: 3
1983: 4
1984: 4
1985: 5
Notes: Here you start to see somewhat of a scheduling evolution - McEnroe appears at just about all of the YEC/Dallas editions, and more than half of the MS1000 equivalents (though still averaging no more than 5 of the 9 each year). Still, he didn't appear at 9 GS events on grass/clay, despite winning 3 GS titles and making 6 finals on those surfaces.
Ivan Lendl
born: 1960
prime: 1980-1991
Grand Slams skipped/missed: 5 (2 AO, 2 RG, 1 Wimbledon)
YEC skipped/missed: 0
Dallas skipped/missed: 7
MS1000 equivalents skipped/missed: 56/108
1980: 3
1981: 6
1982: 5
1983: 2
1984: 4
1985: 5
1986: 4
1987: 4
1988: 6
1989: 5
1990: 7
1991: 5
Notes: With Lendl, you start to see the shape of modern scheduling: generally, playing all 4 majors and the YEC most seasons. Still, he missed/skipped half of the MS1000 equivalents contested during his prime, despite being the all-time record holder prior to Nadal.
And, for point of reference, here are the stats for Fed/Nadal/Djokovic:
Roger Federer
born: 1981
prime: 2003-2014
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 0
YEC missed/skipped: 0
Olympics missed/skipped: 0
MS1000s missed/skipped: 20/108
2003: 1
2004: 3
2005: 4
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 0
2009: 1
2010: 1
2011: 1
2012: 3
2013: 3
2014: 1
Notes: Federer has bailed on his share of MS1000 events, but he appears at the 5 biggest tournaments of the year like clockwork.
Rafael Nadal
born: 1986
prime: 2005-2014
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 5 out of 40 (2 AO, 1 Wimbledon, 2 US Open)
YEC missed/skipped: 4 out of 10
Olympics missed/skipped: 1 out of 2
MS1000s missed/skipped: 15/90
2005: 3
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 0
2009: 0
2010: 1
2011: 1
2012: 4
2013: 1
2014: 3
Notes: Lots of injuries and missed events, but nothing compared to the old guys.
Novak Djokovic
born: 1987
prime: 2007-2014
Grand Slams missed/skipped: 0
YEC missed/skipped: 0
Olympics missed/skipped: 0
MS1000s missed/skipped: 4 out of 72
2007: 0
2008: 0
2009: 0
2010: 1
2011: 2
2012: 0
2013: 0
2014: 1
Notes: The prototypical modern player, Djokovic should be the model for all to come in terms of scheduling oneself. He appears like clockwork at the big 15 events, and goes light on current 500 series and smaller tuneups. Unlike Federer, who skipped plenty of MS1000s in his prime, and unlike Nadal, who, when not injured, has been famously judicious about his non-clay tournament appearances, Djokovic knows where the big events are, and makes sure he gets there.
Anyway, as all this shows (I hope), it seems to me that the older guys are penalized in your system, and I think that broadening the cutoff to 500 points is a step in the right direction. Their non-appearances at the majors are what they are - can't do much there. But we can at least recognize their barnstorming greatness via inclusion of 500 series titles, as well as other prestigious outcomes (GS final weekends, etc.)
Just a thought - happy to hear anyone else's take too.
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I can't assume IQ of everyone to be so low, so no.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Are you saying that RusselJones is a dumb idiot ? Hmmmmm......:twisted:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Not as much as he pretends to be with his bland one-liners.
Genuinely don't understand why runner-ups are achievements, but not semifinals. Because you get a runner-up trophy?
They are
Semi-finals of Slams are achievements. So are reaching the quarter finals, and fourth round...and first round victories....and ATP 500 event wins, and semi-finals in those events, and quarter finals in those events....and ATP 250 events are achievements too....and semi-finals reached at 250 level, and quarter finals reached at 250.....and challenger events are also achievements...and semi-finals reached at challenger events etc etc. Shall we include all of these achievements when comparing greats - particularly since their points are diminishing as we progress down the levels of events? No, most people decide a cut-off point. I have decided on individual event (ie how many points did a player earn in a particular single event) 1000 point cut-off. The reasons for my cut-off I have given above....but to summarize them again:
The next event level down from Masters 1000 event is ATP 500 and then ATP 250. When I analysed the greats of old (eg Connors and Lendl) compared to current players (eg Djokovic/Federer/Nadal) - I found that Connors had won 49 ATP 500 equivalents and Lendl had won 42 ATP 500 equivalents. Djokovic/Federer/Nadal were in the range of 11 to 15 500 level tournament wins. Hence, a great disparity. Hence, I concluded that it was probably much easier for a great to win a 500 level event in the 1970's/1980's than today. Hence, comparing greats over the entire open era - to include 500's/250's - well that looked unfair because it seems much harder for modern greats to win them. Hence, if 500 events were out....what was the next level up from 500 level? - Masters 1000's of course. And when I compared the achievements of greats over the whole open era - there seems to be much closer parity in terms of numbers won eg Lendl is on 22, Federer is on 23, McEnroe is on 19, Djokovic is on 20. Now having decided that from Masters 1000 and up was the comparison points and that 1000 points was my threshold, I had to lookup what were all the events/scenerios that give 1000 points or greater. They were:
Masters 1000 tournament win = 1000 points
WTF runner-up where the runner-up won all their round robin matches = 1000 points
WTF tournament winner with 0, 1 or 2 round robin losses (1500, 1300, 1100 points respectively) Note: the 2 round robin loss scenerio has never happened in the entire WTF history. Also Note: I have included WCT Finals and Grand Slam cups at the same level of WTF's because they were the season end finals of their tours (WCT and ITF) - but I have only included them if the player didn't compete in 4 slams the year they won or were in the final of the WCT finals/Grand Slam cup.
Slam runner-up - the player wins 6 matches in a row = 1200 points
Slam winners - 2000 points.
Note: Semi-final at Slam gives 720 points - ie closer to a 500 than a Masters 1000 tournament win.
In Summary: Any win at any level on the tour in any round of a tournament is an achievement. But when ranking open era greats do we list every single achievement at every level - right down to challenger and future events? No, a cut-off has to be established. I have given my reasons above why I chose the 1000 point cut-off.
Semi-finals of Slams are achievements. So are reaching the quarter finals, and fourth round...and first round victories....and ATP 500 event wins, and semi-finals in those events, and quarter finals in those events....and ATP 250 events are achievements too....and semi-finals reached at 250 level, and quarter finals reached at 250.....and challenger events are also achievements...and semi-finals reached at challenger events etc etc. Shall we include all of these achievements when comparing greats - particularly since their points are diminishing as we progress down the levels of events? No, most people decide a cut-off point. I have decided on individual event (ie how many points did a player earn in a particular single event) 1000 point cut-off. The reasons for my cut-off I have given above....but to summarize them again:
The next event level down from Masters 1000 event is ATP 500 and then ATP 250. When I analysed the greats of old (eg Connors and Lendl) compared to current players (eg Djokovic/Federer/Nadal) - I found that Connors had won 49 ATP 500 equivalents and Lendl had won 42 ATP 500 equivalents. Djokovic/Federer/Nadal were in the range of 11 to 15 500 level tournament wins. Hence, a great disparity. Hence, I concluded that it was probably much easier for a great to win a 500 level event in the 1970's/1980's than today. Hence, comparing greats over the entire open era - to include 500's/250's - well that looked unfair because it seems much harder for modern greats to win them. Hence, if 500 events were out....what was the next level up from 500 level? - Masters 1000's of course. And when I compared the achievements of greats over the whole open era - there seems to be much closer parity in terms of numbers won eg Lendl is on 22, Federer is on 23, McEnroe is on 19, Djokovic is on 20. Now having decided that from Masters 1000 and up was the comparison points and that 1000 points was my threshold, I had to lookup what were all the events/scenerios that give 1000 points or greater. They were:
Masters 1000 tournament win = 1000 points
WTF runner-up where the runner-up won all their round robin matches = 1000 points
WTF tournament winner with 0, 1 or 2 round robin losses (1500, 1300, 1100 points respectively) Note: the 2 round robin loss scenerio has never happened in the entire WTF history. Also Note: I have included WCT Finals and Grand Slam cups at the same level of WTF's because they were the season end finals of their tours (WCT and ITF) - but I have only included them if the player didn't compete in 4 slams the year they won or were in the final of the WCT finals/Grand Slam cup.
Slam runner-up - the player wins 6 matches in a row = 1200 points
Slam winners - 2000 points.
Note: Semi-final at Slam gives 720 points - ie closer to a 500 than a Masters 1000 tournament win.
In Summary: Any win at any level on the tour in any round of a tournament is an achievement. But when ranking open era greats do we list every single achievement at every level - right down to challenger and future events? No, a cut-off has to be established. I have given my reasons above why I chose the 1000 point cut-off.
Last edited:
Wow! - there is some great work gone into this post. Please let me digest and come back to you on this. Thanks again
Didn't need this whole explanation, just thought you were saying that making a final was an achievement, while making a semifinal wasn't. That was my only concern. Sorry for the misunderstanding and great work on this thread.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Feel sorry for you for having to repeat the same thing over and over. Myself included in the list of culprits
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Wow! - there is some great work gone into this post. Please let me digest and come back to you on this. Thanks again
Sure thing - I think yours is an interesting approach, and as I suppose is evident, it's inspired a lot of thought on my end.
Looking forward to your responses.
My response about adding in 500's
I have reflected on your comments about 500 level events. You make some very valid points about the fact that players of old just didn't play all (or even most) Masters 1000 equivalents back in the 1970's/1980's/1990's (remember they weren't compulsory in the 1990's). Hence, modern players are getting more opportunities to win these events by competing in them much more regularity. To balance this you suggest including 500 level events.
My comments:
1/ Though it is true the players of old played far fewer events of the 'Masters 1000 equivalents' - that is balanced somewhat by the fact that when they did play them - they played a lesser depth field then compared to modern players who play a field of high density of top players due to the compulsory nature of the events since 2000. Hence, less events to possibly win, but easier to win, when they enter them. Now whether one factor balances off the other factor - that is hard to determine.
2/ If I did include 500 level events - it is worth reflecting on the following. Connors won 49 500 level equivalent events and Nadal has won 15 500 level events. So if I were to add both of them onto Connors and Nadal's totals in this ranking system - I would be adding onto Connors the equivalent of around 12 Slam wins in points and adding onto Nadal the equivalent of around 4 slam wins in points - so Connors will be moving up the scale 8 more slam wins equivalent than Nadal. That doesn't sit well with me....but I guess it is what it is. I have really tried to make this ranking system as objective as I can (within reason) so even if the results are unanticipated - I have had the attitude that the results are what they are. But it is interesting to reflect on what I have written above about Connors and Nadal.
3/ I think the solution to cover your concerns about the older timers not getting a fair shake is to resurrect what I was looking at around a month ago - which is to try to find the other tournament wins that aren't considered the official 'Masters 1000 equivalents' - but in reality are at the same level - and give players credit for those (as long as the new ones plus the official ones don't exceed more than 9 events per year - to keep them on an equal footing with older players). An example is that Sampras has an extra 4 Quasi- Masters 1000 events to add to his total & Agassi has another 2 or so. This way - players are getting appropriate credit.
I have reflected on your comments about 500 level events. You make some very valid points about the fact that players of old just didn't play all (or even most) Masters 1000 equivalents back in the 1970's/1980's/1990's (remember they weren't compulsory in the 1990's). Hence, modern players are getting more opportunities to win these events by competing in them much more regularity. To balance this you suggest including 500 level events.
My comments:
1/ Though it is true the players of old played far fewer events of the 'Masters 1000 equivalents' - that is balanced somewhat by the fact that when they did play them - they played a lesser depth field then compared to modern players who play a field of high density of top players due to the compulsory nature of the events since 2000. Hence, less events to possibly win, but easier to win, when they enter them. Now whether one factor balances off the other factor - that is hard to determine.
2/ If I did include 500 level events - it is worth reflecting on the following. Connors won 49 500 level equivalent events and Nadal has won 15 500 level events. So if I were to add both of them onto Connors and Nadal's totals in this ranking system - I would be adding onto Connors the equivalent of around 12 Slam wins in points and adding onto Nadal the equivalent of around 4 slam wins in points - so Connors will be moving up the scale 8 more slam wins equivalent than Nadal. That doesn't sit well with me....but I guess it is what it is. I have really tried to make this ranking system as objective as I can (within reason) so even if the results are unanticipated - I have had the attitude that the results are what they are. But it is interesting to reflect on what I have written above about Connors and Nadal.
3/ I think the solution to cover your concerns about the older timers not getting a fair shake is to resurrect what I was looking at around a month ago - which is to try to find the other tournament wins that aren't considered the official 'Masters 1000 equivalents' - but in reality are at the same level - and give players credit for those (as long as the new ones plus the official ones don't exceed more than 9 events per year - to keep them on an equal footing with older players). An example is that Sampras has an extra 4 Quasi- Masters 1000 events to add to his total & Agassi has another 2 or so. This way - players are getting appropriate credit.
Last edited:
timnz,
Sampras's ranking score needs to be adjusted.
He doesn't have 6 WTF but 5. He never went undefeated(5-0) in all of his 5 titles.
From the highlighted above, remove the 1 x 1.5, and change the score 52.8 to 51.3.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=8917186&postcount=254
It is not a WTF
Hello TMF.
The column doesn't just show WTF's. It also shows WCT Finals and Grand Slam cups (only if the player in the year they won it didn't play all the slams that year) - see first posting in this thread for explanation. I included Sampras' 1990 Grand Slam cup win (because he missed the French Open that year), but I didn't include his 1997 Grand Slam Cup (because he played all the slams that year).
For a complete breakdown of all the players as to what Season end final tournament wins and runner-ups I have included (and those I have excluded with the reasons why) - see:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=8792189&postcount=262
Hello TMF.
The column doesn't just show WTF's. It also shows WCT Finals and Grand Slam cups (only if the player in the year they won it didn't play all the slams that year) - see first posting in this thread for explanation. I included Sampras' 1990 Grand Slam cup win (because he missed the French Open that year), but I didn't include his 1997 Grand Slam Cup (because he played all the slams that year).
For a complete breakdown of all the players as to what Season end final tournament wins and runner-ups I have included (and those I have excluded with the reasons why) - see:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=8792189&postcount=262
Last edited:
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Understood - thanks for the reply. On some level, I'm not sure any purely quantitative measurements will capture achievements for the pre-1990 or so greats - particularly one where the ranking points and ratios have only been in place since 2009. As I said in a recent thread elsewhere, with the current consensus as to the top events, I think those earlier greats who played 2-3 majors, 0-1 YECs, and 4-5 MS1000 events per season are gonna start getting buried further and further down the record books. Such is life.
I may work up a version of your list from 500 points and above just for reference - I'm not sure it'd change much, but it might be interesting nonetheless.
Finally, as to your Nadal v. Connors example, that all goes back to our prior discussion re: relative values of GS titles versus other items measured in your system (I think it should be worth more than 2K points). I agree that 4 500 series titles are not worth 1 GS title. I also think that 3 GS runner up finishes are not worth over 1.75 times a GS title, but that's how it is in a purely ranking-points based system.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
OK, so here's your list with all outcomes with 500 rankings points or more included (Olympic gold medals; GS semifinalist appearances; MS1000 finalist appearances; 500 series titles (or their equivalents)):
Federer = 77.4 + (0 x .75) + (11 x .72) + (16 x .6) + (14 x .5) = 101.92
Lendl = 62.2 + (0 x .75) + (9 x .72) + (9 x .6) + (42 x .5) = 95.08
Connors = 46.7 + (0 x .75) + (16 x .72) + (12 x .6) + (49 x .5) = 89.92
Nadal = 64.2 + (1 x .75) + (3 x .72) + (13 x .6) + (15 x .5) = 82.41
McEnroe = 52.3 + (0 x .75) + (8 x .72) + (7 x .6) + (23 x .5) = 73.76
Sampras = 52.8 + (0 x .75) + (5 x .72) + (8 x .6) + (12 x .5) = 67.2
Djokovic = 48.2 + (0 x .75) + (10 x .72) + (10 x .6) + (11 x .5) = 66.9
Borg = 50.3 + (0 x .75) + (1 x .72) + (4 x .6) + (17 x .5) = 61.92
Agassi = 44.7 + (1 x .75) + (11 x .72) + (6 x .6) + (6 x .5) = 59.97
Becker = 41.7 + (0 x .75) + (8 x .72) + (8 x .6) + (9 x .5) = 56.76
Edberg = 28.3 + (1 x .75) + (8 x .72) + (10 x .6) + (8 x .5) = 44.81
Wilander = 26.8 + (0 x .75) + (3 x .72) + (7 x .6) + (9 x .5) = 37.66
(Note: I estimated Wilander at 9 500 series titles based on a quick eyeballing of the events - his score is thus give or take a point or so in either direction)
As I think the above list shows, moving the cutoff line down to 500 points predominantly benefits Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe of the older guys, and to some extent Federer and Djokovic of the newer generation. This is as it should be, because these five players have had tremendous consistency on all surfaces (think of Djokovic cranking out clay season results year after year versus Pete's clay record).
I also think, for Lendl/Connors/Mac, this list captures their barnstorming greatness (be it Connors racking up GS final weekend and MS1000 finalist appearances 17 years apart, to Lendl's early 1980s WCT dominance indoors, to Mac's dominant runs of title defenses on carpet during the same years). After all, these three men won an unreal 280 sanctioned titles between them - which should count for something when we're measuring numbers.
As well, too, Borg's numbers perhaps better reflect that his was an interrupted career, and Sampras's numbers perhaps better reflect his grass/HC heavy results. Nadal's #s, too, perhaps better reflect how top-heavy his results are (to the extent that he (1) has stellar results once he reaches the final weekend of a major, but (2) more often falls short of getting to the final weekend at the GSs relative to his contemporaries).
And Fed's greater career-wide consistency builds out the distance b/w he and Nadal as well.
Anyway, as I said in my earlier post, I'm still not sure that a purely numbers-based approach in which 2009-present ratios are applied retroactively to all Open Era careers can accurately account for "achievement" - but I will say that, to the extent I've always considered Connors and Lendl to be on their own mini-tier just below Borg/Federer/Nadal/Sampras, and well above guys like Agassi and Wilander who have as many or just one fewer slams, a list like this somewhat explains why.
Last edited:
Similar threads
