Vote on what the actual surface distribution of the tour is!

[drm025]

I'm interested to see what people feel the actual surface distribution is on today's tour. I have made a similar thread before, but this will be more detailed, and I won't be discussing individual players. The main question is how much is each surface represented on the ATP tour today. I present 6 different methods we can use to quantify the surface distribution. I will use the 2013 ATP tour as our example calendar year. Which one do you feel is most appropriate?

1. Total number of tournaments per surface - how many tournaments represent each surface

Outdoor hard - 30.8%
Clay - 33.8%
Grass - 9.2%
Indoor hard - 26.2%

2. Big tournaments per surface - how many big tournaments (slams, masters, WTFs) represent each surface

Outdoor hard - 50.0%
Clay - 28.6%
Grass - 7.1%
Indoor hard - 14.3%

3. Total number of tournaments scaled by ranking points - adding all tournaments while scaling for ranking points awarded to the winner (250s get weight of 1, slams get weight of 8 )

Outdoor hard - 39.0%
Clay - 30.1%
Grass - 9.6%
Indoor hard - 21.3%

4. Total number of tournaments scaled by draw size - adding all tournaments for each surface together while scaling by the size of the draw (small ATP 250s will get weight of 28, while slams get weight of 128 )

Outdoor hard - 38.6%
Clay - 31.5%
Grass - 11.3%
Indoor hard - 18.6%

5. Total number of tournaments scaled by prize money - adding all tournaments for each surface together while scaling by total prize money awarded (for example, Brisbane offered $436,630.00 while Wimbledon offered $17,539,980.50)

Outdoor hard - 42.2%
Clay - 26.7%
Grass - 14.8%
Indoor hard - 16.4%

6. Big tournaments per surface scaled by ranking points - big tournaments per surface scaled by ranking points (master - 1, WTFs - 1.5, slams - 2) *added after poll was created, vote for other if you prefer this method

Outdoor hard - 48.6%
Clay - 27.0%
Grass - 10.8%
Indoor hard - 13.5%

Which method do you guys think is the most accurate? Please vote! I'm really interested in what you guys think, because I'm not even sure what I would go with. Let me know if you think there is any alternate method you would like as well.

Edit: Added option 6 after poll was created. You guys can vote other if you like option 6.

 

[Def]

The # of tournaments metric is not too accurate because at many times of the year there are up to 3 small tournaments running at the same time, all of which might be the same surface and would be essentially equivalent to one big tournament.

 

[NatF]

Big tournaments per surface is probably the most accurate in terms of the context of discussions here IMO.

 

[Russeljones]

Nice effort drm025. I think we can eliminate the prize money method right away.

 

[jg153040]

Hey OP, I'm not falling for that one again.

You will bait people into voting, then in the next thread skew results to make Nadal look good.

 

[drm025]

Hey OP, I'm not falling for that one again.

You will bait people into voting, then in the next thread skew results to make Nadal look good.

What does it matter what I do after? I'm interested in reaching a consensus on the surface distribution of the tour. Are you scared of voting for one in the fear of making Nadal look good?

That's not what matters here at all. Notice that you brought up Nadal.

 

[jg153040]

What does it matter what I do after? I'm interested in reaching a consensus on the surface distribution of the tour. Are you scared of voting for one in the fear of making Nadal look good?

That's not what matters here at all. Notice that you brought up Nadal.

Oh it matters what you do after. You are a chessmaster, you plan your moves.

No, I won't vote, because you designed the system that way that whatever we vote it will make Fed look bad vs Nadal.

 

[drm025]

I added a sixth option which might be appropriate. Looking at big tournaments only but scaling by their ranking points. You can vote other in the poll if you prefer this.

 

[drm025]

Oh it matters what you do after. You are a chessmaster, you plan your moves.

No, I won't vote, because you designed the system that way that whatever we vote it will make Fed look bad vs Nadal.

Dude, that's not the case at all.

Talk of specific players is not relevant here. Stop being paranoid. I don't have a master plan.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Ranking points. And within the confines of talking about the top players, I think it'd be most fair to consider only the top 14 events.

 

[drm025]

Ranking points. And within the confines of talking about the top players, I think it'd be most fair to consider only the top 14 events.

Mayo, I added an option 6 scaling the top tournaments by ranking points. Do you think that is better? The biggest change is lowering outdoor hard, due to high number of masters tournaments and elevating grass because the only big tournament is a slam.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Mayo, I added an option 6 scaling the top tournaments by ranking points. Do you think that is better?

It's better when talking about the top players. For everyone else, the overall points distribution is better.

 

[jg153040]

Dude, that's not the case at all.

Talk of specific players is not relevant here. Stop being paranoid. I don't have a master plan.

Ok, in that case the best way would be to use each surface speed factor.

I mean some extra slow HC could be closer in speed to clay courts than to average HC courts. So this court would fall under clay distribution, not HC, for example.

We need to do this for all surfaces.

Different color doesn't always mean different speed.

 

[drm025]

Ok, in that case the best way would be to use each surface speed factor.

I mean some extra slow HC could be closer in speed to clay courts than to average HC courts. So this court would fall under clay distribution, not HC, for example.

We need to do this for all surfaces.

Different color doesn't always mean different speed.

Aren't there more factors that change for each surface than just speed?

 

[drm025]

Something interesting if we decide to go by big tournaments. This distribution changed a bit after 2008 when the indoor masters in Madrid got replaced with Shanghai, an outdoor masters.

 

[jg153040]

Aren't there more factors that change for each surface than just speed?

Yeah they are. And even within the same surface those change.

I mean, do even two HC or clay courts play exactly the same?

Madrid plays a lot differently due to altitude than RG.

Also some courts have more room behind the baseline, which favors defenders more.

 

[drm025]

Yeah they are. And even within the same surface those change.

I mean, do even two HC or clay courts play exactly the same?

Madrid plays a lot differently due to altitude than RG.

Also some courts have more room behind the baseline, which favors defenders more.

Ok, well this is a little too in depth for us to incorporate. Do all records which are separated by surface need to be revisited then? I think you're asking a little too much.

 

[coloskier]

It would be interesting to see fast courts (grass, fast HC) vs slow courts (clay, slow to mod HC). Hard courts before June (except Dubai) would be considered slow.

 

[jg153040]

Ok, well this is a little too in depth for us to incorporate. Do all records which are separated by surface need to be revisited then? I think you're asking a little too much.

That's why we can't even compare achievements within the same year.

For example you win every tournament under very different conditions.

So many variables. For example one match is at night, one at day. Even within the same tournament. Sometimes you get to play vs peak Murray, sometimes you get to play vs average Murray.

 

[drm025]

That's why we can't even compare achievements within the same year.

For example you win every tournament under very different conditions.

So many variables. For example one match is at night, one at day. Even within the same tournament. Sometimes you get to play vs peak Murray, sometimes you get to play vs average Murray.

So how this relevant to the thread? Are you just saying that we can't come up with a surface distribution?

 

[Firing Forehand]

I think it's clear there's too much HC (indoor and outdoor)

Part of HC should be replaced for grass

 

[OrangePower]

Option 3 scaled by ranking points seems most appropriate.
However outdoor hard should probably be further divided into slower hard and faster hard. There's a wide difference in speed between various hard courts; more so than between various clay courts and various grass courts. Of course that introduces an element of subjectivity, but most reasonable people would agree for example that AO and Miami are on the slower side, while Cincy and Toronto are on the faster side.