What do you think of Men's slam points vs. Women's

[tacou]

The winners get 2000 ranking points each, but the rest of the rounds are distributed quite differently.

ATP
F 1200
SF 720
QF 360
R16 180
R32 90
R64 45
R128 10
Q 25

WTA
F 1400
SF 900
QF 500
R16 280
R32 160
R64 100
R128 5
Q 60

I think I prefer the women's point system for the most part. I like how qualifiers get a decent chunk of points, while first round losers get basically nothing.
R64 is twice that of men's, which I don't know about, but I think making the fourth round of a slam should be worth a lot more than an ATP 250 final.
Lastly, I think 500 is better for a quarter-finalist than 360.
Which do you prefer?

 

[tacou]

Of course not, but I think the men's game should adopt their point distribution system

 

[Chico]

I prefer women's ranking system.

 

[ubi1]

Mens system is better IMO

 

[timnz]

Relative points

It doesn't matter how many points a Slam gives you....what is important is its relative size to other events on the calendar. The fact that a slam is only double the points of a Masters 1000 is a travesty. It should be three times.

It is quite possible that if Novak Djokovic wins the US Open over Nadal that Nadal will go on to be the year end number 1 - even though he isn't the best performed player in the Slams. Nadal is that far ahead in the race at the moment in points. This problem of the best slam performer of the year not being number 1 is mainly caused by the relative point for Slams being far too low.

 

[cork_screw]

Girls need a little help anyway they can get it. Whether it's by points, by the size and weight of balls (US Open balls are different from mens vs womens) or whether it's by the number of sets they play to win a grandslam match, or the aid of onside coaching now made available to them. But for some reason- all those aside, they want "equality."

I'm fine with people wanting things their own way or stacked in their direction, it's a natural human tendency. But don't label equality when you want things in your favor, especially when including the "equal" prize money to all those aforementioned factors.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

It doesn't matter how many points a Slam gives you....what is important is its relative size to other events on the calendar. The fact that a slam is only double the points of a Masters 1000 is a travesty. It should be three times.

It is quite possible that if Novak Djokovic wins the US Open over Nadal that Nadal will go on to be the year end number 1 - even though he isn't the best performed player in the Slams. Nadal is that far ahead in the race at the moment in points. This problem of the best slam performer of the year not being number 1 is mainly caused by the relative point for Slams being far too low.

On the other hand, you don't want to marginalize the rest of the tour compared to the majors. As a fan, I really like the fact that the Masters Series has been given a lot of weight. It gives the season a nice secondary tier of tournaments that matter and have great matchups.

 

[tudwell]

The winners get 2000 ranking points each, but the rest of the rounds are distributed quite differently.

ATP
F 1200
SF 720
QF 360
R16 180
R32 90
R64 45
R128 10
Q 25

WTA
F 1400
SF 900
QF 500
R16 280
R32 160
R64 100
R128 5
Q 60

I think I prefer the women's point system for the most part. I like how qualifiers get a decent chunk of points, while first round losers get basically nothing.
R64 is twice that of men's, which I don't know about, but I think making the fourth round of a slam should be worth a lot more than an ATP 250 final.
Lastly, I think 500 is better for a quarter-finalist than 360.
Which do you prefer?

I agree with you on the R16 and QF points. Semis and final could maybe be a bit more but the WTA system seems a little inflated there.

 

[tacou]

It doesn't matter how many points a Slam gives you....what is important is its relative size to other events on the calendar. The fact that a slam is only double the points of a Masters 1000 is a travesty. It should be three times.

It is quite possible that if Novak Djokovic wins the US Open over Nadal that Nadal will go on to be the year end number 1 - even though he isn't the best performed player in the Slams. Nadal is that far ahead in the race at the moment in points. This problem of the best slam performer of the year not being number 1 is mainly caused by the relative point for Slams being far too low.

I agree, that's why I've pointed out the men's point system in comparison to other tourneys. Like I said, I think making the final 8 of a slam (360 points) should be at least equal to winning a third-tier tournament (500 points). I also think a fourth round (180 points) is a lot harder than reaching the final of tier-4 tournament (150 points).

 

[tacou]

I agree with you on the R16 and QF points. Semis and final could maybe be a bit more but the WTA system seems a little inflated there.

Agreed. I think 1200 is good for a finalist and maybe more like 750-800 for semis.