Women's ELO Ratings of the Open Era
- Thread starter Wuornos
- Start date
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
As usual, your numbers are very interesting, and while I will not argue the method, some of the placements are very surprising. Sanchez-Vicario coming out ahead of both Serena and Billie Jean is a shocker. Even when taking into to Consideration Serena erratic play...I would think her having twice as many majors as Vicario would put her ahead...and Billie Jean is such a legend its a shock. The top 4 are no surprise at all, although they points are so close that order could change. Some of the other players numbers are also interesting...if only because you would not think at a glance the numbers would be so high (clijsters, sabatini, and I will say Goolagong because she competed in arguably the toughest era in womens tennis...is that why she is so high?) but over all, very interesting..and I admire your dedication...I don't think I would have the patience to work out those numbers.
1
1970CRBase
Guest
So the question comes to mind.
Graf and Navratilova ended up 9-9. They only played twice on clay between 85 and 87 and never after.
Supposing they had played one more match and it was on clay. Who would likely win that match and how would that hypothetical match change the list?
Graf and Navratilova ended up 9-9. They only played twice on clay between 85 and 87 and never after.
Supposing they had played one more match and it was on clay. Who would likely win that match and how would that hypothetical match change the list?
1
1970CRBase
Guest
Good job. Even before the result, I thought 59% - 41% probabilty was a reasonable assessment even though the WTA rankings would suggest otherwise and coming into this match Jelena was 3-2 vs Serena. Beat the match poll also, btw 
1
1970CRBase
Guest
wuornos
I'm sorry about this. It doesn't help science at all. I'm not sure why you would lose your cool since you presented a solid method for your arguments and you probably can disregard all other opinions that are basically about somebody's personal likes and dislikes, but not based on better science, as being just noise.
Take the women's ELO for example, I would have liked to see Graf on top. But I'd agree that Martina is the better player of the two... Or that Sanchez is very underrated compared to the bluster of the overrated Williamses though Sanchez only has half the majors of either of the two - she was unlucky to be in the Graf era. Remove Graf from the whole equation and Sanchez would probably have 8 - 10 slams. Women's ELO with it's method shows too that Sanchez was a far tougher competitor than the anti Graf camp would like to admit, hence you should expect lots of opinionated attacks since people don't like their pet preferences challenged.
Fortunately I've saved the previous threads on the men's and women's ELOs. I enjoyed your posts and your hard work. Come back when you are ready
I'm sorry about this. It doesn't help science at all. I'm not sure why you would lose your cool since you presented a solid method for your arguments and you probably can disregard all other opinions that are basically about somebody's personal likes and dislikes, but not based on better science, as being just noise.
Take the women's ELO for example, I would have liked to see Graf on top. But I'd agree that Martina is the better player of the two... Or that Sanchez is very underrated compared to the bluster of the overrated Williamses though Sanchez only has half the majors of either of the two - she was unlucky to be in the Graf era. Remove Graf from the whole equation and Sanchez would probably have 8 - 10 slams. Women's ELO with it's method shows too that Sanchez was a far tougher competitor than the anti Graf camp would like to admit, hence you should expect lots of opinionated attacks since people don't like their pet preferences challenged.
Fortunately I've saved the previous threads on the men's and women's ELOs. I enjoyed your posts and your hard work. Come back when you are ready
Wuornos
Professional
I'm sorry about this. It doesn't help science at all. I'm not sure why you would lose your cool since you presented a solid method for your arguments and you probably can disregard all other opinions that are basically about somebody's personal likes and dislikes, but not based on better science, as being just noise.
Take the women's ELO for example, I would have liked to see Graf on top. But I'd agree that Martina is the better player of the two... Or that Sanchez is very underrated compared to the bluster of the overrated Williamses though Sanchez only has half the majors of either of the two - she was unlucky to be in the Graf era. Remove Graf from the whole equation and Sanchez would probably have 8 - 10 slams. Women's ELO with it's method shows too that Sanchez was a far tougher competitor than the anti Graf camp would like to admit, hence you should expect lots of opinionated attacks since people don't like their pet preferences challenged.
Fortunately I've saved the previous threads on the men's and women's ELOs. I enjoyed your posts and your hard work. Come back when you are ready
Thank's 1970. At the end of the day, I'm just barking mad.
. I just sometimes go like this and everything goes a bit out of focus and I lose perspective. Give me a couple of days and I'm sure I will be feeling much better.Thanks for the support, I appreciate it.
Regards
Tim
Similar threads
