Your personal points system for ATP Tournaments

[Prisoner of Birth]

As the title says, give your own points system for all the ATP tournaments. But don't mess with the designations. The Grand Slams should all have equal rating points just like all the Masters from the same tier have equal rating points. You could even award more points for winning a Masters tournament than for winning a Grand Slam but that's at your own risk. Reasons for a certain points-system would be nice but not necessary. Anyway, here's mine :


GRAND SLAMS
Champion - 2500
Final - 1500
Semifinal - 900
Quarterfinal - 600
4th Round - 400
3rd Round - 200
2nd Round - 100
1st Round - 50 (including qualifying points)

ATP WTF
200 points for each RR win
400 points for a semifinal win
600 points for a final win

MASTERS (1000)
Winner - 1000
Final - 600
Semifinal - 360
Quarterfinal - 200
4th Round - 120
3rd Round - 60
2nd Round - 30
1st Round - 10 (including qualifying points)

Use the same ratios for the MASTERS 500, 250 as for the MASTERS 1000.


Olympics - 0 points
You play the Olympics for your country, and for your pride, not for ranking points or money. I think giving them 0 points would be more respectful than giving something like a 1000 points or a 1200 points. And it wouldn't deserve anything more for being the tournament that it is. So best not have any ranking points for it. This way you won't have skewing of ranking points every 4 years and all years will be comparable.

 

[Tony48]

I think it would be interesting if players were rewarded based on WHO they beat instead of what round they advanced to. That way, slam status and rank would be two separate and unrelated entities.

Like if you beat the No. 1 ranked player, you receive a set amount of points based on how many points YOU already have. Let's say No. 2 beats No. 1. The No. 2 player takes 30 points from No. 1. If No. 100 beats No. 1, that player takes 1,000 points from No. 1. Then people don't have to worry about "defending" points anymore because it's no longer based on rounds.

And this way, players would be less likely to fluke their way to No. 1. And also, you're not punished for losing to worthy opponents, but you ARE punished for losing to a nobody.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

I think it would be interesting if players were rewarded based on WHO they beat instead of what round they advanced to. That way, slam status and rank would be two separate and unrelated entities.

Like if you beat the No. 1 ranked player, you receive a set amount of points based on how many points YOU already have. Let's say No. 2 beats No. 1. The No. 2 player takes 30 points from No. 1. If No. 100 beats No. 1, that player takes 1,000 points from No. 1. Then people don't have to worry about "defending" points anymore because it's no longer based on rounds.

And this way, players would be less likely to fluke their way to No. 1. And also, you're not punished for losing to worthy opponents, but you ARE punished for losing to a nobody.

Yeah, I thought about that too. It's a great idea. Maybe establish a separate ranking system based on this idea, see how the seedings work and, if all's well, maybe have it done this way. It's that way in Cricket, the only other Sport I really follow, and it works well.

 

[timnz]

My goo

Slams = 3000 points

Slam finals = 1800 points

WTF unbeaten = 2250, one round robin loss = 1950

Olympics = 1875

Masters 1000's = 1000

People intuitively weight the slams more than they are being weighted currently. Hence my above system. Also it is vital that though the olympics get elevated, they simply must always stay less than the WTF.

 

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

I think it would be interesting if players were rewarded based on WHO they beat instead of what round they advanced to. That way, slam status and rank would be two separate and unrelated entities.

Like if you beat the No. 1 ranked player, you receive a set amount of points based on how many points YOU already have. Let's say No. 2 beats No. 1. The No. 2 player takes 30 points from No. 1. If No. 100 beats No. 1, that player takes 1,000 points from No. 1. Then people don't have to worry about "defending" points anymore because it's no longer based on rounds.

And this way, players would be less likely to fluke their way to No. 1. And also, you're not punished for losing to worthy opponents, but you ARE punished for losing to a nobody.

They used to have a system similar to that, back in the '90s; a sliding scale where if you beat someone ranked between #151-200, you received one bonus point, and if you beat the #1, you received 50 bonus points. This was of course in addition to the regular points. By comparison, winning a slam back then was worth 750 points.

It was scrapped because it made it difficult for journalists (and fans) to figure out the post-tournament rankings, especially around the end of the season when players were jostling for a berth at the Tour Finals.


Regards,
MDL

 

[BGod]

The Masters, 500 and 250 have cascading points that are the same of 1 round higher than the above level. Don't agree with this much because of so many tournaments with weaker draws due to geography, scheduling. For example a Masters SF same as Slam QF, QF as R16 and the 500 series doing the same thing, etc.

The gaps exist for the Finals and Semis.

Anywho, this would be mine:

SLAM
W-2000 (same)
F-1200 (same)
SF-800 (+80)
QF-400 (+40)
R16-200 (+20)
R32-100 (+10)
R64-25 (-25)
R128-0 (-10)

MASTERS
W-1000 (same)
F-500 (-100)
SF-300 (-60)
QF-150 (-30)
R16-50 (-40)
R32-10 (-35)

I would have 10 Masters and I would change the 500 and 250 tournament structure and point totals. Some tournaments could be worth 500 for the winner but others could be 450 or 400. Same for 250 tournaments being worth 200 or 150. The schedule simply does not make them all equal, especially when played at the same time a 250 and 500 tournaments may have significant differences in quality of players. I would also have a divider for Top rankings.

Top 100-51 means you can have 8 best results of 500 tier tournaments counted and 4 of 250. If you're 50-21 you now can only do 4 best of 500 and 2 of 200. For the Top 20 I would have no 250s counted and only two 500 levels. That would mean at that bracket you're only focusing on 16 events unless you want to shore up some 500s until the WTF.