>>On 21/09/2012 6:34 AM, Professor X wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 8:20 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 20, 11:35 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On 20-Sep-2012, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> The ATP could either do this or simply increase the points available
>>>>>> from Slam, YEC and olympic wins.

>>>>> I think Olympics shouldn't award any points since it's not played every year
>>>>> like every other tournament.

>>>> "Many feel that Federer....is not currently the true number one."

>>>> Who feels this way outside of the narrow confines of RST? I've not
>>>> read one article disputing the ATP ranking system or doubting the
>>>> legitimacy of Fed's #1 ranking.

>>>> Fed won Wimbledon, by far the most important tournament on the
>>>> calendar. He's also won three Masters 1000 events and a 500 tournament
>>>> (Rotterdam). No other player comes close to those results. Only here
>>>> is the #1 ranking even debated. Fed is #1, period. His results reflect
>>>> his lofty ranking. And if he plays Shanghai he will almost certainly
>>>> remain #1 until November, at least.

>>> well if the olympics isn't counted as a major then the system would
>>> keep federer as number one since all the top 4 have one slam and
>>> therefore can only be ranked by points anyhow. However, the system
>>> would mean that 2 slam wins in a year would guarantee no.1 ranking.

>>Jaros previously suggested a 10,000 point allocation for each slam won.
>>  He wasn't serious when he suggested it, but we reviewed & discussed it
>>in rst & agreed it was great idea.  It means any guy who wins a slam can
>>never rank lower than 4, & any 2 slam champ will outrank 1 slam, 3 > 2
>>etc.  This essentially means tune-up results can't trump slam wins,
>>which is more aligned with the real world view of 'best' players.

>10,000pts/slam. hmmm. jaros a pretty smart guy actually. and i like
>this. i'll think about if i can poke holes, but right now i don't see
>too many if any.