Thought i'd briefly pop in with a rankings solution:

[Professor X]

Before I disappear again, I was thinking about how to solve the
ranking situation, whereby many feel that neither Federer, and
especially Azarenka, are currently the true number ones.

The rankings proposal places emphasis on the slams (and arguably the
olympics and YEC:. And would work as follows:

Players are ranked firstly based upon how many slams they have won.

So if guy A has 2 slams, but only 7000 points
Then he shall be ranked above guy B with one slam and 8000 points.

However, in the event that slam totals are even then ranking is done
by points as a secondary measure.

Naturally all current atp players who are not winning slams (99.9999%)
of them continue to be ranked by points only.

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

[jdeluise]

On 20-Sep-2012, Professor X <suebo...@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.

[Ulysses]

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.

[Professor X]

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.

[Whisper]

Not a logical argument. Whether a tournament is played every year or
not is completely irrelevant.

A better argument would be to say as it's not open to all players, it
shouldn't be rated. But then WTF is only open to 8 players, allowing
them to artificially pack on even more points then lower ranked players
& unfairly increasing the gap.

My view is because we already give massive points to restricted field
tournaments, we should also give it to Olympics.

[Whisper]

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.

[arahim]

On Sep 21, 12:58 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 21/09/2012 4:35 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>

WTF is open to top eight players based on the merit of their play
throughout the year (number of points accumulated) no matter what the
nationality. Currently Olympics restricts entry by nationality (among
other things) and higher ranked players can and are bypassed for lower
ranked ones.

[arahim]

Is 7543 so dead? In case of one slam each shouldn't the W winner be
the number one? Infact someone winning FO and AO would merely equal
the wimbledon winner. Under this Sampras loses his number one year end
ranking for 96 to Krajicek but gains one in 2000. Federer then has 7
year end number ones (he's already locked in for this year).


- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[MBDunc]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:58:38 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> Not a logical argument. Whether a tournament is played every year or not is completely irrelevant. A better argument would be to say as it's not open to all players, it shouldn't be rated. But then WTF is only open to 8 players, allowing them to artificially pack on even more points then lower ranked players & unfairly increasing the gap. My view is because we already give massive points to restricted field tournaments, we should also give it to Olympics.

Well technically every tournament has restricted field. Whether it is for top8 (YEC) or largest draw Slam (about 100 direct entries + Wild cards + qualies). Usually qualies get players ranked 100-350....

Are those 400+ ranked players unfairly shafted as players who get to play for slam provided big points get unfair advantage in rankings?

If anything Davis Cup has restricted field. No matter how good you are...you might end playing with tier3 countries in relegation groups if you do not have proper teammate.

.mikko

[Whisper]

I suggested the modification to factor 7543 into the equation, but
Jaros' starting point was good because it separates slam winners from
the plodders. Yes you're right, to make it perfect you have to factor
in the difference ins lam prestige.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 21, 3:58 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 21/09/2012 4:35 AM, jdeluise 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.
>
> Not a logical argument.  Whether a tournament is played every year or
> not is completely irrelevant.
>
> A better argument would be to say as it's not open to all players, it
> shouldn't be rated.  But then WTF is only open to 8 players

False. The WTF is "open" to any player who qualifies. Can't qualify?
Then you don't play.

The only significant tournament that has entrance restrictions not
based on rankings and/or qualifying results is the Olympics. There,
you can get bounced from the tennis event just because your nation is
overrepresented.

[bob]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:08:40 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

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.

bob

[Sakari Lund]

AFAIR, this was not a Jaros suggestion back then, about 10 years ago
or something. It was made by Hops as a joke, but Jaros and Whisper
thought it was a good idea. This was the era of (extreme) slammist vs.
(extreme) anti-slammist wars on rst, which has long ago been replaced
by era of wars between fans of different players.

[Whisper]

Ah yes. Apologies to Hops.

Yes, he meant it as a joke, but I considered it & it made perfect sense.

Who would argue a slam winner doesn't belong in top 4 rankings,
irrespective of other results? Or that a 2 slam winner trumps 1 slam?

[MBDunc]

perjantai, 21. syyskuuta 2012 17.05.58 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> Who would argue a slam winner doesn't belong in top 4 rankings,
>
> irrespective of other results?

It is actually rare that slam winner does not back up his results enough for top10 spot. Automatic top4? Does not work as it is after all used as a seeding tool.

.mikko

[bob]

mathematically, i like it, or any other formula that guarantees a 2
slam winner is tops and the non slams are only tie breakers for 4
separate slam winners. in the olympic year, i'd make the olympics
value of either equal to slam or say 9000. that way a 2 slam winner
will trump a slam/oly winner. i'm still not certain of how to place OG
yet.

bob

[*skriptis]

But also by their merrit. A top guy will always qualify for the olympics.

[*skriptis]

You can't get bounced if you're placed high enough in the rankings. Get it?
Can Nadal, Federer, or Murray be left out?
No they can't.

Olympics may be a 64-player field, but only top 10 or so are guaarrented to
play, similar to YEC.
All others..those 50 guys or so.....it's up to them to reach high
rankings...just like YEC backups. The higher you're placed, the greater is
the chance you'll play.

As for "national compoment", remember every tournament, especially slams,
award wild-cards to their own players, both main tournaments and
qualifiactions, and in many cases wild cards are awarded to (future stars,
fallen stars etc), meaning guys who are much lower in the rankings than
those journeymen who'd be deserving wild carders based on their rankings =
not fair.

..so you have national compoment there as well.

Olympics = every other tournament.



I'm dominating here.