Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Peak Elo Ratings

[*skriptis]

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

BOATS:

Overall: Djokovic
HC: Djokovic
Clay: Nadal
Grass: Borg
Carpet: McEnroe

Outdoor: Borg
Indoor: McEnroe


(Specific)

Sets: Borg
Games: Borg

Serve: Isner
Return: Djokovic
Tiebreak: Federer





--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[guypers]

LoL
Hagahahahahagahahagaha9ha

Hagahahahahagahahagaha9ha


Hagahahahahagahahagaha9ha

[soccerfan777]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 12:06:29 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
>
> BOATS:
>
> Overall: Djokovic

Bitch, please!

> HC: Djokovic
Djoker better than Lendl or Connors?

> Clay: Nadal
> Grass: Borg
> Carpet: McEnroe

Lendl is very close to McEnroe here

>
> Outdoor: Borg
> Indoor: McEnroe
>
>
> (Specific)
>
> Sets: Borg
> Games: Borg
>
> Serve: Isner
> Return: Djokovic

This might be true. Connors had a great return too.

[Shakes]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 12:06:29 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> > http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
> >
> > BOATS:
> >
> > Overall: Djokovic
>
> Bitch, please!
>

:) I don't think *skriptis came up with the data. He probably is just pointing out a site.

> > HC: Djokovic
> Djoker better than Lendl or Connors?
>

At least more successful in terms of majors ?

[Calimero]

That's even more retarded than your "MOAT ratings".
"ELO ratings", my ass ...


Max



--
".... but it is true I disliked Graf." (Steve Jaros, rec.sport.tennis, 2004)

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:04:40 AM UTC+3, Calimero wrote:
> That's even more retarded than your "MOAT ratings".
> "ELO ratings", my ass ...

ELO is most fair and accurate system to find out the order/the best in non-measurable sports/athletes. Everyone *) knows that. But the system is horribly complicate to explain and very hard to follow.

*) expert, I know it can be too much to ask, but....

Tennis divisor ranking system which was used pre-ATP practically functioned like ELO and GOLF's ranking system has been divisor based for almost three decades now. Divisor is not ELO, but it produces usually pretty similar outcome.

This divisor system was also hard to follow. Remember Goolagong's #1 ranking 20y after she should have gotten it and this funny Vilas case:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/sports/tennis/years-later-for-guillermo-vilas-hes-still-not-the-one.html

I remember Graf had one case (1988?) when WTA was still using divisor and her ranking points actually decreased after she won minor tournament (as her average points decreased compared to big points from slams/tier1 tours).

.mikko

[MBDunc]

And those who were here around 2000/2001 do remember Waltz and his percentages rankings...

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 2/06/2018 9:46 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:04:40 AM UTC+3, Calimero wrote:
>> That's even more retarded than your "MOAT ratings".
>> "ELO ratings", my ass ...
>
> ELO is most fair and accurate system to find out the order/the best in non-measurable sports/athletes. Everyone *) knows that. But the system is horribly complicate to explain and very hard to follow.
>
> *) expert, I know it can be too much to ask, but....
>
> Tennis divisor ranking system which was used pre-ATP practically functioned like ELO and GOLF's ranking system has been divisor based for almost three decades now. Divisor is not ELO, but it produces usually pretty similar outcome.
>
> This divisor system was also hard to follow. Remember Goolagong's #1 ranking 20y after she should have gotten it and this funny Vilas case:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/sports/tennis/years-later-for-guillermo-vilas-hes-still-not-the-one.html

I agree with the logic of not giving Vilas No.1. Like the article says
the weekly rankings are not to determine who is no.1 in the world, but a
seeding/entry system. That's why yr-end no.1 is the only thing that
matters. For me the guys who made no.1 but never at yr end were never
real No.1's at all.

All these issues would be solved if we allocated pts as follows;

Wimbledon 7,000
USO 5,000
FO 4,000
AO 3,000

And leave other pts as they are.

This means Federer was the real no.1 last yr.









---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[soccerfan777]

You are such a doofus Whisper. Leave the ranking calculations to the pros... not everyone is into slam-fucking

[joh]

Something similar in football
https://www.theringer.com/2017/9/14/16308472/fifa-rankings-wales-friendlies-2018-world-cup-russia

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:40:33 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> > This divisor system was also hard to follow. Remember Goolagong's #1 ranking 20y after she should have gotten it and this funny Vilas case:
> >
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/sports/tennis/years-later-for-guillermo-vilas-hes-still-not-the-one.html
>
> I agree with the logic of not giving Vilas No.1.

The Funny part in that article was that it seeked (and actually found) Vilas' shoulda #1 ranking way outside of Vilas' super '77 but weeks in 1975-76.

.mikko

[StephenJ]

Yes,but Vilas shoulda been year-end #1 for 1977

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:36:12 PM UTC+3, StephenJ wrote:
> Yes,but Vilas shoulda been year-end #1 for 1977

One of two real misses not caught by system: another is Connors and 1982. Women have some too.

There are several other cases which are also arguable - especially retrospectively with current priorities but those two stands out.

But ultimately biggest flaw was 1998 and Hingis doubles case. She won doubles grand slam that year (Lucic, Novotna as partners) but #1 ranked doubles player 1998 was Zvereva who was runner-up in all GS finals (with Davenport).

.mikko

[StephenJ]

On 6/2/2018 6:48 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:36:12 PM UTC+3, StephenJ wrote:
>> Yes,but Vilas shoulda been year-end #1 for 1977
>
> One of two real misses not caught by system: another is Connors and 1982. Women have some too.
>
> There are several other cases which are also arguable - especially retrospectively with >current priorities but those two stands out.

Becker 1989 as well.

As that article said (and this is interesting to me because I jousted
with Waltz about this 15+ years ago, he insisted that the weekly
rankings should be interpreted to mean who was 'best'), the weekly
rankings were designed not to indicate 'best' results, but rather for
seeding and entry purposes.

Logically, even though we do know that players value being #1 at any
time of year, and especially at year's end, this also must apply to year
end as well. Player X, like say Sampras in Fall of 98, can value being
YE #1 and make a "push" in the fall to do it, but you are still battling
the underlying logic of the system, which is aimed at seeding and entry,
not "best".

Whisper's 7000, etc. system would bring "seeding" in to full congruence
with "best".

> But ultimately biggest flaw was 1998 and Hingis doubles case. She won doubles grand slam that year (Lucic, Novotna as partners) but #1 ranked doubles player 1998 was Zvereva who was runner-up in all GS finals (with Davenport).
>

Wow, didn't know that. Ridonculous.


--
for the total eradication of the imperialists, the Chinese
people are willing to endure the first U.S. nuclear
strike. All it is is a big pile of people dying.

- Mao Tse-Tung, 1958

[Whisper]

On 2/06/2018 9:36 PM, StephenJ wrote:
> Yes,but Vilas shoulda been year-end #1 for 1977
>

Agreed. That's why I always consider him a former no.1. Clearly he was
the player of the year in 1977 winning FO & USO titles, & a r/up at AO.

[*skriptis]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 12:06:29 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
>> > http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
>> >
>> > BOATS:
>> >
>> > Overall: Djokovic
>>
>> Bitch, please!
>>
>
> :) I don't think *skriptis came up with the data. He probably is just pointing out a site.

Yeah, but does that have to pointed out?
Incredible.

Of course I merely pointed out to a site.


Also I don't think you can attack the elo ratings, it's just is,
what it is.

However, I think only slam matches should be used. And then we'd
have the guy with peak elo officially boat.

[Whisper]

Shows the fatal weaknesses in ranking system. A calendar slam winner
ranks behind a player who won no slams? Hingis had one of the greatest
doubles seasons of all time in '98 while Zvereva is invisible. The
rankings need to be changed to reflect reality.

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 1 juni 2018 19:06:29 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

> http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
>
> BOATS:
>
> Overall: Djokovic
> HC: Djokovic
> Clay: Nadal
> Grass: Borg
> Carpet: McEnroe
>
> Outdoor: Borg
> Indoor: McEnroe
>
>
> (Specific)
>
> Sets: Borg
> Games: Borg
>
> Serve: Isner
> Return: Djokovic
> Tiebreak: Federer

The correct interpretation is that Djoker is peak ELO BOAT, since the concept of BOAT is debatable and certainly not written in stone by ELO. For instance, I can argue that the BOAT should be the guy capable of playing the highest ever level in any given match. How to measure that? Perhaps take the 10 most dominant performances against top players... One could simply pick slam champions, or peak ELO top 10 players.

The challenge then would be to determine the adequate number of matches: Taking only the single 2 or 3 most dominant performance could be misleading (as the opponent could have been horribly off) but taking too many could also be misleading as you're not really measuring true peak performance any more (which is also the problem with using the ELO peak ranking to determine BOAT).

I mean, for all we know, Becker or even Krajicek, Del Potro or Safin are the true BOATs as they could (have) reach(ed) the highest level in any given match if they were able to show a significant number of peak performances (crushing top players a substantial number of times). After all, the concept of best is not about consistency but about absolute peak playing level.

[StephenJ]

On 6/2/2018 8:46 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 2/06/2018 9:36 PM, StephenJ wrote:
>> Yes,but Vilas shoulda been year-end #1 for 1977
>>
>
>
> Agreed. That's why I always consider him a former no.1. Clearly he
was the player of the year in 1977 winning FO & USO titles, & a r/up at AO.
>

Of course Borg was still actually the best player. He didn't play the AO
or FO, and defaulted via injury in the 3rd round of the USO. He was 3-0
vs Vilas that year. Vilas was 140-11 vs everyone else, including 2-1 vs
Jimbo.

But you still have to give it to Vilas, he put up the best results on
the court.

Vilas also won 21 total tournaments in 1977, pretty amazing. And 140
match wins!

A different time, the early years of the open era. This article from the
Washington Post, from January 1978, offers a fascinating glimpse at how
haphazard the year-end rankings were done then:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1978/01/10/borg-gets-nod-as-tennis-player-of-77/393d1693-390e-4764-a902-7d0382e195a1/?utm_term=.2b31ca1d851c

[guypers]

yes Vila beat Connors 6-0 in the US Open finals!!!

[Whisper]

On 3/06/2018 1:21 AM, StephenJ wrote:
> On 6/2/2018 8:46 AM, Whisper wrote:
> > On 2/06/2018 9:36 PM, StephenJ wrote:
> >> Yes,but Vilas shoulda been year-end #1 for 1977
> >>
> >
> >
> > Agreed.  That's why I always consider him a former no.1.  Clearly he
> was the player of the year in 1977 winning FO & USO titles, & a r/up at AO.
> >
>
> Of course Borg was still actually the best player. He didn't play the AO
> or FO, and defaulted via injury in the 3rd round of the USO. He was 3-0
> vs Vilas that year. Vilas was 140-11 vs everyone else, including 2-1 vs
> Jimbo.
>
> But you still have to give it to Vilas, he put up the best results on
> the court.
>
> Vilas also won 21 total tournaments in 1977, pretty amazing. And 140
> match wins!
>
> A different time, the early years of the open era. This article from the
> Washington Post, from January 1978, offers a fascinating glimpse at how
> haphazard the year-end rankings were done then:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1978/01/10/borg-gets-nod-as-tennis-player-of-77/393d1693-390e-4764-a902-7d0382e195a1/?utm_term=.2b31ca1d851c
>
>

Sure Borg was the best in absolute terms, but his results in 1977 were
inferior to Vilas'. You don't deserve to be no.1 if you don't produce
the best results for the yr.

Vilas set the following records in 1977 that still stand today;

- USO - 72.1% (106–41) games winning percentage in 1 tournament

- 16 titles in 1 season

- 14 clay court titles in 1 season

- 145 match wins in 1 season

[Calimero]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 5:21:39 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> On 6/2/2018 8:46 AM, Whisper wrote:
> > On 2/06/2018 9:36 PM, StephenJ wrote:
> >> Yes,but Vilas shoulda been year-end #1 for 1977
> >>
> >
> >
> > Agreed. That's why I always consider him a former no.1. Clearly he
> was the player of the year in 1977 winning FO & USO titles, & a r/up at AO.
> >
>
> Of course Borg was still actually the best player. He didn't play the AO
> or FO, and defaulted via injury in the 3rd round of the USO. He was 3-0
> vs Vilas that year. Vilas was 140-11 vs everyone else, including 2-1 vs
> Jimbo.
>
> But you still have to give it to Vilas, he put up the best results on
> the court.
>
> Vilas also won 21 total tournaments in 1977, pretty amazing. And 140
> match wins!
>
> A different time, the early years of the open era. This article from the
> Washington Post, from January 1978, offers a fascinating glimpse at how
> haphazard the year-end rankings were done then:

> ...


Yes, really weird considering that year-end rankings are perhaps the most objective measurement of greatness.

[soccerfan777]

Fucking Whisper is such a hypocrite. Vilas was obviously #1 for 1977 because he won so many tournaments according to Whisper.... but not Lendl in 1982 when he won 15 tournaments at 106-9 or Muster in 1995

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Fucking Whisper is such a hypocrite. Vilas was obviously #1 for 1977 because he won so many tournaments according to Whisper.... but not Lendl in 1982 when he won 15 tournaments at 106-9 or Muster in 1995

You realize Vilas won Roland Garros and US Open in 1977 and was
also in AO final?

That's almost identical to Nadal's 2017.


Lendl in 1982 was otoh kinda like Kevin Anderson in 2017. US Open
finalist.

[StephenJ]

Yep, no question, Vilas was the deserving #1 for 1977. Too bad the
ranking system screwed it up.

[Calimero]

My God, you must be really old.
I should be more respectful towards an old geezer like you. Did you fight in Vietnam?

[Whisper]

On 3/06/2018 2:58 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Fucking Whisper is such a hypocrite. Vilas was obviously #1 for 1977 because he won so many tournaments according to Whisper.... but not Lendl in 1982 when he won 15 tournaments at 106-9 or Muster in 1995
>
>

er, you missed the bit where Vilas won 2 slams in 1977 & Lendl 0 in '82?
Apology accepted.

[John Liang]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:06:29 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
>
> BOATS:
>
> Overall: Djokovic
> HC: Djokovic
> Clay: Nadal
> Grass: Borg
> Carpet: McEnroe
>
> Outdoor: Borg
> Indoor: McEnroe
>
>
> (Specific)
>
> Sets: Borg
> Games: Borg
>
> Serve: Isner
> Return: Djokovic
> Tiebreak: Federer
>
>
>
>
>

> --
>
>
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

You are wasting your time, the ultimate tennis statistics is in the grand slam and major titles that players won not some fucking ELO statistics.