Author Topic: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)  (Read 6845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2013, 02:47:01 AM »
Here we go to 1974 with the system I mentioned in an earlier post:

Jimmy Connors:

Code: [Select]
===========================================
Jimmy Connors
1. Australian Open [50K] - W - 40p
2. Salisbury [50K] - W - 40p
3. Hampton [50K] - W - 40p
4. Nottingham [100K] - QF - 20p
5. Wimbledon [TC] - W - 100p
6. Indianapolis [100K] - W - 80p
7. Montreal [100K] - R16 - 10p
8. South Orange [50K] - DEF - 0p
9. US Open [TC] - W - 100p
10. Los Angeles [100K] - W - 80p
11. San Francisco [100K] - QF - 20p
12. London [75K] - W - 60p
13. Johannesburg [100K] - W - 80p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 670p
BONUS: beat Nastase at Hampton [50K] - 2p
       beat Rosewall at Wimbledon [TC] - 12p
       beat Stockton at Wimbledon [TC] - 4p
       beat Kodes at Wimbledon [TC] - 12p
       beat Fillol at Wimbledon [TC] - 4p
       beat Orantes at Indianapolis [100K] - 6p
       beat Borg at Indianapolis [100K] - 6p
       beat Rosewall at US Open [TC] - 12p
       beat Tanner at US Open [TC] - 4p
       beat Metreveli at US Open [TC] - 8p
       beat Kodes at US Open [TC] - 8p
       beat Alexander at US Open [TC] - 4p
       beat Solomon at Los Angeles [100K] - 2p
       beat Dibbs at San Francisco [100K] - 2p
       beat Okker at London [75K] - 3p
       beat Solomon at London [75K] - 1p
       beat Ashe at Johannesburg [100K] - 6p
       beat Solomon at Johannesburg [100K] - 2p
FINAL: 768p / 13 = 59.08
===========================================

I got this without looking back to see if I had mistaken a tournament with another category and I was surprised to see the calculations fitting right from the start. Didn't know the category for Salisbury and Hampton, apparently the only 2 of the American Swing Connors played that actually counted to his rankings.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2013, 03:06:09 AM »
His new average would have been 897 / 21 = 42.71. That's 0.01 behind Connors. :scared:

I really can't believe how close this is. :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

And now I see that he also beat Parun in Rome, which should have given him 2 more points. 899 / 21 = 42.80, making him the year end World Number 1 at the end of 1975. :lmao:
« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 03:07:50 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2013, 03:34:48 AM »
His new average would have been 897 / 21 = 42.71. That's 0.01 behind Connors. :scared:

I really can't believe how close this is. :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

And now I see that he also beat Parun in Rome, which should have given him 2 more points. 899 / 21 = 42.80, making him the year end World Number 1 at the end of 1975. :lmao:

Fantastic! Vilas YE#1 in 1975! This is a sensation! Well deserved too  :)) Great work, Marian  :thumbs-up:

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2013, 11:24:40 AM »
Thanks for the appreciations, guys.

I wanted to finish the 1973 job, because unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the exact rankings structure without reaching something like 50% error. In order for this project to work though, I will do a regression for 1974 that will work for 1973. Something that fits in ratio wise, even if players will have difference points amounts.

First, I noticed that, for 1973 to work, the ratio between TC and the best out of the others is 2. As in, if the winner of a TC gets X points, the winner of a 75K for instance, would get X/2. Without at least, this ratio, Connors would be in front of Newcombe in the YE 1973. So, I had to keep this in mind, while doing the regression.



Applying this, the order of the YE ranked players is the same. With one exception. Stan Smith. Why you may ask... It seems that or feels like ATP made an error, or there is one tournament missing from all databases. Their official average is 24, yet there is no 24th tournaments WCT Masters and Masters are not counted, so that leaves 23 tournaments for his total, making his average greater than Okker's.

You'll find the computations here:

Code: [Select]
===========================================
Ilie Nastase
1. Calgary [25K] - W - 20p
2. Salisbury [25K] - QF - 5p
3. Monte Carlo [25K] - W - 20p
4. Barcelona [50K] - W - 30p
5. Madrid [50K] - W - 30p
6. Florenece [50K] - W - 30p
7. Bournemouth [50K] - F - 22p
8. Roland Garros [TC] - W - 80p
9. Rome [75K] - W - 40p
10. Queen's [25K] - W - 20p
11. Wimbledon [TC] - R16 - 10p
12. Gstaad [50K] - W - 30p
13. Cincinatti [50K] - W - 30p
14. South Orange [25K] - R16 - 3p
15. US Open [TC] - R64 - 3p
16. Los Angeles [75K] - SF - 20p
17. Chicago [50K] - QF - 7p
18. Barcelona [75K] - W - 40p
19. Madrid [50K] - SF - 15p
20. Tehran [75K] - QF - 10p
21. Paris [50K] - W - 30p
22. Stockholm [75K] - R16 - 5p
23. London [50K] - F - 22p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 532p
BONUS: beat Kodes at Barcelona [75K] - 3p
       beat Orantes at Barcelona [75K] - 3p
       beat Pilic at Madrid [50K] - 1p
       beat Okker at Paris [50K] - 1p
       beat Smith at Paris [50K] - 2p
       beat Connors at London [50K] - 2p
FINAL: 544p / 23 = 23.65
===========================================
John Newcombe
1. Johannesburg-2 [25K] - W - 20p
2. Australian Open [75K] - W - 40p
3. Las Vegas [75K] - R16 - 5p
4. Roland Garros [TC] - R128 - 1p
5. Rome [75K] - R64 - 1p
6. Hamburg [50K] - R16 - 3p
7. Queen's [25K] - QF - 5p
8. Louisville [75K] - F - 30p
9. Canada [75K] - QF - 10p
10. US Open [TC] - W - 80p
11. Chicago [50K] - F - 22p
12. Fort Worth [50K] - QF - 7p
13. Tokyo [50K] - F - 22p
14. Manila [25K] - SF - 10p
15. Tehran [75K] - F - 30p
16. Djakarta [25K] - W - 20p
17. Sydney [25K] - F - 15p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 321p
BONUS: beat Laver at Tehran [75K] - 3p
FINAL: 324p / 17 = 19.05
===========================================
Jimmy Connors
1. Salisbury [25K] - W - 20p
2. Roland Garros [TC] - R128 - 1p
3. Rome [75K] - R64 - 1p
4. Nottingham [50K] - SF - 15p
5. Queen's [25K] - R16 - 3p
6. Wimbledon [TC] - QF - 20p
7. Boston [50K] - W - 30p
8. Bretton Woods [25K] - F - 15p
9. Columbus [25K] - W - 20p
10. Cincinnati [50K] - SF - 15p
11. Indianapolis [50K] - R16 - 3p
12. US Open [TC] - QF - 20p
13. Los Angeles [75K] - W - 40p
14. Quebec [50K] - W - 30p
15. Stockholm [75K] - SF - 20p
16. London [50K] - SF - 15p
17. Johannesburg [75K] - W - 40p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 308p
BONUS: beat Smith at Los Angeles [75K] - 3p
       beat Okker at Los Angeles [75K] - 3p
       beat Orantes at Stockholm [75K] - 3p
       beat Okker at Johannesburg [75K] - 3p
FINAL: 320p / 17 = 18.82
===========================================
Tom Okker
1. London WCT [50K] - QF - 7p
2. Milan WCT [50K] - QF - 7p
3. Copenhagen WCT [50K] - R16 - 3p
4. Cologne WCT [50K] - R16 - 3p
5. Chicago WCT [50K] - DEF - 0p
6. Washington WCT [50K] - W - 30p
7. Vancouver WCT [50K] - R16 - 3p
8. Houston WCT [50K] - SF - 15p
9. Cleveland WCT [50K] - R32 - 1p
10. Charlotte WCT [50K] - R16 - 3p
11. Denver WCT [50K] - R16 - 3p
12. Roland Garros [TC] - QF - 20p
13. Rome [75K] - SF - 20p
14. Queen's [25K] - R32 - 1p
15. Gstaad [50K] - QF - 7p
16. Hilversum [25K] - W - 20p
17. Washington [75K] - F - 30p
18. Louisville [75K] - R16 - 5p
19. Canada [75K] - W - 40p
20. US Open [TC] - R16 - 10p
21. Seattle [25K] - W - 20p
22. Los Angeles [75K] - F - 30p
23. Chicago [50K] - W - 30p
24. Barcelona [75K] - R32 - 3p
25. Madrid [50K] - W - 30p
26. Paris [50K] - SF - 15p
27. Stockholm [75K] - SF - 20p
28. London [50K] - W - 30p
29. Johannesburg [75K] - SF - 20p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 426p
BONUS: beat Rosewall at Los Angeles [75K] - 3p
       beat Nastase at Los Angeles [75K] - 3p
       beat Emerson at Los Angeles [75K] - 1p
       beat Newcombe at Chicago [50K] - 2p
       beat Nastase at Chicago [50K] - 2p
       beat Ashe at Paris [50K] - 1p
       beat Ashe at Stockholm [75K] - 2p
       beat Fillol at Johannesburg [75K] - 1p
FINAL: 441p / 29 = 15.21
===========================================
Stan Smith
1. Miami WCT [50K] - QF - 7p
2. Lacosta WCT [50K] - F - 22p
3. Richmond WCT [50K] - QF - 7p
4. Philadelphia WCT [50K] - W - 30p
5. Toronto WCT [50K] - SF - 15p
6. Atlanta WCT [50K] - W - 30p
7. St Louis WCT [50K] - W - 30p
8. Munich WCT [50K] - W - 30p
9. Brussels WCT [50K] - W - 30p
10. Johannesburg WCT [50K] - R32 - 1p
11. Gothenberg WCT [50K] - W - 30p
12. Las Vegas [75K] - R32 - 1p
13. Roland Garros [TC] - R16 - 10p
14. Rome [75K] - QF - 10p
15. Bastad [50K] - W - 30p
16. Boston [50K] - R32 - 1p
17. Washington [75K] - R16 - 5p
18. Canada [75K] - R64 - 1p
19. US Open [TC] - SF - 40p
20. Los Angeles [75K] - QF - 10p
21. San Francisco [50K] - QF - 7p
22. Paris [50K] - F - 22p
23. Stockholm [75K] - QF - 10p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 379p
BONUS: 0p
FINAL: 379p / 23 = 16.47
===========================================

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2013, 12:59:27 PM »


I can confirm both of these ranking systems right now, although 1974 had to be stretched a little in order to grant bonus points. Apparently, there was also a parameter of draw difficulty that could have awarded double bonus points if a certain player was ranked lower when facing the opposition. This is one phrase mentioned in the description of the bonus system, and it came in handy during these calculations.

However, I'm going to increase the probability of error at 8% for 1974, specifically because of the bonus system.

Code: [Select]
===========================================
Jimmy Connors
1. Australian Open [50K] - W - 40p
2. Salisbury [50K] - W - 40p
3. Hampton [50K] - W - 40p
4. Nottingham [100K] - QF - 20p
5. Wimbledon [TC] - W - 100p
6. Indianapolis [100K] - W - 80p
7. Montreal [100K] - R16 - 10p
8. South Orange [50K] - DEF - 0p
9. US Open [TC] - W - 100p
10. Los Angeles [100K] - W - 80p
11. San Francisco [100K] - QF - 20p
12. London [75K] - W - 60p
13. Johannesburg [100K] - W - 80p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 670p
BONUS: beat Nastase at Hampton [50K] - 2p
       beat Rosewall at Wimbledon [TC] - 12p
       beat Stockton at Wimbledon [TC] - 4p
       beat Kodes at Wimbledon [TC] - 12p
       beat Fillol at Wimbledon [TC] - 4p
       beat Orantes at Indianapolis [100K] - 6p
       beat Borg at Indianapolis [100K] - 6p
       beat Rosewall at US Open [TC] - 12p
       beat Tanner at US Open [TC] - 4p
       beat Metreveli at US Open [TC] - 8p
       beat Kodes at US Open [TC] - 8p
       beat Alexander at US Open [TC] - 4p
       beat Solomon at Los Angeles [100K] - 2p
       beat Dibbs at San Francisco [100K] - 2p
       beat Okker at London [75K] - 3p
       beat Solomon at London [75K] - 1p
       beat Ashe at Johannesburg [100K] - 6p
       beat Solomon at Johannesburg [100K] - 2p
FINAL: 768p = 59.08
===========================================
John Newcombe
1. Australian Open [50K] - QF - 10p
2. St Petersburg WCT [50K] - W - 40p
3. Hempstead WCT [50K] - F - 30p
4. Lacosta WCT [50K] - W - 40p
5. Tuscon [100K-TC] - W - 100p
6. Atlanta WCT [50K] - QF - 10p
7. New Orleans WCT [50K] - W - 40p
8. Orlando WCT [50K] - W - 40p
9. Charlotte [50K] - QF - 10p
10. St Louis [50K] - SF - 20p
11. Las Vegas [100K-TC] - SF - 50p
12. Nottingham [100K] - R16 - 10p
13. Wimbledon [TC] - QF - 25p
14. US Open [TC] - SF - 50p
15. Maui [50K] - W - 40p
16. Tokyo [75K] - W - 60p
17. Sydney [75K] - W - 60p
18. Adelaide [50K] - SF - 20p
19. Hong Kong [50K] - SF - 20p
20. Manila [50K] - SF - 20p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 695p
BONUS: beat Smith at Lacosta WCT [50K] - 2p
       beat Emerson at Lacosta WCT [50K] - 1p
       beat Smith at Tuscon [100K-DIF] - 12p
       beat Gottfried at Tuscon [100K-DIF] - 4p
       beat Ashe at Tuscon [100K-DIF] - 12p
       beat Pilic at Wimbledon [TC] - 8p
       beat Roche at US Open [TC] - 4p
       beat Ashe at US Open [TC] - 12p
       beat Rosewall at Tokyo [75K] - 3p
FINAL: 753p / 20 = 37.65
===========================================
Bjorn Borg
1. Australian Open [50K] - R16 - 5p
2. Philadelphia WCT [100K] - R32 - 5p
3. Bologna WCT [50K] - R32 - 1p
4. London WCT [50K] - W - 40p
5. Barcelona WCT [50K] - F - 30p
6. Sao Paulo WCT [50K] - W - 40p
7. Tuscon [100K-TC] - R32 - 5p
8. Palm Desert WCT [50K] - R32 - 1p
9. Tokyo WCT [50K] - SF - 20p
10. Denver WCT [50K] - R32 - 1p
11. Rome [100K] - W - 80p
12. Roland Garros [TC] - W - 100p
13. Nottingham [100K] - R32 - 5p
14. Wimbledon [TC] - R32 - 7p
15. Bastad [50K] - W - 40p
16. Indianapolis [100K] - F - 60p
17. Canada [100K] - QF - 20p
18. Boston [100K] - W - 80p
19. US Open [TC] - R64 - 3p
20. Madrid [75K] - F - 45p
21. Barcelona [75K] - SF - 30p
22. Tehran [100K] - SF - 40p
23. Stockholm [100K] - SF - 40p
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 698p
BONUS: beat Ashe at London WCT [50K-DIF] - 2p
       beat Ashe at Sao Paulo WCT [50K-DIF] - 4p
       beat Riessen at Rome [100K-DIF] - 8p
       beat Orantes at Rome [100K-DIF] - 8p
       beat Nastase at Rome [100K-DIF] - 12p
       beat Ramirez at RG [TC] - 8p
       beat Orantes at RG [TC] - 12p
       beat Panatta at Bastad [50K-DIF] - 2p
       beat Ramirez at Indianapolis [100K] - 4p
       beat Riessen at Boston [100K-DIF] - 8p
       beat Kodes at Boston [100K-DIF] - 8p
       beat Okker at Boston [100K-DIF] - 12p
       beat Orantes at Madrid [75K-DIF] - 4p
       beat Okker at Madrid [75K-DIF] - 6p
       beat Kodes at Barcelona [75K] - 2p
       beat Kodes at Tehran [100K] - 4p
       beat Orantes at Stockholm [100K-DIF] - 12p
FINAL: 813p / 23 = 35.34
===========================================

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2013, 01:03:01 PM »
Well, the research has been fruitful, thanks to Mr Puppo. I hope these findings are helpful to him. For me, the project will employ the following rankings systems, which I estimate are more objective and closer to the truth if employed for all tournaments:


Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #66 on: August 03, 2013, 05:52:38 AM »
I've been away for a week - good to see some real progress here!

There is so much info now on this thread - would it be possible to break in to separate year threads?  Keep this one for general  comments and methodology and separate 73 research, 74 research etc. for the ones that go into specific points calcs and tournaments played debates for specific years?

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #67 on: August 03, 2013, 07:15:28 AM »
I've been away for a week - good to see some real progress here!

There is so much info now on this thread - would it be possible to break in to separate year threads?  Keep this one for general  comments and methodology and separate 73 research, 74 research etc. for the ones that go into specific points calcs and tournaments played debates for specific years?


Sure enough that if you follow the chronological volumes (first one being here, you will see the research for each year the moment I get there. Every time I will step into an ATP computer rankings year, I will explain in detail my system for calculations, which parts may be 100% right and which have a probability of an error, and every week of the rankings I will compare data, and mention which tournaments may not have counted for players. All in due time and chronological order so that the degree of interest is raised and confusion is kept to a minimum. ;-()

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2013, 03:22:28 PM »
Well, that's a problem there. Nastase participated in IWC events all winter there, and only 2 of them counted in his average. Identifying them by his points alone is impossible. I'm gonna have to crosscheck with other players and find common tournaments counted to more players.

EDIT: Also gonna think about the possibility that there existed a limitation to the number of IWC events to be counted, maybe they were even capped at 2.

This mystery has now been solved.

As it turns out, the tournaments ATP counted were WCT and GP only. But, they also counted ex-GP and ex-WCT tournaments. This is how Salisbury and Hampton counted for Nastase. They were GP events in 1972.

And this is how Vilas was world number 1 in 1977, ATP forgot to count Las Vegas for him, tournament which counted as WCT in 1972, and which was counted for Newcombe in 1974, despite not being WCT or GP.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #69 on: August 07, 2013, 05:50:39 PM »
And this is how Vilas was world number 1 in 1977, ATP forgot to count Las Vegas for him, tournament which counted as WCT in 1972, and which was counted for Newcombe in 1974, despite not being WCT or GP.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the ATP did not count Vegas (Allan King Classic) in 1977???

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #70 on: August 07, 2013, 05:57:21 PM »
Applying this, the order of the YE ranked players is the same. With one exception. Stan Smith. Why you may ask... It seems that or feels like ATP made an error, or there is one tournament missing from all databases. Their official average is 24, yet there is no 24th tournaments WCT Masters and Masters are not counted, so that leaves 23 tournaments for his total, making his average greater than Okker's.

I wonder if the missing event is the CBS Classic at Hilton Head 12-17 March 1973?

I didn't think it would be included as it was a 16 man event. I can't see the results online anywhere and I only have results of quarter finals onwards.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #71 on: August 07, 2013, 06:04:04 PM »
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the ATP did not count Vegas (Allan King Classic) in 1977???

I'm saying that I don't know which tournament ATP did not count. It may be Vegas since all the other 15 are kinda the same. This one stands out. And it should be counted.

I wonder if the missing event is the CBS Classic at Hilton Head 12-17 March 1973?

I didn't think it would be included as it was a 16 man event. I can't see the results online anywhere and I only have results of quarter finals onwards.

Mr Puppo provided me with the official tournament lists from 1970 to 1982. Every GP, WCT event is there as well as Other sanctioned events (some official, some not). This tournament is not even on the list. So that would make it clear as to its status.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #72 on: August 07, 2013, 06:08:21 PM »
Looking at Rosewall's ranking activity on the ATP site, there must be an error here mustn't there?

29.07.1974   7   
03.06.1974   109   
01.05.1974   124   
19.04.1974   6

I wonder if players who beat him when he was World no. 124 or 109 were deprived of bonus points for beating a top 10 player.

Bonus points must complicate calculations immensely. If you have an accurate results database, it is dead easy to calculate points for progressing rounds, but to do bonus points you have to have an accurate ranking for each opponent or it won't work.

It's quite funny when I think back to the 70s. "COMPUTER" rankings were taken as gospel as some inarguable truth calculated in an impossibly clever manner.

Now anyone sat at home with an old PC and a basic spreadsheet application has the kind of computing power at his fingers that  the ATP could never have dreamed of back in 1973. We understand the concept of "rubbish in rubbish out" far more now than we did forty years ago!

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #73 on: August 07, 2013, 06:14:30 PM »
Yeah, nothing was done with the help of a computer actually (which were the size of rooms back then). The name "computer rankings" comes from the idea of computations determining World Number 1 (calculations).

There are obvious errors in every year of the early rankings, and by the time I correct them, we would call ourselves clever into thinking ATP is going to listen. I don't think they will, but at least we'll know the truth. That is my purpose here.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #74 on: August 07, 2013, 06:21:18 PM »
Mr Puppo provided me with the official tournament lists from 1970 to 1982. Every GP, WCT event is there as well as Other sanctioned events (some official, some not). This tournament is not even on the list. So that would make it clear as to its status.

Fantastic. I'd love a copy of that!

By the way, I have found an error for Connors 1977 on the ATP site. It says he walked over Ross Case and lost to Corrado Barazutti at Richmond. He didn't. He scratched to Case and Case lost to Barazutti. I've double checked this on the Times Archive and Connors scratched due to the death of his father.

I did think that the ATP had "undercounted" Connors' appearances and that dividing by 16 would drop him below Vilas at the year end, but I suppose that scratching with good reason (such as death of a parent) would not be penalised.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #75 on: August 07, 2013, 06:29:37 PM »
Fantastic. I'd love a copy of that!

Sure. I'm gonna upload them on skydrive and gonna link you cause they're kinda big for email.

By the way, I have found an error for Connors 1977 on the ATP site. It says he walked over Ross Case and lost to Corrado Barazutti at Richmond. He didn't. He scratched to Case and Case lost to Barazutti. I've double checked this on the Times Archive and Connors scratched due to the death of his father.

I did think that the ATP had "undercounted" Connors' appearances and that dividing by 16 would drop him below Vilas at the year end, but I suppose that scratching with good reason (such as death of a parent) would not be penalised.

If this is true, than another rule probably applied from 1974-75 applied here as well. Although not yet confirmed, it may be true that players presenting a walkover at the first round don't have the tournament counted for them. This was not present in 1973, but I remember a few cases since 1974.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #76 on: August 08, 2013, 03:10:59 AM »
Fantastic. I'd love a copy of that!

By the way, I have found an error for Connors 1977 on the ATP site. It says he walked over Ross Case and lost to Corrado Barazutti at Richmond. He didn't. He scratched to Case and Case lost to Barazutti. I've double checked this on the Times Archive and Connors scratched due to the death of his father.

I did think that the ATP had "undercounted" Connors' appearances and that dividing by 16 would drop him below Vilas at the year end, but I suppose that scratching with good reason (such as death of a parent) would not be penalised.

Please refer to this link to view the lists I have:

Lists

I checked Richmond 1977 on ITF, and what you said is true.

So, walkover in first round, Richmond WCT 1977 was not counted for Connors. His YE tournament count is correct.

Which doesn't mean there are no errors into his calculations or that Vilas didn't get to #1.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 03:12:47 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #77 on: August 08, 2013, 01:28:38 PM »
Ready to start 1973. I have the calendar ready, yet I am uncertain of some tournament categories. JonG, since you've been tremendous help thus far, I would love a second opinion on the values.

1973 CALENDAR

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #78 on: August 08, 2013, 06:40:55 PM »
Please refer to this link to view the lists I have:

Lists

....Which doesn't mean there are no errors into his calculations or that Vilas didn't get to #1.

Thanks for the lists - fascinating stuff. Do you know the source? They look very well researched, but I struggle to understand how they could be official lists of ATP-approved tournaments. The lists go back to Jan 1970, whereas the ATP was not formed until August 1972.

As for 77, I think we know what tournaments counted for ATP points for Connors and Vilas.

It will still be a big task matching to ATP points tallies. I tried the easy task of matching Grand Prix points. I got Connors spot on (722) but came up with too many points for Vilas - should be 2,047.

GV   1   Sydney   SF   2   30
GV   2   Australian Open   F   GS   175
GV   3   Baltimore   F   3   70
GV   4   Springfield   W   1   50
GV   5   Palm Springs   F   6   122
GV   6   Memphis   QF   6   35
GV   7   Johannesburg   W/F   5   127.5
GV   8   Nice   F   1   35
GV   9   Monte Carlo WCT   SF   X   X
GV   10   Hamburg   QF   4   25
GV   11   Rome   R32   5   7
GV   12   Roland Garros   W   GS   250
GV   13   Nottingham   R64   3   0
GV   14   Queen's Club   R32   3   5
GV   15   Wimbledon   R32   GS   12
GV   16   Kitzbuhel   W   2   75
GV   17   Washington   W   4   125
GV   18   Louisville   W   4   125
GV   19   South Orange   W   2   75
GV   20   Columbus   W   4   125
GV   21   US Open   W   GS   250
GV   22   Paris   W   1   50
GV   23   Aix en Provence   F   1   35
GV   24   Tehran   W   5   150
GV   25   Bogota   W   1   50
GV   26   Santiago   W   1   50
GV   27   Buenos Aires   W   2   75
GV   28   Johannesburg   W   5   150
               
      GP points         2278.5
               
JC   1   Birmingham WCT   W   X   X
JC   2   Philadelphia WCT   F   X   X
JC   3   Toronto Indoor WCT   F   X   X
JC   4   St Louis WCT   W   X   X
JC   5   Houston WCT   R16   X   X
JC   6   Las Vegas ATP   W   X   X
JC   7   Queen's Club   R32   3   5
JC   8   Wimbledon   F   GS   175
JC   9   North Conway   QF   4   25
JC   10   Indianapolis   F   4   87
JC   11   Boston   QF   4   25
JC   12   US Open   F   GS   175
JC   13   Maui   W   3   100
JC   14   Sydney Indoor   W   4   125
JC   15   Perth   R16   1   5
               
      GP points         722


Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #79 on: August 08, 2013, 06:53:58 PM »
Ready to start 1973. I have the calendar ready, yet I am uncertain of some tournament categories. JonG, since you've been tremendous help thus far, I would love a second opinion on the values.

1973 CALENDAR

I've tied up the Grand Prix events to the categories as per World of Tennis.

Categories after Triple Crown were A, B and C and these correspond almost exactly to what you class as 75k, 50k and 25K.

The two exceptions were the Australian Open which was an A not a C and Indianapolis which was a B not an A.

I wonder if the Aussie Open was rated for more Grand Prix points on tradition rather than prize money?

WCT looks about right as Bs. I think this was the only season that Philadelphia did not hold special status.

Las Vegas was a biggie - on a par with the As.

The US indoors included would probably be equivalent of Cs. You've gone for Salisbury and Hampton - which I think would have been the biggest two.

I'm not sure why you have some Med events as Bs and some as Cs. I thought they all had the same money - probably C equivalent.