Author Topic: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)  (Read 6713 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 #100 on: August 13, 2013, 09:53:16 AM »
This has now become the natural progression from 1970 to 1973:



Notice how strange this "experimental" rankings system looked like. But I think I have the proportions right. All I'm missing is the decimal points, which frankly could have caused these minor differences between players. I see no evidence of a bonus system being applied yet, so I'm going to remove it.

P.S.: The system is even more refined than what I said 2 posts above, as in, now the Top 11 is correctly placed with this one.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #101 on: August 13, 2013, 02:37:18 PM »
Quick question, JonG.

Can you please get me Beckenham 1973 draw? It was independent, but I wanna check if Stan Smith was on that draw.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #102 on: August 13, 2013, 04:14:53 PM »
Quick question, JonG.

Can you please get me Beckenham 1973 draw? It was independent, but I wanna check if Stan Smith was on that draw.

Only from the SF in World of Tennis:

Metreveli v Mitton
Borg v Davidson

Just checked the Times Archive - definitely no Smith. Metreveli was top seed.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 04:24:58 PM by JonG »

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #103 on: August 13, 2013, 05:17:32 PM »
How's your top 50 looking? Here's all the ATP points shown in World of Tennis. It would be interesting to compare these to where you have got to. From the top 15, you have too many points for Ashe, Riessen and Gorman. Do those three have anything in common in 73?

1   Nastase   239.5   /   23   =   10.413
2   Newcombe   141.0   /   17   =   8.294
3   Connors   125.0   /   17   =   7.353
4   Okker   202.5   /   29   =   6.983
5   Smith   163.5   /   24   =   6.813
6   Rosewall   122.0   /   19   =   6.421
7   Orantes   145.5   /   24   =   6.063
8   Laver   115.0   /   20   =   5.750
9   Kodes   101.0   /   18   =   5.611
10   Ashe   148.5   /   28   =   5.304
11   Gorman   105.5   /   27   =   3.907
12   Emerson   61.5   /   17   =   3.618
13   Riesssen   85.0   /   23   =   3.696
14   Panatta   64.0   /   18   =   3.556
15   Pilic   96.5   /   28   =   3.446
16   Taylor   69.5   /   21   =   3.310
17   Fillol   88.0   /   28   =   3.143
18   Borg   68.0   /   22   =   3.091
19   Richey   76.5   /   25   =   3.060
20   Bertolucci   48.3   /   17   =   2.841
21   Gottfried   93.0   /   34   =   2.735
22   Cox   73.5   /   27   =   2.722
23   Drysdale   53.0   /   20   =   2.650
24   Tanner   71.0   /   28   =   2.536
25   Fairlie   48.0   /   19   =   2.526
26   Ramirez   45.0   /   18   =   2.500
27   Stockton   54.0   /   22   =   2.455
28   Dibbs   45.0   /   19   =   2.368
29   Alexander   66.0   /   28   =   2.357
30   Amritraj   34.0   /   15   =   2.267
31   Vilas   33.0   /   15   =   2.200
32   Meiler   39.5   /   18   =   2.194
33   Mottram   21.0   /   11   =   1.909
34   Metreveli   28.0   /   15   =   1.867
35   Lutz   27.0   /   15   =   1.800
36   Stolle   29.0   /   17   =   1.706
37   Pohman   18.5   /   11   =   1.682
38   Van Dillen   32.5   /   20   =   1.625
39   Dibley   49.3   /   31   =   1.590
40   Parun   54.5   /   36   =   1.514
41   Proisy   25.0   /   17   =   1.471
42   Case   44.0   /   30   =   1.467
43   Moore   52.0   /   36   =   1.444
44   Hrebec   24.5   /   17   =   1.441
45   Jauffret   15.5   /   11   =   1.409
46   Fassbender   22.0   /   16   =   1.375
47   Pasarell   39.0   /   29   =   1.345
48   Graebner   17.0   /   13   =   1.308
49   Dent   39.0   /   30   =   1.300
50   Gerken   34.5   /   27   =   1.278

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #104 on: August 13, 2013, 06:43:22 PM »
Of interest is that the minimum divisor is not 12 - three players are divided by 11!

Twelve minimum did apply at the end of 74.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #105 on: August 13, 2013, 06:45:02 PM »
You mean I have too less points for Ashe, Riessen and Gorman. But they do have a thing in common. A lot of 0 points. Since ATP accepted decimal points, I assume that some of these 0s were actually 0.5, some of the 1s, maybe were 1.5. Some of the 2s became 3. And this process could actually reach me to the exact points.

Fact is though that this all I'm missing, decimals. After another selection of points, I got Nastase to 239. And I see he has a 0 at USO and a 0 at another tournament. Maybe the 0 at USO was actually 0.5. That's the give or take here. Fitting in all the decimal points may solve the system completely. But do I bother for months without end with this "experiment", which was used for only 3 months officially? I say the approximation I have, which does change some below Top 10 placements, is good enough.

I only computed 22 players, to have an insight of the Top 15, so nothing below that. The placements will vary more and more though. Below 20 players though are like today's below Top 400 players. Again, this inconsistency present for those sole 3 months, I don't know if it's worth so much decryption. What do you say? Continue with calculations? Redo 1970-1973 now so I can carry on with 1974?

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #106 on: August 13, 2013, 06:49:39 PM »
Of interest is that the minimum divisor is not 12 - three players are divided by 11!

Twelve minimum did apply at the end of 74.

Hmmm, another minor inconsistency with the experiment. 3 players from the Top 50 and perhaps a very small number from the official total of about 130. The placement for players so low is gonna vary a little anyway...

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2013, 01:54:40 AM »
Just dropping in to let you know I have not given up yet, despite the fact that I'll be unavailable from tomorrow to Monday.

Here's what I'm doing now:



I have fixed 3 anchors: Nastase, Okker and Emerson. Now modelling the others, which have no decimal points yet in order for calculations to fit. Right now, I'm trying to fit Newcombe and Connors. Newcombe has 16 tournaments, despite the official line of 17. If I choose to count Johannesburg-2, it's something that will only apply to him, as nobody else counts tournaments in that period. But notice that I'm still very close to his 141. So, that 17 may be a typo.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2013, 02:25:43 AM »
Got 4/5 to correspond to official ranking points:

Nastase at 239.5, Newcombe at 141, Okker at 202.5 and Emerson at 61.5.

For some reason, I can't get Connors to agree with this, he's at 129.5. If I modify anything of his, it affects the others.

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #109 on: August 14, 2013, 02:40:35 AM »
Got 4/5 to correspond to official ranking points:

Nastase at 239.5, Newcombe at 141, Okker at 202.5 and Emerson at 61.5.

For some reason, I can't get Connors to agree with this, he's at 129.5. If I modify anything of his, it affects the others.

Well, there's always the chance of an ATP typo....can you get Connors' number right by adding a single typo somewhere?

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #110 on: August 14, 2013, 04:02:01 AM »
I have managed to get the Top 6 right. Points-wise and everything. You'll see Smith 0.5 short, but that may be that invisible/we can't find tournament of his.



Then it all goes bust at Laver and Orantes. :confused1:

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #111 on: August 14, 2013, 04:26:52 AM »
I experimented a little by transforming Nice into a 50K just to see what happens. Incredibly, Orantes gets to 145.5. And Panatta to 64.5, just 0.5 too long.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 04:27:28 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #112 on: August 14, 2013, 05:45:08 AM »
I am so close now, I can feel the 1973 vibe speaking to me through these rankings. :))



Like solving the Rubik Cube. A much more complex version.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 05:45:42 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #113 on: August 14, 2013, 10:13:41 AM »
I have it solved. Took some effort, but I think this is accurate enough:



Now for details:

Nastase: pretty clean solution. 100% accuracy regarding his points and average.
Newcombe: If the 17th tournament is Johannesburg-2, it should be the only case with a 10K official tournament during the year, which might mean he received 4p for it, instead of 6, making it 141.
Smith: a real surprise to me. He's the only one not following the rules it seems. Out of all the players, his total is about 20 points above the official. Could be the biggest error, or could be something like some WCT events were not actually 50K, despite the prize money. Still, only 12.5% error here.
Connors: +1p deviation from official. That's 99.1% accuracy.
Okker: 100% accuracy.
Rosewall: +0.5p deviation from official. That's 99.5% accuracy.
Orantes: 100% accuracy.
Laver: -0.5p deviation from official. That's 99.5% accuracy.
Kodes: -0.5p deviation from official. 99.5% accuracy.
Ashe: 100% accuracy.
Gorman: This could be an ATP error. The deciding factor is Nottingham, tournament which, due to a draw of minor difficulty may have counted as 25K. Connors got the win, and it helped his 126p total. Gorman would have been at 105p if this were 50K. Seems like whoever calculated the totals (obviously without using a computer), used 25K for Connors and 50K for Gorman. I'm gonna call this as 96% accurate.
Emerson: +0.5 deviation. 99.2% accurate
Riessen: +0.5 deviation. 99.3% accurate
Pilic: 100% points accuracy. ATP errors. Again, like Gorman, ATP counted Rome WCT of 1972 despite it being a WCT Finals type tournament, which should not have counted. The average makes Pilic jump in front of Gorman in terms of rankings.
Panatta: 100% accuracy.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #114 on: August 14, 2013, 10:21:53 AM »
Looking through the WCT of 1973, I can't possibly think of a reason why ATP would count some of them as 25K. They were all tournaments of the same group counted either as 25K or 50K. It doesn't make any sense, as the draw would be the same. I actually computed with Miami WCT (the opening event) as 25K, so that Laver fits almost perfectly to the picture. The rest remain 50K and Smith makes a huge amount of points.

I'm gonna go with "almost sure" that ATP made a huge calculation mistake here for Smith. Dividing by 24 instead of 23 and counting his WCT spree less than it should when counted the same as him for the others puts everyone in their right place with almost the official points.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #115 on: August 14, 2013, 10:32:56 AM »
With great certainty, but maybe very small differences, this is probably the 1973 official rankings system used:


Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #116 on: August 14, 2013, 02:36:53 PM »
I think I went in too much of a hurry there.

This system is totally unfit for the little players. Back to the drawing board.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #117 on: August 14, 2013, 03:34:13 PM »
This time I started from the bottom up.

So far so good. One tournament missing from Gerken.


Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #118 on: August 14, 2013, 03:39:14 PM »
Thanks to Graebner's victory, I have discovered that Des Moines (and not Calgary) is the tournament counted from the USLTA Circuit. But confusion runs high for the ranking creators. Poor Gerken gets counted a 27th tournament, without playing it. The point total is good, his average is better.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #119 on: August 14, 2013, 05:11:30 PM »
I have these guys calculated for now:

Code: [Select]
Paul Gerken 23 USA 34.5 / 27 1.278
Phil Dent 23 AUS 39 / 30 1.300
Clark Graebner 30 USA 14.5 / 12 1.208
Charlie Pasarell 29 USA 39 / 29 1.345
Jurgen Fassbender 25 GER 21.5 / 15 1.433
Francois Jauffret 31 FRA 15.5 / 11 1.409

I'm sorry to call it a week. Gonna be gone until next Monday. :gleam: