Author Topic: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)  (Read 7105 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 #160 on: August 23, 2013, 06:17:13 AM »
Well, not all of it...

We have all the points for tournaments C-F categories. Basically, a little detective work is still needed. But you can clearly see there is no bonus system in it, right?

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #161 on: August 23, 2013, 06:22:03 AM »
Yes, I agree, I can see no bonus points in 1973.
 
Too bad it wasn't all the categories, still looks useful to me  :)

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #162 on: August 23, 2013, 06:23:29 AM »
Yes, I agree, I can see no bonus points in 1973.
 
Too bad it wasn't all the categories, still looks useful to me  :)

Useful is such a weak word. This is the holy grail I've been looking for. :king:

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #163 on: August 23, 2013, 06:40:11 AM »
Yes, I agree, I can see no bonus points in 1973.
 
Too bad it wasn't all the categories, still looks useful to me  :)

Useful is such a weak word. This is the holy grail I've been looking for. :king:

Yeah, well, if you think my words are weak you'll understand why I chose this user name  :rofl_2:


Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #164 on: August 23, 2013, 07:04:30 AM »
LOL, understatement...

So, I'll kick the analysis off.

We can clearly notice that, at the time of the original rankings, they didn't count the European Circuit events, at all. Nastase has 8 tournaments played and Connors has 11. They adjusted them in between August and November. Also, none of the 1972 events is included.

So, now we can count Nastase:

His 8 events are:
Cincinnati (a GP B event ranked as an ATP E event - 50K with 32-draw) - W - 12p
Gstaad (same as Cincy) - W - 12p
Queen's (a GP C event, should be ranked as ATP F) - W - 6p
Rome (a GP A event ranked as an ATP B event - 75K with 128-draw) - W - 25p
Roland Garros (a TC event ranked as an ATP A event) - W - should be 2*Rome = 50p
Bournemouth (a GP B event ranked as an ATP D event - 50K with 64-draw) - F - 8p
Hampton (USLTA major event ranked as an ATP F event - 25K) - F - 4p
Salisbury (USLTA major event ranked as an ATP F event - 25K) - 1p

This totals to 118, and not 136, as stated on the sheet, so some of these tournaments are ranked higher.

Here are the points:
25K (ATP F):
W - 6p
F - 4p
SF - 2p
QF - 1p
R16 - 0.5

50K (ATP D-E):
W - 12p
F - 8p
SF - 5p
QF - 3p
R16 - 1p
R32(D only) - 0.5p

75K (ATP B-C):
W - 25p
F - 16p
SF - 10p
QF - 6p
R16 - 3p
R32 - 1p
R64 (B only) - 0.5p

TC (ATP A) --- assumption:
W - 50p
F - 32p
SF - 20p
QF - 12p
R16 - 6p
R32 - 3p
R64 - 1p

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #165 on: August 23, 2013, 07:06:09 AM »
Just a side note, can't believe how close my assumed reconstitution system was to this. :innocent:

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #166 on: August 23, 2013, 09:55:39 AM »
Full into work right now.

I have started parsing the players totals, finding the missing category points, and it's going splendidly. I have found most of all, and have parsed over 50 low ranked players. I have found how ATP decided to categorize tournaments, and if some of the tournaments followed the exact GP rank, some didn't. Queen's for instance was categorized as a D (which is usually for 50K tournaments, despite GP's C, which is for 25K).

A few constants for these first rankings:
1. 1972 was not counted at all.
2. European Circuit not counted.
3. Salisbury counted as D, Hampton as F (or at least what I figured until now).
4. There are errors, many players didn't count Berlin, but there are some who did, so this might be a miss.
5. The B category, which included Rome and Las Vegas more than likely was superior to C (75K), unlike D is to E (they award the same amount of points, except R32). What I have until now, B class awards 4 points instead of 3 for R16.
6. I have found that TC awarded 1p for R64, 3p for R32 and 5p for R16.

Will continue this in the weekend if I have time, or more than likely on Monday.

Thanks a million once again, Markus. That was a brilliant piece of information.

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #167 on: August 23, 2013, 12:00:43 PM »
You can thank James Buddell, the author or the article, he's the one who sent them to me  :)
Looking forward to the continuation  :))

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #168 on: August 23, 2013, 04:55:31 PM »
Great stuff.


We had too many variables, but this is a huge step forward.


I was thinking that from the start, the rankings were rolling twelve months.


That meant we thought we could reconstruct "official" rolling twelve month lists back to August 73 and then construct unofficial ones for before that.


Now the "official" August list is only eight months, I suppose we roll forward to December 73 just by adding a week at a time.


Then going back do we just knock off a week at at time and get back to January 73 as year zero?


I think I would look at the August list as more like the "race" than the rankings. It would be interesting to construct both "race" and "rankings" by week through 73.


Any chance you could stick the holy grail up for public consumption?


I wonder if there is more similar material where that came from.

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #169 on: August 24, 2013, 06:24:40 AM »
I don't know how to get PDF files up public, but anyone who PMs me an emailaddress will get it sent there.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #170 on: August 24, 2013, 09:54:39 AM »
Yeah, Jon.

I'm gonna do 3 parallel ranking sets.

The official 8-months set.

The unofficial 12-month rolling set (the correct rankings).

The unofficial 12-month side set with Wimbledon counted.

Offline nosca09

  • New Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #171 on: August 24, 2013, 01:45:11 PM »
With JonG's hint, I was able to dig out the missing tournament for Newcombe, Graebner, Stockton and other related players.

Here is the tournament into I reconstructed from Google News, hope it helps. This is only a 16-draw tourney, I don't know why it is counted!

Palmetto Tennis Classic (Columbia)
Columbia, SC, U.S.A.
September 19, 1973
16 Draw - $25,000
Surface -

Singles
Seeds:
1. John Newcombe
2. Dick Stockton
3. Dick Crealy
4. Clark Graebner
5. Harold Solomon
6. Gerald Battrick
7. Frank Froehling
8. Butch Seewagen

First Round
(1)John Newcombe d. Graham Stilwell 6-4 6-4
(6)Gerald Battrick d. Torben Ulrich 7-6 6-2
(4)Clark Graebner d. Owen Davidson 5-7 7-6 6-3
Grover Raz Reid d. Terry Ryan 6-3 7-5
Andrew Pattison d. (5) Harold Solomon 6-3 5-7 6-2
(8)Butch Seewagen d. (3)Dick Crealy 6-3 6-4
Sherwood Steward d. (7)Frank Froehling 6-2 6-4
(2)Dick Stockton d. Dick Dell 6-0 6-4

Quarterfinals
(1)John Newcombe d. (6)Gerald Battrick 6-0 4-6 7-5
(4)Clark Graebner d. Grover Raz Reid 7-6 7-5
Andrew Pattison d. (8)Butch Seewagen 6-3 4-6 6-4
(2)Dick Stockton d. Sherwood Steward 6-4 6-4

Semifinals
(1)John Newcombe d. (4)Clark Graebner 7-6(7) 6-3
(2)Dick Stockton d. Andrew Pattison 6-7(3) 6-3 6-2

Finals
(1)John Newcombe d. (2)Dick Stockton 6-4 6-3

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #172 on: August 25, 2013, 04:37:05 AM »
nosca09:

Thanks a lot. That's really helpful, and this tournament may have been counted due to the fact that it offered real money, and no guarantees, which was a primary ATP goal. Offer players real money, instead of guarantees.

JonG (and anyone interested):

You can view the file here:

Official Aug 23, 1873 rankings

Also JonG (if possible):

I wanna do 1970-1973 perfectly this time, so can you help me with the prize money for GP and WCT for 1970 and 1971? Thanks a bunch.

For 1973, I have discovered quite a few other stuff. That thing I was telling you about that tournaments were counted for some players while for others it didn't, happened right then, and there quite a few errors I discovered.

Also, the rankings I will post reflecting the official path will be corrected, so all ATP's errors will be taken out and tournaments eventually counted at YE will also be counted for August 23, as it should have been.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #173 on: August 25, 2013, 07:10:32 AM »
Oh, and Stan Smith played his "missing tournament" somewhere during the summer. He gained 0.5 points for it, if it was CAT-F, he basically made R16 there. This tournament is like that Palmetto event, and ATP did count it. We need it to do this correctly. :(

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #174 on: August 25, 2013, 08:57:18 AM »
This is the full and correct 1973 system originally used:




Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #175 on: August 26, 2013, 01:31:28 AM »
With JonG's hint, I was able to dig out the missing tournament for Newcombe, Graebner, Stockton and other related players.

Here is the tournament into I reconstructed from Google News, hope it helps. This is only a 16-draw tourney, I don't know why it is counted!

Palmetto Tennis Classic (Columbia)
Columbia, SC, U.S.A.
September 19, 1973
16 Draw - $25,000
Surface -

Singles
Seeds:
1. John Newcombe
2. Dick Stockton
3. Dick Crealy
4. Clark Graebner
5. Harold Solomon
6. Gerald Battrick
7. Frank Froehling
8. Butch Seewagen

First Round
(1)John Newcombe d. Graham Stilwell 6-4 6-4
(6)Gerald Battrick d. Torben Ulrich 7-6 6-2
(4)Clark Graebner d. Owen Davidson 5-7 7-6 6-3
Grover Raz Reid d. Terry Ryan 6-3 7-5
Andrew Pattison d. (5) Harold Solomon 6-3 5-7 6-2
(8)Butch Seewagen d. (3)Dick Crealy 6-3 6-4
Sherwood Steward d. (7)Frank Froehling 6-2 6-4
(2)Dick Stockton d. Dick Dell 6-0 6-4

Quarterfinals
(1)John Newcombe d. (6)Gerald Battrick 6-0 4-6 7-5
(4)Clark Graebner d. Grover Raz Reid 7-6 7-5
Andrew Pattison d. (8)Butch Seewagen 6-3 4-6 6-4
(2)Dick Stockton d. Sherwood Steward 6-4 6-4

Semifinals
(1)John Newcombe d. (4)Clark Graebner 7-6(7) 6-3
(2)Dick Stockton d. Andrew Pattison 6-7(3) 6-3 6-2

Finals
(1)John Newcombe d. (2)Dick Stockton 6-4 6-3


Unfortunately...

This is not Newcombe's missing tournament.

He gained 0.5 points for that missing tournament.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #176 on: August 27, 2013, 05:01:52 PM »
Unfortunately...

This is not Newcombe's missing tournament.

He gained 0.5 points for that missing tournament.

I originally though this was a 32 man (or more) as the first link talks of Newcombe beating Solomon and Crealy to get to the third round.

I don't know what they were talking about as everything else points to a 16 man as nosca09 has reconstructed.

I wouldn't expect a 16 man to count.

If we feed everything in that we now know, do we end up with a list of " missing events" by player? If so, does it have 1 winner, 1 runner-up, two semi finalists etc.?

We might end up having the full results for the missing tournament even if we don't know where or when it was!

The more we know, the more chance of turning something up on a newspaper archive.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #177 on: August 27, 2013, 05:03:06 PM »
I wanna do 1970-1973 perfectly this time, so can you help me with the prize money for GP and WCT for 1970 and 1971? Thanks a bunch.

I'll dig out the books and see what I can find.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #178 on: August 27, 2013, 05:21:02 PM »
I'll leave the difficult stuff to Slasher, but one thing that leaps out is how players playing few tournaments were treated.

The actual computer list only gives a ranking to 125 players. All of these played at least four tournaments and are calculated as a straight average.

Players playing three or less tournaments are left out of the top 125 altogether and shown below in order of straight average but without a ranking position assigned by the computer.

Somebody has then manually scribbled in numbers 125 to 185 which have now gone down in history as "official rankings". As there were two number 124s, you could say they should be 126 to 186, but really they are a hotch potch.

Surely, these players should either be ranked in a sensible position (such as divide total by 4) or clearly marked as "no ranking - insufficient data".

Vitas Gerulaitis would be number 13 on a "straight average" or number 18 on a "divide by the minimum of four" basis, but ends up at no. 125 (or 126). So if he'd played one more small tournament and lost in the first round, he would have gone up 107 (or 108) places.

It looks as if the same somewhat random method was used at the year end 1973, as Gerulaitis is still down at 131, with other obviously "under-ranked" players Gonzales, Mayer and Gimeno at 132,134 and 136. I expect they were all "under the minimum" so bumped down to the bottom.

This strange and illogical practice could explain why Ken Rosewall had a spell outside the top 100 in 1974 that I asked about earlier in this thread. I doubt if the computer had Ken at World no. 124 - it was the man with the pen!

So does a true to life reconstruction repeat this bizarre method of doing things or "correct" it? To do the former seems daft, but to do the latter is not quite right. If you start tinkering with quirks in the system you are creating a new system rather than following the original.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 05:24:08 PM by JonG »

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #179 on: August 27, 2013, 05:41:55 PM »
Have a look at Gerulaitis's yoyo ranking as he seems to go above and below the minimum number of tournaments played.

Up from 125 to 29 on 13 September (presumably by playing another tournament) and then back down to 118 on 26 September (presumably as the "minimum" goes up).

Then March to June 1974 : 135 - 39 -38 - 133.

05.03.1975   22   
17.01.1975   47   
20.12.1974   45   
06.11.1974   80   
27.09.1974   156   
04.09.1974   171   
09.08.1974   145   
29.07.1974   62   
03.06.1974   133   
01.05.1974   38   
19.04.1974   39   
02.03.1974   135   
14.12.1973   131   
26.11.1973   131   
31.10.1973   122   
15.10.1973   116   
26.09.1973   118   
13.09.1973   29   
23.08.1973   125