Author Topic: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)  (Read 9055 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #180 on: August 28, 2013, 12:49:20 AM »
Between 1968-1973 I have assigned a minimum of 4 tournaments. Anyone with less than that is divided by 4 anyway. But, starting 1974, the minimum will slowly increase to 12 (week by week). Yoyo rankings are something to be avoided and are clearly a mistake on ATP's part, but it's to be expected given the load of work they had to do for just one set of rankings. In Markus' article, you see how much Bob Kramer was working for just one sheet of the rankings.

So, this bizarre phenomenon will not really repeat itself in this iteration. :)~

Offline mimi

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1716
  • Gender: Female
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #181 on: August 28, 2013, 01:40:01 AM »
thank you Marian and JonG, yours contribution is great  :)

BBM: The greatest romantic film of all times

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #182 on: August 29, 2013, 05:23:29 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


I come back to this because I figured it was counted, as both Newcombe and Stockton seem to benefit from the points here perfectly. It's strange, but this counts.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #183 on: August 29, 2013, 08:37:44 AM »
Here is a sneak preview of the ATP errors made in the Year-End rankings of 1973, with the top 50 positions mentioned in World of Tennis 74:



FACTS AND ATP ERRORS:
1. You will notice Newcombe's target failing by 6p he gets from Palmetto (so this is not an error).

2. Stan Smith is missing .5p, but this may be a missing tournament we have not found yet. Fact is that Smith was .5p in the reproduced list of the Aug 23 rankings as well.

3. Pilic's official tournament count is 28, I am getting 27.

4. Riessen had 61p in the Aug 23 rankings, 4p more than what I was getting. This is an ATP error, as he didn't seem to miss anything.

5. Fillol, Gottfried and Cox all have something in common. They are 3p short from their official total. I am gonna go with the Riessen here as well, and call this an ATP error, as there is no tournament class that can be modified in common for all 3 not affecting anyone else.

6. Bertolucci is 1 tournament too far from the official count. This is another ATP error, and there is also a typo in the World of Tennis '74 book.

7. Drysdale's and Fairlie's tournament count totals are wrong. Drysdale played 2 more tournaments than the official total. 2 more ATP errors to add.

8. Stockton's lack of 4p is perfectly valid with a missing Palmetto final, tournament missing from the ATP's database.

9. Dibbs is just .5p too short than the official count. This is an ATP error caused by miscounting a CAT-D tournament's R32 as a R16, spawning 1p instead of .5p.

10. Meiler's and Van Dillen's tournament total is incorrect. But Meiler's extra tournament is a CAT-F final, which ATP failed to count, hence his 43.5 instead of 39.5, placing him higher in the rankings.

11. Parun is just .5 point short to the official. This is another ATP error caused by miscounting a CAT-D tournament's R32 as a R16, spawning 1p instead of .5p.

12. Pasarell's missing 4p, probably caused by miscounting one of his multiple tournaments spawning 4p as a 0p. (late disqualification?)

13. Proisy's missing tournament and point are caused by the ATP failing count his Barcelona's event in spring.

14. Fassbender's .5 point too short. Caused by ATP miscounting Nice as 0p, instead of .5p.

15. Graebner 2p too short and 1 tournament too short. Once again, Palmetto solves this, since Graebner got SF here, gaining 2p, solving both these errors.


So, taking out the light green errors (which are ours, not ATP's) we have a few ATP errors remaining, but we also have 100% loyalty. :gleam:
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 09:10:16 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #184 on: August 29, 2013, 08:59:03 AM »
And here is the final version of the calendars for 1972 and 1973 which will be used in all 3 versions of the run through 1973:

1972 CALENDAR
1973 CALENDAR

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #185 on: August 29, 2013, 09:23:36 AM »
Between 1968-1973 I have assigned a minimum of 4 tournaments. Anyone with less than that is divided by 4 anyway. But, starting 1974, the minimum will slowly increase to 12 (week by week). Yoyo rankings are something to be avoided and are clearly a mistake on ATP's part, but it's to be expected given the load of work they had to do for just one set of rankings. In Markus' article, you see how much Bob Kramer was working for just one sheet of the rankings.

So, this bizarre phenomenon will not really repeat itself in this iteration. :)~

Alright, I studied this some more. It appears that the minimum tournaments were 10 at the YE 1973. As you can see, no player with less than 10 tournaments is present in the Top 50. To achieve this, the minimum of 10 must be imposed. And here is my plan:

1. The Roll Path (1972 counted - 52-week rankings): The minimum of 10 is started once 1972 starts. With each official tournament, one tournament minimum of average is added. 1972 starts with 4, and in 6 official tournament weeks, it gets to 10. The pass to 1973 is smooth, and there should be no weird ranking jumps, nor any accidents with players with few tournaments getting the Top 10.

2. The Race Path (1972 not counted - as originally done): The minimum of 10 is gradually enforced after August 23 with each official tournament, adding one each time starting from 4, until it reaches a mandatory minimum of 10. August 23 clearly had a minimum of 4.

3. The Wimbledon Path (same as the Roll Path).

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #186 on: August 29, 2013, 06:28:57 PM »
7. Drysdale's and Fairlie's tournament count totals are wrong. Drysdale played 2 more tournaments than the official total. 2 more ATP errors to add.

I think Drysdale scratched in three of the 22 he entered. Maybe he had sick notes for two of the three.


Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #187 on: August 29, 2013, 06:30:42 PM »
Getting close to the solution now. Great work.

Do you have a list of points / tournaments played discrepancies at 23 August for all 186 players?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 06:31:52 PM by JonG »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #188 on: August 30, 2013, 01:01:21 AM »
I think Drysdale scratched in three of the 22 he entered. Maybe he had sick notes for two of the three.

Many players have scratched and their tournaments counted. Okker has even been defaulted, and the default still leads to points being counted for that tournament. These things didn't count back then. But in 1974, ATP decided to add these two rules. :)

Getting close to the solution now. Great work.

Do you have a list of points / tournaments played discrepancies at 23 August for all 186 players?

No, and I won't do one because of this reason: Aug 23 is wrong almost completely because it had the disadvantage to not count Med tournaments or Calgary at all. ATP decided to count these tournaments some time between then and the end of the year. Unfortunately, adding past tournaments to a future ranking should also alter past rankings with the results, yet they couldn't do something so complex back then. Fortunately, we can do this now. All tournaments that were eventually counted in 1973 will be counted right from the start here. :gleam:

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #189 on: August 30, 2013, 02:47:52 AM »
After the first week by week pass (the one I call Race Path), I have some of the errors corrected (the week by week pass is more precise than the end-year estimation):

« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 02:50:05 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #190 on: August 30, 2013, 02:54:40 AM »
Looking at Karl Meiler and Marty Riessen, I wouldn't put it far-fetched to say that Meiler's Berlin final was wrongfully attributed to Riessen. It would make both players' rankings total match. :rofl_2:

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #191 on: August 30, 2013, 08:32:57 AM »
Interesting to note that Stan Smith's missing tournament may be an error. While redoing some of the original rankings of August 23, I have found no player with an error of 6p. Riessen has an error of 4p, but a player should have had a 6p error. Someone should have won Stan's missing tournament. But there is no 'winner'.

Hence, someone wrongfully put a .5 on Smith. Since Parun has less points with exactly .5, someone may have put a .5 to Smith, instead of Parun. This type of error is plausible enough, like the one in my post above. Or that Hilton Head event JonG mentioned really counted, just like Palmetto. Let me search for the draw.

Anyway, almost done with my second pass. 1968-1973 will be available for your contemplation and we will be able to move to 1974.


EDIT: No from the start with Hilton Head. Laver d. Smith is a no-go for both these players. Definitely an error here that puts Smith at YE #4. No top 50 player has a -6p error. So, who would have won an event with Stan Smith in it, in which Smith exited in the R16 (the event should also have been a 32-draw for this to be possible)?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 08:38:12 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #192 on: August 30, 2013, 04:20:40 PM »
Both database threads have been updated with the data I have gotten.

This is the world number 1 status for now:

Quote
1. Ken Rosewall - 29.04.1968 - 10 weeks
2. Rod Laver - 08.07.1968 - 9 weeks
   Ken Rosewall (2) - 09.09.1968 - 2 weeks (12 weeks total)
   Rod Laver (2) - 23.09.1968 - 8 weeks (17 weeks total)
3. Arthur Ashe - 18.11.1968 - 12 weeks
   Rod Laver (3) - 10.02.1969 - 130 weeks (147 weeks total)
4. John Newcombe - 09.08.1971 - 27 weeks
   Ken Rosewall (3) - 14.02.1972 - 8 weeks (20 weeks total)
5. Jan Kodes - 10.04.1972 - 2 weeks
6. Stan Smith - 24.04.1972 - 1 week
   Jan Kodes (2) - 01.05.1972 - 2 weeks (4 weeks total)
   Ken Rosewall (4) - 15.05.1972 - 1 week (21 weeks total)
   Jan Kodes (3) - 22.05.1972 - 2 weeks (6 weeks total)
   Ken Rosewall (5) - 05.06.1972 - 5 weeks (26 weeks total)
   Stan Smith (2) - 10.07.1972 - 4 weeks (5 weeks total)
   Jan Kodes (4) - 07.08.1972 - 2 weeks (8 weeks total)
   Stan Smith (3) - 21.08.1972 - 3 weeks (8 weeks total)
7. Ilie Nastase - 11.09.1972 - 7 weeks
   Jan Kodes (5) - 30.10.1972 - 1 week (9 weeks total)
   Stan Smith (4) - 06.11.1972 - 30 weeks (38 weeks total)
   Ilie Nastase (2) - 04.06.1973 - 31 weeks (38 weeks total)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 04:21:58 PM by Slasher1985 »

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #193 on: August 31, 2013, 04:03:01 AM »
I think you've got one tournament too many for Mark Cox.

I'm pretty sure this is an error in the ATP results database which says that Cox lost in the round of 64 at Florence.

Cox won the WCT event at Denver in the previous week.

Could he possibly have done that and got to Italy in time for a round of 64 game?

Even if he could, would he have needed to?

Florence was a 48 man (or even a 46 man) draw. All the seeds had a first round bye. Cox would have been seeded.

I don't know who Paul Kronk beat  in the first round, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Mark Cox. Looks like another appearance for Mr U Unknown. He seems to turn up quite a lot.

It shows we have to be careful in assuming that the rankings must be wrong if they don't tie up to the results we have. It could be that the results are wrong.

Slasher, do you have a spreadsheet grid of 1973 points - players one axis and tournaments the other? If you do, I could poke around looking for anomalies.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 04:04:20 AM by JonG »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #194 on: August 31, 2013, 04:42:41 AM »
LOL, I double checked with an alternate source, and it has Max Cocks on that position, not Mark Cox. :rofl_2:

I have the spreadsheet, but tournaments are not named, so it's difficult to see what exactly is missed. I'll look for more of these troublesome things. Thanks for finding this. I'm pretty sure 1968-1973 is filled with them. :confused1:

I have found a Tito Vasquez error in some instances. Modesto Tito Vazquez being the same player is often used with a different name, but they are the same person, I'm pretty sure. ;-()

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #195 on: September 01, 2013, 05:26:09 AM »
I would like to confirm Raul Ramirez's total of 46. ATP's version of 45 is a mistake. I looked at the first rankings, and ATP had him at 11. My total was 12, so the error was one of these 8 tournaments, in which Raul scored points in only 3: Roland Garros, Kitzbuhel and Indianapolis. He definitely gained 5p in Indianapolis, and he won Kitzbuhel, which totals him at 11. Now I had to check his RG match, and he defeated Connors there. Checked with other sources and he still defeated Connors there. So, 1p should have been from RG, otherwise, Connors would have been at 126, and his Aug 23 rankings would not have matched.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #196 on: September 01, 2013, 07:18:41 AM »
There is another small quirk I'm seeing.

Geoff Masters is a Manila finalist in 1973. But he also appears on the Madrid main draw being defeated in the first round by Guillermo Vilas. Now, these two events show up in the same week everywhere I look (except the ATP site, but that is wrong). Manila conflicts with the events of the next week (Tehran and Prague), so it can't have been played then. In fact, Masters is the only player who appears in both the Madrid and the Manila draws.

Which makes me think that, whoever played Vilas in Madrid, it wasn't Geoff Masters. Or if it was him, we have a case of a player at two tournaments in the same week.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 07:22:29 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #197 on: September 01, 2013, 10:15:42 AM »
There is another small quirk I'm seeing.

Geoff Masters is a Manila finalist in 1973. But he also appears on the Madrid main draw being defeated in the first round by Guillermo Vilas. Now, these two events show up in the same week everywhere I look (except the ATP site, but that is wrong). Manila conflicts with the events of the next week (Tehran and Prague), so it can't have been played then. In fact, Masters is the only player who appears in both the Madrid and the Manila draws.

Which makes me think that, whoever played Vilas in Madrid, it wasn't Geoff Masters. Or if it was him, we have a case of a player at two tournaments in the same week.


http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ma/G/Gene-Marsten.aspx

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1973/10/17/pagina-19/987931/pdf.html

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #198 on: September 01, 2013, 10:21:50 AM »
he won Kitzbuhel

The final between Ramirez and Orantes was not played. The title was shared.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #199 on: September 01, 2013, 10:32:32 AM »
The final between Ramirez and Orantes was not played. The title was shared.

That solves both players at the same time. :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

It basically means that if this happens, ATP awards 5p to each, instead of 6-4.

Thus, we have Orantes' missing point and the reason Ramirez has one extra point. :zipped: