Originally Posted by Action Jackson
That's the reason challengers are important, most of the best players went through them. It's a tough school , not always in the nicest conditions playing tough tennis.
The guys say outsider top 60 if they don't have sponsors, have to play a balance between ATP and challenger events. The cost effective and also which one will give the best chance at points. My main thing is the cash should be increased for challengers. Winning a R1 match at main level of course should be rewarded with more points, but as Henry said they didn't think too much about this.
The challenger hounds will get found out.
Definitely not the nicest conditions at times. Some of those challengers are in remote areas with high crime, hospitality is poor or virtually non-existent, traveling is tough. You're playing on courts with other matches right beside you, and not getting paid a lot. Cash definitely needs to be bumped up in challengers, but I don't see that happening. That's why I think there should be fewer overall challengers, but instead more big challengers and a more uniformed point system. You do that, you're making players truly earn top 100 positions against other players in the same boat with the same general ability level, you reward them in doing so with more points and money and they rise to the top 100 and give themselves a real opportunity against the best of the best.
Some of the ATP events now could be reduced to challengers to make that happen, but I don't see that going over well, either. So it's a definite challenge. And, of course, since things are done with the elite players in mind, all of this is wishful thinking.