Mens Tennis Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Rankings Database

51K views 194 replies 36 participants last post by  Slasher1985 
#1 · (Edited)
#3 ·
wow
 
#11 ·
I salute you for this, sir/ma'am! Great work!
 
#13 ·
All Slasher1985 touches, it instantly turns epic. True professional :yeah:
 
#14 ·
Awesome.
 
#16 ·
I have reconsidered the placement in advance.

You can now see 1970-1971 completely calculated and wonder at the events then. Specifically, the ending of 1971 is the closest YE #1 in Open Era history in my book and the only case where the decision goes very deep in the tiebreaking rules to establish the leader.

Also, in brackets at each year, you can see the ranking system employed and the method it was calculated with. For pre-1972 systems, the method is obviously proportional and is based on systems that followed later. For 1972-1973, the experimental rankings system used then is reconstituted into a better system serving as a transfer point between 1971 and 1974, but with the same proportions as the original in order to remain loyal to it as much as possible.

For each year I add, I will explain the method I used to reconstruct the ranking system. It's a big puzzle where many pieces are irrecoverable. The idea here is to replace them with copies as close to the original as possible.

Enjoy.:)
 
#19 ·
Thanks for the appreciations.

I have deduced the main rule by which ATP decided which tournaments to count or not. And I'm 100% sure it's correct.

The tournaments ATP counted are those that were at the calendar year part of the Grand Prix or World Championship Tennis, or were part of either of these two rival tours in the past. It was ATP's scheme in order to get tournaments affiliated to these two tours and it worked. By 1977, only few remained.

So, now, starting with 1972, there will be a calendar attached in the OP, where you will see all the tournaments of that year and which tournaments count or not.:)
 
#21 ·
1972 so far is very unpredictable in the weeks before Roland Garros.

Unexpectedly, Ilie Nastase and Jan Kodes both reach World No. 1 for short periods of time. Kodes is unable to defend RG though, so he drops a lot after it. Stan Smith reigns supreme in all other weeks.:)
 
#22 ·
I am already detecting the errors ATP made with the 1973 'official' rankings.

1. John Newcombe didn't play 17 tournaments, but rather 16. One could count Johannesburg-2 because of confusion with the main south african event. But they are not the same, Johannesburg-2 was a played-once totally different tournament played among a few South African other events. It was part of a SA Circuit they were trying to make, and was never part of either GP or WCT. To prove this is correct, when you count John Alexander's total tournaments, you get 29 if you take this event into account. Yet, his official count stated 28. So, John Newcombe played only 16 events.

2. Stan Smith seems to have only played 23 events, despite his total being 24. This must be further verified, but it is likely it's another error. If this will be true, it may change Stan's YE ranking.

3. Metreveli, Ross Case and a few others also have more tournaments in their divisor than official tournaments actually played.

4. Nastase was able to count 23 tournaments thanks to the ex-GP, ex-WCT rule. Rule by which John Newcombe also gets to 16 (not 17 because Johannesburg-2 was already eliminated). His 16 also comprises of ex-WCT event Las Vegas, which, if out, would take him to 15. But if this rule is enforced, Jimmy Connors should have 18, since he played both Salisbury and Hampton, just like Nastase. Another contradiction which fuels the certainty that this rule actually existed and any tournament not part of it, was not considered official. With one exception. Since most of the tournaments used to be part of the GP, the European Spring Circuit was counted entirely (Valencia and Florence included).

5. It was contested that first round Walkovers would not result into the tournament being counted. I have found sufficient evidence to say that this is wrong. They did count. In 1973.

More to come.
 
#25 ·
Now I'm gonna blow all your minds. :))

ATP made a huge one in 1973 (although logical if you think about it). Get ready. Look at the Top 10 of August 23, 1973 for assistance.

1. It is when I collected in all the data from tournament types that I realized this mishap. To get Orantes in front of Smith, placing Madrid at 75K was simply not enough. It helped, but Orantes was still short a few decimals. Panatta was entering Top 10 at last. So, this is when I realized that the weak September GP events from 1972 were not counted (Seattle, Sacramento and Albany). Take them out and Orantes slides in front of Smith. Not only that, but it also helps Rosewall move in Top 10, as well as other key positions in the Top 10 are determined.

2. Although, the Top 10 was looking close to the real one, I had to place all WCT events at the end of 1972 to 50K to make it even closer. But there was one thing missing.

3. Kodes... Kodes... Kodes... However you put this, Kodes was #4 (official being 11). It was so wrong, something was definitely amiss here. But how? One logical solution triumphed over all. 1973 Wimbledon (which Kodes won) was boycotted by 13 out of the Top 16 players because of the Pilic incident. Not only that this explained Kodes' position, which became 11 after I took out Wimbledon, but it was also explaining Connors' tournament count of 17. :gleam:

ATP DID NOT COUNT WIMBLEDON 1973. At all... :rofl_2:

Although, now I'm gonna have to count Calgary, as the only logical tournament Nastase played and Connors didn't to make it 23 for Ilie once more.
 
#28 ·
Can you do a ranking both ways? :p
 
#35 ·
I say you count Wimbledon 1973. It should still count. I have it counted in all of my stats pages, and Borg made a QF there, and Kodes deserves the title, regardless of the mug ATP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top