1000,500,250... how much for the slams? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

1000,500,250... how much for the slams?

snoo
10-04-2007, 01:56 PM
I'm wondering. Does anybody know how many points will be awarded for a slam next year?
This year is 1000 for a slam and 500 for a master series.

Action Jackson
10-04-2007, 02:03 PM
2000

It's for 2009.

Purple Rainbow
10-04-2007, 07:59 PM
How many points for challengers and futures is a more interesting question.

CyBorg
10-04-2007, 08:36 PM
2000 points for winning a major could have actually made some sense... except that the numbers are just basically double the old ones, meaning that Mr. Disney spent a vast amount of time reading over his first grade math textbook in search of the perfect algebraic solution to the tennis scheduling problem. And, alas, he found it.

Repeat after me: 2 times 2 is four. 2 times 2 is four. 2 times 2 is four. 2 times 2 is four.
/barney voice.

And so on.

Seriously speaking, I would have been perfectly happy with the points system we have at this time with a few minor but necessary corrections. The fact that a player does not have to have much success in grand slam competition in order to be in the ATP top 10 is a bit of an issue, because by virtue of the current system one can posit that playing a number of events in the summer clay season for example can be as effective, points wise, as making it to the final of a major (one is a tremendous feat, the other - let's say, two semis and one final in Sopot - is not.

So why not just make the majors worth more? And I don't mean multiply by two and everything else as well. I mean just the majors. This is why I say that 2000 points for the winner of a major is not a bad thing. But make the number mean something. Let's give the majors more weight. If not 2000 points, it could have at least been 1500. When you win a major you should have more points to your ranking than a guy who had a decent run across a number of minor events.

The 2009 formula is a band aid solution and it's stupid, unnecessarily jampacked with numbers and redundant. It will make things more competitive but succeeding in the majors is still not paramount to building up one's ranking. A guy will still be able to get by on 4r-QF types of results and rank as good as number three in the world if he does well enough elsewhere. Let's reward the true superstars: let's reward guys who play well at the best events.

Peoples
10-04-2007, 08:36 PM
Why not call the slams "2000" then? It may be necessary for the marketing you know.

CyBorg
10-04-2007, 08:41 PM
Why not call the slams "2000" then? It may be necessary for the marketing you know.

Pete Sampras holds the all-time record with 14 2000s. Many people also forget that he amassed a grand total of 5(!) WTFs.

That's right. 5 WTFs. It's incredible.

However the one minor blemish on his resume is that Sampras collected only 11 De Villiers ballsacks (formerly known as the masters series), a number long time ago surpassed by Federer.

Labamba
10-04-2007, 08:44 PM
Why not call the slams "2000" then? It may be necessary for the marketing you know.

If only mr Disney could control the Slams :awww: damn ITF :banghead:

Purple Rainbow
10-04-2007, 08:45 PM
Pete Sampras holds the all-time record with 14 2000s. Many people also forget that he amassed a grand total of 5(!) WTFs.

That's right. 5 WTFs. It's incredible.

However the one minor blemish on his resume is that Sampras collected only 11 De Villiers ballsacks (formerly known as the masters series), a number long time ago surpassed by Federer.

14 2000's? That's, like, 28,000! I love this new system!
Remember though that Agassi is the 1000 king!

CyBorg
10-04-2007, 08:59 PM
14 2000's? That's, like, 28,000! I love this new system!
Remember though that Agassi is the 1000 king!

Yup. Federer has 24,000. Meaning that he's 4,000 away from tying Sampras.