Should there be a bonus for beating the no.1 player? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Should there be a bonus for beating the no.1 player?

preNadal care
10-22-2007, 01:12 AM
Should there be a ranking point bonus for beating the no.1 player? For instance, if Player A beats Roger Federer in a tournament, in addition to the normal points awarded for that win, should there also be a bonus for the win since it was over the no.1 player?

Roddickominator
10-22-2007, 01:16 AM
There should be boners for beating the no.1 player.

trixtah
10-22-2007, 01:22 AM
sigh...i live in the same country as you two...

Ackms421
10-22-2007, 01:26 AM
There was a bonus. This ended sometime in the late 90's I think. Not sure why, but I think there should be a bonus. The reasons are especially evident right now with the numbers Federer puts up. He barely ever loses, so beating him should give you some type of bonus as you must be putting up stellar play to get the job done.

trixtah
10-22-2007, 01:31 AM
There was a bonus. This ended sometime in the late 90's I think. Not sure why, but I think there should be a bonus. The reasons are especially evident right now with the numbers Federer puts up. He barely ever loses, so beating him should give you some type of bonus as you must be putting up stellar play to get the job done.

Or if he has a terrible day and loses to a low ranked player? I'm a bit glad they eliminated it--I don't even remember it :X

Burrow
10-22-2007, 01:33 AM
:o What a question.

Allure
10-22-2007, 01:42 AM
There was a bonus. This ended sometime in the late 90's I think. Not sure why, but I think there should be a bonus. The reasons are especially evident right now with the numbers Federer puts up. He barely ever loses, so beating him should give you some type of bonus as you must be putting up stellar play to get the job done.

Rafatard. :rolleyes:

Jaffas85
10-22-2007, 02:08 AM
No, there shouldn't be a bonus for beating the #1.

A player can't choose their draw and arn't responsible for whether or not the #1 chooses to opt out of a Masters Series Event or not (such as the Paris Masters which Federer routinely skips) so they should not be effectively punished by receiving less ranking points should they win a tournament than what a player would who encounters the #1 in their part of the draw and manages to beat them and win the title.

It simply isn't fair as the draw is always random and the #1 may not turn up to significant tournament where a player has done admirably to win.

preNadal care
10-22-2007, 02:16 AM
A player can't choose their draw and arn't responsible for whether or not the #1 chooses to opt out of a Masters Series Event or not (such as the Paris Masters which Federer routinely skips) so they should not be effectively punished by receiving less ranking points should they win a tournament than what a player would who encounters the #1 in their part of the draw and manages to beat them and win the title.
Who said anything about winning a title? I'm just talking about beating the no.1 player. The no.1 player is infamous for having weaker draws. A bonus would merely give more incentive for players to play better against the no.1. It isn't meant to be give an unfair advantage to players that face the no.1. Get real, it's not like Roger loses more than a few matches a year, so it's really unlikely the "lucky" competitors would get lucky in the end anyway. Once the no.1 is out, he's out. Only one competitor can do that, so it's not an unfair advantage if they are able to beat him.

trixtah
10-22-2007, 02:30 AM
Who said anything about winning a title? I'm just talking about beating the no.1 player. The no.1 player is infamous for having weaker draws. A bonus would merely give more incentive for players to play better against the no.1. It isn't meant to be give an unfair advantage to players that face the no.1. Get real, it's not like Roger loses more than a few matches a year, so it's really unlikely the "lucky" competitors would get lucky in the end anyway. Once the no.1 is out, he's out. Only one competitor can do that, so it's not an unfair advantage if they are able to beat him.

The incentive is already there--they get the say that they beat the best player to play tennis yet. Unlikely that "lucky" competitors get the better of Roger? How about you get real? Canas ring a bell? Losing twice and then blowing him off the court completely tells me something about luck. Secondly, if we start talking about matchups, why should players who have a good record against the #1 get a bonus when the #1 does not if he beats them?

RickDaStick
10-22-2007, 02:38 AM
Who said anything about winning a title? I'm just talking about beating the no.1 player. The no.1 player is infamous for having weaker draws. A bonus would merely give more incentive for players to play better against the no.1. It isn't meant to be give an unfair advantage to players that face the no.1. Get real, it's not like Roger loses more than a few matches a year, so it's really unlikely the "lucky" competitors would get lucky in the end anyway. Once the no.1 is out, he's out. Only one competitor can do that, so it's not an unfair advantage if they are able to beat him.

Terrible idea. If a player doesnt have enough incentive to beat the #1 player in the world then he should reconsider what he is doing

FedFan_2007
10-22-2007, 02:47 AM
This is bullshit. It's bonus enough to say you've beaten the #1.

Corey Feldman
10-22-2007, 02:47 AM
Nope, infact they should be spanked for being so rude as to dare defeat the mighty No.1 :p

TankingTheSet
10-22-2007, 03:00 AM
In this age where Federer is a strong favourite for most of his matches, there may be a slight argument for this (although I am against it), but in the past it has been quite common that the number 1 wasn't dominating at all, and often got in a form slump losing a lot of matches, in which case it was more or less random luck for players to be able to get the bonus points. Suppose Federer had been injured for part of the season and Nadal would be number one, people would get bonus points every tournament for beating Nadal on hardcourts, that doesn't quite sound right.

brent-o
10-22-2007, 03:00 AM
There should be boners for beating the no.1 player.

:tape: that's exactly how I read the thread title at first glance.

preNadal care
10-22-2007, 03:09 AM
The incentive is already there--they get the say that they beat the best player to play tennis yet. Unlikely that "lucky" competitors get the better of Roger? How about you get real? Canas ring a bell? Losing twice and then blowing him off the court completely tells me something about luck. Secondly, if we start talking about matchups, why should players who have a good record against the #1 get a bonus when the #1 does not if he beats them?
Federer lost to Canas fair and square both times. Beating a player twice in two weeks doesn't make them lucky. It makes them the clear winner. Fed had two bad weeks, but I'm not necessarily talking about a big boost in the rankings. I just asked if there should be a bonus. I didn't suggest how big or small the bonus should be. It could be a small bonus, though. Volandri was the only other low-ranked player this year to get "lucky" off of Fed.

The no.1 gets to continue being no.1 when he wins his draw and the tournaments and more money. That's the prize. The bonus for beating the no.1 helps encourage those that end up in the no.1's weak draws to give it extra emphasis and make the matches more competitive. And yes, some players do need extra incentive against someone like Federer. How many times do I hear about even the top players that fold like tents against Federer easily? He's the best ever, and it's not like many these days have the balls to beat him.

preNadal care
10-22-2007, 03:19 AM
Suppose Federer had been injured for part of the season and Nadal would be number one, people would get bonus points every tournament for beating Nadal on hardcourts, that doesn't quite sound right.
When's the last time Federer was out with injury? The game Federer plays, it's less likely for him to get injured. The way Nadal and others play, they are more likely to get injured, so it's not like even if they did get the ranking from him that they'd be that likely to keep it, since he'd be out of majors and there would most likely be more competitive finals in majors.

trixtah
10-22-2007, 03:51 AM
Federer lost to Canas fair and square both times. Beating a player twice in two weeks doesn't make them lucky. It makes them the clear winner. Fed had two bad weeks, but I'm not necessarily talking about a big boost in the rankings. I just asked if there should be a bonus. I didn't suggest how big or small the bonus should be. It could be a small bonus, though. Volandri was the only other low-ranked player this year to get "lucky" off of Fed.

The no.1 gets to continue being no.1 when he wins his draw and the tournaments and more money. That's the prize. The bonus for beating the no.1 helps encourage those that end up in the no.1's weak draws to give it extra emphasis and make the matches more competitive. And yes, some players do need extra incentive against someone like Federer. How many times do I hear about even the top players that fold like tents against Federer easily? He's the best ever, and it's not like many these days have the balls to beat him.

small bonus? As in a milk and crackers? Then I wholeheartedly agree with said bonus.

barbadosan
10-22-2007, 04:05 AM
How many times do I hear about even the top players that fold like tents against Federer easily? He's the best ever, and it's not like many these days have the balls to beat him.

And some don't have the talent :p

barbadosan
10-22-2007, 04:07 AM
small bonus? As in a milk and crackers? Then I wholeheartedly agree with said bonus.

:haha: :bowdown:

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 08:20 AM
That is definitely why people lose to Federer... They lack motivation, give them extra dollars and the transitional champ will start to lose on a weekly basis!

:retard:

partygirl
10-22-2007, 09:18 AM
Where is the hell No option?

if you can beat #1 you should be able to beat a lot of others...so go and do that consistently and you're ranking will improve. :)

Top level tennis is about consistency, its what separates the capable from the awesome.:bowdown:

Tankman
10-22-2007, 12:10 PM
Bonus?

Nah, the players get enough money as it is... and if they actually need an incentive to beat the #1 :rolleyes:

Blue Heart24
10-22-2007, 12:33 PM
Terrible idea. If a player doesnt have enough incentive to beat the #1 player in the world then he should reconsider what he is doing

The player in your avatar should do it also :o

Or Levy
10-22-2007, 02:10 PM
I doubt they need it.

Canas never dreamed he would get such a start to his return from suspension.

Volandri - probably the luckiest of them all, because Roger was barely in the tournament, never mind in the match - got to do that in front of the home crowd, what could be sweeter?

Nalby got to beat a guy he hasn't beaten in a long while and snag his first Masters.

And I doubt the number 2 and 3 in the world should get special bonus for doing what they suppose to do - challange the world number 1.

Or Levy
10-22-2007, 02:17 PM
Fantastic idea, I would be happy to put it into action for you. ;)

Don't you rather spank Roger for daring to lose? :devil:

RagingLamb
10-22-2007, 02:36 PM
I agree with the incentive idea.

People would be more motivated to beat the no. 1 player.

It may result in more competition and better matches.

Klaas_nalbandian
10-22-2007, 02:55 PM
the wta had it 2 years ago , but you got various points for beating also top 10 top 20 top 100. Offcourse I want nalby to have more points , beating fed is an super performance but nog worth giving extra points imo

Or Levy
10-22-2007, 04:27 PM
I couldn't do that for fear he might suddenly start losing more often. :devil:

Yes, one must not give Roger incentives for losing. :angel:

ExpectedWinner
10-22-2007, 04:33 PM
No. Someone like Kafelnikov wasn't too hard to beat when he was No1.

alfonsojose
10-22-2007, 04:40 PM
Jesus. WTF is this? JesusFed is a human being so he can lose matches :rolleyes: Now half on MTF wants to suck Nalbandian's dick :zzz: ... I wouldn' mind either :angel:

ReturnWinner
10-22-2007, 04:48 PM
Jesus. WTF is this? JesusFed is a human being so he can lose matches :rolleyes: Now half on MTF wants to suck Nalbandian's dick :zzz: ... I wouldn' mind either :angel:

is there any being which u would not mind to suck its/his member?

World Beater
10-22-2007, 06:49 PM
No. Someone like Kafelnikov wasn't too hard to beat when he was No1.

6 straight first round losses. :eek:

why stop there?

Whoever beats the #1 is the new #1.

btw. the idea that giving bonus pts would somehow change the outcome of matches or the approach of challengers is absolute rubbish. Players don't need bonus pts as incentives.

in some ways its an absolutely ridiculous system. Consider a situation where the #1 player and #2 player are in the final of the TMC. It is conceivable that the #2 player could become the #1 player for the year-end with the help of bonus pts. :help:

However, it may be useful for academic purposes to award bonus pts when beating top 10 players. It gives a nice idea of the competition players face when reaching latter rounds and awards those who had to face tougher draws. This system is not totally free of flaws as it would naturally assume that the tougher draws = top 10 players, but it would be useful to see from a fan's standpoint.

World Beater
10-22-2007, 06:51 PM
BTW. since we are discussing the idea of ranking pts etc, has anyone considered the ELO system to rank tennis players (it is used in chess). In some ways, it is better than the current sytem. It is one way to measure the competition players have had.