Question about the ATP Race Points - I think there is a mistake. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Question about the ATP Race Points - I think there is a mistake.

ale
06-03-2004, 01:49 PM
The atp site says Federer has 516 points after R4 of RG but
he went into the tournament with 486 points and he made third round, which gives 15 points, so 486 + 15 = 501. Is the ATP site wrong or I am overlooking something?

Neely
06-03-2004, 02:04 PM
that's right, it should be 501 and not 516
I didn't notice this error, but you are correct
I have no idea why they added 30 points to his race points and not 15 :shrug:

Yashirobai
06-03-2004, 03:04 PM
Roger cheater!!!! lol

BRAtilio
06-03-2004, 03:13 PM
.lol.

jtipson
06-03-2004, 03:16 PM
Yes, it's a mistake. I already emailed them, but I guess they don't take much notice.

CmonAussie
06-03-2004, 03:19 PM
Just realized->> if Coria wins RG (highly likely) then he'll overtake Federer's lead in 04 Champions Race!! Amazing considering I thought Roger had such a huge gap over the others^^!

jtipson
06-03-2004, 03:21 PM
Yeah, he'd lead by 7 points, and only for a week. Hrbaty was more impressive ;)

COMA
06-03-2004, 03:26 PM
Roger cheater!!!! lol

male Justine?? ;) ;)

just kidding - I like them both :p

jtipson
06-04-2004, 09:38 AM
They fixed it :)

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 11:45 AM
I think the real mistake is the Race system.

Neely
06-04-2004, 12:14 PM
I think the real mistake is the Race system.
don't think so, for me, the Champions Race is one of the best things that have been introduced the last years.

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:19 PM
Any reason why?

Chloe le Bopper
06-04-2004, 12:21 PM
The Champions Race blows. I agree with FatCarnage here.

Neely
06-04-2004, 12:31 PM
because it measures the achievements of the current year and only the 8 best players of the current season qualify for the Masters Cup

that's why the Champions Race is a very good thing!

CmonAussie
06-04-2004, 12:35 PM
The Champions Race blows. I agree with FatCarnage here.
:rolleyes:
Champions Race is a fantastic concept :worship: :worship: !

2000: Kuerten wins No.1(Champions Race) at last opportunity-> overtakes Safin in TMC Lisbon by defeating Sampras SF & Agassi Final :) !

2001: Agassi takes big lead with AO, IW-TMS, Miami-TMS...BUT Kuerten looks set for Back-to-Back when he wins Monte Carlo-TMS, FO, Cincinatti; then Hewitt storms to the Champions Race at last opportunity (taking USO, Tokyo, TMC{def Grosjean, Agassi, Ferrero, Rafter}).

2002: Hewitt pips Agassi in the end but showdown in Shanghai TMC very exciting! Hewitt leads after Wimbledon BUT Agassi with Miami-TMS, Rome-TMS, USO-final, Madrid-TMS almost overhauled him; Hewitt sealse the deal with wins over Federer SF, Ferrerro-Final at TMC :D .

2003: 1st Agassi looks impressive with AO, Miami-TMS; then Ferrero with Monte-Carlo TMS, FO, USO-final; then Federer with Wimbledon, followed by Roddick's building lead with Canada-TMS, Cincinatti-TMS, USO; at last Federer wins TMC BUT Roddick pips him narrowly!... Best thing was 3-way battle between the NEW BALLS->> Roddick was very lucky :p .

2004: Federer look invincible with AO, IW-TMS, Hamburg-TMS...BUT Coria with Miami-TMS final, Monte-Carlo TMS, Hamburg-final, FO title??... suddenly able to overtake Roger's big lead heading into Wimbledon!
-->> Who will clinch it this year :confused: ,probably Federer, maybe Coria, possibly Roddick, or even Safin/Nalbandian?? :cool: :cool: .

5-years down the track & Champions Race keeps the excitment to finish No.1 throughout the year; just when you think someone is going to run-away with it (a la Agassi 01 or Federer 04) then surprisinly they get bundled early in a SLam, another guy wins~ the Lead changes hands :p :cool: !

Neely
06-04-2004, 12:36 PM
thanks, CmonAussie, excellent points and very good post! :worship:

at least one person who is the same opinion as me ;)

Horatio Caine
06-04-2004, 12:38 PM
The Champions Race is a good invention - at a glance you can see how well a player is doing this year. With just the Entry system, you can't tell what else they have been up to in 1 year on the tour e.g. Martin Verkerk - a glance at his entry ranking suggests that he is really great, "consistent" player but obviously he had only 1 great result on his ranking, all of which is hidden at a glance. Looking at the race ranking will tell you how shocking his results are at the moment and the fact that he is not worthy of a place in the world's top 30. :)

Gonzo Hates Me!
06-04-2004, 12:38 PM
yeah CmonAUssie, it does keep excitment and anticipation

Omigod, 2000 year end in Lisboa was a beauty!

Horatio Caine
06-04-2004, 12:39 PM
:rolleyes:
Champions Race is a fantastic concept :worship: :worship: !

2000: Kuerten wins No.1(Champions Race) at last opportunity-> overtakes Safin in TMC Lisbon by defeating Sampras SF & Agassi Final :) !

2001: Agassi takes big lead with AO, IW-TMS, Miami-TMS...BUT Kuerten looks set for Back-to-Back when he wins Monte Carlo-TMS, FO, Cincinatti; then Hewitt storms to the Champions Race at last opportunity (taking USO, Tokyo, TMC{def Grosjean, Agassi, Ferrero, Rafter}).

2002: Hewitt pips Agassi in the end but showdown in Shanghai TMC very exciting! Hewitt leads after Wimbledon BUT Agassi with Miami-TMS, Rome-TMS, USO-final, Madrid-TMS almost overhauled him; Hewitt sealse the deal with wins over Federer SF, Ferrerro-Final at TMC :D .

2003: 1st Agassi looks impressive with AO, Miami-TMS; then Ferrero with Monte-Carlo TMS, FO, USO-final; then Federer with Wimbledon, followed by Roddick's building lead with Canada-TMS, Cincinatti-TMS, USO; at last Federer wins TMC BUT Roddick pips him narrowly!... Best thing was 3-way battle between the NEW BALLS->> Roddick was very lucky :p .

2004: Federer look invincible with AO, IW-TMS, Hamburg-TMS...BUT Coria with Miami-TMS final, Monte-Carlo TMS, Hamburg-final, FO title??... suddenly able to overtake Roger's big lead heading into Wimbledon!
-->> Who will clinch it this year :confused: ,probably Federer, maybe Coria, possibly Roddick, or even Safin/Nalbandian?? :cool: :cool: .

5-years down the track & Champions Race keeps the excitment to finish No.1 throughout the year; just when you think someone is going to run-away with it (a la Agassi 01 or Federer 04) then surprisinly they get bundled early in a SLam, another guy wins~ the Lead changes hands :p :cool: !


Yeah i agree with you wholeheartedly on thaat, mayte! ...and i don't normally agree with Aussies!! :)

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:41 PM
because it measures the achievements of the current year and only the 8 best players of the current season qualify for the Masters Cup

that's why the Champions Race is a very good thing!

what??? Only the eight best players of any year went to the Masters Cup before as well. It's the last event of the year, and they would deduct its points the week before it happened so you could use only the points you had acquired that year.

And yes, it measures the achievements of the current year. That is so very helpful in January.

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:44 PM
You people are way way way way off.

First of all, you could find the Race system when the old rankings (now entry) took precedence.

Secondly, the Race system was devised as a way to minimize confusion for the casual fan. It has actually maximized it.

Third, is there anything more annoying when reporters use a player's Race ranking as their real career high? Everybody knows they mean nothing until the end of the year. And the reason for that is because that is the standard of the true rankings, the entry system.

Chloe le Bopper
06-04-2004, 12:46 PM
The Champions Race blows and I'll explain why I think that later today when I get back from my meeting. I'll even manage to do it without a condescending "how dare you ahve a different opinion than me!" rolleyes smiley ala Cmon Aussie.

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:47 PM
Rebecca, let's not pretend you can discuss the Champions' Race without being condescending.

Neely
06-04-2004, 12:48 PM
what??? Only the eight best players of any year went to the Masters Cup before as well.
sure, my mistake :p


And yes, it measures the achievements of the current year. That is so very helpful in January.
yes, but Schuettler raked among the top 10 despite having many poor results this year is more helpful to you, isn't it?

just look at the Champions Race and it reveils how good Schuettler really is this year :yeah:

Chloe le Bopper
06-04-2004, 12:48 PM
Rebecca, let's not pretend you can discuss the Champions' Race without being condescending.
Or anything else, for that matter

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:49 PM
:rolleyes:
Champions Race is a fantastic concept :worship: :worship: !

2000: Kuerten wins No.1(Champions Race) at last opportunity-> overtakes Safin in TMC Lisbon by defeating Sampras SF & Agassi Final :) !

2001: Agassi takes big lead with AO, IW-TMS, Miami-TMS...BUT Kuerten looks set for Back-to-Back when he wins Monte Carlo-TMS, FO, Cincinatti; then Hewitt storms to the Champions Race at last opportunity (taking USO, Tokyo, TMC{def Grosjean, Agassi, Ferrero, Rafter}).

2002: Hewitt pips Agassi in the end but showdown in Shanghai TMC very exciting! Hewitt leads after Wimbledon BUT Agassi with Miami-TMS, Rome-TMS, USO-final, Madrid-TMS almost overhauled him; Hewitt sealse the deal with wins over Federer SF, Ferrerro-Final at TMC :D .

2003: 1st Agassi looks impressive with AO, Miami-TMS; then Ferrero with Monte-Carlo TMS, FO, USO-final; then Federer with Wimbledon, followed by Roddick's building lead with Canada-TMS, Cincinatti-TMS, USO; at last Federer wins TMC BUT Roddick pips him narrowly!... Best thing was 3-way battle between the NEW BALLS->> Roddick was very lucky :p .

2004: Federer look invincible with AO, IW-TMS, Hamburg-TMS...BUT Coria with Miami-TMS final, Monte-Carlo TMS, Hamburg-final, FO title??... suddenly able to overtake Roger's big lead heading into Wimbledon!
-->> Who will clinch it this year :confused: ,probably Federer, maybe Coria, possibly Roddick, or even Safin/Nalbandian?? :cool: :cool: .

5-years down the track & Champions Race keeps the excitment to finish No.1 throughout the year; just when you think someone is going to run-away with it (a la Agassi 01 or Federer 04) then surprisinly they get bundled early in a SLam, another guy wins~ the Lead changes hands :p :cool: !

A shame, all that writing and for no purpose. What role exactly did the Champions' Race play in those exciting years?

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:50 PM
Or anything else, for that matter

But especially the Champions' Race.

Chloe le Bopper
06-04-2004, 12:52 PM
But especially the Champions' Race.
Yes, especially that. Nalbandan is retarded and I'm going to my meeting crabby now. I'll be around later, to cry and stuff

CmonAussie
06-04-2004, 12:53 PM
Yeah i agree with you wholeheartedly on thaat, mayte! ...and i don't normally agree with Aussies!! :)
:wavey: :)
Gee thanks you 'Jolly Good Fellow' Jez :cool: . It sure is nice to know people won't always disagree with me just because I come from the Land Down Under.. Seriously though~ I can't see any drawbacks from Champions Race; before when Sampras always seemed to lead Entry System^ now those are the boring years; thank God tennis is moving forward*@@*!

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:53 PM
sure, my mistake :p


yes, but Schuettler raked among the top 10 despite having many poor results this year is more helpful to you, isn't it?

just look at the Champions Race and it reveils how good Schuettler really is this year :yeah:

Dude, it's not like I'm saying the Race format isn't useful. It IS. But it should not be the PRIMARY rankings because it is HORRIBLY MISLEADING.

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:54 PM
Yes, especially that. Nalbandan is retarded and I'm going to my meeting crabby now. I'll be around later, to cry and stuff

You'll be in even worse shape when Henman wins!

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 12:55 PM
:wavey: :)
Gee thanks you 'Jolly Good Fellow' Jez :cool: . It sure is nice to know people won't always disagree with me just because I come from the Land Down Under.. Seriously though~ I can't see any drawbacks from Champions Race; before when Sampras always seemed to lead Entry System^ now those are the boring years; thank God tennis is moving forward*@@*!

Again. What exactly has the swap in primary ranking system done to improve the tennis?

TheBoiledEgg
06-04-2004, 12:55 PM
Champions Race is meaningless and pointless
its only relevance is after Paris Bercy

Non of the players look at this stupid Race apart from Kendoll :rolleyes:

jtipson
06-04-2004, 01:00 PM
Dude, it's not like I'm saying the Race format isn't useful. It IS. But it should not be the PRIMARY rankings because it is HORRIBLY MISLEADING.

Totally agree. The race can be useful, exciting even. But it's not an accurate assessment of who's the best until the end of the year.

For example, next week some journalists will tout Coria (if he wins RG) as the new number one in the world because he will lead the race by 7 points. No doubt this discussion will surface again then!

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 01:04 PM
And that is the chief reason why the Race has failed. It's done exactly the opposite of what it has set out to do.

The thing I find ironic is that it all came about after the 1999 Wimbledon final where Sampras defeated Agassi but dropped the top ranking to him. Then there was that collective "WHA?????" from the American public and a demand for change. Nevermind the fact that Agassi would've been ahead of Pete in the Race at that juncture anyway ....

CmonAussie
06-04-2004, 01:05 PM
A shame, all that writing and for no purpose. What role exactly did the Champions' Race play in those exciting years?
:rolleyes:
Champions Race firstly distinguished which tournaments were important for points & exactly how many points allocated & at what point in the season players needed to peak to makimise their point-gathering!
ie. AO, IW, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, FO, Wimbledon, Canada, Cincinatti, USO, Madrid, Paris, TMC :cool: !
4-Slams = 200pts each
9-TMS = 100pts each
1-TMC = 20->150pts available

Prior to 2000 when Champions Race started i never knew how many tournaments they the players needed to win to finish No.1; it just seemed like the guy who won Wimbledon or USO (usually Sampras) ended up being ranked No.1 at the end :sad: .

From the 4-years that Champions Race has taken place I realised that the winner usually accumulates between 800->900 points in the season; so that gives the players a target, also to make Top-8 (ie. TMC field) you need approx 400 points!

So even if a player starts the year strongly (a la Agassi in 00,01,03) it doesn't mean he'll be there at years end. Likewise a guy who begins poorly (a la Coria Rd1 AO this year) can overtake the Lead by playing well in the Clay-court season->> then if he just hangs on by making QF/SF at Wimbledon/USO he can probably take Champions Race (unless Federer wins both of those Slams).. :cool:

Well atleast I find the Champions Race a cool concept, & i like the idea of dominant players in one stretch having the Lead taken from them at the last opportunity. Prior to 2000 season it was more confusing for me, anyway that's my opinion & others can disagree (perhaps their logic works differently :confused: ).
Cheers Pearler, Beauty Bottler Cobbers :) ..

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 01:11 PM
I'm afraid your problem is this. You're ignorant about tennis.

The Champions' Race did not distinguish which events were important. Everybody already fucking knew. The Slams and the Super Nines (as they were once called).

As for you not knowing how many events players had to win to be #1, or thinking all you had to do was win Wimbledon and the USO, that is a matter of your ignorance and nothing more.

"From the 4-years that Champions Race has taken place I realised that the winner usually accumulates between 800->900 points in the season; so that gives the players a target, also to make Top-8 (ie. TMC field) you need approx 400 points!"

And do you realize that it works the same way in the Entry Rankings? You can just as easily formulate a target there too.

"So even if a player starts the year strongly (a la Agassi in 00,01,03) it doesn't mean he'll be there at years end."

And that has something to do with the Champions' Race how?

jtipson
06-04-2004, 01:14 PM
What's so difficult to understand about the original ("Entry System") ranking though?
It works the same way as the Champions' Race, it's just 12 months' rolling results, rather than year-to-date.

CmonAussie
06-04-2004, 01:20 PM
I'm afraid your problem is this. You're ignorant about tennis.

The Champions' Race did not distinguish which events were important. Everybody already fucking knew. The Slams and the Super Nines (as they were once called).

As for you not knowing how many events players had to win to be #1, or thinking all you had to do was win Wimbledon and the USO, that is a matter of your ignorance and nothing more.

"From the 4-years that Champions Race has taken place I realised that the winner usually accumulates between 800->900 points in the season; so that gives the players a target, also to make Top-8 (ie. TMC field) you need approx 400 points!"

And do you realize that it works the same way in the Entry Rankings? You can just as easily formulate a target there too.

"So even if a player starts the year strongly (a la Agassi in 00,01,03) it doesn't mean he'll be there at years end."

And that has something to do with the Champions' Race how?
:wavey:
Okie dokies nasty pastie smartey pants^^!

Prior to 2000 Champions Race the 4-Slams allocated points differently; for instance Wimbledon was allowed to give ~1000 points to winner but AO only ~700 points! *That's why Sampras had an unfair advantage; as long as he won Wimbledon he was getting a head-start over other Slam winners & we all know grass suited his game perfectly.
BTW~ I'm not completely ignorant as I was well aware of the existing SUPER-9 events, HOWEVER it was not made clear exactly how many points were allocated & in relation to the Slams either! ALSO it wasn't made clear (prior to 2000 Champions Race) that players could only gather points, outside Slams & Super-9/TMS, via their 5-best results in IS events. So previously it could be assumed that a player continued accumulating points if they played every single event all year round; thankfully that is not the case through Champions Race system & it is made clear to simple folk like myself :p !

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 01:22 PM
:wavey:
Okie dokies nasty pastie smartey pants^^!

Prior to 2000 Champions Race the 4-Slams allocated points differently; for instance Wimbledon was allowed to give ~1000 points to winner but AO only ~700 points! *That's why Sampras had an unfair advantage; as long as he won Wimbledon he was getting a head-start over other Slam winners & we all know grass suited his game perfectly.
BTW~ I'm not completely ignorant as I was well aware of the existing SUPER-9 events, HOWEVER it was not made clear exactly how many points were allocated & in relation to the Slams either! ALSO it wasn't made clear (prior to 2000 Champions Race) that players could only gather points, outside Slams & Super-9/TMS, via their 5-best results in IS events. So previously it could be assumed that a player continued accumulating points if they played every single event all year round; thankfully that is not the case through Champions Race system & it is made clear to simple folk like myself :p !

Are you out of your mind?

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 01:24 PM
First of all, all 4 Slams have doled out the same number of ranking points for many years now. There was CERTAINLY NOT the disparity you speak of in 1999.

Secondly, the Best 5 rule DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO THE CHAMPION'S RACE. But there was a system called Best 18 (it was 18?) which the Entry system worked on which just counted your best 18 results regardless of where they came.

Also, point tables were/are readily available on the Internet. Tell me again you're not ignorant?

CmonAussie
06-04-2004, 01:30 PM
First of all, all 4 Slams have doled out the same number of ranking points for many years now. There was CERTAINLY NOT the disparity you speak of in 1999.

Secondly, the Best 5 rule DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO THE CHAMPION'S RACE. But there was a system called Best 18 (it was 18?) which the Entry system worked on which just counted your best 18 results regardless of where they came.

Also, point tables were/are readily available on the Internet. Tell me again you're not ignorant?
:cool:
OK that's fine, by your analysis I must be ignorant; despite keenly watching tennis since 1986 i guess I don't have a clue until Champions Race came to my rescue ;) .
Since you know all the facts mate->> can you tell me exactly when did the disparity between points allocation among the 4-Slams get adjusted?? I thought it was after 1999 season, THOUGH i conceed it may have come in a few years prior to that :confused: ..

Neely
06-04-2004, 01:30 PM
CarnivalCarnage, what a shame! so many posts in this thread for no purpose :rolls: ;)
(using your own words :lol: )

just accept it that there are people who like the Champions Race and that there are some who don't, is it sooooo difficult to accept? :banghead: :yeah:

Gonzo Hates Me!
06-04-2004, 01:43 PM
Aie!! I think this thread is going to continue to blow into something it initially wasnt

anyway, I agree with Cmon Aussie's initial post, which was that the Champs Race in years passed has been exciting when it comes to the Year End Championships.

but it doesnt have to be exciting for everyone

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:00 PM
:cool:
OK that's fine, by your analysis I must be ignorant; despite keenly watching tennis since 1986 i guess I don't have a clue until Champions Race came to my rescue ;) .
Since you know all the facts mate->> can you tell me exactly when did the disparity between points allocation among the 4-Slams get adjusted?? I thought it was after 1999 season, THOUGH i conceed it may have come in a few years prior to that :confused: ..

I would imagine no later than the late 80s which is when all the best players began to make the trip to Australia.

What I do know is that I have been watching tennis for many years myself and there has never been a difference in points at the majors during my time.

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:02 PM
CarnivalCarnage, what a shame! so many posts in this thread for no purpose :rolls: ;)
(using your own words :lol: )

just accept it that there are people who like the Champions Race and that there are some who don't, is it sooooo difficult to accept? :banghead: :yeah:

Yes, I see that those were my own words. And you seem to have turned that back on me. Good thing you pointed that out, as I would never have been able to understand that. It was such a clever witticism, you see.

I do not accept that people can like something for no good reason. This shows a lack of critical thinking. I have laid out the arguments against, and destroyed your arguments in favour. Don't sit there and say, "well I like it". That shows a severe lack of intelligence. The last refuge of the wrong.

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:04 PM
Aie!! I think this thread is going to continue to blow into something it initially wasnt

anyway, I agree with Cmon Aussie's initial post, which was that the Champs Race in years passed has been exciting when it comes to the Year End Championships.

but it doesnt have to be exciting for everyone

Once again. The race for #1 has been close and allegedly exciting for a few years now. That has nothing to do with the switch in primary ranking system.

Neely
06-04-2004, 02:07 PM
I do not accept that people can like something for no good reason. This shows a lack of critical thinking. I have laid out the arguments against, and destroyed your arguments in favour. Don't sit there and say, "well I like it". That shows a severe lack of intelligence. The last refuge of the wrong.

CarnivalCarnage, I don't wanna say my points again and again

but I can repeat me once more, if you want:
I'm asking you once more, what is more realistic? Schuettler ranked #7 or #23?

I hope for your intelligence now that you finally see my reason why I like the Champions Race.

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:11 PM
CarnivalCarnage, I don't wanna say my points again and again

but I can repeat me once more, if you want:
I'm asking you once more, what is more realistic? Schuettler ranked #7 or #23?

I hope for your intelligence now that you finally see my reason why I like the Champions Race.

Apparently you missed a post of mine. I never said it's not useful. It is. I said it's too misleading to be the primary ranking system. I could provide thousands more examples of hideous rankings to compete with that one VERY ARGUABLE bit of sagacity. And if you can't see that ....

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:16 PM
For the record, Neely, I responded to that question for the first time in post #30.

Neely
06-04-2004, 02:18 PM
Apparently you missed a post of mine. I never said it's not useful.
ah yes, that's right I missed that post because it was right at the bottom of the page :banghead:

okay, you agree that Champions Race is useful, but my intention was not showing you the usefulness of it, but one exemplary reason why I like it.

I do not accept that people can like something for no good reason.
And as you demaned "a good reason" in one of your previous posts I provided you that "good reason" in my opinion. :shrug: Okay?

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:25 PM
ah yes, that's right I missed that post because it was right at the bottom of the page :banghead:

okay, you agree that Champions Race is useful, but my intention was not showing you the usefulness of it, but one exemplary reason why I like it.


And as you demaned "a good reason" in one of your previous posts I provided you that "good reason" in my opinion. :shrug: Okay?

Look. You gave me a reason why you like it. I understand that. But I don't think it's a good reason for the reason I said. For every one example of sagacity there are a 1,000 bad examples. Does that one example of the Champions' Race being the better predictor of form (and again, that is arguable) nullify the thousands of times a year when it looks ridiculous?

Neely
06-04-2004, 02:29 PM
I don't say the Champions Race has no weaknesses. There are always cons and pros for everything. And I agree with you in some parts.

And if you think it is a "good reason" or not is not the question because that's always subjective what a person considers as a good reason or not.

CmonAussie
06-04-2004, 02:35 PM
Carnival mate; you may win the debate on a technichality, but this isn't a game of who can be more sarcastic or bury other's honest opinions. The fact is that for many people the Champions Race has simplified how points are accumulated, built anticipation & excitement into the Tennis Calendar Season (as leaders jostle for Top-8 & No.1 spot)... If the media misinterprits Champions Race to represent the Entry System then obviously the system hasn't been perfected yet, BUT the current Race does have many merits, which I & other posters appreciate*@@*!

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:35 PM
I disagree. That's like saying "Opinions Can Never Be Wrong". They tell ya that in Grade school so people will speak up, but it's untrue. They can be wrong, and whether reasons are good or not is not subjective.

So you concede the Champions' Race has weaknesses. Then let me ask you. If what I said is correct, and it makes thousands of laughable predications of current form for every one good one, what makes it a better option than the Entry System as a primary ranking system?

WyveN
06-04-2004, 02:35 PM
In my opinion "Champions Race" is a joke used by the ATP Tour to generate interest because the average human is too lazy to attempt to understand a system that uses such complicated things as elementary math.

People have brought up Schuettler but seem to forget that Hrbarty is still ranked #9 in the race sytem and Schuettler has certainly been the better tennis player despite the recent slump.

Given that the tennis season has virtually no off season what is so special about counting results only this year?
Coria will most likely be shown as #1 at the end of this weekend on the race system yet is that fair considering Coria's best patch of the season has just finished and Roddicks/Feds has yet to begin. Wont the entry system give a better representation?

You may say by the end of the year the race system will represent everything fairly but since that converges with the entry season rankings by year end I once again ask, what is the point of the race system?

In the early 1990s I am pretty sure ranking points at slams were not equal and were awarded relative the the prize money awarded at each slam, I will try to find out when they changed that but it was not in 2000 due to the champions race

CarnivalCarnage
06-04-2004, 02:38 PM
Carnival mate; you may win the debate on a technichality, but this isn't a game of who can be more sarcastic or bury other's honest opinions. The fact is that for many people the Champions Race has simplified how points are accumulated, built anticipation & excitement into the Tennis Calendar Season (as leaders jostle for Top-8 & No.1 spot)... If the media misinterprits Champions Race to represent the Entry System then obviously the system hasn't been perfected yet, BUT the current Race does have many merits, which I & other posters appreciate*@@*!

I really struggle to understand how you can say that after the debate we've had unless you have disregarded everything I've said.

Yashirobai
06-04-2004, 02:45 PM
ale, why don't you just change the title of the thread to call it something like "discussion about how good is Champions Race" or something similar?? would probably be more appropiate...

TheBoiledEgg
06-04-2004, 05:00 PM
one reason why slam winners had diff pts and other tourns also was cos of the BONUS pts system

ATP had a Best 14 system until 1999, any 14 best counted.

it was pretty easy to follow if u had any brains :o

Now too many tourns are worth the same and thats just :o

u get the same pts for winning Memphis as u do for Rotterdam the same week
same pts for winning Newport, Casablanca as u do for winning Sydney :rolleyes:


Also the Champions Race is only for players who play just ATP maindraw events.
so another reason why its just dont work.

New Players who are starting out would never get a Rank as they'll never be able to play an ATP tourn except locally where they might get a WC :rolleyes:

Challenger/Futures Players would never have a rank either :rolleyes:

Neely
06-04-2004, 05:11 PM
sure, BoiledEgg, I completely agree with your reasons. And that's why the Entry System is still continued and should of course not be stopped.

WyveN
06-04-2004, 05:41 PM
ATP had a Best 14 system until 1999, any 14 best counted.


worst side effect is that after your 5 best results are counted a player can just turn up to mickey mouse tournaments, lose in the first round, get the appearance fee and get out of there without any effect on their ranking


lets not forget why the champion race system was set up - morons who dont know a thing about tennis whinging that "how can something that happened a year ago have any relevance on your ranking today, thats not how it is in baseball!!"

YoursTruly
06-04-2004, 05:51 PM
The ATP race point system is a mistake!