GS ATP ranking points vs MS ATP ranking points [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

GS ATP ranking points vs MS ATP ranking points

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 04:06 PM
To me something should be highlighted in the ranking point system..

So, let's see: does GS rewarding points are truly worthy 2X MS ranking points??? (2000 ATP points for the GS titlist against 1000 ATP points for MS titlist)


1. In a GS a player (an ATP player) must make 3 wins to go to the next level. In MS he needs 2 wins only.

2. In a GS a title winner needs 7 wins versus 6 wins in MS.

3. I na GS those 7 wins occur in a 2 week time frame, in MS everything (6 mathes) is is to be done within one week.

4. that 7th match for the GS titlist is actually a first round R64 wich is against a low ranked players (128 +).

Everything else is the same.

So, again: does 2000 ATP ranking points for a titlist GS events against 1000 ATP points for a titlist at MS events truly reflect the difference in the effort and skills?? In another words: is the difference between the two categories doubled?

I appreciate any input. Thanks.

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 04:12 PM
It's not simply a question of "effort". GS are much more prestigious than any MS title, way more prize money, bigger viewership, more history/tradition etc... The motivation behind winning one is on another level to a MS. Physical effort is never a constant between tournaments and should hardly come into it. I mean, is there more effort required to win Monte Carlo than Estoril? Not necessarily, but that doesn't mean both titles are of equal importance. But as you mentioned, a GS is played over a longer period, with more matches and with best of 5.

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 04:26 PM
It's not simply a question of "effort".
well, then we will have lower quality of matches/tennis.

GS are much more prestigious than any MS title, way more prize money, bigger viewership, more history/tradition etc...

isn't that "prestigious" thing measured by the "effort" too?
Besides, is that difference worthy as twice as much of ATP points??

I mean, is there more effort required to win Monte Carlo than Estoril?

lol...that's a ridiculous compariosn. No further comment necessary here.

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 04:33 PM
well, then we will have lower quality of matches/tennis.

How?

isn't that "prestigious" thing measured by the "effort" too?

Not really, no. But there is more effort involved with winning a Slam.

Besides, is that difference worthy as twice as much of ATP points??

Yes. If you were a player, would you trade 2 MS titles in for 1 Slam? If you can answer this question truthfully you'll realise why this is a stupid topic.

lol...that's a ridiculous compariosn. No further comment necessary here.

Yes it is a stupid comparison, it also happens to be your argument. There is no difference in "effort" required to win the two events, so they should reward the same number of points, correct?

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 04:37 PM
The whole point here is to emphasize double GS vs MS ranking points. That "double" valued points will encourage the players to focus on GS only, go deep in it, either by luck or by hitting top form he was aiming to be just at that time - and then go slumpy again, till next GS.

While some other players can work really hard, keep top form throught the season, keep going deep into or winning Master Sries matches, yet, they'd be lower ranked that the first ones, just because their wrok was not rewarded as the work of so-called "GS" players.

The whole concern is: does the ranking system bring us lower quality of matches?

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 04:43 PM
The whole point here is to emphasize double GS vs MS ranking points. That "double" valued points will encourage the players to focus on GS only, go deep in it, either by luck or by hitting top form he was aiming to be just at that time - and then go slumpy again, till next GS.

While some other players can work really hard, keep top form throught the season, keep going deep into or winning Master Sries matches, yet, they'd be lower ranked that the first ones, just because their wrok was not rewarded as the work of so-called "GS" players.

The whole concern is: does the ranking system bring us lower quality of matches?

We're not dealing with a 1:10 ratio here, it's half. MS are still very worthwhile tournaments. Murray is only defending one set of GS points higher than QF and yet is on the verge of taking #2. There are only 4 Slams and like it or not they are the tournaments that really matter to players and going far in them deserves a greater reward.

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 04:48 PM
How??
the players are not motivated (no enough points for them!) to give their best in the matches that are not GS. And we have only 4 GS for the entire season!!


Not really, no. But there is more effort involved with winning a Slam.
Right. And the question now is: is that effort as twice as big as to win MS??


Yes. If you were a player, would you trade 2 MS titles in for 1 Slam? If you can answer this question truthfully you'll realise why this is a stupid topic.

That's a wrong approach to the issue. You missed the point here. I was talking about ranking points and not the title. (?) Now I can ask the similar question to you: would you trade three MS titles for one GS?? See, where we are going to now. You confused the issues.


Yes it is a stupid comparison,
thank you. You admittance is appreciated. Then do not try to compare Estoril with Monte Carlo.

Bazooka
05-11-2009, 04:52 PM
To answer the question, you would have to explain what current players have too many/too much points from AMS.

I think doubling it is about right. Probably it's easier to get 2.000 points from AMS than from slams, but winning a slam is a reward in itself and you enter history just by making the final.

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 04:56 PM
There are only 4 Slams and like it or not they are the tournaments that really matter to players.

right. What about the tennis fans? Is the game all about tennis players? Without enough public interest that game would go dead one day!! This is regardless how much (your) players enjoy it.

For instance: Rog made F,F,W,F in 4 GSs for the last season, lost everything else, including olipmic medal, (in singles), yet he is sitting at #2 just because of those GS efforts.

Well, look, I like to watch tennis more than just 4 times a year. And Federer's slumpy game is against what the true tennis fans like.

cheers.

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 05:03 PM
the players are not motivated (no enough points for them!) to give their best in the matches that are not GS. And we have only 4 GS for the entire season!!

1000 points, hundreds of thousands of dollars and one of the second most presitigious level tournaments on the tour is not enough motivation? I think this might be a semi-valid argument if you were referring to 250 tournaments where the top players really do have limited motivation, but not MS.

Right. And the question now is: is that effort as twice as big as to win MS??

No. Are you suggesting that all tournaments should award roughly the same number of points then, because they all take roughly the same amount of effort to win? Players aim to win Slams for more reasons than points, you are never going to change the fact that there is a greater motivation to win there than at MS. I don't see someone like Nadal having too much trouble finding motivation to do well outside of Slams aswell though, because they are professionals, and they always want to win.

That's a wrong approach to the issue. You missed the point here. I was talking about ranking points and not the title. (?)

You're talking about motivation. Ranking points won't change this, and nor should they. Some tournaments are more important than others, period.

would you trade three MS titles for one GS??

Maybe I would. Maybe GSs should be three times the points then? This is speculative. What I asked is actually relevant.

thank you. You admittance is appreciated. Then do not try to compare Estoril with Monte Carlo.

Are you actually retarded? I'm not trying to compare them, and nor should anyone, just as you should not try to compare Monte Carlo with the French Open.

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 05:03 PM
To answer the question, you would have to explain what current players have too many/too much points from AMS.

sorry didn't quite understood this one.

.........but winning a slam is a reward in itself and you enter history just by making the final.

true. Regarding the players prospective. But what about us, tennis fans?? Do, I really care how much winning a slam rewards Rafa, Djoker, Rog??? They aint paying my bills!

If no one wants to come to watch slumpy games anymore, the areans would go empty. The TV stations would stop broadcasting any matches. And the money would start to flow out of the tennis. And one day, the players would finally said: "hey, damn, I won that GS, but come back home broke. Next time I don't wanna play it. Glory is fine, but en empty stomack bothers me 24/7!!".

I have exagerrated a bit, just to explain my point.

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 05:05 PM
right. What about the tennis fans? Is the game all about tennis players? Without enough public interest that game would go dead one day!! This is regardless how much (your) players enjoy it.

For instance: Rog made F,F,W,F in 4 GSs for the last season, lost everything else, including olipmic medal, (in singles), yet he is sitting at #2 just because of those GS efforts.

Well, look, I like to watch tennis more than just 4 times a year. And Federer's slumpy game is against what the true tennis fans like.

cheers.


If this is purely about Federer, he's an anomoly, doing as well as he is in Slams and as "poorly" in MS events. Besides, he's still making it deep at the majority of MS and losing to the other top players, just like at Slams. :shrug:

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 05:08 PM
true. Regarding the players prospective. But what about us, tennis fans?? Do, I really care how much winning a slam rewards Rafa, Djoker, Rog??? They aint paying my bills!.

If you are a true tennis fan you would definately care enough about the game to appreciate a player's performance in a GS above any other tournament.

Sunset of Age
05-11-2009, 05:08 PM
If this is purely about Federer, he's an anomoly, doing as well as he is in Slams and as "poorly" in MS events. Besides, he's still making it deep at the majority of MS and losing to the other top players, just like at Slams. :shrug:

Did you have any doubts that OP meant to do anything else with this thread than 'proving' that Fed's #2 position is unjustified? ;)

Har-Tru
05-11-2009, 05:09 PM
In another words: is the difference between the two categories doubled?

At the very least.

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 05:13 PM
Did you have any doubts that OP meant to do anything else with this thread than 'proving' that Fed's #2 position is unjustified? ;)

No, I didn't :lol: But he was attempting to frame this as a genuine argument... at least for a while there :retard:

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 05:16 PM
1000 points, hundreds of thousands of dollars and won of the second most presitigious level tournaments on the tour is not enough motivation?

It is. But now listen to this (if you're able to??):

why should somebody run, sweat and have mental stress for 6 tough matches to make $600,000 and 1000 ATP ranking points, while he can play 6 easier ones (with less run, sweat and mental stress) and make more ($800,000 and 1,200 ATP ranking points)??? Would you go that way? No need to answer here. Just ask yourself.

Explanation: to win MS title (1,000 ATP points) takes 6 tough wins, (you have to beat top contenders) while making to GS final (1,200 ATP points) - and losing it, which means you don't have to beat the top contender - takes 6 easier wins .


Are you actually retarded?

you took it personally. I'll stop responding to your replies here.

rafa_maniac
05-11-2009, 05:25 PM
why should somebody run, sweat and have mental stress for 6 tough matches

5 for the top players....

to make $600,000 and 1000 ATP ranking points, while he can play 6 easier ones (with less run, sweat and mental stress)

What makes them easier? Are you deliberately disregarding the fact that GSs are best of 5? Nadal spent almost as long on court in his Australian Open semifinal alone as he did in his entire Barcelona defence. How's that for "effort"?

and make more ($800,000 and 1,200 ATP ranking points)??? Would you go that way? No need to answer here. Just ask yourself.

Why are you making this an either/or scenario :confused: I would want to win everything, just like any professional would. I've already stated I'd prefer to appear in a GS final than win a MS, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try my hardest to do both.

Explanation: to win MS title (1,000 ATP points) takes 6 tough wins, (you have to beat top contenders) while making to GS final (1,200 ATP points) - and losing it, which means you don't have to beat the top contender - takes 6 easier wins .

Ignoring the flaws in this reasoning I have already pointed out... Yes, GSs are a bigger deal than MS. Is that the point you were trying to illuminate? Well done.

you took it personally. I'll stop responding to your replies here.

I'm devastated.

NoFroz
05-11-2009, 08:34 PM
Well, in the OP you're missing the fact that slams are 5 setters, which makes them far more demanding phisically and specially psichologically than MS.

Besides when deciding how many points will a tournament give you're not only thinking which one is more difficult to win, but also which one you WANT to be more difficult to win IMO.
I mean Grand Slams are (and are intended to be) the most important tournaments in tennis by far. If instead of a 2:1 ratio you had a 1.5:1 for example, players would eventually put more interest in getting good results in (3 setters, smaller draws) MS, and Grand Slams would lose their prestige.

Double is just about fine for me :shrug:

Joao
05-11-2009, 10:17 PM
It is clearly harder to win a best of 5 setter (GS) than a best of 3 (MS). Also, because GS award more money, more points and are more prestigious historically, I'm sure that most players will try harder at GS than at MS. So you might find it harder to defeat a same player in a GS vs a MS. Federer is probably the best example. Why in the last 2 years has he consistently done better in GS than in MS? It's the same guy after all. I think it's the way he approaches the GS. His frame of mind is probably different.

Finally, not all players play the MS (some skip it for different reasons, e.g. Roddick skipping 2 clay MS this year because of his wedding) so the field is a little better in GS. For all these reasons, GS are harder to win than MS.

Now that doesn't justify the big difference in points. But, that's the way it is.

w78dexon_y
05-11-2009, 10:42 PM
It is clearly harder to win a best of 5 setter (GS) than a best of 3 (MS). Also, because GS award more money, more points and are more prestigious historically, I'm sure that most players will try harder at GS than at MS. So you might find it harder to defeat a same player in a GS vs a MS. Federer is probably the best example. Why in the last 2 years has he consistently done better in GS than in MS? It's the same guy after all. I think it's the way he approaches the GS. His frame of mind is probably different.

Finally, not all players play the MS (some skip it for different reasons, e.g. Roddick skipping 2 clay MS this year because of his wedding) so the field is a little better in GS. For all these reasons, GS are harder to win than MS.

Now that doesn't justify the big difference in points. But, that's the way it is.

I agree with you on this one. A good emphasize of similarities and differences between GS and MS tourneys. Speaking of Rog yes, you made a pont there too: his frame of mind. And that is my point (the point of the thread) too: ROGER deosn't give much in MS because the effort doesn't justify the reward there. That was my whole idea to stress.

You have got it! However, many others didn't And they're mostly biased Rog's fans. Ohh, well.

Har-Tru
05-12-2009, 03:43 AM
I agree with you on this one. A good emphasize of similarities and differences between GS and MS tourneys. Speaking of Rog yes, you made a pont there too: his frame of mind. And that is my point (the point of the thread) too: ROGER deosn't give much in MS because the effort doesn't justify the reward there. That was my whole idea to stress.

You have got it! However, many others didn't And they're mostly biased Rog's fans. Ohh, well.

The reason Federer fails to produce his best in MS isn't because he feels they don't give enough reward, but because it's slams that are the real deal. Forget about the points and the ranking and the money and all that stuff. All those things blow over eventually. Majors won, that doesn't.

w78dexon_y
05-12-2009, 05:09 AM
The reason Federer fails to produce his best in MS isn't because he feels they don't give enough reward, but because it's slams that are the real deal. Forget about the points and the ranking and the money and all that stuff. All those things blow over eventually. Majors won, that doesn't.

that could be also the truth. He is looking for the way to surpass Sampras record. But, also a good raniking position ensures the easier draw in Majors.

Because it's not the same being seed #2 or #3 at FO. That's how he made it last year to the final. Djoker played Rafa in semi and, of course lost. Had Rog been #3 seed at that time then he would've played Rafa and never been able to make it to the final. The same issue is this year.

And yeah, you're right: I should've said that Rog doesn't do well in MS because he saves his energy and form for GS, because GS are way better deal. That's why I put this thread. Of course, there's no doubt that GS is way more rewarding tourney. The only my question was: is the difference between MS and GS that big that gives GS double the MS ranking points? Should be 1.5 times instead of 2.0??

Ohh, well, I might be wrong, but this policy will and IS encouraging the players to shift their energy and focus from MS to the GS. And the GS coming 4 times a year only. What about quality of the matches in between? That was my primary concern.

w78dexon_y
05-12-2009, 05:22 AM
It is clearly harder to win a best of 5 setter (GS) than a best of 3 (MS). Also, because GS award more money, more points and are more prestigious historically, I'm sure that most players will try harder at GS than at MS. So you might find it harder to defeat a same player in a GS vs a MS. Federer is probably the best example. Why in the last 2 years has he consistently done better in GS than in MS? It's the same guy after all. I think it's the way he approaches the GS. His frame of mind is probably different.

Finally, not all players play the MS (some skip it for different reasons, e.g. Roddick skipping 2 clay MS this year because of his wedding) so the field is a little better in GS. For all these reasons, GS are harder to win than MS.

Now that doesn't justify the big difference in points. But, that's the way it is.

well, I agree with most what you said (that's why I quoted the whole post), except one small part:

So you might find it harder to defeat a same player in a GS vs a MS.
For a better player, it's always safer to play best of 5 rather than best of 3 sets. Because that's where his supremacy comes to the power. While an underdog could easier surprise the top dog in best of 3 sets. Example: who's gonna beat Rafa in best of 5 on clay?? The answer is NOBODY! But in best of 3?? Well, I am sure you can think of some names out there.

freeandlonely
05-12-2009, 06:33 AM
I think a runner-up of GS deserves more than 200 ahead of a MS winner.
At least makes it 1250 (equals a MS winner + a 250 winner)
I know it's about ratio overall.I know it changes from 10:7 to 10:6.I know 1250 is not a multiple of 8.I know there can't be an "exceptional case" in a "system"
But I just fell a runner-up of GS deserves a bit more.

krakenzero
05-12-2009, 06:45 AM
To win a "1000", you have to win 12 sets (10 if you are top seeded).

To win a "2000", you have to win 21 sets.

So, you think sets are two times easier in GS? In GS, to get to the final you always have to beat top players. In MS tournaments, it's not neccesary:

-Gonzalez' path to Rome '07 final: Tursunov, Massu, Chela, Volandri.
-Djokovic's path to Rome '08 title: Bye, Darcis, Andreev, Almagro (RET), Stepanek (RET), Wawrinka.
-Davydenko's path to Paris '06 title: Rochus, Tursunov, Ancic, Robredo, Hrbaty.
etc...

krakenzero
05-12-2009, 06:47 AM
For a better player, it's always safer to play best of 5 rather than best of 3 sets. Because that's where his supremacy comes to the power. While an underdog could easier surprise the top dog in best of 3 sets. Example: who's gonna beat Rafa in best of 5 on clay?? The answer is NOBODY! But in best of 3?? Well, I am sure you can think of some names out there.

And for a worse player, it's always worse to play best of 5 rather than best of 3, because "rival's supremacy comes to the power". So, GS are harder for 95% of the circuit.

Ozon
05-12-2009, 06:54 AM
why should somebody run, sweat and have mental stress for 6 tough matches to make $600,000 and 1000 ATP ranking points, while he can play 6 easier ones (with less run, sweat and mental stress) and make more ($800,000 and 1,200 ATP ranking points)??? Would you go that way? No need to answer here. Just ask yourself.

Explanation: to win MS title (1,000 ATP points) takes 6 tough wins, (you have to beat top contenders) while making to GS final (1,200 ATP points) - and losing it, which means you don't have to beat the top contender - takes 6 easier wins .


1) GS matches are best of 5, so they are not necessarily easier...
2) In order to get a high rank you have to run, sweat and have mental stress in both GS and Master1000 matches... I don't see your point!

Edit: Ok, now I've read all the posts.. I'd think that Federer loses reputation because of his many losses and that could make it easier for his opponents.

w78dexon_y
05-12-2009, 06:56 AM
I think a runner-up of GS deserves more than 200 ahead of a MS winner.
At least makes it 1250 (equals a MS winner + a 250 winner)
I know it's about ratio overall.I know it changes from 10:7 to 10:6.I know 1250 is not a multiple of 8.I know there can't be an "exceptional case" in a "system"
But I just fell a runner-up of GS deserves a bit more.

why?

Ozon
05-12-2009, 07:08 AM
The only my question was: is the difference between MS and GS that big that gives GS double the MS ranking points? Should be 1.5 times instead of 2.0??



2.0 is a "random" number. But if you only look at the winner, you get:
GS series: 4 * 2000 = 8000 pts.
MS series: 8/9 * 1000 = 8000/9000 pts. (little bit confused about Monte Carlo ;))

So, it's more or less balanced!

In my opinion, it shouldn't be less than 2 because of the importance of GS tournaments, they should have a high weight in your ranking points to avoid "slamless" No. 1 players!

bjurra
05-12-2009, 09:42 AM
sorry didn't quite understood this one.

.

true. Regarding the players prospective. But what about us, tennis fans?? Do, I really care how much winning a slam rewards Rafa, Djoker, Rog??? They aint paying my bills!

Most of us do care a lot about Grand Slams. Your bills are not significant.

Action Jackson
05-12-2009, 09:56 AM
This has to be a double account.

TennisViewer531
05-12-2009, 10:46 AM
No debate here. It's supposed to be GS ATP rankings points PLUS MS ATP rankings points ;)

w78dexon_y
05-12-2009, 03:41 PM
To win a "1000", you have to win 12 sets (10 if you are top seeded).

To win a "2000", you have to win 21 sets.

So, you think sets are two times easier in GS? In GS, to get to the final you always have to beat top players. In MS tournaments, it's not neccesary:

-Gonzalez' path to Rome '07 final: Tursunov, Massu, Chela, Volandri.
-Djokovic's path to Rome '08 title: Bye, Darcis, Andreev, Almagro (RET), Stepanek (RET), Wawrinka.
-Davydenko's path to Paris '06 title: Rochus, Tursunov, Ancic, Robredo, Hrbaty.
etc...

very true.