Mens Tennis Forums banner

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 23.6%
  • No

    Votes: 42 76.4%
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
810 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,774 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,385 Posts
This is bullshit. It's bonus enough to say you've beaten the #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,122 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,634 Posts
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
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top