Mens Tennis Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
181 - 195 of 195 Posts

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #181
Hey @Slasher1985 I saw your sig with Laver added. It seems to me there is no comment about it in this thread at the moment so could you elaborate a bit on that? Do you have some tips on consecutive weeks?
Thanks.
Well, only gathered the data in a text file for now. As a streak I can say that Laver was no. 1 for the first 152 weeks of the Open Era. I actually want to build a rankings master file for the entire Open Era, but it's on hold because of the sheer amount of data it would contain, which would make it difficult to build when I pass 1985.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
Well, only gathered the data in a text file for now. As a streak I can say that Laver was no. 1 for the first 152 weeks of the Open Era. I actually want to build a rankings master file for the entire Open Era, but it's on hold because of the sheer amount of data it would contain, which would make it difficult to build when I pass 1985.
Thanks :)

With this though I think it is most likely that Laver probably passed 302 weeks if we are talking about all-time. And if he did than probably Rosewall as well. Good work, do you plan to do pre open era if you have finished the open era?
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #183
Thanks :)

With this though I think it is most likely that Laver probably passed 302 weeks if we are talking about all-time. And if he did than probably Rosewall as well. Good work, do you plan to do pre open era if you have finished the open era?
Sorry for answering a bit late here. Am not currently in Bucharest, was in the Netherlands for a few days, and couldn't access the forum. I do plan to do pre-open era, but I don't know when that could start. It could be a few years before this project is finished.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
The minimum number of tournaments was established to aid the official rule of 1973 which stated a number of 10 tournaments was minimum and 12 after 1974.
The idea was to gradually increase the minimum between 1968 and 1973 in order to not create any sudden changes. 4 in 1968, 6 in 1969, 8 in 1970 and 10 from 1971. This is also determined from the number of tournaments considered for rankings, lower in 1968, and higher in later years.
Hi Marian,

I looked at 1968, where you used a minimum divisor of 5, instead of 4, otherwise Ashe would have finished ahead of Laver.
But I think even 5 is too low for 1968. I know there were fewer tournaments (at least you have chosen fewer than in subsequent years, which is understandable because of the scarcity of events with any prize money), but I would increase the divisor, as the ranking of Hewitt, Tiriac and Metreveli is too high in my opinion.
What if taking a minimum of 7 for 1968, 8 for 1969 and 9 for 1970?
In this way the changes between the years were even smoother and the rankings even more realistic in my opinion.
I would be highly interested in such rankings, maybe in a separate column, if it is not too much of an effort on your part.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #187
Hi Marian,

I looked at 1968, where you used a minimum divisor of 5, instead of 4, otherwise Ashe would have finished ahead of Laver.
But I think even 5 is too low for 1968. I know there were fewer tournaments (at least you have chosen fewer than in subsequent years, which is understandable because of the scarcity of events with any prize money), but I would increase the divisor, as the ranking of Hewitt, Tiriac and Metreveli is too high in my opinion.
What if taking a minimum of 7 for 1968, 8 for 1969 and 9 for 1970?
In this way the changes between the years were even smoother and the rankings even more realistic in my opinion.
I would be highly interested in such rankings, maybe in a separate column, if it is not too much of an effort on your part.
Hello,

Thanks for your interest here. Ashe played 5 tournaments in 1968 (well, ranked tournaments). I assure you that the minimum divisor was 4. Check August 19 for instance. Ashe played 2 tournaments at that point, had 20 points and his average was 5.

I have some changes for 1968 which we talked about a while ago and are still pending. However, redoing 1968 now is highly difficult, because:

1. ATP changed their website in the meantime, the changes I did to calculate 1980 and 1981 have to be done from scratch for 1968 since it was an earlier version.

2. I am highly focused on 1981 and beyond right now. It takes a lot of time and I don't have much time to begin with. Family and work take a lot of my time, so there is little for the project to begin with.

But this is not hopeless, the more time we spend thinking about it, the more we can concentrate the idea on the best solution. So keep it in mind and I'll let you know when 1968 will be re-run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Hello,

Ashe played 5 tournaments in 1968 (well, ranked tournaments). I assure you that the minimum divisor was 4. So keep it in mind and I'll let you know when 1968 will be re-run.
Hi Marian,

Thanks for the reply. Now I see the minimum divisor was indeed 4 for 1968. I still think the minimum divisor should be increased for the early years of the Open Era.
I understand you want to concentrate on 1981 and the years beyond, but I hope one day you will return to these early years as well.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #189
Hi Marian,

Thanks for the reply. Now I see the minimum divisor was indeed 4 for 1968. I still think the minimum divisor should be increased for the early years of the Open Era.
I understand you want to concentrate on 1981 and the years beyond, but I hope one day you will return to these early years as well.
Don't worry, I will not forget the early years. The focus is on the early 80s right now because it is a place of missing data. Let me schedule a return to 1968 when I have completed everything til 1985, when ATP starts having weekly data again.

1981, the dark year, is now final. The OP has been updated accordingly. I shall start work on 1982 as soon as I receive some much needed files.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #191
As you all know, WCT didn't count for the rankings starting with 1982. As my rankings project will reproduce the exact ATP system, the main calculations will not count them either, but I propose a side calculation (ala Wimbledon 1973) in which WCT are counted (at least for 1982) to see how the rankings could have looked if that happened. The side calculation will be made once 1982 is finalized though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
As you all know, WCT didn't count for the rankings starting with 1982. As my rankings project will reproduce the exact ATP system, the main calculations will not count them either, but I propose a side calculation (ala Wimbledon 1973) in which WCT are counted (at least for 1982) to see how the rankings could have looked if that happened. The side calculation will be made once 1982 is finalized though.
As you probably know, the WCT had its own ranking system, the Nixdorf Computer Rankings (first published on 20 June 1982). They took into account WCT events, Volvo Grand Prix events, Davis Cup, ATP Championship and World Team Cup.
It was probably the most inclusive ranking system ever, and much more realistic than the ATP rankings for that year.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #193
As you probably know, the WCT had its own ranking system, the Nixdorf Computer Rankings (first published on 20 June 1982). They took into account WCT events, Volvo Grand Prix events, Davis Cup, ATP Championship and World Team Cup.
It was probably the most inclusive ranking system ever, and much more realistic than the ATP rankings for that year.
Yeah, I know the system and I agree it is more realistic. Although nobody tried to rate the WCT tournaments into the ATP own system (because nobody knows it anymore). We will see how it looks together and compare it with Nixdorf, see how similar things are.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #194
I didn't anticipate this but the OP has become impossible to edit. It takes about 3 minutes for the smallest modification. I will have to do a new thread and lock this one in. I'll let you know when it's ready.
 
181 - 195 of 195 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top