Mens Tennis Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
141 - 160 of 195 Posts

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #141
The Top 200 is now calculated, a few modifications were made to the calendar's Challenger circuit, but the changes are not yet visible in the links above. I am now going to finalize the satellite input process, which must set all the minor players to their year end values. Take note of a minor problem with the ATP Challenger Tour of that year: The Japanese (April) and Italian (September) sets of tournaments were each part of a 5 tournament circuit, and although 3 of them each had 25000 dollars in prize money, both circuits were considered satellites in the official rankings and noted as such (counted as one single tournament).
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
46,696 Posts
Fuck man this is crazy. Keep up the good work, seems like you are spending a lot of time on this
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #143
You haven't seen anything yet. I can manage to patch 1980's bottom ranked players pretty well thanks to a file I have, 1981 is gonna need a miracle because I don't have anything below #350. If I can pull that off, 1982 and 1983 are gonna be easy as pie.;)
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
46,696 Posts
Any chance for pre-Open Era? :p

I use www.tennisarchives.com for some of that but they don't have all of it

Karoly Mazaks' Concise History of Tennis is also pretty good
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #145
The Top 200 is now calculated, a few modifications were made to the calendar's Challenger circuit, but the changes are not yet visible in the links above. I am now going to finalize the satellite input process, which must set all the minor players to their year end values. Take note of a minor problem with the ATP Challenger Tour of that year: The Japanese (April) and Italian (September) sets of tournaments were each part of a 5 tournament circuit, and although 3 of them each had 25000 dollars in prize money, both circuits were considered satellites in the official rankings and noted as such (counted as one single tournament).
Well, that bold Italian circuit was not a satellite after all, but accepted as Challengers. The inconsistency came from the fact that I assumed Challengers were awarding bonus points to players for defeating seeds. Seems that, starting with 1980, this wasn't true anymore. Of course, I need to confirm this, and since, it only became somewhat visible once minor ranked players were broken down to points, it's gonna take some time.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #146
Any chance for pre-Open Era? :p

I use www.tennisarchives.com for some of that but they don't have all of it

Karoly Mazaks' Concise History of Tennis is also pretty good
One lifetime could not be enough for the answer here. :lol:

Let me finish this first, after which, as you say, we gonna see what's going on.

Karoly is definitely an expert in the history of tennis, so good choice there. :yeah:
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #147
Alright, the calendars should be final right now, with all stars in place. One last modification was made to Sofia. Although a $75000 tournament, it seems it had 2 stars, reason being unknown to me, but after 1979, I am out to preserve all of ATP's original categories, even the wrong ones.

Also, it is confirmed that Challengers didn't award bonus points for taking out seeds, and that Italian autumn Challenger circuit was treated as such, and not as a satellite.

Top 300 players are in place at year end. Now come the majority of players, the ones which scored 20 points or less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Alright, the calendars should be final right now, with all stars in place. One last modification was made to Sofia. Although a $75000 tournament, it seems it had 2 stars, reason being unknown to me, but after 1979, I am out to preserve all of ATP's original categories, even the wrong ones.
That is great news.
I understand you want to preserve all of ATP's original categories, but there must be category errors because of the incorrect designation of draw difficulty stars.
Is the Excel sheet showing the correct stars in post #139 still up to date?

I can understand misplacing a draw difficulty star by one unit, but in the case of North Conway, Indianapolis and Cincinnati the ATP undercategorised them by 2 stars. It almost looks like the North American summer circuit was penalised in some way.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #149
I was thinking the same thing actually. In both 1979 and 1980 there were differences to the expected star system. In 1979, a large numbers of tournaments didn't fit with it, in 1980 much less tournaments didn't fit with it, but still in both cases, the summer American swing had less stars than expected.

Yes, the #137 calendars and #139 calendar model are now in their final star assignment mode. The calendar will still need to fit the 25 satellite circuits of 1980, but their final position isn't yet determined (or even if there really were 25 or 24, or 26).

Also yes, I agree with you that there are Category Errors (Sofia is more than clear one such error). The other tournaments, not so clear, because they all earned extra stars for difficulty, and we can't identify if the error was made concerning draw difficulty or prize money category. Actually, this is why I would only focus on Sofia for a category error. I am not even confident if the draw difficulty calculations I made are what ATP would have made. Sure, the rules are the same, but the starting point is not. I used my ranking sheets to determine the values, ranking sheets which already altered in some way the official rankings, by correcting errors. It's actually better this time to preserve the original star categories than alter them, because I can't be 100% sure that the draw difficulty figures I have are historically good. Especially those that are close to one of the limits: 450, 850 or 1550. Better leave the original categories than to insert an error caused by uncertainty. When there's a 2 star difference though, it's obvious that the ATP had some reason for that tournament to be considered a lower/higher star category, we just can't be sure what the reason is (it could also be a prize money category error).

What I do expect to see though, is even less differences in star assignment for 1981, as 1980 is much more precise than 1979. I count 24 differences in 1980 and 45 in 1979.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
It's actually better this time to preserve the original star categories than alter them, because I can't be 100% sure that the draw difficulty figures I have are historically good.
OK, I understand the difficulty.
So we cannot be sure where the ATP got the stars wrong. The draw size seems to be pretty obvious. How confident are you that you got the correct prize money?

Another question: the year-end rankings for 1980 are pretty close to the official rankings, only Solomon gained an extra tournament, but positions in the Top10 are not affected.
But in 1979 Ashe had a much higher average with the same number of tournaments, while the opposite is true for Higueras. These two players actually swap places in your rankings. Could you unravel what error the ATP has made with these two players?
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #151
OK, I understand the difficulty.
So we cannot be sure where the ATP got the stars wrong. The draw size seems to be pretty obvious. How confident are you that you got the correct prize money?
I cannot be sure about how tournaments got their stars wrong. For instance, Birmingham 1979 got 7 stars with $175000 prize money and a pretty powerful draw. It's a mystery to me, one which cannot be solved because the official draw difficulty ratings are not available anywhere. When you said about the prize money, I remembered you gave me the excel list (which is more than helpful as it seems), so I checked there, and noticed Sofia at $50000. So, not an error after all. It now seems like a wonderful way to check the mathematical algorithm, it predicted it as 2-star, despite it being mentioned 75K everywhere else, including ATP's historical documents released in 1983.

Another question: the year-end rankings for 1980 are pretty close to the official rankings, only Solomon gained an extra tournament, but positions in the Top10 are not affected.
But in 1979 Ashe had a much higher average with the same number of tournaments, while the opposite is true for Higueras. These two players actually swap places in your rankings. Could you unravel what error the ATP has made with these two players?
[/QUOTE]

This is very interesting to be frank. 1979 is the last year ATP kept having a very weird error in the rankings, doubling tournaments. Ashe, for instance, played 11 tournaments in 1979 before retiring, but ATP counted a 12th tournament, which turns out was a penalty for late withdrawal (ATP started giving these). But instead of 1p, this 12th tournament entered as a 55 pts (a double tournament of his Denver SF). In reality though, Ashe should have had 480 pts (482 after minor error corrections), not 535, divided by 12, which would have placed him lower. The fact that Higueras traded places with him is due to Higueras earning 853 pts instead of 896 (the real figure - which places Higueras above his official placement). There are two more errors in the Top 10. Both Dibbs and Solomon had one of their tournaments forgotten (not counted). In reality they played 21(Solomon) and 20(Dibbs) tournaments, not 20 and 19, as official rankings show us. Interesting that Solomon got the same error to his name one year later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I'm looking at the ranking sheet for the 1970 Australian Open, but the other early sheets seem to be the same. The average column is determined by points/tournaments. That works (this week, anyway) down to 8 tournaments. At 7 (and below) tournaments, however, the number of tournaments stays at 8. This makes perfect sense... so that a player has to play so many tournaments. My question is: how was the 7 to 8 cutoff established?
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #153
I'm looking at the ranking sheet for the 1970 Australian Open, but the other early sheets seem to be the same. The average column is determined by points/tournaments. That works (this week, anyway) down to 8 tournaments. At 7 (and below) tournaments, however, the number of tournaments stays at 8. This makes perfect sense... so that a player has to play so many tournaments. My question is: how was the 7 to 8 cutoff established?
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. You will see in the official rankings that all players participating in a number of tournaments less than the minimum had the divisor be the minimum. This was done in order to eliminate players winning a Grand Slam and not participate in any other tournaments suddenly become Top 10 or even number 1.

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.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #154
Since there have been questions through the private channels.

1980 is in the process of being confirmed (all the calculations, even those for lower ranked players are done). The process is tedious, as all numbers must be good and mistakes eliminated. The process has also been slowed down (besides my 2 month break) by the fact that the ATP eliminated the system's automation possibility by converting the Spanish version of the website to the new format, so, along with the Live Rankings, the Historic Rankings system also had to be modified.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #159
Started the initial usual work for 1981, getting draws, parsing the calendar, extracting categories, etc. Gotta say, there has been no year until this one with so many ATP draws that I have to edit because of missing data in them. It's absolutely frustrating, 1981 has got to be the darkest year in tennis history. Everything is lost, from qualifiers, to seeds, to satellites and even ranking data (1981 has the fewest data on the official rankings possible).
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
46,696 Posts
Certainly coincides with Borg retiring, it was definitely a dark year
 
141 - 160 of 195 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top