PDA

View Full Version : quality points are unfair and the most stupid thing to decide


@Sweet Cleopatra
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:08 PM
The exact meaning of the quality points is that the same round matches will not be equal in points to players ,

it means that a player who is playing less could be better than the player who is hard worker ,

the ranking now is the most suitable , it's fair ,

if you want points , work for your points , play for your points ,

and also the ranking system by taking the best of 12 tournements plus 4 GS and Miami is suitable for females , as more tournements is damaging and may lead to injuries ,

what do you think ?

jujufreak
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:13 PM
The exact meaning of the quality points is that the same round matches will not be equal in points to players ,

it means that a player who is playing less could be better than the player who is hard worker ,

the ranking now is the most suitable , it's fair ,

if you want points , work for your points , play for your points ,

and also the ranking system by taking the best of 12 tournements plus 4 GS and Miami is suitable for females , as more tournements is damaging and may lead to injuries ,

what do you think ?

it's only normal you get more points after beating tougher players

ce
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:15 PM
:shrug:

AnnaK_4ever
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:16 PM
The exact meaning of the quality points is that the same round matches will not be equal in points to players ,

it means that a player who is playing less could be better than the player who is hard worker ,

the ranking now is the most suitable , it's fair ,

if you want points , work for your points , play for your points ,

and also the ranking system by taking the best of 12 tournements plus 4 GS and Miami is suitable for females , as more tournements is damaging and may lead to injuries ,

what do you think ?

I think you have no idea what exactly quality points are. They have nothing to do with amount of tournaments played.

@Sweet Cleopatra
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:21 PM
I mean although you're playing less than many of players you may have more points than what you deserve cause you beaten some top players .

AnnaK_4ever
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:38 PM
I mean although you're playing less than many of players you may have more points than what you deserve cause you beaten some top players .

To win a GS title you need to beat 7 players. To win two Tier IV titles you need to beat 10 players.
I'm pretty sure winning one Slam is far better achievement than winning two Tier IVs even though Slam champion played less matches than two-time Tier IV winner.

@Sweet Cleopatra
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:50 PM
but it's bad to see a player playing only 6 tournements even if she won a grand slam .

Slutiana
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:13 PM
but it's bad to see a player playing only 6 tournements even if she won a grand slam .

good for you. Your beloved maria hasn't exactly been a workaholic this year. a lie?

Lets look at it like this: hypothetically of course, there's 2 players, one ranked 81, the other, 82. The world no. 81 draws a qualifier ranked 200 in their first round. The world nummber 82 draws the world number one JH in the first round. If they both were to win their matches, do you think it's fair that they both get the same amount of points? The answer should be no.

Renalicious
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:18 PM
I thought quality points were stopped after the 2005 season...

@Sweet Cleopatra
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:33 PM
good for you. Your beloved maria hasn't exactly been a workaholic this year. a lie?

Lets look at it like this: hypothetically of course, there's 2 players, one ranked 81, the other, 82. The world no. 81 draws a qualifier ranked 200 in their first round. The world nummber 82 draws the world number one JH in the first round. If they both were to win their matches, do you think it's fair that they both get the same amount of points? The answer should be no.


yes it's fair , why is the ranked 81 in this place , it's because there's 80 players are above her , she should work to have better ranking , and also hypothetiacally the 81 ranked could win by ret. of the top player after 2 games , and the 82 player could win over the 200 in 3 sets , do you think it's fair the fist takes more points ? the answer should be NO ,
I mean the best ranking system is all matches in the same round have same points .
it may be not 100% fair , but it's the most suitable from all systems ..

Slutiana
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:41 PM
yes it's fair , why is the ranked 81 in this place , it's because there's 80 players are above her , she should work to have better ranking , and also hypothetiacally the 81 ranked could win by ret. of the top player after 2 games , and the 82 player could win over the 200 in 3 sets , do you think it's fair the fist takes more points ? the answer should be NO ,
I mean the best ranking system is all matches in the same round have same points .
it may be not 100% fair , but it's the most suitable from all systems ..

:eek: @SC speaking sense.

No ranking is fool proof but i think you should be rewarded for beating a top player. Obviously, its a lucky break if your opponent was to retire but look.

Justine's played over 50 matches this year and lost only 4 times. She hasn't retired once. Shouldn't those players have been rewarded for that?

*JR*
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:47 PM
I thought quality points were stopped after the 2005 season...
They were, the thread starter worded it like they still exist ("are", not "were"). Furthermore, s/he distorts the meaning of the "Best 17" system, in that using a full divisor system would ironically remove the incentive to play more. If its 17, a player with 28 events in the last 52 weeks has only the best 60% of them in points counted, while a player with the 17 "Cleopatra" favors has 100% of them used to calculate her ranking. The "mulligans" beyond 17 that don't count reward a streaky player in the rankings for ovaplay. (Of course giving the TD's who really run the game more "known names" in their draws).

@Sweet Cleopatra
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:56 PM
:eek: @SC speaking sense.

No ranking is fool proof but i think you should be rewarded for beating a top player. Obviously, its a lucky break if your opponent was to retire but look.

Justine's played over 50 matches this year and lost only 4 times. She hasn't retired once. Shouldn't those players have been rewarded for that?

but if a plyer beats 2 top player she may take points similar to points taken by winning a whole tournement , that doesn't make sence , if they think they should be awarded for that , so they must show more top matches from them , this will sure raise their ranking .