PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone have the old 2001 format on ranking???


Jericho
Jul 20th, 2002, 07:02 PM
Does anyone have the 2001 ranking process that gives how many points you get for each round and how many for beating a quality opponent, thanks...

Brian Stewart
Jul 20th, 2002, 08:57 PM
Trn W F SF QF r16 r32 r64 r128
GS 520 364 234 130 72 44 26 2
Chps 390 273 175 97 54
T1 260 182 117 65 36 22 13 1
T2 200 140 90 50 26 14 1
T3 155 110 71 39 20 11 1
T4 140 98 63 35 18 10 1
T5 80 56 36 20 10 1


Quality Points are the same as this year.

Raj
Jul 20th, 2002, 08:59 PM
QUALITY POINTS HAVE CHANGED BY A FACTOR OF 1.5 IN THE GRAND SLAMS.

Jericho
Jul 20th, 2002, 09:01 PM
did the amount of money for example Tier 2 - 585,000 and Tier 2 650,000 make a difference in points??

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 20th, 2002, 09:04 PM
not until this year

Qualify points in Slams changed from x1.5 to x2 a few years ago

Jericho
Jul 20th, 2002, 09:08 PM
also how about the number of players for tier 1, 2, and 3??

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 20th, 2002, 09:12 PM
they were all 1 level of points

only Key Biscayne was on a different level to other Tier I's until 1997 when they revised the rankings

Jericho
Jul 20th, 2002, 09:18 PM
so if you were entered in a tier one 32 player tournament and lost first round you would get 22 points..??

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 20th, 2002, 09:21 PM
nope only 1

all 1st rd loses =1pt Grand Slams =2pts
only at year end champs does a 1st rd loser gain more than 1

Jericho
Jul 20th, 2002, 09:23 PM
okay then...so second round losers get 36??So from 1 point to 36?? I calculated how many points venus received at the US Open using the quality points system that is currently being used and the 2001 ranking system round points and they were correct. So they started using the current quality point system starting at the US open??

Brian Stewart
Jul 20th, 2002, 10:09 PM
The current quality point system started in 1998.

As for second round losers, they get whatever points are specified for that round of the tournament (r16, r32, r64). So in your example, a 32-draw Tier 1, yes, you would get 36 round points for reaching the second round.

Another note: players who have a first round bye, or advance by Walkover, who then lose in the second round get treated like 1st round losers (1 point.)

Jericho
Jul 20th, 2002, 10:44 PM
so quality points have never been changed...

Darkheart
Jul 20th, 2002, 11:48 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Technically, if you lose your first match, you get 1 point. It doesn't matter what round it is.

Suppose you got a bye into the 2nd round then got a walkover into the 3rd round. If you lose your 3rd round match (which would really be your first match), you get 1 point.

You would still get the prize money for whatever round you reached.

Richie77
Jul 21st, 2002, 03:36 AM
Darkheart - Yes on all three counts.

Brian Stewart
Jul 21st, 2002, 04:52 PM
Quality points have changed over the past decade. In 1997, you got the same QP as now for regular tournaments, but only 50% more for slams. (150 for beating #1 in a slam, etc.) The 50% slam bonus ran from 1994-97. In 1992-93, QP were the same for all tournaments, with no slam bonus.

From 1993-96, the QP scale was lower, with only 75 points for beating #1. In 1992, you only got 58 points for beating #1.

Another curious note from 1992 is the relationship between slams and tour events in round points. Some writers complained last year that too few round points were allocated for the slams (twice a Tier I), and insisted something was "obviously" wrong with that. Yet these same writers said nothing 10 years ago, when winning a slam gave you only 75% more round points than winning a Tier 2.

Richie77
Jul 22nd, 2002, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Brian Stewart
Quality points have changed over the past decade. In 1997, you got the same QP as now for regular tournaments, but only 50% more for slams. (150 for beating #1 in a slam, etc.) The 50% slam bonus ran from 1994-97. In 1992-93, QP were the same for all tournaments, with no slam bonus.

From 1993-96, the QP scale was lower, with only 75 points for beating #1. In 1992, you only got 58 points for beating #1.

Another curious note from 1992 is the relationship between slams and tour events in round points. Some writers complained last year that too few round points were allocated for the slams (twice a Tier I), and insisted something was "obviously" wrong with that. Yet these same writers said nothing 10 years ago, when winning a slam gave you only 75% more round points than winning a Tier 2.

Interesting...
Brian, do you (or anyone else) know if there's a site that has point tables going back to 1992, or even beyond? Your post has made me even more curious about the rankings back then.

Brian Stewart
Jul 22nd, 2002, 05:34 PM
There are no sites that I know of. I have all of those tables in my guides.

Richie77
Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:40 PM
Are these guides available? I would love to see them, if it's not too much trouble.

Brian Stewart
Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:58 PM
Here is the information for the various years. (Above was for 2001)


1999-2000
Trn W F SF QF r16 r32 r64 r128
GS 520 364 234 130 72 44 26 2
Chps 390 273 175 97 54
T1 260 182 117 65 36 22 13 1
T2 200 140 90 50 26 14 1
T3 140 98 63 35 18 10 1
T4A 110 77 50 27 14 1
T4B 80 56 36 20 10 6 1

1997-1998
Trn W F SF QF r16 r32 r64 r128
GS 520 364 234 130 72 44 26 2
Chps 390 273 175 97 54
T1 260 182 117 65 36 22 13 1
T2 200 140 90 50 26 14 1
T3 140 98 63 35 18 10 1
T4 80 56 36 20 10 6 1

1994-1996
Trn W F SF QF r16 r32 r64 r128
GS 520 364 234 130 72 44 26 2
Chps 390 273 175 97 avg*
T1 260 182 117 65 36 22 13 1
T2 210 147 95 53 27 14 1
T3 160 112 72 40 21 11 1
T4 100 70 45 25 13 7 1
*- received their ranking point average

1993
Trn W F SF QF r16 r32 r64 r128
GS 500 350 225 125 70 44 26 1
Chps 375 263 169 94 avg*
Lptn 300 210 135 75 38 21 10 1
T1 260 182 117 65 34 18 1
T2 210 147 95 53 27 14 1
T3 160 112 72 40 21 11 1
T4 100 70 45 25 13 7 1

1992
Trn W F SF QF r16 r32 r64 r128
GS 350 245 158 88 50 30 18 1
Lptn 240 168 108 60 30 15 8 1
T1 200 140 90 50 25 13 1
T2 200 140 90 50 25 13 1
T3 135 95 61 34 17 9 1
T4 110 77 50 28 14 8 1
Chps= average + quality points


I'll list the rules and Quality Points in my next post.

Brian Stewart
Jul 23rd, 2002, 05:29 PM
For the rules, I'm assuming everyone the basics of how to calculate ranking points for a tournament using the appropriate charts. I'll explain how the overall ranking for the year was derived, then list the quality points charts.

2001+- sum of best 17 tournaments
1998-2000- sum of best 18 tournaments
1997- sum of all tournaments
1996- sum of all tournaments, divided by number of tournaments played or 14 (minimum divisor)- whichever is greater.
1992-1995- sum of all tournaments, divided by number of tournaments played or 12 (minimum divisor)- whichever is greater.
For all "averaging" years (1992-96), a minimum of 3 tournaments necessary for a ranking.

QUALITY POINTS

1998+
Rank Tour Grand
Range Event Slam
1 100 200
2 75 150
3 66 132
4 55 110
5 50 100

6-10 43 86
11-16 35 70
17-25 23 46
26-35 15 30
36-50 10 20

51-75 8 16
76-120 4 8
121-250 2 4
251-500 1 2
501+ 0 0

1997
Rank Tour Grand
Range Event Slam
1 100 150
2 75 113
3 66 99
4 55 83
5 50 75

6-10 43 65
11-16 35 53
17-25 23 35
26-35 15 23
36-50 10 15

51-75 8 12
76-150 4 6
151-250 2 3
251-500 1 1.5
501+ 0 0

1994-1996
Rank Tour Grand
Range Event Slam
1 75 112.5
2 68 102
3-5 60 90
6-10 45 67.5
11-15 30 45

16-30 20 30
31-50 10 15
51-75 6 9
76-100 4 6
101-150 3 4.5

151-200 1.5 2.3
201-300 1 1.5
301-500 0.5 0.8
501+ 0 0

1993
Rank All
Range Events
1 75
2 68
3-5 60
6-10 45
11-15 30

16-30 20
31-50 10
51-75 6
76-100 4
101-150 3

151-200 1.5
201-300 1
301-500 0.5
501+ 0

1992
Rank All
Range Events
1 58
2 52
3-5 40
6-8 28
9-11 21

12-18 15
19-30 8
31-50 5
51-75 4
76-100 3

101-150 2
151-200 1
201-300 0.5
301-500 0.3
501+ 0

Richie77
Jul 25th, 2002, 06:20 AM
Thanks, Brian! That must have been a lot of work, so it was really nice of you to do that. :)

The rankings have definitely gotten more organized over the years, that's for sure. Back in the 90's, a lot of those point values seemed arbitrary.