PDA

View Full Version : A good way to make slams count for more


mexicotrip
Oct 18th, 2003, 04:36 PM
triple the Quality points at slams....If you beat the number 1 for example you get not 200 points, but 300! This would not involve a huge change in the ranking system, but would better point out the "real number 1"

wongqks
Oct 18th, 2003, 04:46 PM
I think the current way is good enough, they just have to make grand slam mandatory

JennyS
Oct 18th, 2003, 06:20 PM
I agree about making Grand Slams mandatory. I think you could also make Grand Slams count for more, by decreasing the required tournaments from 17 to 14 or 15.

treufreund
Oct 18th, 2003, 06:30 PM
oh get over it people. stop trying to "fix" something that is not broken. Kim deserves her ranking because she has been so rock solid. The grand slams are already worth TWICE AS MUCH as the MIAMI but are by no means twice as hard to win. A person could win all four grand slams and still not be #1 if they don't do jack the rest of the year no matter what system you devise. Reducing the tournaments again is just another disincentive to play and makes it easier for those who don't do their part to support the tour to be #1. that is not fair!!!

of course I am frustrated a bit that Justine has won 2 grand slams and has a winning h2h against Kim but PATIENCE is a VIRTUE... kim is hanging because she has earned it and so be it. :D

Brian Stewart
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:09 PM
I think the slams have more than enough points now. If anything, they're too high. Just because the tennis media only pays attention to women's tennis 4 weeks out of the year (yes, I know the slams are 2 weeks, but the women get ignored in week 1) is no reason to change the system.

The slams are only as important as the players make them. If the players, as a whole, decide that these 4 events are the most important, they will be. If they don't (as in the mid-to-late 70's with RG and OZ), no amount of point-tinkering will change it. Back in the late 80's, with Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Mandlikova, et al, the slams all had prestige, despite awarding only 75% more points than a Tier II.

I favor going back to having the slams at no more than double a Tier I. Use that as a starting point, then adjust by prize money (not size of total purse, but relation to the men's purse). The formula would be PA= (W/M) * SP, where PA = "Points Awarded", W= size of women's purse, M= size of men's purse, and SP= points on the base scale. In other words, with OZ and the USO awarding equal money, the players would get the full amount of points on the scale. If one of the other slams awards the women 90% of what the men receive, the points given for that slam would be 90% of the initial scale. And so on. It won't change how the players perceive the slams' importance, but would send a message to the tournaments.

Martian Willow
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:15 PM
...so you'd get less points for Wimby than the USO...?...wtf...? :confused:

disposablehero
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:16 AM
That is the worst ranking idea I've seen so far. We are now talking about getting 3 times as many points for beating the exact same player you could face in Miami. Think back to 2001. Who piled up the quality points in the Slams? Jennifer, not Venus. Who was the better player for most of the year?

Colin B
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:26 AM
oh get over it people. stop trying to "fix" something that is not broken. Kim deserves her ranking because she has been so rock solid. The grand slams are already worth TWICE AS MUCH as the MIAMI but are by no means twice as hard to win. A person could win all four grand slams and still not be #1 if they don't do jack the rest of the year no matter what system you devise. Reducing the tournaments again is just another disincentive to play and makes it easier for those who don't do their part to support the tour to be #1. that is not fair!!!

What treufreund said :yeah:

Fyndh0rnElf
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:29 AM
What a stupid idea. The current no1 at the time would be too scared to enter because whoever defeated her would get a smorgashbord of points and grab the no 1 spot a lot easier. If the no1 had to withdraw it wouldn't be pretty.

Plus, there are always strange upsets like Henin Hardenne in 2002 RG, because she was sick. Aniko would see her ranking fly to a surreal career high she would never reach again. There would be a lot more fake ranked players.

It's fine as it is. Dokic was ranked 129 when she defeated Hingis 6-2 6-0 and Pierce on her way to the QFs of Wimbledon, and her ranking catapulted to no35 or something.

fammmmedspin
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:51 AM
Why would anyone want the GS to count for more? Compare the field that people had to get through at Filderstadt in 4 days with the fields any recent GS winner has negotiated over two weeks. Then count how many competitive GS matches we have seen televised or competitive GS semi finals or finals we have had since 2000 and compare that to what you have seen over any two of Filderstadt, Sydney, Zurich or Moscow.

Why would you want to change anyway. If Justine does the job at the championships she will get number one. If Kim keeps number one it will probably be because she has beaten more top 8 players in the round-robbin in the championships than other people beat to win a Gs. Surely no one thinks Serena or Venus should be ranked higher than Kim when they probably will (for understandable reasons this year) only have half as many match wins between them as Kim will by the end of the year?

Kart
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:13 AM
They count too much already.