TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: my weekly rankings project Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Jun 10th, 2019 02:19 AM
Mark43
Re: my weekly rankings project

Thank you!
Jun 8th, 2019 09:39 PM
mick745
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark43 View Post
Yes, please! I would love to see them, especially where/when Evonne reappeared. Iíve always wondered if it was the highest, or one of the highest, reappearances ever. I am sure Clijsters is right up there and, if Monicaís ranking werenít protected she would most likely be the record holder?
Definitely have week of 29/1/78. May have others too - I'll have a look.
Jun 8th, 2019 09:08 PM
Mark43
Re: my weekly rankings project

Yes, please! I would love to see them, especially where/when Evonne reappeared. Iíve always wondered if it was the highest, or one of the highest, reappearances ever. I am sure Clijsters is right up there and, if Monicaís ranking werenít protected she would most likely be the record holder?
Jun 8th, 2019 01:40 PM
mick745
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark43 View Post
Iím still trying to understand how Martina took over the number one ranking so early in the year of 1978. If I understand your system correctly, there is no drop off of points from earlier in a 52 week ranking period - itís just simply an accumulation of both points earned as well as quality points for victories over highly ranked players? So, because Martina played so many more tournaments than Chris, she accumulated more points overall? Martina went on such an incredible run in Evertís absence during the winter of Ď78, just losing two matches, that it makes sense she could take over the top spot. I just thought it would have been later than January 16th. To me, it makes more sense that it would happen when Chrisís Slims finale drops off and Martinaís Slim victory is added in.

But again, what a wonderful and interesting thread.

Also, I am wondering if you have the official rankings from January 1978? I have always wondered where Goolagong debuted when she popped back on to the computer rankings? Iíve always wondered if she might have had the highest debut in WTA computer ranking history but Iíve never been able to locate those rankings. Much appreciated if you have them.
Thank you!
I have some of the rankings from this period. Are you still after the January 1978 ones?
Jun 6th, 2019 01:30 PM
Peter2003
Re: my weekly rankings project

Collecting additional prize-money data from 1995/96

The numbers given at WTAtennis.com are different from the numbers given in their PDF-files. The USO winner-number from PDF is the same I found earlier at theguardian.com.

example
1995 US = winner US$ 497,020 from WTAtennis.com matches overview
1995 US = winner US$ 575,000 from WTA-PDF (= theguardian.com)

1995 AO = winner US$ 299,199 WTAtennis.com matches overview
1995 AO = winner US$ 351,120 WTA-PDF

There is no difference for FO and Wimbledon

Reason?
Jun 4th, 2019 07:29 AM
Peter2003
Re: my weekly rankings project

my year 1993 finished

>>> https://www.tennisforum.com/59-blast...t80193002.html
May 30th, 2019 09:06 AM
Peter2003
Re: my weekly rankings project

Working on 1993:

Up to now I have a lot of differencies in qualifying draws than in previous years.
The PDF-files often have only initials for first names, but often doesn't fit the full first names given at wtatennis.com, especially from non-western countries.
Given surnames also have more differencies than in previous years with typos are not comprehensible.

And I would like to know why in the early 1990s the preliminary matches had a revival.

At Birmingham: the PDF gives Q1 and Q2: Steven d Godridge, at WTAennis.com there is no clearing about this error
(no Q2-result for all 4 players involved, none of them appeared in main-draw)
Any other source to clear this?
May 24th, 2019 01:33 AM
Rollo
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
Posted by Mark Wasn’t the Italian basically considered along the lines of Indian Wells or Miami before WTT? Then it made a glorious comeback the year after WTT finally folded in 1979 with Austin miraculously halting Evert’s mind boggling clay streak at 125? Goolagong, Wade and most of the top stars appeared as well save for Martina* and BJK. Then it seemed to wax & wane depending on the entry list for a few years until the entire tour finally started playing the clay season a few years later?

*off topic but why did Martina skip the Italian until 1987? She was the number one player in the world in 1979 and she just completely skipped the entire clay circuit.
From the 1950s the Italian was the 5th major, or, as you write Mark, like a Miami. It was very strong through 1970, when Billie Jean King and Virginia Wade played the match of the year in the semis. King won after saving match points.

Even some top Aussies declared Rome should replace the Aussie as a slam. Rome was THAT big in prestige.

Pro tennis made the women's event in Rome quickly become a minor event for them. The Italians just didn't want to cough up money for the dames. In 1971 the field was only 16. 1972 was pitiful. Chris Evert gave the event some shine in 1974 and 1976, but World Team Tennis was killing it.

Prize money got a big shot in the arm in 1979-but only after Chris Evert promised to play. 1979 was also important becasue the women were playing alone withot the men for the first time. The biggest crowd of the week was the 1,500 who watched Tracy Austin end Chris Evert's incredible clay court streak at 125. Total attendance for the week was a pitiful 5,000.

From 1980 to 1985 the event moved north to Perugia. The crowds were pretty good, but there was a lot of rain. The event got real downgrade in the mid1980s, only returning to Rome in 1987. That was the year Martina returned, thrilling fans with a classic match vs Gabriella Sabatini. For a few years in Rome the women actually had more fans than the men!

*To answer your question about Martina skipping the event: she was afraid of Evert on clay. Martina avoided European clay totally from 1976 to 1981. Martina and Tracy tried to downplay the French as a major in 1979 and 1980. By 1981 the writing was on the wall and Navratilova came to Paris. She still avoided every other red clay event though. By the mid 1980s Martina dominated everything of course. She was the GOAT of the moment but needed goals. I think this is what led her to play Berlin in 1986 and Rome in 1987.
May 24th, 2019 01:25 AM
Rollo
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
I'm glad this didn't happen. The development of the Aussie from the mid-80s till nowadays is somewhat phenomenal. Without still having Grand Slam status, all the big investments to vitalize this status would not have made.
I agree 100% Peter. Having the 4th slam in another continent is wonderful IMO. And in 1979 no one would have dared predict it would become so big. The only slam I have never visited. One day.......

My only regret is they gave up the grass. Once the Aussie went to hard courts in 1988 we lost the variety different surfaces give the sport. It almost killed grass, and has effectively killed indoor tennis.
May 24th, 2019 12:22 AM
Peter2003
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
...

Do you only use the top 60 tournaments? It could work for rankings from say 1983 to now, but for earlier years I find it would be hard indeed.

...
No, I will use as many as my database can store, but these 60 should be the solid basis (to preserve the current system as good as possible).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
You are correct in that it wasn't a slam. But for a good amount of time is was the "5th major", especially in the 1960s. There was serious talk of having it replace the Australian as a grand slam.
I'm glad this didn't happen. The development of the Aussie from the mid-80s till nowadays is somewhat phenomenal. Without still having Grand Slam status, all the big investments to vitalize this status would not have made.
May 23rd, 2019 11:56 PM
Mark43
Re: my weekly rankings project

Wasnít the Italian basically considered along the lines of Indian Wells or Miami before WTT? Then it made a glorious comeback the year after WTT finally folded in 1979 with Austin miraculously halting Evertís mind boggling clay streak at 125? Goolagong, Wade and most of the top stars appeared as well save for Martina* and BJK. Then it seemed to wax & wane depending on the entry list for a few years until the entire tour finally started playing the clay season a few years later?

*off topic but why did Martina skip the Italian until 1987? She was the number one player in the world in 1979 and she just completely skipped the entire clay circuit.
May 23rd, 2019 11:14 PM
Rollo
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
Clearly the Italian can't count to the big ones the decades before...
You are correct in that it wasn't a slam. But for a good amount of time is was the "5th major", especially in the 1960s. There was serious talk of having it replace the Australian as a grand slam.
May 23rd, 2019 11:11 PM
Rollo
Re: my weekly rankings project

Give me a year and will produce my (subjective of course) list for you.

Do you only use the top 60 tournaments? It could work for rankings from say 1983 to now, but for earlier years I find it would be hard indeed.

At any rate I could give you my rankings rubric (and the reasons why) and you can modify it as you see fit.
May 23rd, 2019 09:17 AM
Peter2003
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
I am still amazed by the number of smaller events in years such as before the open era. It easily runs into hundreds of events a year.

[...]

You already have your own points system in place. I think as long as you keep that and allow enough flexibility you will be fine.
In 2015 there were almost 600 ITF tournaments on the calendar!

But my question targets to the big ones, not the small ones.

The number of tournaments provided by WTA varied over the years, between 46 and 64, mostly more than 50.
And also the number in each category varied widely.
In average the appropriate pre-WTA-framework would be:
Tier 1 ... 10
Tier 2 ... 10
Tier 3 ... 10
Tier 4 ... 15
Tier 5 ... 15
all ...... 60

My problem is: which of the hundreds existing should count to the "big 60" continuously from the beginning of competitive tennis and in which order?

Doubtless in the 1960s Queen's Club, The Italian, The German, The Kent count all as Tier 1. Clearly the Italian can't count to the big ones the decades before...


My hope still is that anyone worked out such a tournament list for each year or decade - or even for some years/decades would be appreciated.
May 23rd, 2019 12:26 AM
Rollo
Re: my weekly rankings project

Quote:
I want to allocate fix categories for all years similar to nowadays.
In the thread "tournament winners by event" are listed up to 400 different events for some years - most of them discontinued already before the Open Era.

Has anyone worked on such difficult topic before?
I am still amazed by the number of smaller events in years such as before the open era. It easily runs into hundreds of events a year.

This is what I did Peter. I thought of what a "perfect" year would look like.

Then I

1. Fixed an "ideal" number of points for the top 100 events and slams [84,000 points in my case]

2. Allowed a little bit of wiggle room since there is no ideal year in reality. Thus I have minimum points (75,000) and maximum points (83,000) for years when there is an extra major (like the 2020 Olympics).

3. I also have minimums and maximums for all my categories below.

What all this does is make years more or less equal in weight. Using minimums and maximums provides flexibility.

So my "perfect" year looks like this

100 events plus "majors"

27,000 points from 4 Majors=6000 per slam and a 5th event (3000)=27,000 points
27,000 from 30 Tier II events at 900 points (900X 30=27000).
21,000 from 70 Tier 3 events at 300 points) (300X700=21,000)
-------------
75,000 points
05,000 points where I can add points to Tier II events. This gives me more wiggle room.
--------------
80,000 points spread out over the top 100 events and 4 to 6 majors

So to get back to your question--The women's tour still has 100s of smaller events at the ITF level. All those $10,000 and $15,000 events! After my top 100 events I award the smallest events 100 points. I do the same with early years like 1924. A minor event in Czechoslovakia? 100 points. The Maine state championships? 100 points.

You already have your own points system in place. I think as long as you keep that and allow enough flexibility you will be fine.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome