Tennis Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
63,501 Posts
What the hell is Min 14 and Min 16? <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
181,834 Posts
your points divided by 14/16

Minimum is the divisor so even if you played say 6 tourns your points would still be divided by 14

so winning 1 slam and calling it quits for the year wouldn't make you #1.
 

·
Plainclothes Division
Joined
·
6,350 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I thought it would be best to vote on these before I post the results. I want people to chose the system for the system itself, and not the results it produced. I'll run this year's results through each of them and give those results later.

The systems up through 1994 used an averaging system: all points divided by # of tournaments, minimum divisor of 12. The 1997 system just added all the points. The 1998 system capped the results at the best 18. This year's system capped them at the best 17. Here are the round and quality points, in chart form:<br /><pre><br /> Round Points

Tr/Yr 92 93 94 97 98 01<br />Slams 350 500 520 520 520 520<br />Chase Avg 375 390 390 390 390<br />Lipton 240 300 260 260 260 260

Tier 1 200 260 260 260 260 260<br />Tier 2 200 210 210 200 200 200<br />Tier 3 135 160 160 140 140 155<br />Tier 4 110 100 100 80 80 140<br />Tier 5 60 60 60 54 54 80

Quality Points

92 93 94 97 98 01<br />1 58 75 75 100 100 100<br />2 52 68 68 75 75 75<br />3 40 60 60 66 66 66<br />4 40 60 60 55 55 55<br />5 40 60 60 50 50 50<br />6-8 28 45 45 43 43 43<br />9-10 21 45 45 43 43 43<br />11 21 30 30 35 35 35<br />(just a partial list)<br />slam X X X X X X<br />mult 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0<br /></pre>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
That min 14/16 sounds extremely harsh! Was it effective?

I'm still mulling over the different systems (that I understand...), and will be polling sometime soon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
181,834 Posts
I thought it was good but some didn't like it

eg: you could miss the clay season if you didnt like it so your average wouldn't go down was a stumbling point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,059 Posts
I voted for th 2001 system, I really don't find anything wrong with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,878 Posts
As we say in England...

'Bump' <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
 

·
Plainclothes Division
Joined
·
6,350 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Arne, there were two differences.<br />First, the round points at the top were tweaked. Slams and tour championships gave a bit more, while the Lipton was aligned with the other Tier I's.

Second, the biggest difference, is in the "slam multiplier" line for quality points. In 1993, you got the same points for beating a player at every tournament. In 1994, you got 1.5X for beating them at a slam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,198 Posts
ThanX for explaining <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I would vote for the 2001 system, but I also like the system of a miminum devisor to encourage players to play a certain minimum of tournaments
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
5,566 Posts
I have been looking for some information on the 2002 point system. In particular, how many more points will there be for Indian Wells and Miami compared to "normal" tier I tourneys.

Would someone have such information? I have the point sheet for 2001 per tourney type (under PDF format). But I can not get hold of the 2002 one.

Would someone know where to get it?
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top