Tennis Forum banner

121 - 140 of 196 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #121 (Edited)
I made clear several times what ranking system I prefer.

Nevertheless, I also wrote in my prelude that my project goal is to sychronize the official rankings.
That's why, to be fair, I cannot ignore the disliked other WTA systems used for many years, so I still kept in mind to work on them also.

planned are:
  • best 16 = WTA used 2009+
  • mininum devisor 12 = WTA used 1986+
  • recent results are more weighty ("diminishing") = a part of WTA 1975 to 1985 (I have a variation of it in mind, without averaging yet)
For each I can't recreate all the exact official rules (not yet),
not applied: "bonus" points, minimun results rule, "Zeros"

Hopefully I can publish first short lists in the next weeks...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #123
Surprisingly most of my pictures for the 1960s disappeared, don't know why. It will take some time to integrate new copies of them.

Meanwhile I added year-end lists using other systems to the years 1959 through 1967.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,244 Posts
Surprisingly most of my pictures for the 1960s disappeared, don't know why. It will take some time to integrate new copies of them.

Meanwhile I added year-end lists using other systems to the years 1959 through 1967.
It happens a lot to me too Peter.

The trick I've found is to save a photo after you posted it. Then you can always attach it later. Once it is attached you will always have access to it. Jimbo taught me this:)


Feel free to post in the photo save thread I created here:
https://www.tennisforum.com/59-blast-past/1317637-photo-saves.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #126
It happens a lot to me too Peter.

The trick I've found is to save a photo after you posted it. Then you can always attach it later. Once it is attached you will always have access to it. Jimbo taught me this:)


Feel free to post in the photo save thread I created here:
https://www.tennisforum.com/59-blast-past/1317637-photo-saves.html
Rollo, I have quite a lot of pics to show.
Many of them are bigger than the 100kb limit in TF. And if I understood right there also is a 5-pieces-limit of attachments per post.
I don't want to skip my way of presentation.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #127 (Edited)
I have chosen another pic storage provider and replaced the deleted pics. Hopefully it last a bit longer now.

In the slow progress I have finished the year 1982 with my main rankings. A relatively boring ranking year.
I also have added year-end rankings with other systems yet for the years 1959 to 1975.

(if you find mistakes, problems or other "mysteries" anywhere, please let me know)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #128 (Edited)
I still can't stop thinking about getting the best tournament values (issue related to my post #107).

I want to take official categories into my calculations as a 4th column.
There are good to use categories now available from 1986 on, hopefully for 1984+85 soon (rankings-1980s).

And should I integrate categories from earlier years? (Colgate Series, CUB Grand Prix) :unsure:
The big problem is how to handle the uncategorized independent ones.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #129 (Edited)
I search now for hours to find the exact WTA ranking points allocations from 1990 till 2004. Which search strings are the best to find anything?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,244 Posts
I search no wf or hours to find the exact WTA ranking points allocations from 1990 till 2004. Which search strings are the best to find anything?
Print sources are better IMO.

The best source up until 2001 is to use the World of Tennis Annuals. Actual WTA sources (like the wonderful Inside Women's Tennis, a monthly WTA paper) are better of course but much tougher to find.

The WTA Media Guides are also good.

Pick a year for me and I'll see if I can help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Print sources are better IMO.

The best source up until 2001 is to use the World of Tennis Annuals. Actual WTA sources (like the wonderful Inside Women's Tennis, a monthly WTA paper) are better of course but much tougher to find.

The WTA Media Guides are also good.

Pick a year for me and I'll see if I can help.
The WTA computer tournament points can be seen on the player's profiles on the official WTA site.

However, the bonus points are not there.

Rollo, could you check whether the WTA Media Guides from the early 1990s (or late 1980s) contain any info on the bonus points?

In the "WTA computer rankings in the 1980s" thread there are details about the 1986 WTA computer system, but I have no info about the bonus points between 1986 and 1996.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #132 (Edited)
The WTA computer tournament points can be seen on the player's profiles on the official WTA site.

However, the bonus points are not there.

Rollo, could you check whether the WTA Media Guides from the early 1990s (or late 1980s) contain any info on the bonus points?

In the "WTA computer rankings in the 1980s" thread there are details about the 1986 WTA computer system, but I have no info about the bonus points between 1986 and 1996.
Thanks Gentlemen. Bonus points are irrelevant for me.

I found the player profile for Graf and her tournament points. (First I searched for Steffi Graf on the WTA start page but it said "nothing found"!!!)

I had those info already from 1996 onwards, but unfortunately it disappeared from my computer.

---------

Her 1990 ranking points on the site are different to the points on draw-PDF files :confused:
Tokyo Tier II winner 200 on the site, on the PDF 300
Montreal Tier I also 200 on the site, on the PDF 375 :confused:
1990points.png

For 1989 the WTA site shows 200 points at Tier IV, III and II , the 1988 points are even more confusing there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Her 1990 ranking points on the site are different to the points on draw-PDF files :confused:
Tokyo Tier II winner 200 on the site, on the PDF 300
Montreal Tier I also 200 on the site, on the PDF 375 :confused:
What you see in the draw-PDF files are the Virginia Slims Tour points, which were higher than the WTA computer points.
In 1990 the events were first put into different Tiers.
Winning a Tier I event was worth 375, a Tier II 300, a Tier III 240 points.
But on the WTA computer system all three achievements were worth equally 200 points.

It is a bit confusing having two different point systems, but until 1990 the men also had different point systems (Grand Prix and ATP computer points)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #135 (Edited)
The WTA computer tournament points can be seen on the player's profiles on the official WTA site.

...
  • The new WTA site contains again some of the old tournament PDF files from the old site, but not all. (results archive for Birmingham back until 1982, archive for Brisbane back till 2009 ! :confused:)
  • It also contains money values (including qualifying) earned by the players :yeah:,
    but collecting the data from and the navigation through the player's matches is very complex, if the PDF files do not contain those information, what is the case very often. :no:
  • I've noticed that the matches database is also incomplete or the navigation disallows me to see some matches.
    I see Radka Zrubakova played Brisbane starting Dec 1988 (Pam Shriver's match database), but in her own match database I can't see this appearance.
    Her first match given is in March 1989. I cannot select the year 1988 there to display Brisbane.
  • The WTA site search is not able to find all data on its own site:
    Searched for Reinach - only found Elna Reinach. Surprisingly in her match results overview there is an opponent called Monica Reinach with link to further match results!
    So how many information you cannot see when using their search? :no:
  • Kim Seddon Date Of Birth: January 1, 1753 - oldest tennis-player? ---> this is the standard birth date given there if the real date is unknown
  • 50K Kitzbühel 1983 is not in their database while many 10K tournaments from that year are
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #136 (Edited)
I have finished my year 1983.

_____________________


I still can't stop thinking about getting the best tournament values (issue related to my post #107).

I want to take official categories into my calculations as a 4th column.
...
For 1984 I will implement the new way of determining the tournament values where I include official or half official categories.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #137
1984 is finished
"only" 35 years to work on (forwards)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,244 Posts
1984 is finished
"only" 35 years to work on (forwards)

Keep up the good work Peter! I see Maleeva made it to #4 for the year. In many ways it was her best year with so many tournament wins. Would she still have been #4 without Tokyo, or did that push her over Sukova and Shriver?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #139
Keep up the good work Peter! I see Maleeva made it to #4 for the year. In many ways it was her best year with so many tournament wins. Would she still have been #4 without Tokyo, or did that push her over Sukova and Shriver?
Thank you for your encouragement.

Just before Tokyo she moved up.
Despite Maleeva did not play the Aussie, Shriver couldn't defend all her points there, so she moved down below Maleeva to #5. Shriver has more round points, but Maleeva more quality points in this week. Tokyo confirmed the #4 position therafter clearly.

Without her Tokyo points she would have gone to #5 again, if Sukova got the same or a better result in Tokyo.



In short your question should be answered: Yes, Tokyo pushed her over Sukova and Shriver.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter #140 (Edited)
Hi!

I worked on my database the last two weeks. Synchronized the "Blast Encyclopedia of Female Tennis Players" of the Tennisforum.
I added all players indicated there as "active" 1920s and onwards. The number of rows has gone up from 12,800 to 18,300! A hard work.

Of course I found some dependencies, problems, coincidences, some of the riddles are solved but also got new riddles ...

It will take some more time for "post-processing" before I work on new weekly rankings.

---------

I recognized that I surpassed some Excel limits now. It will be more and more cumbersome. :sobbing:
 
121 - 140 of 196 Posts
Top