Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 208 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
835 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Intro:




Welcome!

This is the continuation and expansion of this project which started here: Volume 1


The best time to start world rankings would be the time when the best players play against each other on every continent.
But the earlier years (even decades) of the sport saw only local competitions.

For a long time I had in mind to start the Volume 2 when some tournaments surmount their local/national status and grow to real international/intercontinental attractions.
In this sense my research (>>> stats) sees no point before The Great War, what would mean leaving 39 years blank.

Now it seems that I again changed my mind and I will start anyway at the earliest years.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
835 Posts
Discussion Starter #2 (Edited)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Links:




principles
rules
about rules
about tournament classifications



the years:

1880 , 1881 , 1882 , 1883 , 1884 , 1885 , 1886 , 1887 , 1888 , 1889

1890 , 1891 , 1892 , 1893 , 1894 , 1895 , 1896 , 1897 , 1898 , 1899

1900 , 1901 , 1902 , 1903 , 1904 , 1905 , 1906 , 1907 , 1908 , 1909

1910 , 1911 , 1912 , 1913 , 1914 , 1915 , 1916 , 1917 , 1918 , 1919

1920 , 1921 , 1922 , 1923 , 1924 , 1925 , 1926 , 1927 , 1928 , 1929

1930 , 1931 , 1932 , 1933 , 1934 , 1935 , 1936 , 1937 , 1938 , 1939

1940 , 1941 , 1942 , 1943 , 1944 , 1945 , 1946 , 1947 , 1948 , 1949

1950 , 1951 , 1952 , 1953 , 1954 , 1955 , 1956 , 1957 , 1958 , 1959

1960 , 1961 , 1962 , 1963 , 1964 , 1965 , 1966 , 1967 , 1968 , 1969

1970 , 1971 , 1972 , 1973 , 1974 , 1975 , 1976 , 1977 , 1978 , 1979

1980 , 1981 , 1982 , 1983 , 1984 , 1985 , 1986 , 1987 , 1988 , 1989

1990 , 1991 , 1992 , 1993 , 1994 , 1995 , 1996 , 1997 , 1998 , 1999

2000 , 2001 , 2002 , 2003 , 2004 , 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009

2010 , 2011 , 2012 , 2013 , 2014 , 2015 , 2016 , 2017 , 2018 , 2019

2020 , 2021 , 2022 , 2023 , 2024 , 2025 , 2026 , 2027 , 2028 , 2029


outcome volume 1:

[...]

1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959,

1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969,

1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979,

1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989

1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998, 1999

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009


prime statistics: overview Number-Ones & Top-Tenners

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
835 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


1. principles:




The principles of volume 1 hold true ...



In addition, the expansion of this project involves some complications,
and not all of them are conclusively figured out.


1.1.

Because of insufficient data I will have to combine the results of the years 1876 to 1880 into one ranking list.
It will be my initial list dated as 1881 January 3rd.



1.2.

the Challenge Round years:

Honestly, the Challenge Round does not really fit to my project!
My rankings are based on matches won and will stay like this, also for those early years. The title holder plays one match and receives points for that one match only!

That means: if a player wins all her matches, but all as "holder", she possibly is not able to be ranked here at no.1.
Therefor many interested viewers will disagree with the outcome of my work and will turn away with disappointment, understandably.



1.3.

the Word War years:

If still tournaments held, especially during WW2, than outside Europe mostly local, sometimes national with shrinked draws.

I think it would be fair to use the last World ranking before each war broke out to determine the tournaments' competition value,
as long as the war and its consequences are mostly overcome.

Furthermore I have to think about how to handle bonus/quality points in those years. (But it's a lot of time to think about it until reaching such a point in the progress.)



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
835 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


2. Rules:



While the points for categories changed a little bit (--> 3.1.), the points per match stay the same as for volume 1.
The only change is the inclusion of the Challenge Round.





extended1 , extended2





extended1 , extended2


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
835 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


3. about rules:




3. 1.


motto: back to WTA

Through the extensive and exhaustive work on my project I realized,
that all the points allocations the WTA developed and refined until the mid-2000s are well-conceived.

I will reapproach to them for this new thread.

This applies to their tournament category system, Tier 1 to 5, with their (winner's) points allocations,
wich at last also included a bonus for tournaments with prize money above the minimum commitment.

... and also applies to their quality/bonus system.
They started with bonus points for the best 200 in 1984 and expanded their scale to the best 500 at last (usually the upper half of each list).
I worked with the best 250 for volume1 and will expand my scale now to the best 400 (if the no. of ranked players is suitable --> see 2.).



3. 2.

the no-Slam-years

The Slam-era starts 1924, from 1912 on there are some tournaments called World Championships.
Therefore I will allocate the same Slam status of 1000 (standard winner's) points to each of them, but before them the maximum for any tournament will be 700.

And therefore I will also scale down the quality points before 1912 to 70% of standard.

The quality points will be distributed always in dependence on the number of ranked persons (if 100 ranked players, than quality for defeats of upper 50).
I don't know yet the point when to apply my tournament competition value.


Prior to 1912 I can't see a real "major" before 1904 when Wimbledon exceeded the mark of 32 players.
1904 also seems to be the start of years with a steady number of international/intercontinental competitors.




3. 3.

Another little change will be the use of the same scale to determine the competition value.
For volume1 I created different scales for Grand Slams and any other tournaments, expecting that non-GS cannot have the same or a better competition.
Against my expectations the Lipton Players Ch. showed me first that this is indeed possible. So why utilize seperate scales anymore?



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
835 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


4. about tournament classifications:





some comments I need to add:


I cannot and will not deny that the British played and won the seamingly best tournaments all over Europe,
so it would be naive to think that the top-ten of my rankings would include others before the Great War.



4.1.

Unsufficient data is a big problem to classify tournaments appropriately.
I should be generous for general classifications.


4.2.

The early years are extremely difficult to assess. The most tournaments were held in the country of origin, England.
At the same time only very few players travel around the globe - or even outside their home country.
To prevent a British-dominated ranking, I try to be more generous for those outside of GB (but not too generous --> see 3.).


4.3.

My generally generosity for non-British tournaments ends in 1897 when the number of British tournaments first became an overall minority.
Thereafter only selective generosity in dependence on the ratio of each world region.

That means:
May Sutton for example,
in the USA in 1909 she appeared in 11 tournaments, but I cannot preset a Tier 1 or 2 category for all of those, because the worldwide goal for each category is 10;
and if she appeared in these tournaments only once within several years, the medium-term category for those tournaments is of course lower than it could be in this specific year with her playing.
(today it wouldn't be different)


4.4.

In the sense of implementing the appropriate scheme (>>> post173) there can't be a tournament classified on ITF-analogous level before 1887.
But at some point therafter it got hard (and impossible) to comply my 50-tournaments-goal, because there are many more tournaments I would clearly recognize as Tier 5 or higher.

change Dec. 2019: no tournament classified lower than "C" (Tier 3) up to 1883, for 1884+85 first time "D+", thereafter also "D".

4.5.

Beside the unsufficient data issue:
By looking at the early years I can't see a consistent image envolving.
It was chaotic. In one year a tournament attracts many big names, but the next year only "unkowns" find their way to the same place.
Surely, ups and downs also happened in the 1960s, but in a moderate way.
I really tried to consider that in the classifications.


4.6.

Wimbledon is recognised as the first major tournament even for the earliest years.
1884: "Wimbledon has acquired a reputation as the event to win in this still young sport, ..."
With an unemotional view it was not THE Event to win at first on the women's side, it eventually became this.

The French National championship is not a precursor of the international version of 1925+, it was only a closed tournament like any other and will be treated like that.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
835 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


the very first ranking


it is dated January 3, 1881

  • this is not a normal ranking, it contains results of the years 1876 to 1880
  • The results of the 5 years are spread condensed over 52 weeks in propotion to the time they appear, so all will disappear bit by bit while the 1881 rankings progress.
  • no quality points
  • this updated list (Dec. 2019 --> 4.4.) changed a little bit to the one published earlier, but the first Number 1 stays the same
Code:
Ranking for January 3, 1881
data from 15 tournaments / technically possible sum of points is 3830

TW ·· LW ······· #T ···· pt sum ··

1 ····· NR ·········· 4 ····· 679 ····· Smith [Miss] (GB-IR)
2 ····· NR ·········· 2 ····· 314 ····· Maltby, Ellen
3 ····· NR ·········· 3 ····· 309 ····· Meldon, D. (GB-IR)
4 ····· NR ·········· 1 ····· 256 ····· Mardall, Florence
4 ····· NR ·········· 1 ····· 256 ····· Rice, Annie (GB-IR)
6 ····· NR ·········· 3 ····· 240 ····· Langrishe, May (GB-IR)
7 ····· NR ·········· 2 ····· 228 ····· Adshead [Miss]
8 ····· NR ·········· 1 ····· 218 ····· Gallwey, Frances (GB-IR)
9 ····· NR ·········· 1 ····· 166 ····· Rice, T. (GB-IR)
9 ····· NR ·········· 1 ····· 166 ····· Bradley, Marian

11 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 146 ····· Perry, Gertrude (GB-IR)
12 ···· NR ·········· 2 ····· 130 ····· Maltby, Mary Ann
13 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 128 ····· Roberts [Miss] (GB-IR)
14 ···· NR ·········· 3 ····· 119 ····· Casey, W. (GB-IR)
15 ···· NR ·········· 2 ····· 112 ····· Butler, Connie (GB-IR)
16 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 111 ····· Adshead, Eva
17 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 109 ····· Gray, Mary (Bermuda)
17 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 109 ····· Langley, Augusta
19 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 96 ······ Lyons, Mrs E. (GB-IR)

20 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 96 ······ Royse [Miss] (GB-IR)
20 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 96 ······ Grubbe [Miss] (GB-IR)
20 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 96 ······ Abercrombie, Mary
23 ···· NR ·········· 2 ····· 78 ······ Langrishe, Adela (GB-IR)
24 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 56 ······ Lodwick, Leila
24 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 56 ······ Gallwey, Ann (GB-IR)
24 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 56 ······ Radcliffe, M. (GB-IR)
27 ···· NR ·········· 2 ····· 51 ······ Costello [Miss] (GB-IR/AU?)
28 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 48 ······ Key, Rose (BERM?)
28 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 48 ······ Langley, Flora

30 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 40 ······ Collingwood [Miss] (GB-IR)
30 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 40 ······ Hill, Mrs. W. A. Hill , Clara
30 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 40 ······ Ramsay, Ellen
30 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 40 ······ Shand [Miss]
30 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 40 ······ Willoughby [Miss]
35 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 37 ······ Shaw [Miss] (GB-IR)
35 ···· NR ·········· 1 ····· 37 ······ Connellan [Miss]
[...]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
1 - 20 of 208 Posts
Top