Tennis Forum banner

181 - 200 of 219 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
After 3 weeks of patient work the first tournament classifications I wanna work with.

I did not have the time yet to study the categories in detail, but I would surely put the Pacific Coast and Southern California Championships into much higher categories in case May Sutton (and some of her sisters) participated.
Between 1908 and 1912 she was probably the best player in the world (rivalled by Mrs Chambers in some years), but she did not play the US Nationals or Wimbledon. Those tournaments in California were the only ones where she consistently played.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #182 (Edited)
classification goes on:

My first medium-term view (based on the year-by-year view) shows a lot of problems I have to work through.

But although the quantity of 80 "big" tournaments is not near my goal of 50,
it is far away from 160 I have for the 1960s (without that goal setting).

I also had to prepare my database files intricately for the 19th century data. The Excel program originally cannot handle dates before 1900.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #188 (Edited)
After Wimbledon 1885 Maud Watson has reached a commanding lead of almost 400 % of points to the runner-up! (2082 to 420).
Compared to that: the best lead of 1957 onwards is "only" 116 % (M. Court in Jan. 1971).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #190
It seems I got permission to edit my own posts within the "Blast" section only like Jimbo got 2 days ago, maybe all others, too.

I will relocate something to where it belongs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #191
Added my last 15 days ago...
At that time I had to look for a calculation error once again.

When solved it and start recalculation, some ideas passed through my mind how to optimize the automatic evaluation codes and adding some new things to it which I procrastinated too long.
It takes up a lot of time to get the new and old codes working properly again.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #192
It seems that my codes yet work properly again. Hopefully it stays that way for a longer time.
I already replaced the lists of 1881 and 1882 with revised ones, the other years will follow, and than of course new ones.

With the newly recognized editing limitation rule I can't know when it all will happen ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #194
Have first rankings done for 1887, but can't fill them in. The 10/7 editing-limitation sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #196
I decided to put updates on hold, until this forum can provide better conditions to work with. At now I don't see that this will happen in the near future.
This is not the forum I joined formerly, not at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,404 Posts
Oh that’s a bummer. Why does it seem like internet browsers worked so much better in the 2000s/early 2010’s? It wasn’t nonstop unwanted videos and animated ads making a huge mess of everything and slowing it down to 1998 molasses!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #198 (Edited)
Something went wrong in my calculations between 1881 and 1882. While Gertrude Gibbs got 306 points for 3 matches (=ok) at Cheltenham in 1881, Maud Watson got 385 points including quality for 4 matches 1882 at the same event. That's impossible.

Have to find the error...

****

It seems that from a certain point on all the proper round points were halved!

*

Frustrating again, that I didn't realized such a disparity ealier.

Often I am too contended that there is no "#N/A" or "#VALUE!" under the outcome, that I overlook if the outcome is logical and consistent.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #199
A change I made:
3. about rules:

3. 1.


[...]

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.

[...]
I came to realize that this rule sentence makes no sense at all.

Missing Grand Slam status (or missing World Championship status) would have virtually no affects on the outcome (in round points).
So why should I reduce quality points for that era at all tournaments and years?

But has the number of tournaments as such an affect? (unsure)

My decision:
I keep the reduction until 1885,
but 1886 to 1892: quality points distributed by 90% of standard
thereafter 100%
(derived from >>> stats)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
Discussion Starter #200
Something went wrong in my calculations between 1881 and 1882. While Gertrude Gibbs got 306 points for 3 matches (=ok) at Cheltenham in 1881, Maud Watson got 385 points including quality for 4 matches 1882 at the same event. That's impossible.

Have to find the error...
  • replaced corrected rankings for 1883 to 1887
  • for 1882 still incorrect, but not allowed to replace, yeah!
  • that's it for now
-
 
181 - 200 of 219 Posts
Top