The number one, and the ranking system only exist since 1973. Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Donald Budge, Bill Tilden would never appear on this chart.

The second one would be, consecutive title and consecutive GS. Rod Laver held all 4 GS twice in his life. No one has been able to do it since.

]]>http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx#points

Since my criteria include both wins (in general) and wins at slams, as well as “weeks at #1”, and “consecutive weeks at #1”, the points are covered, albeit indirectly.

Plus, points are calculated on a weekly basis. Federer had 11,075 points last week and 11,075 points this week, but he didn’t win a tournament this week, so we couldn’t do it that way. The only way we could add up the points is to go through each win (like you’re suggesting) and say, “OK, here’s 10pts for a round #1 win, 45pts for a round #2 win, etc, etc…” and do that for each different tournament and each different player. That’s way too much work (for me) and besides, I think we’re already capturing the same output, just not in a “points scored” format. Points scored is the result of wins (in general) and wins at slams, which turn into “weeks at #1”, and “consecutive weeks at #1”, so I think this method is (indirectly) producing the same output, just with far less input!

I don’t see anything we can learn from points that we can’t learn from wins (in general), or wins at slams, or “weeks at #1”.

]]>However, one has to take into account the fact that the tournaments have different levels of importance for players and fans, and that is why in terms of ranking 7 wins in Wimbledon are worth 2 times as much as 6 wins in Cincinnati. For example, Federer had a lot more wins than Djoko in the past 12 months, and yet they are essentially tied in in points for the period.

That’s how you go about: start with the slams. Give each guy 2000 points for a title, 1200 for a final, 720 for a semifinal and so on. Then take the ATP 1000/Master Series/Super 9 events and do the same: 1000 for a title, 600 for a final (as it is today), etc. Now get the points from whatever the Year end tournament was at the time and score them as they reward points today. That alone should give you a pretty good ranking. If you have the chance, try to do the same with the ATP 500, although it will probably change little. For players who started around 1990 or later, the comparison will be easy.This is a bit time-consuming, but quite simple. The tournament structure is very similar to today’s . *All that information is easily accessible in the ATP website.*

It is when you go back to the 80s that things get tricky. What is the equivalent of today’s Master’s series? And what was their ATP 500?

Here is one way to go around the problem: check the prize money for each tournament. Find out what the ratio is between GSs/MSs is today. The major pay four times the MSs? Look for which tournaments in the 80s had a prize money around 1/4 of the majors, and rank them as you would today’s Master Series: 1000 for the winner, 600 for runner up, etc.. Always use the majors as a reference, because they are the only thing constant in the Open Era. My guess is that the same could be work for the 70s, but watch out for the fields of 8 players only. (Once you go before the Open era, the idea collapses for a number of reasons).

But leave the 80s and 70s for later. Here is my suggestion: why not start with 1990 onwards and post your conclusions for the period?

]]>