Normalised Slam record service

by bogbrush Sun 27 Jan 2013, 12:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

It's interesting that some of the current players have an odd distribution of Slam wins which makes it tricky to compare the magnitude of their achievements, great as they all are.

I therefore present a sensible and balanced scheme to apply to Slam wins, based on the following;

Australian: a great tournament and worthy Slam event, it recovered after being an optional event 30 years ago. Not exactly steeped in history but a top event. Slam weight : 1.

US Open: in contrast this event has slightly lost its way, but has incredible history. Slam weight : 1.6

French: self-consciously trying to rebrand as Roland Garros to emulate that which is to come, but it retains great value as the sole representative of the important clay surface. I think it's moved to #2 status. Slam weight : 1.7

Wimbledon: obviously the great tournament of all, it has everything from history, surface, everything. The one the players all want. Slam weight : a miserly 2

So the corrected Slam count of the current top guys is;

Federer: (7*2) + (1*1.7) + (5*1.6) + (4*1) = 27.7

Nadal: (2*2) + (8*1.7) + (1*1.6) + (1*1) = 20.2

Djokovic: (1*2) + (1*1.6) + (4*1) = 7.6

Murray: (1*1.6) + (1*2) = 3.6

I think this about right. I'm prepared to listen to arguments that I've underestimated the value of Wimbledon, or the USO / French order. Nothing is perfect.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 28 Jan 2013, 10:22 am

bogbrush wrote:I imagine the mods will be making this thread a "sticky" and updating the records as we go to reflect this more accurate representation of career achievement.

You have a vivid imagination Smile

by bogbrush Mon 28 Jan 2013, 10:30 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I imagine the mods will be making this thread a "sticky" and updating the records as we go to reflect this more accurate representation of career achievement.

You have a vivid imagination

by bogbrush Mon 08 Jul 2013, 5:55 pm

Updated.

Perhaps some British fans may now see even more wisdom in this system?

by invisiblecoolers Mon 08 Jul 2013, 6:21 pm

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:Our analysts here at TME headquarters are stunned by your misguided faith in the 'Dirty Slam' - the French Open. Given the appalling honor roll at 'Roland Garros' and the irrelevance of the surface on which the title is contested, we have assigned it a score of 'zero'.

The 'Noisy Slam' - the US Open, with its honour roll of tennis greats (with the exception of R. Nadal - 2010) and position as premier hard court slam, is worthy of a Slam Score of 'five'.

Melbourne's 'Happy Slam' brings joy to many, and thanks to the efforts of Federer in recent times, now has a history to go with its smiles. We grant it a score of 'three'.

The 'Snooty Slam': The Slamdaddy itself, Wimbledon - with its illustrious lawns and the scenes of Fedmania running wild is thoroughly deserving of its elite status, and Slam Score of 'seven'.

It would also be remiss not mention the ATP World Tour Finals ("Where it all begins again"). It's unique format and season-ending position, mean that The 'Nearly Slam' must be included: a score of 'two' for this one...

The Olympics cannot be forgotten (or forgiven), and as such we will be awarding 3 points for a gold medal, 2 for silver, and 1 for bronze. You're welcome Bryan Boys.

Finally, we have no choice but to award aesthetic points, The 'Style Slam', as of course, playing beautifully is the greatest prize of them all. 4 points for The Centurion himself, Roger Federer, 2 for Murray, 1 for Djokovic, -1 for The Pauper.

Thus the true worth of our heroes is:

Federer: (7x7) (5x5) (4x3) (1x0) (6x2) (1x3) (1x4) = 100
Nadal: (2x7) (1x5) (1x3) (7x0) (1x3) (1x -1) = 24
Djokovic: (1x7) (1x5) (4x3) (2x2) (1x1) (1x1) = 30
Murray (1x5) (1x3) (1x2) (1x2) = 12

Good old Spaghetti-Hans last of his breed left in 606v2.

by invisiblecoolers Mon 08 Jul 2013, 6:26 pm

Gerry SA wrote:Personally for me Wimbledon, Roland Garros or US Open are of the same prestige.

Australian Open is a little behind.

I consider Wimbledon as worth 2 Australian Opens.

I don't think anyone will agree, but that's just me.

Yup agreed, I see the same view as well.

Wim is more prestigious and Djoko would be more than happy to exchange 4 of AO wins for 2 Wimbledon titles.

USO and FO comes equally 2nd at 1.75 and AO should be at 1, otherwise 1 gonna be more than 1 . Very Happy

by invisiblecoolers Mon 08 Jul 2013, 6:28 pm

emancipator wrote:I broadly concur with the OP and add my considerable weight to this new scoring system.

However I believe a further principle must also be considered - the manner in which the slam was one.

That's right. Was it won with brilliance and virtuosity or was it won with something less?

Thus an additional point for virtuosity and -3 points for the ultimate in tedium: attritional baseline tennis. Therefore Screech scores -6 for his last two efforts in OZ.

emancipator

by banbrotam Mon 08 Jul 2013, 8:22 pm

They should be based on how difficult they are to win - not which one is in fashion

This makes the US easily the one that should have the highest rating simply because we never get a surprise winner, i.e. someone outside the Top 8 and usually it's one of Top 3

It's also the event where it's most players best surface

i.e. I think that's 2.0, Wimbledon 1.8, French 1.7, Australian 1.6

by bogbrush Mon 08 Jul 2013, 10:41 pm

Clearly any even dominated by the GOAT must be accorded respect, and the five in a row by Federer gives a strong argument for the USO. However, the seven outweigh the five.

Also, I think Andy Murray rather gave the game away about which event is biggest, even allowing for nationality. It is The Slam, the others are versions.

However, I welcome insightful debate and you make a good argument bantroban. clap

by invisiblecoolers Mon 08 Jul 2013, 10:50 pm

bogbrush wrote:

However, I welcome insightful debate and you make a good argument bantroban.

But get the name of his spelling write nxt time Laugh

its ban bro tam , so Tam should be his name, but you made it like ban tro ban Laugh

Its like Ban Troll Ban

by JubbaIsle Mon 08 Jul 2013, 10:54 pm

"So the corrected Slam count of the current top guys is"

Not correct, they are currently...

Djokovic
Murray
Ferrer (scores zero of course)
Nadal

But if you really want to work your fingers to the bone, to make this fair, you have to include all the slam winners past and present. Take into account the different surface changes, racquet technology, string variations, ball tampering and audience participation levels to truly illustrate your Normalised Slam record service.

No charge is rendered for this initial discrepancy accounting.

by bogbrush Mon 08 Jul 2013, 11:09 pm

Whilst is takes a very long memory to recall when Federer was last #5, by no stretch of the imagination could #5 exclude a normal person from the 'top' category (I accept debate may be possible in the case of the GOAT).

Of course, Murray fans for so long fixed a #4 cut off despite his Slamless state because.... well... because it made them happier to insist he was at the top table when he was merely waiting on. However. The ATP never adopted that definition.

Thankfully Andy has now joined the big boy club, which doesn't, for your enlightenment, include David Ferrer. picard

And Roger is clearly "current". Rod Laver isn't. That's because he doesn't play on the tour anymore.

As normal, I am right.

by bogbrush Mon 08 Jul 2013, 11:10 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:
bogbrush wrote:

However, I welcome insightful debate and you make a good argument bantroban.

But get the name of his spelling write nxt time its ban bro tam , so Tam should be his name, but you made it like ban tro ban
Its like Ban Troll Ban

Perhaps a Freudian slip.

I am indebted to you, invinciblecobblers.

by JubbaIsle Mon 08 Jul 2013, 11:39 pm

bogbrush wrote:Whilst is takes a very long memory to recall when Federer was last #5, by no stretch of the imagination could #5 exclude a normal person from the 'top' category (I accept debate may be possible in the case of the GOAT).

Of course, Murray fans for so long fixed a #4 cut off despite his Slamless state because.... well... because it made them happier to insist he was at the top table when he was merely waiting on. However. The ATP never adopted that definition.

Thankfully Andy has now joined the big boy club, which doesn't, for your enlightenment, include David Ferrer.

And Roger is clearly "current". Rod Laver isn't. That's because he doesn't play on the tour anymore.

As normal, I am right.

Thats just favouritism BB coupled with your strange belief that Murray fans invented the top 4 regime, nuts.

If you insist on using your statistical nightmare to prove just how wonderful your Federer was, WAS, then to be fair it should run concurrently.

Murray has won two slams, the USO and SW19, Federer 1st two slams were the AO and SW19, Nadal the 2 FO's and Novak the 2 AO's, which in all fairness, using your scoring system puts

Andy = 3.6
Nadal = 3.4
Federer = 3.0
Djoko = 2.0

So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your OP.

by bogbrush Mon 08 Jul 2013, 11:43 pm

What? Let me get this right then......

Now every player can only be credited with the number of Slams Andy Murray has? One of your more bizarre posts, and that's quite a statement.

Please don't clog up with valuable thread with your excessive devotion to brave Andy, this thread is about impartial assessment of big careers and is only for big boys. As for developing a measure to prove Federer is great, have you not heard that this is widely considered to be self-evidentt?

by banbrotam Mon 08 Jul 2013, 11:46 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:
bogbrush wrote:

However, I welcome insightful debate and you make a good argument bantroban.

But get the name of his spelling write nxt time its ban bro tam , so Tam should be his name, but you made it like ban tro ban
Its like Ban Troll Ban

Yeah BB. The Bantam part of my name is vital to my psyche, given my might footie teams impending march up L1 Whistle

by time please Tue 09 Jul 2013, 8:40 am

It seems clear from everyone's razor sharp analysis that Andy Murray has just won a very, very shiny, put your sunglasses on chaps, trophy indeed, n'est ce pas HE? Wink

by CaledonianCraig Tue 09 Jul 2013, 9:57 am

bogbrush wrote:Updated.

Perhaps some British fans may now see even more wisdom in this system?

Nope. I am still an old-fashioned guy at heart - one slam win is one slam win no matter how it may favour or work against Murray.

by barrystar Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:14 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Updated.

Perhaps some British fans may now see even more wisdom in this system?

Nope. I am still an old-fashioned guy at heart - one slam win is one slam win no matter how it may favour or work against Murray.

I have a variant of that - win a slam and you are in the slam winner's club with all other slam winners, but there is definitely a hierarchy within slams. I would not, however, suggest that any one slam is worth two of any others, I'd have narrower differences than BB, and I don't think a point system works because it attaches a veneer of precision that isn't there. So I content myself with saying that it goes something like Wimbledon 1st, USO and RG competing between 2nd and 3rd, Aus 4th.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:18 am

Spot on barry.

You may have slams that have higher prestige than others and more history and more desirability to win but surely that is all dependent on each individual.

by bogbrush Tue 09 Jul 2013, 11:18 am

We can't reopen this debate; authoritative members decided some time ago this scoring system was correct, albeit debate rages on the precise weightings.

I can't say too much for fear of breaching confidence, but watch out on the ATP site for official recognition........ king

by invisiblecoolers Tue 09 Jul 2013, 5:15 pm

bogbrush wrote:

I am indebted to you, invinciblecobblers.

You have to be careful here BB, its a racist word in this part of the region to call someone a cobbler. thumbsup

by Dave. Tue 09 Jul 2013, 6:37 pm

Ok, if someone could help me out here, appreciated!

In 1925, the ITF designated what are now the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open are the "major championships".

But many of the top players didn't contest the AO to the 80s - was it really considered a major championship back then - and if not, what was the fourth major (Masters? WCT Finals? or any other older equivalent?)

by invisiblecoolers Tue 09 Jul 2013, 6:40 pm

Dave. wrote:Ok, if someone could help me out here, appreciated!

In 1925, the ITF designated what are now the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open are the "major championships".

But many of the top players didn't contest the AO to the 80s - was it really considered a major championship back then - and if not, what was the fourth major (Masters? WCT Finals? or any other older equivalent?)

Good question pre modern era, I guess people rated Wimbledon and French Open as the premier tournament, then I would say slowly USO and AO got the respects and heritage.

Before 1950 I would say, winning Wimbledon is like a World cup, I guess its still the case. thumbsup

by JubbaIsle Tue 09 Jul 2013, 6:48 pm

bogbrush wrote:What? Let me get this right then......

Now every player can only be credited with the number of Slams Andy Murray has? One of your more bizarre posts, and that's quite a statement.

Please don't clog up with valuable thread with your excessive devotion to brave Andy, this thread is about impartial assessment of big careers and is only for big boys. As for developing a measure to prove Federer is great, have you not heard that this is widely considered to be self-evidentt?

Whats bizarre BB is your lack of visual skills in reading "running concurrently", which means, since you don't understand it, we cant compare slam records until each of your 4 examples have retired, then you may try to spin your insane stats, until then we can only take each player from the lowest number of wins until the ends happens, unless you're one for reading the last page first kind of guy.

Anyway the whole things preposterous as you can't have "an odd distribution of Slam wins" when one player has only won two so far. In fact it would be more accurate to take Murray off that list and replace him with Sampras.

by Henman Bill Tue 09 Jul 2013, 8:56 pm

Dave. wrote:Ok, if someone could help me out here, appreciated!

In 1925, the ITF designated what are now the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open are the "major championships".

But many of the top players didn't contest the AO to the 80s - was it really considered a major championship back then - and if not, what was the fourth major (Masters? WCT Finals? or any other older equivalent?)

For a certain period of time you can say that there was a big 3 of tournaments. Arguably from 1925 when the French Open allowed non Frenchman to 1982.

1982 AO final Kriek beat Denton, 1983 Wilander beat Lendl. McEnroe also played in 1983, neither of the three played the year before I think. However the AO remained solidly the no 4 at that time, although Agassi (in the second half of his career), Sampras and Federer attended well steadily increasing the tournament's standing. Finally with the great 2009 semi and final for Nadal I think it was almost up to the same level as the others by then.

Of course in the 1950s and 1960s there was a period when the best players were professional and were not allowed to play at the slams, so there was the competing professional tour, so 1925 - 1982 is never that clear cut, maybe 1925 - 1950s and 1969 - 1982 they were the big three.

So you had the big 3 anyway and after that there were periods when other tournaments might have been bigger than the AO. Maybe the year end championships, Davis cup, the largely forgotten World Team tennis. But they weren't the 4th major.

Arguably a fairer way to compare players from the current era to champions of the 70s and early 80s is to:

1. Ignore Australian Opens. OR
2. Multiply by 1.33 the slams of players like Borg that didn't play the AO.
3. x by 3/4 the slams of current players to compare with Borg.

by bogbrush Tue 09 Jul 2013, 9:04 pm

JubbaIsle wrote:
bogbrush wrote:What? Let me get this right then......

Now every player can only be credited with the number of Slams Andy Murray has? One of your more bizarre posts, and that's quite a statement.

Please don't clog up with valuable thread with your excessive devotion to brave Andy, this thread is about impartial assessment of big careers and is only for big boys. As for developing a measure to prove Federer is great, have you not heard that this is widely considered to be self-evidentt?

Whats bizarre BB is your lack of visual skills in reading "running concurrently", which means, since you don't understand it, we cant compare slam records until each of your 4 examples have retired, then you may try to spin your insane stats, until then we can only take each player from the lowest number of wins until the ends happens, unless you're one for reading the last page first kind of guy.

Anyway the whole things preposterous as you can't have "an odd distribution of Slam wins" when one player has only won two so far. In fact it would be more accurate to take Murray off that list and replace him with Sampras.

I did wonder whether Murray really qualified to be ranked in such exalted company but decided in the end that the risk of upsetting the most sensitive of Murray fans was too high.

PS you don't need visual skills, as you put it, to understand words. You meant to say comprehension. On that subject,this was never want to be a career review for these guys, just a look at what their achievements are really worth. Did your 'visual skills' (sic) let you down? Laugh

by JubbaIsle Tue 09 Jul 2013, 9:53 pm

Nit picker, is that why they chucked you out of Uni ? arguing the concept of Natural Progression because Federer wasn't born with a racquet in his hand.

by bogbrush Tue 09 Jul 2013, 9:57 pm

No, I was invited to leave because I did no work and when offered the chance to stay on I said that's what I'd do again.

As for nit picking, well you starting the business of trying to pick me up. Pick someone else next time.

by JubbaIsle Tue 09 Jul 2013, 9:58 pm

Ok.

You're no fun anymore. Shocked

by CaledonianCraig Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:14 pm

Sorry but the last time I looked one slam = one slam.

Checked it up on ATP, Wikipedia, Guinness Book of Records...yup all say he won 17 slams.

by bogbrush Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:19 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but the last time I looked one slam = one slam.

Checked it up on ATP, Wikipedia, Guinness Book of Records...yup all say he won 17 slams.

Who takes their opinions from textbooks? I go by what I see and experience, and I see a lot more value for Wimbledon. Everyone actually knows that.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:23 pm

Sorry BB but so do tennis historians and records all go by the same formula. The formula listed on this thread is sheer folly and I'd safely bet it will never be recognised in tennis by the powers that be or anyone else accept a few hardy souls posting here hopefully.

by Henman Bill Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:29 pm

CC, what you haven't realized is this article is to some extent a bit of a fun, and a WUM article.

by bogbrush Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:31 pm

Doesn't make it wrong. They just lack the imagination to see how to reflect reality.

I'm disturbed at the idea that what is accepted should dictate truth. Nothing should stifle us from thinking imaginatively and finding ways to better describe the reality around us.

History is full of such things. Did you know that until the 1700's negative numbers were considered ridiculous, and even today most people thing a negative number cannot have a square root?
Nobody should ever be intimidated by what so-called authority says is right.

by bogbrush Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:31 pm

Henman Bill wrote:CC, what you haven't realized is this article is to some extent a bit of a fun, and a WUM article.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:38 pm

bogbrush wrote:Doesn't make it wrong. They just lack the imagination to see how to reflect reality.

I'm disturbed at the idea that what is accepted should dictate truth. Nothing should stifle us from thinking imaginatively and finding ways to better describe the reality around us.

History is full of such things. Did you know that until the 1700's negative numbers were considered ridiculous, and even today most people thing a negative number cannot have a square root?
Nobody should ever be intimidated by what so-called authority says is right.

Life and sport lives by its laws and rules and that is what we live by. Until tennis authorities adopt such a WUM system (which they won't in any case) then one slam equals one slam. I suppose if you really feel strongly about it you could put the proposal forward to the powers that be but don't hold your breath.

by ryan86 Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:49 pm

Can I add that I think any player who has the pressure of winning his slam in his home country automatically gets the number of home slams doubled?

by bogbrush Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:44 am

I don't need to Craig, I know I'm right and I don't require official endorsement.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 10 Jul 2013, 7:27 am

You know your right but evidently the powers that be ie tennis authorities know you are not right.

by Henman Bill Wed 10 Jul 2013, 12:38 pm

Regarding your right you're not right about your right it's you're right. While you do have your right to state your right that doesn't make it so.

by Dave. Wed 10 Jul 2013, 8:31 pm

Thanks for the responses. Early Open era history is "interesting". Wiki is a nice help - especially when I saw one year Monte Carlo was ranked as Category D event (the lowest), when its now one of the biggest clay court events (would still rank the Italian as 2nd biggest, mind).

The AO didn't rank the high under the GP system either, but I realise there was some sort of purse relation. Should say in the AO's favour though, that for a fair bit of time, the best players in the world, were Australian!

by bogbrush Wed 10 Jul 2013, 9:16 pm

Henman Bill wrote:Regarding your right you're not right about your right it's you're right. While you do have your right to state your right that doesn't make it so.

No, but I am right.

Craig, there's no point repeating that authorities have the ability to determine truth. That's...... wrong.

by Henman Bill Wed 10 Jul 2013, 9:52 pm

As a hater of strawman arguments, you have been caught using one yourself I'm afraid. His comment "evidently the powers that be ie tennis authorities know you are not right" has been adjusted to "authorities have the ability to determine truth". Rather a leap from one statement about one issue to such a grand generalization. And hardly necessary to win the argument either.

by bogbrush Thu 11 Jul 2013, 1:07 am

Had he only said "think you are not right" there would be no issue, but "know" implies the application of factual status to their opinion.

Grammatical Pedant Bogbrush

by summerblues Thu 11 Jul 2013, 3:23 am

time please wrote:Andy Murray has just won a very, very shiny, put your sunglasses on chaps, trophy

LOL

by summerblues Thu 11 Jul 2013, 3:27 am

banbrotam wrote:They should be based on how difficult they are to win - not which one is in fashion

This makes the US easily the one that should have the highest rating simply because we never get a surprise winner, i.e. someone outside the Top 8 and usually it's one of Top 3

Well, that works both ways. Each slam is played once a year, so over say 40 years, there are only 40 winners in each of them. If a relatively larger portion of the US Open winners come from the very top it means that:

(a) for players outside the very top, USO is the hardest one to win, but also
(b) for the very top players, USO is the easiest one to win.

by invisiblecoolers Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:36 pm

So you fav Ferrer not gonna be no.2 in the World, what a shame picard

by _homogenised_ Thu 11 Jul 2013, 10:34 pm

What you need is an ability factor... that is, numbers to illustrate the then and now of tennis. Borg would probably be at the top or second that way. Today's game is just a snooze fest baseline rally.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 10:50 pm

Would that be Borg the notorious baseliner who won by being fitter than his opponents?

by _homogenised_ Thu 11 Jul 2013, 11:08 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Would that be Borg the notorious baseliner who won by being fitter than his opponents?

You talk as if he was the equivalent of today's bores, which does him a great disservice, and you know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayQ2ZCfHVnk

Tell me where Murray did any of that. The only time Murray came to the net or tried to do anything with any art at all was when Djokovic forced him. Don't embarrass yourself by making Borg seem like a regular baseliner. He wasn't, and above is the proof.

by Sponsored content