Boxing Forums banner
11541 - 11560 of 11592 Posts

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
Tough luck for Medvedev who came close this year, but I see no hurdles for the no1 takeover next year and I'll be happy if Novak passes him the torch. Whaddaya think @steviebruno , is it happening in 2022?

I also pick Daniil over Novak in their match later today, overall in better form. Good lads, lets hope they give us a good final.
It might happen, but only because of the BS ranking technicality that tennis uses. You shouldn't win three slams, make a final, and then be in danger of losing the top spot unless someone else is approaching that level of success in 2022.

Alas, Novak has a ton of points to defend, so he'll be penalized severely for his 2021 run.
 

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,542 ·
It might happen, but only because of the BS ranking technicality that tennis uses. You shouldn't win three slams, make a final, and then be in danger of losing the top spot unless someone else is approaching that level of success in 2022.

Alas, Novak has a ton of points to defend, so he'll be penalized severely for his 2021 run.
What system would you prefer? I think the current is tough but fair for both top dawgs and the lower ranked. I mean winning a slam gets you 8x an ATP250 and 16x a challenger trophy pts.

Take Nadal's two-year points system proposed when he was no1 but tired and injured: yeah sitting on piles of points suits top players and veterans but disadvantages youngsters, breakthroughs and those coming back from loooooong injury as they then need to earn twice as much to be able to get higher ranking and reach juicier events. Today alone it takes 2-3 years for anyone outside the 200 to get to 70 where big pts tournaments become available, and challengers and 250s are actually very loaded with fresh super talents, solid 50-150s, greats recovering and experiences has beens. You overweigh slams even further so Novak can't lose the top ranking with 3 slams and these lower ranked players will never gather enough pts to attend juicy events. Look at Murray struggle to get to the good stuff as the 4-5 years Medvedev took from 18 to be in run for a slam. Any ease for the top ranked means hardship for the kiddos, injured, aging and out of form, no need to punish them further.
 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
What system would you prefer? I think the current is tough but fair for both top dawgs and the lower ranked. I mean winning a slam gets you 8x an ATP250 and 16x a challenger trophy pts.

Take Nadal's two-year points system proposed when he was no1 but tired and injured: yeah sitting on piles of points suits top players and veterans but disadvantages youngsters, breakthroughs and those coming back from loooooong injury as they then need to earn twice as much to be able to get higher ranking and reach juicier events. Today alone it takes 2-3 years for anyone outside the 200 to get to 70 where big pts tournaments become available, and challengers and 250s are actually very loaded with fresh super talents, solid 50-150s, greats recovering and experiences has beens. You overweigh slams even further so Novak can't lose the top ranking with 3 slams and these lower ranked players will never gather enough pts to attend juicy events. Look at Murray struggle to get to the good stuff as the 4-5 years Medvedev took from 18 to be in run for a slam. Any ease for the top ranked means hardship for the kiddos, injured, aging and out of form, no need to punish them further.
I wouldn't exactly know how to distribute the points, but I'd be in favor of a system where players aren't penalized for doing well the previous year and the clearly more successful player isn't in danger of not being number one. A more logical system would've had everyone losing significant ground to Djokovic last year and actually working to make it up this year.

I always say that the rankings eventually take care of themselves if you keep winning, but this will be unprecedented to have Novak
-who has kept winning, nearly completing a calender slam- now in danger of losing his ranking.

A better system would reward consistency. You defend a GS title or win multiple titles in the year, you get incrimental points boosts beyond simply defending points.
 

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,544 ·
I wouldn't exactly know how to distribute the points, but I'd be in favor of a system where players aren't penalized for doing well the previous year and the clearly more successful player isn't in danger of not being number one. A more logical system would've had everyone losing significant ground to Djokovic last year and actually working to make it up this year.

I always say that the rankings eventually take care of themselves if you keep winning, but this will be unprecedented to have Novak
-who has kept winning, nearly completing a calender slam- now in danger of losing his ranking.

A better system would reward consistency. You defend a GS title or win multiple titles in the year, you get incrimental points boosts beyond simply defending points.
Nobody's being penalized for prior success, points merely go back to the draw once the new tournament commences 12 months later, and redistributed based on the new results. That's entirely fair IMO, what's perhaps not is a 11-month season with dozen+ mandatorie tourneys and little time to recovery. However, every time a player misses 2-3 months it takes that much time to get back to form, same goes for 6 or 12 etc., so historically speaking, more off time, even if entirely earned and physically advantageous, does work counterproductive in tennis, and can cut say a Medvedev momentum short.

In the end there's no real solution for an extremely demanding sport where 2000 professionals fight for the same trophies, cause it's battle royale. Yet Federer, Nadal and Djokovic played 20 tourney each year and still won slams over 33. Borg retired at 26 when Novak only started to raking'em up, so advanced recovery techniques, nutritioning and a clean life pushed out tennis retirement age just like it did in pro boxing, and that's EXACTLY why it is a struggle for youngsters to break through. Cause they not only have to fight the 23-26 yos, the 27-32 yos. They have to break through Djokovic, Nadal and Federer who wouldn't fucking go away. :LOL: Lets not give them oldies any more ease at the realms IMO, I mean they've been holding onto it over 15 years...
 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
Nobody's being penalized for prior success, points merely go back to the draw once the new tournament commences 12 months later, and redistributed based on the new results. That's entirely fair IMO, what's perhaps not is a 11-month season with dozen+ mandatorie tourneys and little time to recovery. However, every time a player misses 2-3 months it takes that much time to get back to form, same goes for 6 or 12 etc., so historically speaking, more off time, even if entirely earned and physically advantageous, does work counterproductive in tennis, and can cut say a Medvedev momentum short.

In the end there's no real solution for an extremely demanding sport where 2000 professionals fight for the same trophies, cause it's battle royale. Yet Federer, Nadal and Djokovic played 20 tourney each year and still won slams over 33. Borg retired at 26 when Novak only started to raking'em up, so advanced recovery techniques, nutritioning and a clean life pushed out tennis retirement age just like it did in pro boxing, and that's EXACTLY why it is a struggle for youngsters to break through. Cause they not only have to fight the 23-26 yos, the 27-32 yos. They have to break through Djokovic, Nadal and Federer who wouldn't fucking go away. :LOL: Lets not give them oldies any more ease at the realms IMO, I mean they've been holding onto it over 15 years...
I mean... the points don't just go back to the field. Let's say Frank Dancevic shows up and makes the second round of the AO, and Novak goes out in the quarters. Frank gains significant ground because Novak not only failed to defend his title, but also his points from the appearing in the finals AND semis. Although Novak would have had a much better showing here, the rankings would -in no way- reflect that reality. Champions deserve to have the higher rankings. The cream rises to the top.

Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic aren't anywhere close to their peak. The other guys shouldn't need technicalities to surpass them; beat them head to head enough and you will eventually overtake them.
 

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,546 ·
I mean... the points don't just go back to the field. Let's say Frank Dancevic shows up and makes the second round of the AO, and Novak goes out in the quarters. Frank gains significant ground because Novak not only failed to defend his title, but also his points from the appearing in the finals AND semis. Although Novak would have had a much better showing here, the rankings would -in no way- reflect that reality. Champions deserve to have the higher rankings. The cream rises to the top.

Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic aren't anywhere close to their peak. The other guys shouldn't need technicalities to surpass them; beat them head to head enough and you will eventually overtake them.
Soz but I lost your there buddy...

There's a specific amount of points handed out each year at slams, tourneys, challengers, futures and special (ATP Cup etc.). Each player earn points and hold'em for exactly 52 weeks after which they expire. Points expire at the start of the same tourney next year and therefore will be redistributed between the winners. And after the tournament, ATP rankings reflect any change. But in reality, once the tournament restarts 52 weeks later, you need to start to gather the points again since they expired, and if you lose in the first round, you obviously don't gather or deserve any, now do ya? You don't really "defend" your points since technically they are expired and you recapture, just official rankings display it with a little delay after the tourney.

Medvedev had a chance to catch Djoko for no1 as the US Open, ATP Cup, Rogers Cup, Paris and ATP WTF champion, despite Novak having 3 slams but not much else. Nole ended up stealing Paris from Medvedev so he's now 3000 pts ahead and impossible to catch. Still it was a year between these two and the one with the more big titles came out on top. This means the ranking system is fine. And I don't think Serena showing up to win a slam or two deserves the top position when others also win a slam, and rather than going Serena and sitting the rest of the year out they go on and beat the field like stepchildren over and over again. Whoever gets most big titles gets the no1 title, this has been working out just fine. And its about time some new faces win them.
 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
Soz but I lost your there buddy...

There's a specific amount of points handed out each year at slams, tourneys, challengers, futures and special (ATP Cup etc.). Each player earn points and hold'em for exactly 52 weeks after which they expire. Points expire at the start of the same tourney next year and therefore will be redistributed between the winners. And after the tournament, ATP rankings reflect any change. But in reality, once the tournament restarts 52 weeks later, you need to start to gather the points again since they expired, and if you lose in the first round, you obviously don't gather or deserve any, now do ya? You don't really "defend" your points since technically they are expired and you recapture, just official rankings display it with a little delay after the tourney.

Medvedev had a chance to catch Djoko for no1 as the US Open, ATP Cup, Rogers Cup, Paris and ATP WTF champion, despite Novak having 3 slams but not much else. Nole ended up stealing Paris from Medvedev so he's now 3000 pts ahead and impossible to catch. Still it was a year between these two and the one with the more big titles came out on top. This means the ranking system is fine. And I don't think Serena showing up to win a slam or two deserves the top position when others also win a slam, and rather than going Serena and sitting the rest of the year out they go on and beat the field like stepchildren over and over again. Whoever gets most big titles gets the no1 title, this has been working out just fine. And its about time some new faces win them.
Right... right... and how many titles did Medvedev win last year? The US Open, one ATP 1000, and two ATP 250s. LMAO. Danil played like dogpoo for most of the year and not only didn't lose significant ground to a guy that won three slams and made a final... but now gets REWARDED for not having to defend anything for most the upcoming year. He should feast on rankings points next season, unless he comes out playing like crap again.

Your explanation is a roundabout way of saying you lose whatever you can't defend... which is fine, but a more creative approach would be to adjust the percentages of points tabulated and lost when a dominant player falls just a bit short.

Novak's Wimbledon should've been worth 3000 points, not 2000, because he'd already won AO and the FO. Any deductions from the next season would be capped at 2000, meaning that he'd still have -at worst- 1000 points left over for kicking ass the way he did last year. Too much? Make it 500, then.

Medvedev completely mailed it in for most of the year and shouldn't have ever had as many chances to pass Novak as he did. That would have been an absurd conclusion to this calendar year.
 

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,548 ·
I don't have anything left to say, u propose a comprehensive new system that doesn't disadvantage players lower than 10 - and there are 2000 pros competing today - and we discuss. Throwing random numbers at slam wins don't quite work, and FFS I'm the Novak fan but I don't think he needs any more points and distance at the top. :lol:

But to be sure I've reacted to your side of the argument: if Novak finished w/ 3 slams and nothing else, and Medvedev with USO, ATP Cup, ATP WTF unbeaten, Rogers Cup (not that Roger's, chill) and Paris beating Nole 3-4x in the process, he's goddamn deserving of no1. He couldn't, so he isn't, therefore rankings work.
 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
I don't have anything left to say, u propose a comprehensive new system that doesn't disadvantage players lower than 10 - and there are 2000 pros competing today - and we discuss. Throwing random numbers at slam wins don't quite work, and FFS I'm the Novak fan but I don't think he needs any more points and distance at the top. :lol:

But to be sure I've reacted to your side of the argument: if Novak finished w/ 3 slams and nothing else, and Medvedev with USO, ATP Cup, ATP WTF unbeaten, Rogers Cup (not that Roger's, chill) and Paris beating Nole 3-4x in the process, he's goddamn deserving of no1. He couldn't, so he isn't, therefore rankings work.
That's too bad, then, because I was curious as to how awarding points bonuses to multiple slam winners affects someone ranked 2000 in the world. My proposal has no bearing on anyone outside the top five... you know, the people actually vying for Novak's spot.

Novak Djokovic is going to lose his position if he doesn't win three slams again next year. That's retarded. It's a rigged system designed to keep a revolving door of top-ranked players and reward players for playing in as many tournaments as possible for the sponsors.

...Remember years ago, when Nadal was number 2 and Novak had like three or four chances to beat him head to head and take his ranking? Well, that was retarded. Rafa beat him back every time until he finally eclipsed Fed at number 1, but he shouldn't have had to fight that hard to stay at 2. Novak hadn't accomplished nearly enough to threaten Rafa's ranking at that point.
 

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,550 ·
That's too bad, then, because I was curious as to how awarding points bonuses to multiple slam winners affects someone ranked 2000 in the world. My proposal has no bearing on anyone outside the top five... you know, the people actually vying for Novak's spot.

Novak Djokovic is going to lose his position if he doesn't win three slams again next year. That's retarded. It's a rigged system designed to keep a revolving door of top-ranked players and reward players for playing in as many tournaments as possible for the sponsors.

...Remember years ago, when Nadal was number 2 and Novak had like three or four chances to beat him head to head and take his ranking? Well, that was retarded. Rafa beat him back every time until he finally eclipsed Fed at number 1, but he shouldn't have had to fight that hard to stay at 2. Novak hadn't accomplished nearly enough to threaten Rafa's ranking at that point.
So for an actual example / proof of a broken system, you had to go all the way back to 2008, or nearly 1,5 decades, and in the end it turned out the system made sure the best, 2nd best and 3rd best were ranked properly after all? :ROFLMAO:
 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
So for an actual example / proof of a broken system, you had to go all the way back to 2008, or nearly 1,5 decades, and in the end it turned out the system made sure the best, 2nd best and 3rd best were ranked properly after all? :ROFLMAO:
Smh...

Way to completely miss the point. Novak only needed win one of those matches to pass up Nadal, despite being clearly inferior. He could've lost every other matchup, yet still be safely ahead.

There are countless examples of the rankings system artificially churning out "elite" players and world no. 1s; it just happens less on the men's side, because Fed/Nadal/Djokovic have had a stranglehold on the game for 15+ years.

All that it took for Danil to threaten Novak is one slam, a 1000, and some challenger's events. LMAO. What a joke.
 

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,552 ·
Smh...

Way to completely miss the point. Novak only needed win one of those matches to pass up Nadal, despite being clearly inferior. He could've lost every other matchup, yet still be safely ahead.

There are countless examples of the rankings system artificially churning out "elite" players and world no. 1s; it just happens less on the men's side, because Fed/Nadal/Djokovic have had a stranglehold on the game for 15+ years.

All that it took for Danil to threaten Novak is one slam, a 1000, and some challenger's events. LMAO. What a joke.
While we're down to arguing on technicalities in round and round, I think you still miss the point where Medvedev could've taken over Novak mathematically only if ALL of the following occurred in 2021: Novak only wins the 3 slams and sits out rest of the year AND Daniil wins the huge ATP Cup (check), the USO slam (check), Federer's 1000 (check), Paris 1000 (TBD) and ATP WTF 1500 unbeaten (TBD tho he did hold onto the last win for 52 weeks), while attending several other finals. ALL of these vs. Novak's tiny wittle 3 slams to just barely overcome him, which in the end didn't happen. And EXACTLY for the same reason Nole no1 in 2008 didn't: he didn't beat Fedal back to back like a stepchild as a matter of fact they stole important points from him and ran away with the top spots. Once again: ranking system prevailed.


Moving on now really: I like your beard & analysis:

 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
Like talking to a wall, as usual. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BigBone

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,554 ·
That's a big ass record YENO1 trophy for the GOAT, they be tryin to crush Novak?

Smile Blue Light Trophy Collar


Sports uniform Jersey Shorts Trophy Player


Well deserved, champ. Oh so the finals is in Italy now? New venue per plans or moved due to lockdowns?
 

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,556 ·
:ROFLMAO: Djokovic has delivered at least 5 of the greatest tennis matches of all-time and has more true, non-fake character than the dullard Dubai Condo fella and the top spin ass picker combined. But these three perhaps deserve to retire with the same no. of slams.
 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
:ROFLMAO: Djokovic has delivered at least 5 of the greatest tennis matches of all-time and has more true, non-fake character than the dullard Dubai Condo fella and the top spin ass picker combined. But these three perhaps deserve to retire with the same no. of slams.
The matches were classics because of the other two. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ar558a

·
Fighting the Fury loving Scum
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
Well I'm a Tennis fan and every other fan I know will go out of there way to watch Roger or Rafa and don't give a shit about Novak, I only see him when he plays the others. He is clearly a excellent technician but he has missed the fact that sport is also entertainment.
 

·
CHB NYC Delegate; Bob's weaver
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
Well I'm a Tennis fan and every other fan I know will go out of there way to watch Roger or Rafa and don't give a shit about Novak, I only see him when he plays the others. He is clearly a excellent technician but he has missed the fact that sport is also entertainment.
This man knows what he's talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ar558a

·
Sugalowda!
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11,560 ·
Well I'm a Tennis fan and every other fan I know will go out of there way to watch Roger or Rafa and don't give a shit about Novak, I only see him when he plays the others. He is clearly a excellent technician but he has missed the fact that sport is also entertainment.
This man knows what he's talking about.
Imagine your alt starting to disagree with you. :ROFLMAO: So for the price of one, now there's two thinking alike in a 10 year-old thread with 50+ posters thinking otherwise. Well done. Tennis will be happy to lose all the Fedtards and Rafans who'll all retire like Pactards and Flomos did. Balanced discussions and coverage can't come soon enough and nobody will miss the screaming housewives.

But Novak is not out of the door just yet and it looks like WTF ATP will come down between him and Daniil. The latter fought hard through Zverev in an epic, proving his mental superiority and Nole had some of his best performance vs. Rublev, particularly on serve. At current standings the two will likely meet in Sunday's final and important points, as well as a key H2H match that could decide the fate of the no1 spot around Roland Garros or Wimbledon next year.
 
11541 - 11560 of 11592 Posts
Top