ATP Ranking Points

Born2WinTennis · Club Coach

ATP Ranking Points

Shhh · Challenger level

A random guess but are the prize monies in the same currency? ie some in Euros, others in US$?

the addict · Tennis legend

I'll let the experts answer this properly, but I note that this table doesn't completely match the one on the ATP website, which lists just 6 challenger categories, all in dollars.
But there as Shhh suggests, there are some tournaments in euros - specifically a 106.5k and a 42.5k this week.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Some are Euros some are dollars and some have hospitality included.

I.e 100k and 100k+H

-- Edited by paulisi on Tuesday 4th of October 2016 01:23:14 PM

Born2WinTennis · Club Coach

Ah yes that's the answer some are in Euros! so 42.5 is really a $50k and 64 is really a $75k

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

An interesting article by Fed on why he thinks the ranking points are wrong:

www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jul/17/roger-federer-hungover-tennis-next-generation-wimbledon

Shhh · Challenger level

It is a good read indeed. A lot of the problem with the current points system was caused by simplifying it to much so that those outside the sport could relate to it 250's 500's etc with main events they should maybe be split 300, 400, 500 to be representive of the merits of winning them for example. Roger raises the points inside the tournament which seemed to be stacked too much to the winner....but of course it's all opinion. Qualifying points have always be under scored in my opinion buy then who's going to ask me!

JonH · All-time great

I think (from memory) the reason they got rid of bonus points was a) to simplify it all to make it easier to understand and b) to recognise that standards had evened out a lot so that the #10 ranked player probably wasnt in fact better than the #20 or #40 by much and specifically on a given surface and that it was probably unfair to give somebody a bonus that came through luck of the draw in effect. Not saying I agree with that but the evening out of standards was part of it at the time.

But the main thing was to have a clear structure to the points system that all could understand and follow. I suspect that bit hasnt changed and I doubt anything substantial will change but whether within an event the gap between winning each round can be narrowed that might well make some sense.

indiana · Tennis legend

Fair dos to Roger for rather arguing against his own particular interests in ranking points terms, especially at a time when he wants to play less tournaments. Though I actually do quite like quite a lot of the current system and I would actually say too right that it needs 8 ATP 250 titles to give as much as a Slam title. And time the younger guys really produced on the biggest stage.

I do see his point about the weighting within tournaments, particularly with regards to the winners of tournaments. For whatever reasons as he says it was changed a few years ago to be more weighted that way, I think at the time of the general doubling of points from winning R1 through to winning the QF was introduced, e.g. for Slams the men's points were previously much more like the women's points ratios from winning R1 through to reaching the final.

I like the simplicity and ease of understanding of the current system but that should not be too much at the expense of ambiguities and I tend to agree with Shhh that at least one other ATP level might be a good idea.

I don't like the idea of bonuses for particular wins. I do think the points should be purely based on what round is reached.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 18th of July 2017 04:37:14 PM