Stircrazy wrote:

---

QR1:  (q4) Ryan Peniston WR 442 (CH = 123 in July 2022) vs BYE

---

QR1:  BYE vs (q13) Mark Whitehouse WR 1194 (CH = 523 in December 2022)

QR1:  (q8) Stuart Parker WR 560 defeated (ALT) Christos Glavas (GRE) UNR by 2 & 0

*****

FQR:  (q4) Ryan Peniston WR 442 vs (q13) Mark Whitehouse WR 1194

FQR:  (q5) Alexandr Binda (ITA) WR 508 (CH = 506 last month) vs (q8) Stuart Parker WR 560

Binda was pushed hard by the "local" boy, Michalis Sakellaridis, who came back from 1-5* in the third set only to lose it by 5-7.

FQR:  (q8) Stuart Parker WR 562 defeated (q5) Alexandr Binda (ITA) WR 489 by 3 & 2  

indiana wrote:

---

Shhh wrote:

---

Just one of those very minor things that are not important, yet bug me? I notice that the runner up receives 25pts, half of the winner 50pts. The same proportion with a 100 event, 50 & 100. A 75 event though is 44pts r/u & 75pts winner.

Any explanation as the why there is not a consistent allocation of points or just an ATP wisdom?

---

 I guess just ATP wisdom or non wisdom. I don't think there have ever been really consistent ratios running right through but yes some, like your example, do look rather strange.

The WTA ranking ratios and relation to prize money used to really really annoy me, in particular with regards to the W25/W35s as against other ITFs.

But now I really like how they have consistent round by round ratios all the way from Slams down to W15s - the one and only exception from R32 winners through to title winners is the poor W15 R1/L32 winners, which while yes traditionally 1 point, on a ratio running right down from the Slams proportion as 15/2000 x 240 = 1.8 points which should surely now count as 2. I'm going to start a campaign on their behalf 

---

 I must admit, I had never studied it too much but, when growing up, it was always a nice straight round by round ratio. I realise sometimes ratios dont quite fit an even number and so need adjusting a little, but a nice straight forward ratio that applies to all tournie levels just makes sense. If a slam winner gets 2000 points and a RU 1300, and a round of 16 players gets 200 points (10%) of that, then in the challenger 50 level, we should see 50 for the winner, 32 or 33 for the RU (not 25) and then 20, 10, 5 and not 14, 8 , 4. It doesnt make sense, at all.