Start with 0 points or defend points?

by **Q. Reese** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:09

Hello,

Hum . . . :?:

I think I posed this question along time ago during the time I was playing back-to-back events last summer:

http://www.intertopspintour.net/forum/v ... ight=entry

Also, ITST should have a way were you can see a given player's all-time high rank for each circuit that he, or she, plays in (this even includes how they got their highest ranking [by getting to the finals, with how many points, etc.]).

ITST has not done either of these ideas that I posted earlier. I think that it is a wonderful time to take on them both now . . .

Thanks,

by **D4rkm4n** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:36

Hi,

i agree with all the others. I personally think the invetion of the entry and the race system is very good.

What Q.Reese said is a thing a lot of people wanted to have for premium member or free for all: to see the highest ranking ever reached on a tour.

Would that be possible to do before the new season starts?

D4rk

by **Aamchi** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:04

@Jahrim: yeah that's of course true. i see your point, i guess that is basically defending your points. like you said if for example Ayoros (i think he won Aus open right?) doesnt play this year his 200 points come off since only the last 4 Grand Slams and 9 Masters Series count (and also more than 52 weeks since the last Aus Open would have passed).

by **SlicerITST** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:47

Lots of people have already given their opinion and i would like to thank you guys for that. There is something i would like to hear from you guys also. What do you guys think about which ranking the seedings should determined on? The race or the entry ranking?

by **BelgianMiss** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:33

I would use : Entry+Race/2.

This is pretty complicated to do for everyone, so I'll go with the entry ranking (it is after all the only one that really matters).

by **SlicerITST** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:17

I think that if we let the entry ranking decide the seedings it would add to the "reallness" of the tour. There is a big but though. If we implement it the new players will have a serious hard time to climb up the ranks. It will be even harder then with the champions ranking. And i think that if we insert the entry ranking now FOR the seedings we will be having the same type of discussion as we had before the challenger tournaments were created.

So i would keep the entry ranking as extra statistic but use the champions ranking to determine the seedings. I would love to hear other thoughts on this though.

by **Rocketsfall** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:31

This discussion all started when I asked about the seedings in the new tournaments. Then I suggested to introduce the entry ranking to have the possibility to have seedings in the first tournaments of the new year. So of course I would suggest to have seedings determined by the entry ranking cause that was my point from the beginning.

Also, I think the disadvantage for the new players would not be that big. It's simple: if you're good you will climb the ranking, if you're not you won't.

by **PahelJDilla** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:01

Slicer wrote:I think that if we let the entry ranking decide the seedings it would add to the "reallness" of the tour. There is a big but though. If we implement it the new players will have a serious hard time to climb up the ranks. It will be even harder then with the champions ranking. And i think that if we insert the entry ranking now FOR the seedings we will be having the same type of discussion as we had before the challenger tournaments were created.

So i would keep the entry ranking as extra statistic but use the champions ranking to determine the seedings. I would love to hear other thoughts on this though.

This is it! In matters of fairness, to start from 0 is the only way, you know so many new players who are way better than their actual rank, plus dozens of retired top 100 players.

I have genuinely no idea where the problem is, I mean who's got class isn't feared to meet another strong guy in an early round, things have to develop again.

Of course it would be cool to make the tour even more similar to the real ATP circuit than it already looks like, BUT the circumstances don't fulfill the requirements of this ranking, due to the points that were mentioned before.

Though this ranking as a tool would be fresh, and I believe that it could work fine on the W/S and DOUBLES tour, since these tours are pretty young, but in sim and reg the case is clear, IMO.

by **Safin_2** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:15

In my opinion, there must be two systems: the race and entry ranking.
This way it looks more realistic.

Merry Christmas

SAFIN_2

by **Ir0kuM4t4** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:46

I really can't understand. The creation of the entry ranking to make the seedings is better I think, because some of the new players are good and if they want to prove what they are they must win to high ranked players. This happen to me, when I began, it took a time, but I reached the Top 10. And I'm sure that with other Top 10 players this happened too. Even I admit here, that are at the moment lots of players better than me, Pahel, interista, mar7xion, Thierry, Jimbooo, so we all know that at the beggining those who have chance to go up on the rankings are this guys. And they won't dissapoint us, for sure (just in the fact of win to some of us Top 10 players, like myself). So the entry ranking is the best, I think, to make the seedings and the race to see who is really good in the game.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

And don't discuss just because of this little problem...

by **KoopaxITST** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:06

I strongly believe in having two rankings too. I'm not that familiar with the real system, but the ITST system is sort of a measure of 'ability' (can change quickly) and one of 'achievement' (accumulates slowly) combined into one. I'd favour splitting that ranking, and then most tourrney seedings would be something like:

3/8 your global ranking +
4/8 your ranking over the last month or so +
1/8 your ranking in this type of surface - so then clay court specialists could get a seeding, for example.

Something like that is fair to the experienced guys, but also respects people having a brilliant couple of months. I guess that's spiritually similar to the entry/race thing, so I'm voting for that

by **mecir72** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:22

To me it is not about what is good or not, it is about what is more like the ATP tour or not. That is what I really liked about the ITST from the start, the matching tournaments etc. To have matching rankings system really fits I think. The rankings will never truly reflect on playing standards as people do other things besides playing this excellent game anyway but thats not the point.
If we have the option to make it as close to real tennis as we can I say we do it.
Entry system please.

by **vittorio brussa** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:02

i prefer to start withzero points haaah

by **BelgianMiss** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:06

Why would new players have trouble rising in the rankings ?

They would play in the challenger tournaments, so they get points for their Entry ranking, which also determines the seedings.

But I would say that points gained at the challengers don't count towards the Race, as to make it less attractive for the 'big names'. New players won't be bothered by this, since they probably won't join in time to gain enough points to get to the Masters, but they do raise their ranking a bit.

And offcourse, lots of luck to all the people over the world, and may we be saved from more hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes !

by **titou72** » Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:09

i think restart a new season with 0 points for be lucky.sorry for my english

Start with 0 points or defend points?

Do you want to defend your points or do you want all to start with 0 points?

ITST's visionary? Me? Maybe . . . maybe not! :)

New ranking system

zero points

ranking

Who is online