This user has no status.
Poor Carl, a simple unfair but practical case of a 1st round W.O. seems too hard for you to understand.
Carl, Rainneverever,
Please you are both valuable forum members speaking past each other. Any chance for a truce?
I care more about who wins than any ranking. TT is a sport where many players participate but in the end Ma Long wins
Give it time and the rankings will sort itself out, players will increase participation and we (the spectators) will have more great matches to enjoy. The old system actually rewarded absenteeism from international events by letting players maintain a high rank. More and more people are noticing that this new system closely resembles Tennis and other tried and true ranking systems. The reason some people (the loudest ones) are complaining is because they have disagreed with ITTF changing things in the past so they've made up their mind to stand against this without even letting it play out.
It all comes down to the fact that change makes people nervous. I was also very comfortable with how our old system worked in the past, and still say it has some merits, but this is a good move for the future of our sport. Sit back and enjoy, you may find things aren't as they seem once it has time to settle.
-ttGuru
Ding Ning 21? This joke is not funny.
Never try to explain something simple to an irrational women who just wants to argue. How could such a simple point create so much drama.
I've been reading this a few times, let it simmer for a while, then returned to it only to find that I find it disturbing, still [...]
I agree.
yeah, this I'm not happy with. I would much rather an ELO type system when attributing ranking points.Can you address the issues discussed in this thread?
https://www.tabletennisdaily.com/fo...687-Dimitrij-Ovtcharov-The-New-World-Number-1!
1. Why the World Tour prize money and standing points differ so much between results (winner gets 1.4x - 2x of loser) while new ranking points differ so little (winner only gets 1.1x - 1.2x of loser)? For tennis, winner gets 1.4-1.7x points and 1.7x-2x prize money of loser.
Yeah Carl, you are the "Super Moderator" ... Just be a little more gracious host ... : )
I wish Rain and Tom would explain in more details, if possible, how the system can affect those young players?
; ))
I've been reading this a few times, let it simmer for a while, then returned to it only to find that I find it disturbing, still.
I don't think it's proper to castigate discussion partners like this, dismissing them by conjuring a buch of (imho) sexist stereotypes.
For what it's worth, i didn't and still don't consider Rain to be irrational, or her arguments callously contrived to pick fights for fight's sake. Yes, I think she's stubborn in trying to get her point made, whereas Carl is trying to make a different point. In a discussion, nobody has a supreme topical monopoly, so that's all par for the course, and I often value Rain's insights and tenacity in discussions highly. I also value Carl's contribution highly, but still don't like what I'm seeing here.
I wish Rain and Tom would explain in more details, if possible, how the system can affect those young players?
; ))
Fair enough. It is true. Rain was not understanding the point I was trying to make. And I was not concerned with the point that people who enter a tournament and lose in the first round probably get more points awarded to them than they should.
But you are right. I did not need to make that comment. I could have simply made my point very simply.
When ML and all the top players play enough tournaments with their standard results, the system will show the best players to be the top players. Right now the system is not showing that because of what the Chinese government did to the top CNT players for protesting LGL's dismissal in the China Open. The reason the CNT players have the rankings they have is largely because they were not able to attend enough tournaments. And that happened due to a situation that was out of the control of the players.
So we shouldn't base how we feel about the new ranking system on results that were affected by an anomaly that had very little to do with what would happen in a normal TT year. If the top CNT players are allowed to play in events, their rankings will rise to the top fairly quickly. The players from other countries who really deserve to be in the top 10 and top 20 will also get there.
And players who don't play enough events, will have a ranking that reflects their participation or lack of participation, rather than their level.
Thanks yoass. I appreciate your comment.
Timo Boll would have been world ranked 47 or something had this system been implemented in January. He is now world ranked #3. He played more this year than he ever has. Why isn't anyone discussing that? Why are we all focused on Ma Long who played less this year than he could have, low enough to miss the Grand Tour finals which he is the record holding winner of?
because ma long is a fairy? or the pope. or both
p.s. also im not focused on ma long, Im excited that dima and boll manage to beat the chinese and cant wait for the next event to see the clash. The japs are also very close and I hope hirano keeps improving
Can you address the issues discussed in this thread?
https://www.tabletennisdaily.com/fo...687-Dimitrij-Ovtcharov-The-New-World-Number-1!
1. Why the World Tour prize money and standing points differ so much between results (winner gets 1.4x - 2x of loser) while new ranking points differ so little (winner only gets 1.1x - 1.2x of loser)? For tennis, winner gets 1.4-1.7x points and 1.7x-2x prize money of loser.
2. How can a young player ranked 300+ be able to improve his/her ranking under new system? There is no way for them to boost ranking by upsetting higher ranked players occasionally and they do not have much chance to enter a tournament because of their low ranking.
I wish Rain and Tom would explain in more details, if possible, how the system can affect those young players?
; ))