Racquet Rating Lab

Data-driven tennis analytics

⌕
HomeTop PlayersExplorerCompareMajorsSummariesMethodology
⌕

Data sources

Match data by Jeff Sackmann / Tennis Abstract, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Racquet Rating transforms this data into a canonical match schema and derives its own ratings from it. Racquet Rating is operated on a non-commercial basis.

Tennis databases, files, and algorithms by Jeff Sackmann / Tennis Abstract is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on a work at https://github.com/JeffSackmann.

Full data sources, licence and derivation details

Loading player profile…
← Back to players

ATP·DEN

HolgerRune

HR

Racquet Rating: 630.4 out of 1000. Status: Active.

Racquet Rating

630.4/ 1000

Status: ACTIVE

Last rated match: October 13, 2025

Rating movement: unchanged over 8 months, since 2025-09-30.

■No changeover 8 months

Since the published rating of 629.8 on September 30, 2025.

Official ATP Ranking

#64860 ranking points

As of 2026-06-08. Source: JeffSackmann. Separate from the Racquet Rating, and not an input to it.

Evidence behind this rating

Qualifying matches
234of 40 required
Record in window
152–82
Rating window
4 years
Distinct opponents
119

Model v1.1.0 · match data through 2026-05-25 · canonical id atp:208029.

Racquet Rating requires at least 40 qualifying matches in the current 4-year rating window. Players without sufficient recent evidence are not assigned a current rating. How ratings are calculated

Match data through 2026-05-25 · model v1.1.0. Data sources · Methodology

Rating history

Every published Racquet Rating observation for Holger Rune, from the canonical rating artifact.

Peak in available history
763.9June 30, 2023
History coverage
Mar 2023 – May 202612 quarterly observations · 3.2 years
Change over full history
-37.2over 3.2 years, to 630.4
Racquet Rating historyRacquet Rating fell from 667.6 on March 31, 2023 to 630.4 on May 25, 2026, a loss of 37.2 points. 12 published quarterly Racquet Rating observations. Peak in the available history: 763.9 on June 30, 2023.600650700750800Mar 23Sep 23Mar 24Sep 24Mar 25Sep 25May 26

12 published quarterly observations. Hover or tab through the plot for a single observation.

Axis shows 600–800 of the canonical 0–1000 Racquet Rating scale.

View 12 observations as a table
Racquet Rating fell from 667.6 on March 31, 2023 to 630.4 on May 25, 2026, a loss of 37.2 points. 12 published quarterly Racquet Rating observations. Peak in the available history: 763.9 on June 30, 2023.
DateRacquet RatingChangeMatches in window
March 31, 2023667.6—58
June 30, 2023763.9+96.384
September 30, 2023725.0-38.995
December 31, 2023678.4-46.6107
March 31, 2024651.5-27.0128
June 30, 2024628.7-22.8143
September 30, 2024631.9+3.2164
December 31, 2024636.0+4.1177
March 31, 2025629.2-6.8195
June 30, 2025633.4+4.2212
September 30, 2025629.8-3.6227
May 25, 2026630.4+0.6—

Published quarterly observations from the canonical rating artifact, model v1.1.0. Never interpolated, smoothed or back-filled.

Why this rating?

The published Racquet Rating is the sum of five weighted model components. This is that sum, for Holger Rune.

Racquet Rating 630.4. Five model components, largest contribution first: Performance Index, 257.6 points; Era Normalization, 110.8 points; Form Momentum, 108.7 points; Surface Balance, 102.6 points; Match Context, 50.7 points. Together they total 630.4 points, which reconciles with the published rating of 630.4. Component scores are 0 to 100; contributions are rating points out of 1000.

The largest contribution is Performance Index, at 257.6 of the 630.4 rating points (41%), followed by Era Normalization at 110.8 (18%). Match Context contributes least, at 50.7 (8%). The rating is computed from 234 qualifying matches over the 4-year rating window.

  1. Performance IndexLargest contribution

    257.6rating points41%

    Score 73.6 out of 100 × weight 35% × 10 = 257.6 rating points

    What Performance Index measures

    How well the player wins points and matches — serve and return points won, break points converted and saved, results against elite opponents, and the strength of the field they have faced.

    It carries the most weight of any component, so it usually accounts for the largest share of a rating.

    Seven inputs are winsorised, standardised against fixed baselines and combined through a logistic map to a 0–100 score. Elo and strength of schedule are two of those seven inputs — they feed this component, they are not components themselves.

    Across the 159 rated players this component contributes between 76 and 328 rating points — a spread of 252.

    Published evidence

    Qualifying matches
    234
    Record in window
    152–82
    Observations with the full feature set
    200 (85.5%)
    Observations against top-ranked opponents
    127
    Elo (an input, not a component)
    1790.76

    These are the observations the component was computed from. A higher share with the full feature set means more of the serve, return and break-point detail was available.

  2. Era Normalization

    110.8rating points18%

    Score 73.9 out of 100 × weight 15% × 10 = 110.8 rating points

    What Era Normalization measures

    An adjustment against fixed era baselines and tour-depth proxies, so players from different periods remain comparable.

    It is what allows one 0–1000 scale to span the whole dataset rather than only the current season.

    The baselines are frozen, so this component reflects when a player competed and against what depth of field, not how they played.

    Across the 159 rated players this component contributes between 13 and 138 rating points — a spread of 124.

    Detailed evidence for this component is not currently exposed. It is computed from per-match detail that the published artifact does not carry.

  3. Form Momentum

    108.7rating points17%

    Score 43.5 out of 100 × weight 25% × 10 = 108.7 rating points

    What Form Momentum measures

    Recent trajectory: results over a 26-week window with exponential decay, a fatigue adjustment from minutes and sets played, and an allowance for a player returning after a long absence.

    It is what makes the rating a current-form measure rather than a career résumé.

    The published score is shrunk toward the neutral 50 in proportion to how much evidence supports it, so a short hot streak is damped rather than treated as equal to a long validated record. Both the raw score and the confidence used are published, so the adjustment can be checked.

    Across the 159 rated players this component contributes between 81 and 219 rating points — a spread of 138.

    Published evidence

    Score before evidence damping
    43.50
    Evidence confidence
    1.000
    Evidence span
    1,218 days
    Distinct opponents
    119
    Top-ranked opponents faced
    127

    The published score is 50 + (raw − 50) × confidence. Confidence rises with matches, span, distinct opponents and top-opponent exposure, so a short run is damped toward neutral rather than treated as a settled trajectory.

  4. Surface Balance

    102.6rating points16%

    Score 68.4 out of 100 × weight 15% × 10 = 102.6 rating points

    What Surface Balance measures

    How evenly the player performs across hard, clay and grass — an entropy-like measure of the spread, with a small penalty for extreme specialisation and credit for consistency across surfaces.

    It rewards a game that travels. It is a measure of balance, not of how good the player is on any one surface.

    A high score means performance is spread evenly across surfaces; a low score means it is concentrated. Neither reading says which surface a player is best on — that would need per-surface data the artifact does not publish.

    Across the 159 rated players this component contributes between 15 and 127 rating points — a spread of 112.

    Detailed evidence for this component is not currently exposed. It is computed from per-match detail that the published artifact does not carry.

  5. Match ContextLowest contribution

    50.7rating points8%

    Score 50.7 out of 100 × weight 10% × 10 = 50.7 rating points

    What Match Context measures

    How results compare with expectation once the round and the event are taken into account, so performance on bigger stages counts for more.

    It carries the smallest weight of the five, so it moves a rating the least.

    The round and event weights are calibrated in the pipeline and published as a single score; this page does not recompute them. Across the rated field this component varies far less between players than the others, so it rarely explains why two players differ.

    Across the 159 rated players this component contributes between 43 and 64 rating points — a spread of 21.

    Detailed evidence for this component is not currently exposed. It is computed from per-match detail that the published artifact does not carry.

Total component contributions
630.4
Published Racquet Rating
630.4 / 1000

The five contributions reconcile with the published rating to within 0.003 rating points — the artifact's own rounding.

Elo 1790.76 (career peak 2001.18) is one of the inputs to Performance Index. It is on its own scale, it is not a component of the Racquet Rating, and it is not comparable with the numbers above.

Component scores are 0–100; contributions are rating points on the canonical 0–1000 scale, model v1.1.0. How Racquet Rating works

Surface performance

Performance over the headline rating window. Rates are shown only where the surface sample provides sufficient evidence.

Surface performance over the rating window: 234 matches, 234 with a recorded surface. Surfaces played: Hard, Clay, Grass. Hard, 101 wins and 54 losses, 65.2 percent, 95 percent interval 57 to 72 percent. Clay, 39 wins and 19 losses, 67.2 percent, 95 percent interval 54 to 78 percent. Grass, 12 wins and 9 losses, 57.1 percent, 95 percent interval 37 to 76 percent. These rates describe this player only and are not used to rank players.

  • Hard

    101–54Hard, 101 wins and 54 losses, 65.2 percent, 95 percent interval 57 to 72 percent.155 matches

    65.2% (57–72%)

  • Clay

    39–19Clay, 39 wins and 19 losses, 67.2 percent, 95 percent interval 54 to 78 percent.58 matches

    67.2% (54–78%)

  • Grass

    12–9Grass, 12 wins and 9 losses, 57.1 percent, 95 percent interval 37 to 76 percent.21 matches

    57.1% (37–76%)

234 matches in rating window · 234 known surface

How surface performance is measured

These records come from the same canonical match observations as the headline Racquet Rating, over the same 234-match rating window. Nothing here is a separate rating.

A win rate appears only where a surface has at least 10 matches. Below that a single result moves the percentage by ten points or more, so the record is shown and the percentage is not.

The range beside each rate is a 95% confidence interval. It is wide on purpose: a surface record of a few dozen matches does not pin a percentage down, and the interval is the honest width of that uncertainty rather than a claim of precision.

Matches whose source records no surface are counted in the totals and assigned to no surface. They are never redistributed.

Surface rates are descriptive. They are not combined into a surface rating, and they are not used to rank or compare players — at these sample sizes most players' rates cannot be told apart.

Recent results

This player's record over their last 10 matches in the rating window. A record of what happened, not a prediction.

Last 10 matches: 7 wins and 3 losses, played Sep 2025 – Oct 2025.

Last 10 matches

7–37 won, 3 lost

Sep 2025 – Oct 2025

From 230 matches in the rating window, excluding 4 walkovers.

How this record is counted

The last 10 matches this player actually played, from the same canonical match data as the headline Racquet Rating. Retirements count — a match was played and a winner advanced. Walkovers do not, because no match took place.

Match dates in the source are tournament start dates, so several matches can share a date. The order is reconstructed from the tournament and the round, which is why the record is shown as a total and not as a sequence of individual results.

The dates above are the span these 10 matches cover. For a player who has not competed recently that span can be well in the past, which is why it is always shown.

This is a record of what happened. It is not a prediction, and it is not the Form Momentum component of the rating, which measures something different.

Highest-ranked opponents defeated

Victories over the highest-ranked opponents in the published rating window, using the opponent's official rank at the time of the match.

The 5 highest-ranked opponents defeated in the published rating window, out of 148 wins over ranked opponents. Ordered by the opponent's ranking at the time of each match, best first.

  1. Defeated Carlos Alcaraz, ranked number 1 at the time of the match, in October 2022 at Paris Masters · Quarterfinal, opponent retired.

    Carlos AlcarazNo. 1 at the timeRET

    October 2022 · Paris Masters · Quarterfinal

    6-3 6-6 RET

  2. Defeated Novak Djokovic, ranked number 1 at the time of the match, in May 2023 at Rome Masters · Quarterfinal.

    Novak DjokovicNo. 1 at the time

    May 2023 · Rome Masters · Quarterfinal

    6-2 4-6 6-2

  3. Defeated Casper Ruud, ranked number 4 at the time of the match, in May 2023 at Rome Masters · Semifinal.

    Casper RuudNo. 4 at the time

    May 2023 · Rome Masters · Semifinal

    6-7(2) 6-4 6-2

  4. Defeated Stefanos Tsitsipas, ranked number 5 at the time of the match, in October 2022 at Stockholm · Final.

    Stefanos TsitsipasNo. 5 at the time

    October 2022 · Stockholm · Final

    6-4 6-4

  5. Defeated Daniil Medvedev, ranked number 5 at the time of the match, in April 2023 at Monte Carlo Masters · Quarterfinal.

    Daniil MedvedevNo. 5 at the time

    April 2023 · Monte Carlo Masters · Quarterfinal

    6-3 6-4

From 148 wins over ranked opponents in the rating window.

How these are chosen

Every win this player recorded in the rating window against an opponent the source ranks, ordered by that opponent's official ranking in the week of the tournament, and limited to the 5 highest. Each opponent appears once, at that player's highest-ranked victory over them.

The ranking shown is the opponent's ranking at the time of that match, taken from the same match record as the result. It is not their ranking today, and not their career-high.

Retirements are included and marked. The match was played and a winner advanced, and it counts toward the rating this profile explains — but it was not completed, so it is not presented as though it had been.

This is a list ordered by one rule: how highly the opponent was ranked that week. It is not a judgement of which victories were the finest, and a higher-ranked opponent does not by itself mean a better performance.

Not yet available

These sections are published only once the underlying verified data exists. Nothing below is estimated or inferred in the meantime.

Performance signals
Performance signals are not published yet. Each one needs a defined trigger, data window and minimum-evidence rule before it can appear here.
Comparable players
Comparable players are not published yet. Ranking players by raw rating distance alone is not a defensible similarity method, so no comparison is shown.