PDA

View Full Version : How many Master Series titles would be worth a maiden non-fluke Slam b4 age 24?


PCXL-Fan
04-10-2011, 05:56 PM
In the vein of "slam final or masters 1000 win"

So they can either have 1 slam & 0 MS1000..... or 0 slams & multiple MS1000

Conditions:
- Up to this point they have won the exact amount of MS1000 titles selected in the poll.
- The top in-form players of that surface are defeated along the way in both the Slam and each hypothetical Master Series 1000.
- At some point in the future the player may win a slam

Mainad
04-10-2011, 06:07 PM
You missed off an option as there are nine Masters 1000 tournaments.

And that is probably the only option I would have considered because winning all nine Masters is a feat that has never yet been done and would undoubtedly be one for the record books.

Anything less and I think I would definitely opt for the maiden Slam!

PCXL-Fan
04-10-2011, 06:15 PM
You missed off an option as there are nine Masters 1000 tournaments.

And that is probably the only option I would have considered because winning all nine Masters is a feat that has never yet been done and would undoubtedly be one for the record books.

Anything less and I think I would definitely opt for the maiden Slam!

Good point I didn't even think of the 9 MS Sweep thing.

Things to consider for less than 9 would be age of the player is perhaps 23.5 or less, and they would still have time to win a slam.
Plus 6-8 MS is more prize money then a slam.
Us Open gives ~1.5 million to the winner. Sony Ericsson gives $600k, Monte-Carlo Rolex gives $430k etc
6000-8000 ATP points vs 2000 ATP points.

kishnabe
04-10-2011, 06:32 PM
No number of MS will equal a slam. A slam will give so many endorsements coming your way than an MS would! More prestige.....

Zildite
04-10-2011, 06:41 PM
I get the feeling Murray would trade his 6 Masters titles for a major title.
Having lots of Masters but no slams just casts a cloud over you lacking fortitude which would probably be frustrating and annoying. If you win a slam, you always have that special thing.

PCXL-Fan
04-10-2011, 06:44 PM
No number of MS will equal a slam. A slam will give so many endorsements coming your way than an MS would! More prestige.....

Not always though, look at all the endorsements Murray has received. With all those master series wins people had him booked to win the slam and he's gotten big endorsements.

PCXL-Fan
04-10-2011, 06:50 PM
I get the feeling Murray would trade his 6 Masters titles for a major title.
Having lots of Masters but no slams just casts a cloud over you lacking fortitude which would probably be frustrating and annoying. If you win a slam, you always have that special thing.

That is true.
I guess in the end its all about the slams.

Datacipher
04-10-2011, 07:29 PM
I would take 1 slam over 1000 other titles. No joke.

I've noticed this come up sometimes over the last decade or so....it does almost seem like the marketing hype and promotion over "masters" series has had an impact...I can't blame anyone new to tennis, listening to commentators hyping a masters final for wondering...but the truth is....masters series are just cute bobbles from a child's vending machine when compared to making greatness by winning a slam.

powerangle
04-10-2011, 09:51 PM
Points-wise, two Masters tournaments equals one slam. And it should be that way, to keep players and fans interested in the Masters. Furthermore, all the top players are playing the Masters as well.

But the slam is just so much greater that you can't put a point value to it. It offers something intangible that no other tournament win, even multiple wins, can provide. A slam/major is for the history and the glory.

PCXL-Fan
04-10-2011, 09:54 PM
I would take 1 slam over 1000 other titles. No joke.

Well I find that silly. You are alone, everyone would take +100 million dollars in prize money you'd earn from 1000 titles (lets not play word games here, assume +10% MS1000's). You'd be far more lauded and praised & remembered for achieving more titles then any in history. Such a player would be #1 continuously for years.

How revered are 1 slam champs. Thomas Johansson?

I'd rather have exponentially higher amount of money from that huge number of titles, then to be praised for a year or 2 and occasionally played on old sport news reels and read my name in a few sports books.
In the end its what it does for you. And that money will do alot more for you then a single slam.

What makes prestige and value. Value and prestige are not some fixed figure bound by the laws of physics. Calling masterseries events childrens bobbles in comparison is of course an exaggeration.
Not too long ago Wimbledon held far far more prestige than non-slam Australian Open. Things change times change, atp has worked over the past 2 decades to improve MS1000 relevance.

Devilito
04-10-2011, 09:58 PM
Winning a bunch of masters titles would get you tons of endorsements and publicity because of your consistent performance and your name being out there regularly. There are plenty of 1 slam wonders that went nowhere and made way less cashflow than someone like Murray, who while never winning a slam, is hugely popular.

accidental
04-10-2011, 11:43 PM
I think you would need at least 100 Masters Series titles to be happy with no slam.

Datacipher
04-11-2011, 05:16 AM
Well I find that silly. .


I'm sure...just as silly as I find this thread.


You are alone, everyone would take +100 million dollars in prize money you'd earn from 1000 titles (lets not play word games here, assume +10% MS1000's). .


OH!!! LOL! Prize money we're talking....well then the question could simply be framed: how much money would you take over winning a grand slam?

I thought we were talking about tennis prestige/accomplishment, in which case....again....winning every master series title in my career....wouldn't mean anything vs winning a single slam..(other than being the answer to a trivia question for tennis nerds)

There isn't a player in the world, who if being totally candid, would say wouldn't trade every Master series he has, for a slam title...including Federer.


You'd be far more lauded and praised & remembered for achieving more titles then any in history. Such a player would be #1 continuously for years..

No. You don't understand tennis. You'd be a nice trivia question....a funny anecdote in history...who's the player who all those tourney but fell short at every slam? Actually you'd be remembered for your failure at the slams more than anything. You'd be called a choker, a pretender, lacking in heart, not a true-champion....depending on what the theory was on your FAILURE.

Of course...you said they MIGHT win another slam, in which case 3 things would happen:
1.they win several slams: they are remembered for their slams PLUS the BONUS of having tons of other titles. eg. Jimmy Connors
2.they win a 1-4 slams: they are remembered as good players for their slams PLUS all the other titles, but people speculate as to why their career DID NOT LIVE UP to it's potential
3.they win 0 slams: covered above....a trivia note about tourney wins, and people mostly talk about why you couldn't cut it at the slams


How revered are 1 slam champs. Thomas Johansson? .


Funny...I was thinking of Johansson. NOTE: you're back to talking about (revered) prestige again. LOL...a rather extreme case....here:

1.you're breaking your own rule about "non-fluke".....ToJO deserved his title, but luck of the draw was involved....he was not favored to win...and would never be a serious threat again
2.Thomas was older

So of course, it's not analagous to your setup, but sure....who are you comparing Johansson to? Who is it that gets so much more reverence? I can't think of too many players who get more reverence due to their masters series titles. Actually, fact is, I"D RATHER be a FINALIST than have a thousand masters series titles, in terms of prestige. And one day, when you're long retired, what they will first announce, and what will impress people will be "he was in the finals of the US open...."....not "he won a....10 masters series"....LOL


I'd rather have exponentially higher amount of money from that huge number of titles, .


OH OK! Again...back to money. Well that's fine...why not just say "I'd take 200 million dollars over a slam." That's fine...many would.



In the end its what it does for you. And that money will do alot more for you then a single slam..
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY...mONEYYY!!!! whoooo!!! lol

Fine again...money. How about "would you rather be a hedge fund manager raking in millions per year or win one slam?"
Again...no argument here....each person can set up their own value of money they'd trade for a slam, then back calculate the number of masters series they'd need. I didn't think money was a very cogent argument.


What makes prestige and value. Value and prestige are not some fixed figure bound by the laws of physics. Calling masterseries events childrens bobbles in comparison is of course an exaggeration. .

Not an exaggeration in the slightest. Completely appropriate as a comparison of relative value....thank you for agreeing: it's not a fixed figure...it's relative, and masters series are child's trinkets in comparison to grand slam titles. How many satellite legs would you rather win instead of a masters series??


Not too long ago Wimbledon held far far more prestige than non-slam Australian Open. Things change times change, atp has worked over the past 2 decades to improve MS1000 relevance.

LOL....o..k....first...Wimbledon STILL holds far more prestige than the AO (though inded it has improved)....second... I don't even know what to say...ATP marketing vs the slams....oh man. Again...I don't blame you...you see the hype, and you don't know ....believe me....keep watching for 10 more years....you'll understand.

PS. Old Brad Gilbert won a lot of titles....made a lot of finals.....failed badly at the slams...if he were not Agassi's coach...if he did not write a couple of books...he'd be LONG LONG FORGOTTEN....and NEVER EVER brought up. Now Bradley made a LOT of money...and Brad LOVED money....he was practical that way....but he'd trade them in a second for a slam....and what did he tell Agassi? Win 1 slam it's a good year....win 2 slams it's a great year....win more than that.....

batz
04-11-2011, 05:20 AM
I'm with Datacipher on this. Murray would swap his 6 MS and 10 other titles for a single slam win - and he'd do it without even hesitating.

Datacipher
04-11-2011, 05:36 AM
Winning a bunch of masters titles would get you tons of endorsements and publicity because of your consistent performance and your name being out there regularly. There are plenty of 1 slam wonders that went nowhere and made way less cashflow than someone like Murray, who while never winning a slam, is hugely popular.

Well again, I wasn't talking about money.

However, there are TONS of people who won masters titles, but didn't perform at the slams who went nowhere and had even less cash flow.

Murray is not a good example, because he's been hyped and popular due to his nationality. Even then, I'd say his prestige AND his marketability were increased MUCH more by his slam finals, than by his masters wins.

Believe me....if you try to market a player and have to tell them...my guy is going to win 10 masters series a year....but he's skipping all the slams in his career.....you're in deep trouble....

Even in terms of marketing/money...the slams are the showcase.

On the other hand, if money is what we're measuring...maybe it's just better to be Anna Kournikova then....

Datacipher
04-11-2011, 05:47 AM
I'm with Datacipher on this. Murray would swap his 6 MS and 10 other titles for a single slam win - and he'd do it without even hesitating.

Haha, you tell em Batz!!!

What do you guys think meant more to Gomez? His precious, career-over FO title...or the 20+ titles he won before?? What is he remembered for? What made him a genuine national hero....with presidential parade??

Without looking it up, even here among tennis nerds, can anyone tell me how many masters series Chang (1 slam) won? Which they were? How about Goran (1 slam)? Becker(multiple slams)? Pioline (0 slams)?

darrinbaker00
04-11-2011, 07:58 AM
No number of MS will equal a slam. A slam will give so many endorsements coming your way than an MS would! More prestige.....

Kei Nishikori makes US $3 million per year in endorsements, and he only has one 250 win so far.

Mainad
04-11-2011, 08:05 AM
Haha, you tell em Batz!!!
Without looking it up, even here among tennis nerds, can anyone tell me how many masters series Chang (1 slam) won? Which they were? How about Goran (1 slam)? Becker(multiple slams)? Pioline (0 slams)?

Chang won 7 (3 IWs, 2 Cincys,1 Miami,1 Canadian), Becker won 5 (3 Stockholms,1 Stuttgart,1 Paris) Goran won 2 (1 Stockholm,1 Paris), Pioline won 1 (MC).

(Okay okay,I already knew the numbers but I had to check to remind me which ones Chang and Becker won but,then,I sometimes have to remind myself which Slams some of them won too).

On the all-time list:

Nadal = 18 (the most any player has ever won).
Federer = 17 (joint second with Agassi).
Sampras = 11.
Muster = 8.
Chang & Djokovic = 7.
Murray = 6.
Becker,Courier,Kuerten,Rios & Roddick = 5.
(There's a few with 4 and 3 and a whole bunch of them with 2. 25 players have won just 1.)

I think some of us can be a bit too sniffy about how hard it is to win one.Sure,they don't have the prestige of the Slams and never will and rightly so,but they're definitely not for 'kiddies' either as you implied).

According to the ATP website:

The nine ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments, held annually since 1990, across Asia, Europe and North America can be a brutal test of a player's physical and mental capabilities. Unlike the four Grand Slam championships, there are often no rest days between the matches. You are immediately pitted against Top 50 opponents and in these seven to 10-day competitions you must quickly master the conditions if you are to win six matches to lift the trophy. No one has ever clinched a title at each of the nine ATP World Tour Masters 1000 championships.

Pete Sampras, who picked up 11 titles from 19 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 finals between 1991 and 2001, told ATPWorldTour.com of the significance of doing well at these elite ATP World Tour events.

"They are three sets as opposed to five sets and you're also playing back-to-back matches a lot of the time," says Sampras, a six-time former ATP World Tour Champion. "This is more taxing as it is difficult to shutdown mentally. You're also playing against Top 40-ranked players, which you don't do really the first few rounds at the Grand Slams."


Sampras should know!

Netzroller
04-11-2011, 01:04 PM
There isn't a player in the world, who if being totally candid, would say wouldn't trade every Master series he has, for a slam title...including Federer.
How do you know, did he tell you?:-?

I agree with you, if you have never won a slam, probably no number of masters titles can fill that gap.
However, I don't think someon who has one muliple slams thinks like that necessarily.

Let's take Nadal for example. Let's assume he had never won a single masters title but instead one more AO title, would that really be more presigous?
He probably wouldn't be called the king of clay then, having lost MonteCarlo, Rome, Hamburg, Madrid, every single time. His Head to Head against for example Federer wouldn't be as good (possibly costing him his reputation as the GOAT's nemesis). Trading all the these impressive winning streaks, winning countless matches, the experience of getting the big trophy 18(!!!) times, for one single title? I wouldn't do it.

Of course, I'm not him, I don't know what he would chose. But he has impressed me much more with his masters titles than he would have with one additional Slam.

dominikk1985
04-11-2011, 01:08 PM
considering points it's two masters:D.

however I think there are some 0 slam winners who would trade all their masters titles for a slam.

they are just more prestigeous.

tennis_pro
04-11-2011, 01:18 PM
Well I find that silly. You are alone, everyone would take +100 million dollars in prize money you'd earn from 1000 titles (lets not play word games here, assume +10% MS1000's). You'd be far more lauded and praised & remembered for achieving more titles then any in history. Such a player would be #1 continuously for years.

How revered are 1 slam champs. Thomas Johansson?

I'd rather have exponentially higher amount of money from that huge number of titles, then to be praised for a year or 2 and occasionally played on old sport news reels and read my name in a few sports books.
In the end its what it does for you. And that money will do alot more for you then a single slam.

What makes prestige and value. Value and prestige are not some fixed figure bound by the laws of physics. Calling masterseries events childrens bobbles in comparison is of course an exaggeration.
Not too long ago Wimbledon held far far more prestige than non-slam Australian Open. Things change times change, atp has worked over the past 2 decades to improve MS1000 relevance.

I'd also take that 1 Slam. The ATP 1000 Masters are the BIGGEST tour titles out there but still ONLY tour titles. Slams are in a league of their own.

Datacipher
04-11-2011, 03:13 PM
How do you know, did he tell you?:-?

I agree with you, if you have never won a slam, probably no number of masters titles can fill that gap.
However, I don't think someon who has one muliple slams thinks like that necessarily.

Let's take Nadal for example. Let's assume he had never won a single m.

I know because they know tennis...and aren't stupid! ;-)

I'm serious...and yes...I promise: Nadal would gladly take another slam, and win 0 masters....would it be a bizarre tourney record? Sure....but far more preferable....as for "kind of clay"...well...LOL....that's not a real title....and believe me....he'd still be "guru of clay"...or "the GOAT of clay" with his FO titles...THAT's what it's all about. Just as Muster was...KING of clay but b/c he really only won 1 title....in terms of greatness...he's a one title guy....all those other tourneys are just a nice memory for his avid fans now...

Datacipher
04-11-2011, 03:24 PM
Chang won 7 (3 IWs, 2 Cincys,1 Miami,1 Canadian), Becker won 5 (3 Stockholms,1 Stuttgart,1 Paris) Goran won 2 (1 Stockholm,1 Paris), Pioline won 1 (MC).

(Okay okay,I already knew the numbers but I had to check to remind me which ones Chang and Becker won but,then,I sometimes have to remind myself which Slams some of them won too).

On the all-time list:

Nadal = 18 (the most any player has ever won).
Federer = 17 (joint second with Agassi).
Sampras = 11.
Muster = 8.
Chang & Djokovic = 7.
Murray = 6.
Becker,Courier,Kuerten,Rios & Roddick = 5.
(There's a few with 4 and 3 and a whole bunch of them with 2. 25 players have won just 1.)

I think some of us can be a bit too sniffy about how hard it is to win one.Sure,they don't have the prestige of the Slams and never will and rightly so,but they're definitely not for 'kiddies' either as you implied).
!

Buddy...first...I doubt you knew the numbers, but sure, I'll take your word for it....I promise that you are in a tiny minority who knew those numbers....even approximately.

Second....ahhhh.....why do people keep interpreting my statement about bobbles and trinkets as things like "they aren't hard to win"...or saying to me "hey! they're not really for kids!!" I didn't say that. I said in prestige value, they are bobbles RELATIVE to the slams. Then the OP even confirmed that it is "relative" (though he didn't intend to support me), and I restated it.

It SOUNDS like an overstatement...but that's the point...I chose a radical statement, to reflect what a difference I think there REALLY is. I mean it 100%.

It's really hard to win a satellite leg as well. It's really hard to get an ATP ranking...it's all relative...depends where you are on the ladder. There is however a quantum leap in recognition between: I won Indian Wells, and I won Zagreb challenger leg #2. There is also a quantum leap between: I won Toronto, and I won the US Open. Even if we say Sampras thought it was HARDER (and honestly, aren't you skeptical as to whether Sampras would really mean this), Sampras of all people, knew that he would be defined by his slams...he said that over and over....from day 1 in his career (I think he would next point to his #1 ranking)....masters titles? MAYBE a VERY VERY distant third. (again...maybe you can, but I doubt almost anyone on this board, let alone in the tennis "public" could even say what Masters he won, how many, etc)

Again, it's relative....I WOULD be very happy winning Shanghai....but I'm not going to be a tennis great. If I were trying to be a tennis great, there is only ONE way...get slams.....

If i were a slammer...and I won Shanghai, I 'd think: this is great! It feels good to win! Nice payday! I hope the players remember the beating I gave them if we meet in a slam! I hope this gives me momentum in the slams! I'd say to the press and people: thank you, thank you, winning here is just amazing, it doesn't get any better than this!!! This should be the fifth slam I tell you! Maybe even better because you're catering was amazing...and it's a lot nicer than the slam locker-rooms! This sure makes up for the whupping I got at Wimbledon this year!!! This is my favorite tourney. The fans are the best here! Goodbye now."

jackson vile
04-11-2011, 03:33 PM
Three in a row are equal to a slam.

Winning all master series (including) WTF is more difficult than winning all slams.

cc0509
04-11-2011, 03:51 PM
It is all very well and good to win Master Series titles but no number of Master Series titles will equal the prestige that a slam offers a pro tennis player in his/her career. The slam win or wins puts the player in the elite group of players. It is comparing apples to oranges really IMO.

Jelena Jankovic was interviewed by Mats Wilander and Wilander asked her how her inability to win a slam has influenced her (I am paraphrasing.) Jankovic responded and said that it did not really matter to her because you could not sleep with your slam trophies. Well you may not be able to sleep with your slam trophies Jankovic but until you win one you will not be perceived as the complete player like it or not. May not be fair, but it is just the way it is.