PDA

View Full Version : Rank the following individual (ATP) achievements


Prisoner of Birth
10-14-2012, 12:36 PM
World #1, Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, Australian Open, The Masters Cup (WTF), Olympic Gold.


My ranking :

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. French Open
4. Australian Open
5. World #1
6. The Masters Cup (WTF)
7. Olympic Gold

Russeljones
10-14-2012, 12:37 PM
Seriously this has been done before and not so long ago actually. Use the search function.

Prisoner of Birth
10-14-2012, 12:38 PM
Seriously this has been done before and not so long ago actually. Use the search function.

Not sure what to search for. Most of these words are mentioned in just about every other thread.

Andres
10-14-2012, 12:47 PM
I believe RG and USO are tied for #2.

jokinla
10-14-2012, 01:30 PM
Batz, can you please post your, "Not this **** again" pic.

norbac
10-14-2012, 01:34 PM
It depends on who you're a fan of.

Prisoner of Birth
10-14-2012, 01:36 PM
I believe RG and USO are tied for #2.

They are. I can never make up my mind on which one of them is more prestigious. The USO has more history, the FO is unique.

RAFA2005RG
10-14-2012, 05:32 PM
The 2 greatest achievements of all-time are:

Calendar Year Grand Slam = Laver.

Clay, grass, hardcourt slam titles in Calendar Year = Nadal.

veroniquem
10-14-2012, 05:44 PM
1- slams (any of the 4)
2- masters (any of the 9)
3- WTF
4- olympic gold
5- any other title
6- #1

To me, winning titles is the most important, #1 ranking comes far behind.

Prisoner of Birth
10-14-2012, 06:00 PM
1- slams (any of the 4)
2- masters (any of the 9)
3- WTF
4- olympic gold
5- any other title
6- #1

To me, winning titles is the most important, #1 ranking comes far behind.

Why do you rank Masters over the WTF?

MethodTennis
10-14-2012, 06:08 PM
1. World #1 (Year End)
2. Wimbledon = US Open = French Open
3. Australian Open
4. World #1 not year end
5. The Masters Cup (WTF)
6. Olympic Gold

veroniquem
10-14-2012, 06:13 PM
Why do you rank Masters over the WTF?
Because to me, they are more important and have more credibility. I don't like the RR system and I see WTF (it keeps changing name btw, how annoying is that ) as not much more than a glorified exhibition despite the ATP efforts to promote it. If it was serious about rewarding the best players , it would alternate surfaces. As it is, it's just a fancy stunt on a minority surface (indoor hard) and masters seem much more serious to me. I also cannot take seriously an event where losing a match doesn't send one home. It's reminiscent of the pepsi challenge in the past, not "a real tournament" in my book. But I still put it ahead of Olympics because tennis participation in the Olympics is recent and still a bit awkward. WTF has more historical weight.

tudwell
10-14-2012, 06:32 PM
Because to me, they are more important and have more credibility. I don't like the RR system and I see WTF (it keeps changing name btw, how annoying is that ) as not much more than a glorified exhibition despite the ATP efforts to promote it. If it was serious about rewarding the best players , it would alternate surfaces. As it is, it's just a fancy stunt on a minority surface (indoor hard) and masters seem much more serious to me. I also cannot take seriously an event where losing a match doesn't send one home. It's reminiscent of the pepsi challenge in the past, not "a real tournament" in my book. But I still put it ahead of Olympics because tennis participation in the Olympics is recent and still a bit awkward. WTF has more historical weight.

No other tournament switches surfaces every year, so why should the WTF?

veroniquem
10-14-2012, 06:53 PM
No other tournament switches surfaces every year, so why should the WTF?

Because its purpose is supposedly to determine the best player out of the top 8. The 9 masters and 4 slams happen on different surfaces: slow hard, fast hard, clay, grass, indoor, outdoor... WTF is not a series like slams or masters, it's a unique event and unless it changes surfaces, the only thing it does is rewarding the best indoor player out of the 8 and given how indoor has been less and less relevant on the pro tour, it fails to convey any special significance to WTF. Just 1 more event and not much else.

cc0509
10-14-2012, 07:03 PM
Because its purpose is supposedly to determine the best player out of the top 8. The 9 masters and 4 slams happen on different surfaces: slow hard, fast hard, clay, grass, indoor, outdoor... WTF is not a series like slams or masters, it's a unique event and unless it changes surfaces, the only thing it does is rewarding the best indoor player out of the 8 and given how indoor has been less and less relevant on the pro tour, it fails to convey any special significance to WTF. Just 1 more event and not much else.

LOL, what a joke. You only feel this way because your hero Nadal has yet to win it. If he is as good as people say on all surfaces, he should be able to win it at least once, no? There are enough clay events for him to win, let him win an indoor event that is the most important event next to slams (at least according to points allotted.) Truth is Nadal will probably never win this event. Djokovic and Murray are now better players in indoor HC events than Nadal is.

tudwell
10-14-2012, 07:05 PM
Because its purpose is supposedly to determine the best player out of the top 8. The 9 masters and 4 slams happen on different surfaces: slow hard, fast hard, clay, grass, indoor, outdoor... WTF is not a series like slams or masters, it's a unique event and unless it changes surfaces, the only thing it does is rewarding the best indoor player out of the 8 and given how indoor has been less and less relevant on the pro tour, it fails to convey any special significance to WTF. Just 1 more event and not much else.

Isn't every tournament's purpose to determine the best player? I don't see how the WTF is any different.

cc0509
10-14-2012, 07:07 PM
World #1, Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, Australian Open, The Masters Cup (WTF), Olympic Gold.


My ranking :

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. French Open
4. Australian Open
5. World #1
6. The Masters Cup (WTF)
7. Olympic Gold

In terms of prestige and or importance I would agree except I would put Olympic gold ahead of the Masters Cup. The Olympics has gained prestige mostly because of the players and how they feel about the event.

cc0509
10-14-2012, 07:08 PM
1- slams (any of the 4)
2- masters (any of the 9)
3- WTF
4- olympic gold
5- any other title
6- #1

To me, winning titles is the most important, #1 ranking comes far behind.

Gee, I wonder why? That is a tough one to figure out. :D

cc0509
10-14-2012, 07:10 PM
Isn't every tournament's purpose to determine the best player? I don't see how the WTF is any different.


It is not, she is just pi$$ed because Nadal has never won it and likely never will at this point.

TMF
10-14-2012, 07:16 PM
Gee, I wonder why? That is a tough one to figure out. :D1- slams (any of the 4)
2- masters (any of the 9)
3- WTF
4- olympic gold
5- any other title
6- #1

To me, winning titles is the most important, #1 ranking comes far behind.


And she had MS above WTF. I'm surprise she didn't throw in Davis Cup.

LOL

cc0509
10-14-2012, 07:27 PM
And she had MS above WTF. I'm surprise she didn't throw in Davis Cup.

LOL

Or Barcelona! :)

NadalAgassi
10-14-2012, 07:28 PM
1. French, Wimbledon, U.S Open
2. Australian Open
3. ATP year end #1 ranking
4. Olympic Gold, Davis/Federation Cup, WTF/YEC
5. Masters/Premier Mandatory/Tier 1
6. ATP 500/Premier non Mandory/Tier 2
7. All other regular ATP or WTA events
8. Challengers and Satellites
9. WTA year end #1 ranking

veroniquem
10-14-2012, 07:29 PM
LOL, what a joke. You only feel this way because your hero Nadal has yet to win it. If he is as good as people say on all surfaces, he should be able to win it at least once, no? There are enough clay events for him to win, let him win an indoor event that is the most important event next to slams (at least according to points allotted.) Truth is Nadal will probably never win this event. Djokovic and Murray are now better players in indoor HC events than Nadal is.
I'm stating my opinion, that's all (I'm not trying to impose it on anyone btw, it's just how I would rank the events). If Nadal was my agenda, it's obvious I would have put Olympic Gold above WTF. My opinion is not motivated by any specific player. It's how I see tennis events and how I feel about them, nothing more, nothing less. It is true that the ATP allots a lot of points for WTF but this thread asks for one's personal way of ranking events. That's what I did. All the slams are worth the same amount of points but some people placed Wimbledon over the other slams. So, it is implied that no one has any obligation to strictly follow the points system for their personal ranking. + if someone won as few as 2 masters in a season, they would have won more points than with WTF, so it makes perfect sense to me to prioritize the masters, even in terms of points.

NadalAgassi
10-14-2012, 07:29 PM
Sorry didnt notice the ATP only part.

cc0509
10-14-2012, 07:34 PM
I'm stating my opinion, that's all (I'm not trying to impose it on anyone btw, it's just how I would rank the events). If Nadal was my agenda, it's obvious I would have put Olympic Gold above WTF. My opinion is not motivated by any specific player. It's how I see tennis events and how I feel about them, nothing more, nothing less. It is true that the ATP allots a lot of points for WTF but this thread asks for one's personal way of ranking events. That's what I did. All the slams are worth the same amount of points but some people placed Wimbledon over the other slams. So, it is implied that no one has any obligation to strictly follow the points system for their personal ranking. + if someone won as few as 2 masters in a season, they would have won more points than with WTF, so it makes perfect sense to me to prioritize the masters, even in terms of points.

Not sure I believe you here but if you say so! :lol:

NadalAgassi
10-14-2012, 07:36 PM
I think veroniquem does genuinely believe that as funny as it might be. I believe even having the Olympics below a Masters is funny, no player would rather a mere Masters than an Olympic Gold. That said standards change over time. The ATP and WTA Year end Championships are still prestigious but not as prestigious as they were in the late 70s and 80s when they were regarded more highly than the Australian and maybe the French which is definitely not true now. Likewise the Australian while still probably a bit below the other 3 in prestige is much more valued than it was then (and the French much more than the 70s when many players volunteerinly skipped it for big money exhibitions too).

SQA333
10-16-2012, 03:55 AM
Why do you rank Masters over the WTF?

Because Nadal hasn't won a WTF while Federer has 6.

SQA333
10-16-2012, 03:56 AM
I'm stating my opinion, that's all (I'm not trying to impose it on anyone btw, it's just how I would rank the events). If Nadal was my agenda, it's obvious I would have put Olympic Gold above WTF. My opinion is not motivated by any specific player. It's how I see tennis events and how I feel about them, nothing more, nothing less. It is true that the ATP allots a lot of points for WTF but this thread asks for one's personal way of ranking events. That's what I did. All the slams are worth the same amount of points but some people placed Wimbledon over the other slams. So, it is implied that no one has any obligation to strictly follow the points system for their personal ranking. + if someone won as few as 2 masters in a season, they would have won more points than with WTF, so it makes perfect sense to me to prioritize the masters, even in terms of points.

But winning the WTF > winning 1 masters event.

By this token, Grand Slams are worth less than Masters events, since if someone won as few as 2 masters, and made a first round exit in another, they would've won more points than by winning 1 Slam.

Stupid ******* logic.

#Federer300 :D