Tournament Hierarchy for Men

timnz · Sep 23, 2012

I know that tournaments can be easily rated in hierarchy by point value. But in terms of their importance and prestige - would people agree to this ranking for Tournaments in terms of importance? (I have put the tournaments current ATP points value in brackets in terms of current point ranking value):

1/ Wimbledon (1st equal in points)

2/ French Open/US Open tie for second place (1st equal in points)

4/ Australian Open (1st equal in points)

5/ WTF (5th in points)

6/ Olympics (15th in points)

7th equal/ 9 Masters 1000 titles (6th equal in points)

So even though the Olympics is the number 15 tournament in points - people tend to rate it over Masters 1000's so - should it now be elevated in points to around 1250 points instead of 750 points?

Note: It should never be as many points as the WTF because a/ WTF is a much deeper field b/ WTF has a much longer tradition as the most important tournament outside of the slams.

We could argue forever on what should be rated as the number 2 tournament. Suffice to say there is probably a North America/European split over it being the US Open or Roland Garros. Probably best to rate them 2nd equal.

papertank · Sep 23, 2012

I definitely agree on US Open and French being tied at #2. There is no way to objectively decide which is more prestigious. I would put the Olympics above the WTF though. I believe now that the olympics is finally attracting all the top players it is definitely something all the top players want. Other than that I think you have it right.

Agassifan · Sep 23, 2012

I think the Olympics should be elevated to WTF status.

Prisoner of Birth · Sep 23, 2012

I agree with your ranking.

Seth · Sep 23, 2012

I'd like to see the Masters tournaments ranked higher, but I don't know what I would drop down.

SStrikerR · Sep 23, 2012

I keep WTF over Olympics, because for the WTF you have to really do well to even earn a spot there, then win 4 or 5 matches to get the title.

timnz · Sep 23, 2012

Wtf

papertank said:
I definitely agree on US Open and French being tied at #2. There is no way to objectively decide which is more prestigious. I would put the Olympics above the WTF though. I believe now that the olympics is finally attracting all the top players it is definitely something all the top players want. Other than that I think you have it right.

Surely the WTF needs protecting. After all it has over 40 years of tradition in being the most important tournament outside the slams. Putting another tournament above it would depreciate the legacy of those 40 years of winners of the WTF

Seth · Sep 23, 2012

SStrikerR said:
I keep WTF over Olympics, because for the WTF you have to really do well to even earn a spot there, then win 4 or 5 matches to get the title.

Good point. Anyone know where it will be held after 2013?

rofl_copter3 · Sep 23, 2012

How about order of importance for master series tourneys... That would be harder to do than slams Wtf and Olympics...

papertank · Sep 23, 2012

I would say this is about as well as I could rank the masters:

1. Indian Wells/Miami
3. Cinci/Canada/Madrid/Rome
6. Monte Carlo
8. Paris/Shanghai

merwy · Sep 23, 2012

papertank said:
I definitely agree on US Open and French being tied at #2. There is no way to objectively decide which is more prestigious. I would put the Olympics above the WTF though. I believe now that the olympics is finally attracting all the top players it is definitely something all the top players want. Other than that I think you have it right.

For me the only reason that the Olympics might be more prestigious than the WTF is because it's only held once every four years. Other than that, you can only win half the points of the WTF. Not sure which tournament people like to win more, depends on how patriotic they are and how many times they've already won the other tournament. Federer would like to win the olympics more obviously, but it could be different for Nadal.

timnz · Sep 23, 2012

Masters 1000 rankings

papertank said:
I would say this is about as well as I could rank the masters:

1. Indian Wells/Miami
3. Cinci/Canada/Madrid/Rome
6. Monte Carlo
8. Paris/Shanghai

They are all the same now. There is no hierarchy between them.

IF HOWEVER, you were to rank them in importance - I am a great believer in tradition - hence that would establish Monte Carlo (it doesn't matter that it optional - enough of the top guys show up every year still so it is not depreciated) since it has been around since the 19th century, the Italian (Rome) and Miami (because it used to be the 'fifth major' in the late 80's) on top of the bunch. But as I say they are all equal in importance now. I think that Paris and Shanghai get short changed often because of players being tired/injured towards the end of the year - so they get drop outs.

timnz · Sep 23, 2012

WTF vs Olympics

merwy said:
For me the only reason that the Olympics might be more prestigious than the WTF is because it's only held once every four years. Other than that, you can only win half the points of the WTF. Not sure which tournament people like to win more, depends on how patriotic they are and how many times they've already won the other tournament. Federer would like to win the olympics more obviously, but it could be different for Nadal.

Nadal has had 4 times the opportunities to win the WTF compared to Federer's opportunities to win the olympics...hence the gap in Nadal's Resume is much more glaring.

merwy · Sep 23, 2012

Which is the more important master tournament is purely based on subjective argumentes I think.. they're all worth the same amount of points so it comes down to personal taste. This is how I feel:

1. Madrid (just a shame that they had that blue clay last year)
2. Miami
3. Cincinnati
4. Rome
5. Indian Wells
6. Roger's Cup
7. Monte Carlo
8. Bercy
9. Shanghai

PrinceMoron · Sep 23, 2012

Watch out, the world of tennis out east is getting bigger by the minute. Come back in 30 years and the AO might have a big new neighbour.

merwy · Sep 23, 2012

timnz said:
They are all the same now. There is no hierarchy between them.

IF HOWEVER, you were to rank them in importance - I am a great believer in tradition - hence that would establish Monte Carlo (it doesn't matter that it optional - enough of the top guys show up every year still so it is not depreciated) since it has been around since the 19th century, the Italian (Rome) and Miami (because it used to be the 'fifth major' in the late 80's) on top of the bunch. But as I say they are all equal in importance now. I think that Paris and Shanghai get short changed often because of players being tired/injured towards the end of the year - so they get drop outs.

True. I subconsciously like the tournaments more where better players participate. That's why I rated Monte Carlo so low, although I do like the tournament itself and the beautiful beach scenery in the back.

Russeljones · Sep 23, 2012

I think the Olympics are at least as prestigious as the WTF.

Zarfot Z · Sep 24, 2012

Agree with your entire post,m especially the part about the Olympics.

timnz · Sep 24, 2012

Zarfot Z said:
Agree with your entire post,m especially the part about the Olympics.

Sorry, which person are you agreeing with?

furryballs · Sep 24, 2012

At the WTF you have to win four or five matches against the best 8 players in the world that year.Even Boris said it was harder than winning a slam.The olympics is getting better as a tournament but shouldnt really be mentioned in the same breath as WTF.

Rhino · Sep 24, 2012

I would say the Masters 1000 rank like this:

1) Miami
2) Indian Wells
3) Rogers Cup*
4) Cincy
5) Rome
6) Madrid
7) Paris
8 ) Monte Carlo
9) Shanghai

*Possible bias here (I attended this event and have great memories)

Zarfot Z · Sep 24, 2012

Rhino said:
I would say the Masters 1000 rank like this:

1) Miami
2) Indian Wells
3) Rogers Cup*
4) Cincy
5) Rome
6) Madrid
7) Paris
8 ) Monte Carlo
9) Shanghai

*Possible bias here (I attended this event and have great memories)

Rogers Cup this year is heavily underrated due to clashes with Olympics and many players withdrawing. Cincinnati should be number 1 since it is the 'real slam'. Indian Wells should be above Miami since it has a much bigger stadium capacity and bigger atmosphere.

Zarfot Z · Sep 24, 2012

timnz said:
Sorry, which person are you agreeing with?

OP

10chars

Mainad · Sep 24, 2012

timnz said:
They are all the same now. There is no hierarchy between them.

IF HOWEVER, you were to rank them in importance - I am a great believer in tradition - hence that would establish Monte Carlo (it doesn't matter that it optional - enough of the top guys show up every year still so it is not depreciated) since it has been around since the 19th century, the Italian (Rome) and Miami (because it used to be the 'fifth major' in the late 80's) on top of the bunch. But as I say they are all equal in importance now. I think that Paris and Shanghai get short changed often because of players being tired/injured towards the end of the year - so they get drop outs.

The Rogers Cup (Montreal/Toronto) is even older than Monte Carlo. It's been around since 1881. Only Wimbledon and the US Open are older. So, if tradition is your main criteria, the Rogers Cup should be number 1 closely followed by Monte Carlo and Cincinnati.

In terms of age:

1. Canada (Montreal/Toronto) 1881
2. Monte Carlo 1897
3. Cincinnati 1899
4. Rome 1935
5. Paris-Bercy 1968
6. Miami 1985
7. Indian Wells 1987
8. Madrid 2002
9. Shanghai 2009

Russeljones · Sep 24, 2012

furryballs said:
At the WTF you have to win four or five matches against the best 8 players in the world that year.Even Boris said it was harder than winning a slam.The olympics is getting better as a tournament but shouldnt really be mentioned in the same breath as WTF.

Probably because you have a chance to win an Olympic gold medal for your country every year right?

tennis_pro · Sep 24, 2012

Rhino said:
I would say the Masters 1000 rank like this:

1) Miami
2) Indian Wells
3) Rogers Cup*
4) Cincy
5) Rome
6) Madrid
7) Paris
8 ) Monte Carlo
9) Shanghai

*Possible bias here (I attended this event and have great memories)

That's a very good list, I'd switch Madrid with Paris, though, as Madrid (or the 3rd clay Masters/1st fall Masters) often changes its venue/surface.

You're right about the Rogers Cup, it's the oldest Masters of them all. Arguably more important than Indian Wells.

TMF · Sep 24, 2012

Mainad said:
The Rogers Cup (Montreal/Toronto) is even older than Monte Carlo. It's been around since 1881. Only Wimbledon and the US Open are older. So, if tradition is your main criteria, the Rogers Cup should be number 1 closely followed by Monte Carlo and Cincinnati.

In terms of age:

1. Canada (Montreal/Toronto) 1881
2. Monte Carlo 1897
3. Cincinnati 1899
4. Rome 1935
5. Paris-Bercy 1968
6. Miami 1985
7. Indian Wells 1987
8. Madrid 2002
9. Shanghai 2009

Oldest tournament isn't always the most prestige event. Monte Carlo is not a mandatory event anymore, and player can substitute this event with any smaller event(atp500) to their schedule. As of now, IW is the most popular event of all the MS, and it's considered a 5th slam.

merlinpinpin · Sep 24, 2012

Mainad said:
The Rogers Cup (Montreal/Toronto) is even older than Monte Carlo. It's been around since 1881. Only Wimbledon and the US Open are older. So, if tradition is your main criteria, the Rogers Cup should be number 1 closely followed by Monte Carlo and Cincinnati.

In terms of age:

1. Canada (Montreal/Toronto) 1881
2. Monte Carlo 1897
3. Cincinnati 1899
4. Rome 1935
5. Paris-Bercy 1968
6. Miami 1985
7. Indian Wells 1987
8. Madrid 2002
9. Shanghai 2009

Actually, Paris-Bercy is not as old as that. Try 1986 instead of 1968...

Tony48 · Sep 24, 2012

I think tennis players today value the Olympics just as much as (if not more so than) the WTF. I think the era defines its significance. If in 30 years we don't have another Djokovic-Nadal-Federer trivalry, I don't think it will seen as important anymore.

rtl11 · Sep 24, 2012

Consider WTA status and the draw size as well

Rhino said:
I would say the Masters 1000 rank like this:

1) Miami
2) Indian Wells
3) Rogers Cup*
4) Cincy
5) Rome
6) Madrid
7) Paris
8 ) Monte Carlo
9) Shanghai

*Possible bias here (I attended this event and have great memories)

Only Miami, Indian Wells, Madrid and Shanghai are WTA Mandatory events.

Miami and Indian Wells are 96 draw and are played over two weeks. Federer said last year that made Indian Wells way more relaxing in general.

Also the extra days off let players play more doubles, for example Nadal plays Indian Wells doubles often.

Clarky21 · Sep 24, 2012

furryballs said:
At the WTF you have to win four or five matches against the best 8 players in the world that year.Even Boris said it was harder than winning a slam.The olympics is getting better as a tournament but shouldnt really be mentioned in the same breath as WTF.

Disagree. You can lose matches at the WTF and still win the tournament. It is also played every year,therefore giving the top 8 players many chances over their career to win it. The same cannot be said about the Olympics.

timnz · Sep 24, 2012

Wtf

Clarky21 said:
Disagree. You can lose matches at the WTF and still win the tournament. It is also played every year,therefore giving the top 8 players many chances over their career to win it. The same cannot be said about the Olympics.

Sorry, I can't agree with you. Lots of sports have round robins in the early rounds - for instance the Soccer World Cup and the Rugby World Cup. It doesn't take away from the event at all. The other very important thing to keep in mind is that no-one has ever won the season end finals losing more than 1 match. So practically the winner either wins all matches or only loses 1 match in the round robin (5 out of 6 of Federer's wins have been unbeaten - the other one he lost 1 round robin match). So you can lose a match but losing matcheS has never happened. So Round Robin takes nothing away from the tournament. In the meantime you have to deal with nothing but players in the top eight. No easy matches at all.

WTF clearly should remain above the Olympics - but perhaps the Olympics can go to 1250 points - with the WTF remaining at 1500 points for unbeaten winner or 1300 points for winner who had 1 round robin loss. It would be very bad if the Olympics got to be worth more than it - because it would depreciate the 40 years of tradition built up for the WTF as the biggest tournament outside the slams.

Re. your comment about opportunities to win it. That is what makes Nadal's not winning the WTF much more glaring than Federer not winning the Olympics. Nadal has 4 times the chances to win it and still hasn't yet.

Talker · Sep 24, 2012

I would put the olympics after the masters, it is only once in every 4 years so doesn't have as much meaning.

Actually it has 750 points which is less than a masters but would like to see it as having no points.

Prisoner of Birth · Sep 24, 2012

Talker said:
I would put the olympics after the masters, it is only once in every 4 years so doesn't have as much meaning.

Actually it has 750 points which is less than a masters but would like to see it as having no points.

Yeah, I think the Olympics would, weirdly enough, mean MORE if it was for 0 points.

NDFM · Sep 25, 2012

TMF said:
Oldest tournament isn't always the most prestige event. Monte Carlo is not a mandatory event anymore, and player can substitute this event with any smaller event(atp500) to their schedule. As of now, IW is the most popular event of all the MS, and it's considered a 5th slam.

hmmm...I think Cincinnati is considered the 5th slam (or the Real Slam according to tw) not Indian Wells

timnz · Sep 25, 2012

Completely subjective

What is clear is that the order of the masters 1000's is completely subjective. What do people think of the order I posed for the Slams?

ie

1/ Wimbledon

2nd Equal - French Open/US Open

4th Australian Open

(I rated the FO and the USO as equal because you could argue strongly either way - possibly based on whether you were a continental European or a North American - a huge generalization I know).

Prisoner of Birth · Sep 25, 2012

timnz said:
What is clear is that the order of the masters 1000's is completely subjective. What do people think of the order I posed for the Slams?

ie

1/ Wimbledon

2nd Equal - French Open/US Open

4th Australian Open

(I rated the FO and the USO as equal because you could argue strongly either way - possibly based on whether you were a continental European or a North American - a huge generalization I know).

I think the French Open might soon surpass the US Open in prestige but, for now, I guess one would just have to agree with your ranking.

Tournament Hierarchy for Men

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Legend

Banned

Legend

Professional

Professional

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Legend

New User

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Rookie

Legend

Banned

Similar threads