Originally Posted by timnz
I just don't see anyone with any knowledge of tennis making these achievments anywhere as insignificant as you are making.
Huh? I just provided a large set of examples! To quote my previous post:
"Take a look at last year's '100 Greatest Players' from the Tennis Channel and tell me how much discussion there was of, and how much apparent weight was assigned to, nonslam tournaments."
Do you think the comparison between Federer and Laver turned on how many M1000-equivalent titles each guy won? Do you believe that was even a factor? No -- it was all about slams, winning the CYGS or coming close, years of domination, success on all surfaces, etc. Watch the program if you don't believe me. And all the voters/pundits were tennis experts (former players, long-time journalists, builders of the sport, etc.)
To repeat: From the long-term, historical perspective, I'm being quite reasonable, perhaps even generous, in my proposed assignment of points for M1000 titles, YEC titles, and slam finals. One thing we can be certain of is that when Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are compared to each other 40 years from now, no one will look back and count each Masters title as half a slam, or each YEC title as 70 percent of a slam (and I'm speaking as a big fan of the YEC, personally).