5th Grand Slam

[ruerooo]

Originally Posted by Bud

He wasn't referring to Miami.

How do you know?
And if (s)he weren't, why would it make sense to be referring to IW?

Not trying to be belligerent. Just confused.

[simi]

Originally Posted by Tshooter

Miami > Indian Wells for a number of reasons not the least of which is two of the stars of the women's game never play Indian Wells.

That alone make IW a "better" tournament.

Just kidding . . . well, maybe not totally. I also find this talk about Miami/IW "interesting". Just that, "talk". I don't really care. Been going to IW every year for a few now, and after seeing the draw for Surise this year, I just might make Fort Lauderdale/MIami into an extended vacation next year. Hmmm, let's see, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, of opening weekend at IW; fly to Fort Lauderdale to catch the Sunrise tournament, then a few days at Crandon Park. Stay with daughter and her husband while also visiting the grandkids. Sounds nice!

[Bud]

Originally Posted by ruerooo

How do you know?
And if (s)he weren't, why would it make sense to be referring to IW?

Not trying to be belligerent. Just confused.

I figured he/she was incorrectly referring to Monte Carlo... thinking it was the Montecarlo in Argentina.

That made more sense since NY (i.e. North America) already has a GS Tourny, the US Open and neither Miami nor IW is in South America.

[Tshooter]

"Most of what people talk about on this subject is nonsense"

It's hardly nonsense. It's good marketing. The Miami Masters draws a huge and enthusiastic crowd from Central and South American countries to see the "South American Slam."

As for Borg's comments. I think what he said was correct in the late 70s and arguably into the early 80s. A lot has changed since. Rome is way down the list of player/sponsor priorities today. And The Australian was resurrected from the dead to be a full-fledged member of the GS.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Tshooter

"Most of what people talk about on this subject is nonsense"

It's hardly nonsense. It's good marketing. The Miami Masters draws a huge and enthusiastic crowd from Central and South American countries to see the "South American Slam."

As for Borg's comments. I think what he said was correct in the late 70s and arguably into the early 80s. A lot has changed since. Rome is way down the list of player/sponsor priorities today. And The Australian was resurrected from the dead to be a full-fledged member of the GS.

Well, color me wrong

I've never heard it referred to as that. Perhaps, if you're from SA, you're aware of that moniker.

Musta been why all those obnoxious Delpo supporters were in the crowd during the Nadal match

[_maxi]

I have always considered as the fifth grand slam the masters cup.

[leonidas1982]

Miami does get the highest tv ratings in Latin America outside of the slams. moreover, many residents of Latin America travel to Miami for the tournament.

[Feña14]

Peter Fleming calls Miami "The South American Major" thanks to the huge support the players from that region receive from a large section of the locals.

[clayman2000]

Originally Posted by ScovilleJenkins

I keep hearing how Miami is the 5th Grand Slam. What makes it better than Indian Wells?

This is actually from the past, as a while ago, IW was a 64 draw like all the other masters, and Miami was the only 96. Thus since it had the largest draws for both men and women outside the slams, it was coined the 5th Major.

In terms of the most important Masters, i really doubt that any of the clay masters are seen as the most important, even to clay courters. This is becuase traditionally, a lot of big seeds go out early and there are usually surprise players at the end of tourneys (eg. Wawrinka Rome 08, Gonzo Rome 07, Stepanek Hamburg 06), so it has a rep of thus not being important.

[!Tym]

Originally Posted by clayman2000

This is actually from the past, as a while ago, IW was a 64 draw like all the other masters, and Miami was the only 96. Thus since it had the largest draws for both men and women outside the slams, it was coined the 5th Major.

In terms of the most important Masters, i really doubt that any of the clay masters are seen as the most important, even to clay courters. This is becuase traditionally, a lot of big seeds go out early and there are usually surprise players at the end of tourneys (eg. Wawrinka Rome 08, Gonzo Rome 07, Stepanek Hamburg 06), so it has a rep of thus not being important.

It doesn't have a rep for not being important, not at all imo. "Surprises" happen at hard court masters too. Remember guys like Bhodan Uhlirach, Andrei Pavel, and worst of all HAREL LEVY (a *career* challenger level guy outside of this one run basically) made their greatest glories at hardcourt masters events. It's inevitable. Just because Felip Dewulf made it deep at the French two years in a row doesn't mean the French isn't prestigious anymore. Just because Wally Masur once almost made the finals of the US Open doesn't mean it's not prestigious anymore.

Miami WAS considered the "5th slam" in the 80s and most of the nineties, but imo, that is no longer the case. Imo, Miami was once considered MUCH more prestigious than it is now, back when it was called the Lipton. Imo, it lost its "brand appeal" and became generic sounding when they lost Lipton as their title sponsor. The name was synonymous with the tournament, and once a tournament loses it's ESTABLISHED "brand" name, I think it's difficult to recover from that. Furthermore, back then, Miami was the ONLY tournament outside the slams to field two-gender draws. Indian Wells IS the wannabe these days, but the problem for Maimi is that Indian Wells has done a VERY good job of putting on a world class tournament themselves, and in doing so, their prestige has grown, and Miami's has lessened significantly. Miami is no longer the star, it's been "caught up" to by other ambitious tournament organizeers who've upped the ante.

Winning Miami today is NOWHERE near as "prestigious" as it was when Muster won it in 97 imo. Back then, it really must have felt like something to him. These days, however, I think the tournament is more or less seen AND treated as just another masters series to most players. Yeah, it's still a little more important, but no longer MUCH more important "feeling" than the other masters series events. A Miami win before meant something...today it kind of just feels like, ok, so you won a masters series, good for you, what do you want, a Tennis Warehouse party for your troubles?

[tennis_hand]

Originally Posted by Mungo73

that 5th slam thing is complete bull-**** there are 4 slams

monte carlo is the most prestigious masters

why is Monte carlo most prestigious? because it is in MC? that is also slow clay bull-sh!t.

after the 4 Slams, it is the year end championship. No argument about it.

[Kobble]

Originally Posted by !Tym

It doesn't have a rep for not being important, not at all imo. "Surprises" happen at hard court masters too. Remember guys like Bhodan Uhlirach, Andrei Pavel, and worst of all HAREL LEVY (a *career* challenger level guy outside of this one run basically) made their greatest glories at hardcourt masters events. It's inevitable. Just because Felip Dewulf made it deep at the French two years in a row doesn't mean the French isn't prestigious anymore. Just because Wally Masur once almost made the finals of the US Open doesn't mean it's not prestigious anymore.

Miami WAS considered the "5th slam" in the 80s and most of the nineties, but imo, that is no longer the case. Imo, Miami was once considered MUCH more prestigious than it is now, back when it was called the Lipton. Imo, it lost its "brand appeal" and became generic sounding when they lost Lipton as their title sponsor. The name was synonymous with the tournament, and once a tournament loses it's ESTABLISHED "brand" name, I think it's difficult to recover from that. Furthermore, back then, Miami was the ONLY tournament outside the slams to field two-gender draws. Indian Wells IS the wannabe these days, but the problem for Maimi is that Indian Wells has done a VERY good job of putting on a world class tournament themselves, and in doing so, their prestige has grown, and Miami's has lessened significantly. Miami is no longer the star, it's been "caught up" to by other ambitious tournament organizeers who've upped the ante.

Winning Miami today is NOWHERE near as "prestigious" as it was when Muster won it in 97 imo. Back then, it really must have felt like something to him. These days, however, I think the tournament is more or less seen AND treated as just another masters series to most players. Yeah, it's still a little more important, but no longer MUCH more important "feeling" than the other masters series events. A Miami win before meant something...today it kind of just feels like, ok, so you won a masters series, good for you, what do you want, a Tennis Warehouse party for your troubles?

I agree. I don't know why they lost Lipton as the sponsor. I still called it the Lipton even years after they changed. I really wish I went there pre-1998. Once, I had the freetime to go it was basically a spanish speaking region. The year I went was disappointing. The rude foreigners were simply too much. These people live in shacks in Hialiah, now, and stole at fruit stands in their old country. Apparently, they are attracted to the Miami ghettos, so, I don't see how we can do anything about. Except, maybe move them to Opa Locka, or something.

[Blinkism]

The Olympics are the closest thing to a Slam, I guess. It's kind of like the World Cup (soccer/football) in a sense.

The YEC are also pretty much the next best thing, on a yearly basis.

I've heard that by 2011 or 2012 the Master's series tourneys will all be combined men's/women's events and 2 weeks long. Anybody else hear this?

[gj011]

There are only 4 slams. And it should stay that way. End of story.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by ScovilleJenkins

I keep hearing how Miami is the 5th Grand Slam. What makes it better than Indian Wells?

There is some precedent for Miami being the "5th Slam", though I think that claim has always been more of a marketing term to get across the point that Miami is "big and important" than it is actually a belief that it is the 5th Slam.

Anyway, back when Miami was the "Lipton Championships" it was a bigger draw (128 or 96 I believe) and every round for a couple years was best of 5 sets. It had the big field, the sponsors, the TV coverage, and the format was similar to a Slam, and prize money was pretty big (it may have been more than the AO), so the 5th Slam talk started. Pay no mind to it. It's just a way to separate one non-Slam from the others.

[TheNatural]

Then the Olympics
then the 4 slams
then the Davis cup and the masters cup
then the masters series events

[Telepatic]

4 slams
Olympics
Masters cup
Davis cup
..

[THERAFA]

There are enough slams already, please no more, just if anything move Aust Open to a month later.

[Safinator_1]

Miami is in no way a 5th Slam, If there is such thing that title belongs to the Masters Cup or Tour end Championship whatever. Saying that is also a long shot itself.

I really don't think a 5th slam is necessary, the 4 we have is fine

[THERAFA]

Plus a 5th slam won't feel prestige at all, it will feel like a fake slam, especially if it was Miami, you won't find European tennis fans calling some tournament in Miami a slam. Australian Open struggled for slamness for so long, it only is just gaining power.