Dispelling a Myth about Sampras regarding Masters 1000's

timnz · Nov 8, 2016

When people compare Sampras' Masters 1000 total of 11, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic having between 24 and 30 - some comment that - "well Sampras' didn't prioritize or compete in Masters 1000's in the 1990's because it was not compulsory to compete in them".

They are right when they say they weren't compulsory.

These are the facts though.

In the 1990-1992 period there were other equivalent (in terms of points and prize money) tournaments at the level of the Masters 1000's (about 8 to 9 a year) - we can give Sampras another 4 Masters 1000 equivalents (2 Philadelphia and 2 Indianapolis' in that period). From 1993 to 1995 the only comparable tournament (in terms of points and prize money) outside of the Slams and 2 season end finals was the Stuttgart Indoor. Sampras didn't compete at that tournament during those years. Hence, outside of the Stuttgart indoor, from 1993 at that level the masters 1000's were the only game in town. Lets look at 1993 through to 1999 (whilst Masters 1000's were non-compulsory):

By year how many Masters 1000's did Sampras compete in.

1993 7 out of 9
1994 5 out of 9 (that year he was out for a time with tendinitis in his left ankle)
1995 9 out of 9
1996 5 out of 9 (that year he suffered a strained Achilles' tendon - I don't know how long this caused him to be out - but he did miss the Olympics because of it)
1997 7 out of 9
1998 8 out of 9
1999 5 out of 9 (remember he significantly injured his back that year so was out for quite some time)

So there we have it - in those years Sampras did at least 7 out of 9 Masters 1000's except the years he was injured. That is a lot of Masters 1000's. 46 in fact.

Please understand me, I think that Sampras was one of the greatest players of all time (in fact I think he is the greatest fast court player of all time), but he doesn't get a free pass on the Masters 1000 front. He did compete in them - he just wasn't a successful there as the big 3 (or if you want to include pre-1990 equivalents to the 1990's Masters 1000 - Lendl 22 (probably a lot higher if you look at 1990, Connors 17, McEnroe 19, Agassi 17 official + 2 equivalent 1988 Forest Hills and Stratton Mountain = 19)

So Sampras' masters 1000 equivalents total is: 11 official + 4 equivalent = 15. Now you might want to add in the two Grand Slam cups (though I would rate it at a higher level like the WTF). Either way that is a lot less than Djokovic on 30, Nadal on 28 or Federer on 24.

I think it is time to honour the achievements of the big three for Masters 1000's. Those kinds of Masters 1000 totals are very impressive - and I don't think they are given credit enough for them. Saying, well they don't count when comparing Sampras and Nadal - both on 14 slams, is just not accurate.

nadalfan2013 · Nov 8, 2016

More than half (34 out of 64) of Pete's titles are ATP 250. Enough said.

adil1972 · Nov 8, 2016

no bloody hell cares about the masters, as great as they may be

NGM · Nov 8, 2016

timnz said:
When people compare Sampras' Masters 1000 total of 11, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic having between 24 and 30 - some comment that - "well Sampras' didn't prioritize or compete in Masters 1000's in the 1990's because it was not compulsory to compete in them".

They are right when they say they weren't compulsory.

These are the facts though.

In the 1990-1992 period there were other equivalent (in terms of points and prize money) tournaments at the level of the Masters 1000's (about 8 to 9 a year) - we can give Sampras another 4 Masters 1000 equivalents (2 Philadelphia and 2 Indianapolis' in that period). From 1993 to 1995 the only comparable tournament (in terms of points and prize money) outside of the Slams and 2 season end finals was the Stuttgart Indoor. Sampras didn't compete at that tournament during those years. Hence, outside of the Stuttgart indoor, from 1993 at that level the masters 1000's were the only game in town. Lets look at 1993 through to 1999 (whilst Masters 1000's were non-compulsory):

By year how many Masters 1000's did Sampras compete in.

1993 7 out of 9
1994 5 out of 9 (that year he was out for a time with tendinitis in his left ankle)
1995 9 out of 9
1996 5 out of 9 (that year he suffered a strained Achilles' tendon - I don't know how long this caused him to be out - but he did miss the Olympics because of it)
1997 7 out of 9
1998 8 out of 9
1999 5 out of 9 (remember he significantly injured his back that year so was out for quite some time)

So there we have it - in those years Sampras did at least 7 out of 9 Masters 1000's except the years he was injured. That is a lot of Masters 1000's. 46 in fact.

Please understand me, I think that Sampras was one of the greatest players of all time (in fact I think he is the greatest fast court player of all time), but he doesn't get a free pass on the Masters 1000 front. He did compete in them - he just wasn't a successful there as the big 3 (or if you want to include pre-1990 equivalents to the 1990's Masters 1000 - Lendl 22 (probably a lot higher if you look at 1990, Connors 17, McEnroe 19, Agassi 17 official + 2 equivalent 1988 Forest Hills and Stratton Mountain = 19)

So Sampras' masters 1000 equivalents total is: 11 official + 4 equivalent = 15. Now you might want to add in the two Grand Slam cups (though I would rate it at a higher level like the WTF). Either way that is a lot less than Djokovic on 30, Nadal on 28 or Federer on 24.

I think it is time to honour the achievements of the big three for Masters 1000's. Those kinds of Masters 1000 totals are very impressive - and I don't think they are given credit enough for them. Saying, well they don't count when comparing Sampras and Nadal - both on 14 slams, is just not accurate.

Give it up.

S'in-net · Nov 9, 2016

timnz said:
When people compare Sampras' Masters 1000 total of 11, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic having between 24 and 30 - some comment that - "well Sampras' didn't prioritize or compete in Masters 1000's in the 1990's because it was not compulsory to compete in them".

They are right when they say they weren't compulsory.

These are the facts though.

In the 1990-1992 period there were other equivalent (in terms of points and prize money) tournaments at the level of the Masters 1000's (about 8 to 9 a year) - we can give Sampras another 4 Masters 1000 equivalents (2 Philadelphia and 2 Indianapolis' in that period). From 1993 to 1995 the only comparable tournament (in terms of points and prize money) outside of the Slams and 2 season end finals was the Stuttgart Indoor. Sampras didn't compete at that tournament during those years. Hence, outside of the Stuttgart indoor, from 1993 at that level the masters 1000's were the only game in town. Lets look at 1993 through to 1999 (whilst Masters 1000's were non-compulsory):

By year how many Masters 1000's did Sampras compete in.

1993 7 out of 9
1994 5 out of 9 (that year he was out for a time with tendinitis in his left ankle)
1995 9 out of 9
1996 5 out of 9 (that year he suffered a strained Achilles' tendon - I don't know how long this caused him to be out - but he did miss the Olympics because of it)
1997 7 out of 9
1998 8 out of 9
1999 5 out of 9 (remember he significantly injured his back that year so was out for quite some time)

So there we have it - in those years Sampras did at least 7 out of 9 Masters 1000's except the years he was injured. That is a lot of Masters 1000's. 46 in fact.

Please understand me, I think that Sampras was one of the greatest players of all time (in fact I think he is the greatest fast court player of all time), but he doesn't get a free pass on the Masters 1000 front. He did compete in them - he just wasn't a successful there as the big 3 (or if you want to include pre-1990 equivalents to the 1990's Masters 1000 - Lendl 22 (probably a lot higher if you look at 1990, Connors 17, McEnroe 19, Agassi 17 official + 2 equivalent 1988 Forest Hills and Stratton Mountain = 19)

So Sampras' masters 1000 equivalents total is: 11 official + 4 equivalent = 15. Now you might want to add in the two Grand Slam cups (though I would rate it at a higher level like the WTF). Either way that is a lot less than Djokovic on 30, Nadal on 28 or Federer on 24.

I think it is time to honour the achievements of the big three for Masters 1000's. Those kinds of Masters 1000 totals are very impressive - and I don't think they are given credit enough for them. Saying, well they don't count when comparing Sampras and Nadal - both on 14 slams, is just not accurate.

During the 90's players also recieved many round 64 byes, just like today
And Sampras didn't play an extensive amount of 5 set matches, in the Masters tournaments

Sampras :
Masters Series Total Matches WON/Lost = 190/70 = 73.08%
Masters Series Titles WON = 11

Total number of Rnd 64 byes received = 47

Sampras only played nine 5 set matches in Masters Series (all in finals)...Only 3 of which went to 5 sets

Djokovic :
Masters Series Total Matches WON/Lost = 298/62 = 82.78%
Masters Series Titles WON = 30

Total number of Rnd 64 byes received = 66

Djokovic has received 19 more Rnd 64 byes BUT he has played 100 more Masters Series matches than Sampras

NatF · Nov 9, 2016

S'in-net said:
During the 90's players also recieved many round 64 byes, just like today
And Sampras didn't play an extensive amount of 5 set matches, in the Masters tournaments

Sampras :
Masters Series Total Matches WON/Lost = 190/70 = 73.08%
Masters Series Titles WON = 11

Total number of Rnd 64 byes received = 47

Sampras only played nine 5 set matches in Masters Series (all in finals)...Only 3 of which went to 5 sets

Djokovic :
Masters Series Total Matches WON/Lost = 298/62 = 82.78%
Masters Series Titles WON = 30

Total number of Rnd 64 byes received = 66

Djokovic has received 19 more Rnd 64 byes BUT he has played 100 more Masters Series matches than Sampras

Why do you constantly quote the number of matches played, Djokovic having won and gone deep more often will obviously have more matches. A more interesting statistics would more the number of masters each played compared to the amount of byes they received. If Sampras were to have the same win/loss in masters Djokovic had his total number of matches would no doubt be higher due to the less frequent byes - Sampras would also have more 5 set finals.

Also it would be good to see the distribution of those byes for Sampras, if they happened more in his later years when he was less likely to win masters that holds some significance IMO. Obviously though nothing will close the gap between Pete's performance in masters equivalents and the Big 3's...

ghostofMecir · Nov 9, 2016

NatF said:
Why do you constantly quote the number of matches played, Djokovic having won and gone deep more often will obviously have more matches. A more interesting statistics would more the number of masters each played compared to the amount of byes they received. If Sampras were to have the same win/loss in masters Djokovic had his total number of matches would no doubt be higher due to the less frequent byes - Sampras would also have more 5 set finals.

Also it would be good to see the distribution of those byes for Sampras, if they happened more in his later years when he was less likely to win masters that holds some significance IMO. Obviously though nothing will close the gap between Pete's performance in masters equivalents and the Big 3's...

Every post he makes is somehow geared towards telling the entire world that Djokovic is the greatest ever so that's why.

timnz · Nov 9, 2016

ghostofMecir said:
Every post he makes is somehow geared towards telling the entire world that Djokovic is the greatest ever so that's why.

Not sure who the 'he' is you are referring to, but I think it is entirely legitimate to give Djokovic, Nadal and Federer credit for their large masters 1000 achievements - a fact that often gets lost in what feels like 'slams are everything' era on thinking

metsman · Nov 9, 2016

timnz said:
Not sure who the 'he' is you are referring to, but I think it is entirely legitimate to give Djokovic, Nadal and Federer credit for their large masters 1000 achievements - a fact that often gets lost in what feels like 'slams are everything' era on thinking

Slams are a clearly different tournament from other ones and also focused on by all players. It's fair to compare them, of course context must still be applied(such as skipping of the AO, etc.)

On the other hand, masters 1000s are sometimes not prioritized at all by many ATG players and designating certain tournaments as more prestigious as others because they fall under that bucket doesn't make sense. There are some 500, or even 250's, that Federer has won that probably mean the same or more than some of his masters wins because he faced tougher opponents. They are played under more or less the exact same format so why give more weight to masters?

tennis_pro · Nov 9, 2016

NonP · Nov 9, 2016

So our resident bean counter has been duped by the marketing campaign for the Masters Series. Color me shocked.

KG1965 · Nov 9, 2016

timnz said:
When people compare Sampras' Masters 1000 total of 11, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic having between 24 and 30 - some comment that - "well Sampras' didn't prioritize or compete in Masters 1000's in the 1990's because it was not compulsory to compete in them".

They are right when they say they weren't compulsory.

These are the facts though.

In the 1990-1992 period there were other equivalent (in terms of points and prize money) tournaments at the level of the Masters 1000's (about 8 to 9 a year) - we can give Sampras another 4 Masters 1000 equivalents (2 Philadelphia and 2 Indianapolis' in that period). From 1993 to 1995 the only comparable tournament (in terms of points and prize money) outside of the Slams and 2 season end finals was the Stuttgart Indoor. Sampras didn't compete at that tournament during those years. Hence, outside of the Stuttgart indoor, from 1993 at that level the masters 1000's were the only game in town. Lets look at 1993 through to 1999 (whilst Masters 1000's were non-compulsory):

By year how many Masters 1000's did Sampras compete in.

1993 7 out of 9
1994 5 out of 9 (that year he was out for a time with tendinitis in his left ankle)
1995 9 out of 9
1996 5 out of 9 (that year he suffered a strained Achilles' tendon - I don't know how long this caused him to be out - but he did miss the Olympics because of it)
1997 7 out of 9
1998 8 out of 9
1999 5 out of 9 (remember he significantly injured his back that year so was out for quite some time)

So there we have it - in those years Sampras did at least 7 out of 9 Masters 1000's except the years he was injured. That is a lot of Masters 1000's. 46 in fact.

Please understand me, I think that Sampras was one of the greatest players of all time (in fact I think he is the greatest fast court player of all time), but he doesn't get a free pass on the Masters 1000 front. He did compete in them - he just wasn't a successful there as the big 3 (or if you want to include pre-1990 equivalents to the 1990's Masters 1000 - Lendl 22 (probably a lot higher if you look at 1990, Connors 17, McEnroe 19, Agassi 17 official + 2 equivalent 1988 Forest Hills and Stratton Mountain = 19)

So Sampras' masters 1000 equivalents total is: 11 official + 4 equivalent = 15. Now you might want to add in the two Grand Slam cups (though I would rate it at a higher level like the WTF). Either way that is a lot less than Djokovic on 30, Nadal on 28 or Federer on 24.

I think it is time to honour the achievements of the big three for Masters 1000's. Those kinds of Masters 1000 totals are very impressive - and I don't think they are given credit enough for them. Saying, well they don't count when comparing Sampras and Nadal - both on 14 slams, is just not accurate.

It must be clear about one thing.

Sampras won 17 M1000 (11 + 2 Phila + 2Grand Slam Cup + 2 Indy) is true.

The number of Masters1000 of Connors, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe mentioned on Wikipedia makes laugh, they pulled the nuts ....

They are at least 10-15 more .
At least.
The Wiki numbers are scam.

timnz · Nov 9, 2016

KG1965 said:
It must be clear about one thing.

Sampras won 17 M1000 (11 + 2 Phila + 2Grand Slam Cup + 2 Indy) is true.

The number of Masters1000 of Connors, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe mentioned on Wikipedia makes laugh, they pulled the nuts ....

They are at least 10-15 more .
At least.
The Wiki numbers are scam.

It that establishes my case even stronger. Sampras is way behind these other players. But the main point was the comparison with Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. People say that Sampras didn't compete in these events but the evidence speaks otherwise.(as an aside I would out the grand slam cup at a higher level than a Masters 1000)

BeatlesFan · Nov 9, 2016

No tennis historians gives one damn about Masters 1000's and never had, never will.

Any reasonably serious tennis fan can instantly reel over the slam totals of Borg, Nadal, Fed, Laver, Agassi, Lendl, Connors or even Djoker.

Nobody can tell you how many Masters 1000's anybody won.

Djokovic2011 · Nov 9, 2016

NonP said:
So our resident bean counter has been duped by the marketing campaign for the Masters Series. Color me shocked.

I bet you still watch them though.

KG1965 · Nov 9, 2016

BeatlesFan said:
No tennis historians gives one damn about Masters 1000's and never had, never will.

Any reasonably serious tennis fan can instantly reel over the slam totals of Borg, Nadal, Fed, Laver, Agassi, Lendl, Connors or even Djoker.

Nobody can tell you how many Masters 1000's anybody won.

If so historians go to the gallows.
Here we talk about tennis is not "only slams".
For "only slams" just a child of 5 year old.

KG1965 · Nov 9, 2016

timnz said:
It that establishes my case even stronger. Sampras is way behind these other players. But the main point was the comparison with Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. People say that Sampras didn't compete in these events but the evidence speaks otherwise.(as an aside I would out the grand slam cup at a higher level than a Masters 1000)

Masters 1000 close slam.
IW & Miami very close to AUS.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Nov 10, 2016

metsman said:
Slams are a clearly different tournament from other ones and also focused on by all players. It's fair to compare them, of course context must still be applied(such as skipping of the AO, etc.)

On the other hand, masters 1000s are sometimes not prioritized at all by many ATG players and designating certain tournaments as more prestigious as others because they fall under that bucket doesn't make sense. There are some 500, or even 250's, that Federer has won that probably mean the same or more than some of his masters wins because he faced tougher opponents. They are played under more or less the exact same format so why give more weight to masters?

You give more weight to masters for the same reason you give more weight to the majors, the depth of the draws.

ATP 250s are almost entirely 28-man draws, with 2 32-man draws and 1 48-man draw.

ATP 500s are mostly 32-man draws, with 2 48-man draws.

ATP 1000s are mostly 56-man draws, with the exceptions of Paris at 48, and the Indian Wells/Miami combo that have 96, which is why winning Indian Wells and Miami is compared to winning the 5th major.

The more players, the more rounds you have to play, the more top players you can fit, the harder the tournament, and the more prestige you get for winning it. Yes, sometimes winning a 500 or 250 happens to be roughly equivalent in difficulty because you got a stacked draw. But the bigger the tournament, the more commonplace that scenario becomes. They're more prestigious because they're legitimately more difficult to win without having a freak bracket. Do some players prioritize some tournaments over the 1000s? Of course! Federer is known for putting a high priority on Basel because it's so close to home (he used to even be a ballboy there). And there was that one tournament that top players liked going to because the organizers gave you a massive appearance fee. It didn't matter to them that the tournament was worth like 250 points, it was easy money. (I think it was Dubai, which is now a 500 event.)

There's also the issue of prize money. If there's more to gain by winning, it's expected that players will try harder to go that extra round deeper. As you can tell, each level of tournament is expected to keep a minimum draw size and a minimum prize pool. This is why Hamburg isn't a Masters event anymore, they couldn't put up the money while Shanghai was fully willing and able. Same thing with Dubai, they had plenty of money to throw, so why not get a better draw by upping the amount of points you're worth when you're basically investing the same amount of money to get players anyway.

Prior to this standardization that happened in 2009, yes, there was a LOT of context to be taken into account.

DMP · Nov 10, 2016

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
There's also the issue of prize money. If there's more to gain by winning, it's expected that players will try harder to go that extra round deeper. .

That is an important point about the significance of money. It may not matter so much to the very top players, with all their sponsorship deals, but for everyone else the money (and ranking points) really matters. So they will be trying harder, which raises the general level of the competition, even in the early stages.

Mainad · Nov 13, 2016

BeatlesFan said:
No tennis historians gives one damn about Masters 1000's and never had, never will.

Any reasonably serious tennis fan can instantly reel over the slam totals of Borg, Nadal, Fed, Laver, Agassi, Lendl, Connors or even Djoker.

Nobody can tell you how many Masters 1000's anybody won.

I can and I have a small database that includes results at all tournaments (and I count myself as a reasonably serious tennis fan).

Gizo · Nov 14, 2016

In the 90s there wasn't as big an emphasis on the masters series / super 9 title count as there is nowadays, similar to how the grand slam title count wasn't a big deal until Sampras was approaching Emerson's record in the 90s.

But it's true that apart from Monte-Carlo and Hamburg which all the top US players regularly skipped (understandably as they wanted to fly into Europe as late as possible) Sampras generally entered those events when he wasn't injured.

He often had an 'interesting' approach to non-slam events that's for sure. He regularly said during the summer hard court season something along of the lines up 'no-one cares how many times you win Canada or Cincy, it's the open that counts'. I honestly doubt that that he knows or cares that never won the title in Canada. I also doubt that he even knows how many masters series titles that he won.

When he played at Queen's each year he didn't care whether he won the title there or not, he only cared about getting a few matches under his belt on grass before Wimbledon. If he lost in the quarters or semis, he wasn't bothered and the bookmakers knew not to lengthen his title odds for Wimbledon.

And in some matches such as Doha in 1994 against Alami and New Haven in 1998 againsts Paes, he flat out tanked, pocketed the appearance money and got the hell out of there. In that New Haven match the fans knew what was going on and booed him.

Still I've never bought the lazy 'only slams matter' approach to assessing players' careers, so while slams are the most important factor, in comparisons between Sampras and Federer/Nadal/Djokovic I think their records in other tour events should be brought to the table as well.

jaggy · Nov 15, 2016

I couldnt get past the OP's mention of Indianapolis, what a sad loss for the tour.

timnz · Nov 15, 2016

Gizo said:
In the 90s there wasn't as big an emphasis on the masters series / super 9 title count as there is nowadays, similar to how the grand slam title count wasn't a big deal until Sampras was approaching Emerson's record in the 90s.

But it's true that apart from Monte-Carlo and Hamburg which all the top US players regularly skipped (understandably as they wanted to fly into Europe as late as possible) Sampras generally entered those events when he wasn't injured.

He often had an 'interesting' approach to non-slam events that's for sure. He regularly said during the summer hard court season something along of the lines up 'no-one cares how many times you win Canada or Cincy, it's the open that counts'. I honestly doubt that that he knows or cares that never won the title in Canada. I also doubt that he even knows how many masters series titles that he won.

When he played at Queen's each year he didn't care whether he won the title there or not, he only cared about getting a few matches under his belt on grass before Wimbledon. If he lost in the quarters or semis, he wasn't bothered and the bookmakers knew not to lengthen his title odds for Wimbledon.

And in some matches such as Doha in 1994 against Alami and New Haven in 1998 againsts Paes, he flat out tanked, pocketed the appearance money and got the hell out of there. In that New Haven match the fans knew what was going on and booed him.

Still I've never bought the lazy 'only slams matter' approach to assessing players' careers, so while slams are the most important factor, in comparisons between Sampras and Federer/Nadal/Djokovic I think their records in other tour events should be brought to the table as well.

"In the 90s there wasn't as big an emphasis on the masters series / super 9 title count as there is nowadays, similar to how the grand slam title count wasn't a big deal until Sampras was approaching Emerson's record in the 90s."

That's the point of this thread. The evidence shows that Sampras did actually compete in these events (see my first posting in this thread). People were using it as an excuse why Sampras' wins in that area were relatively small in number compared to the big three.

Still I've never bought the lazy 'only slams matter' approach to assessing players' careers, so while slams are the most important factor, in comparisons between Sampras and Federer/Nadal/Djokovic I think their records in other tour events should be brought to the table as well.
Agreed. THe problem is that people are minimising Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's Masters 1000 achievements based on the notion that Sampras didn't prioritize the events. The fact is the analysis shows he competed in these events - he shouldn't be given a free pass for 'not trying' as hard.

I have to say, if people are saying that Sampras didn't try at these events - that is a very strong and serious statement. There are rules about competing at events and not trying.......I would have to see very solid evidence if that was truly the case, before I would believe it - in the meantime we have to give Sampras the benefit of the doubt & believe that he tried to win these events and he just didn't have it in him to win on those occasions. If that is the case the big 3 have to have full credit for their amazing
Masters 1000 totals.

timnz · Nov 15, 2016

adil1972 said:
no bloody hell cares about the masters, as great as they may be

If they are great (and I think they are given that nobody outside the big 4 has won more than 1 of them in the last 5 years - shows how difficult they are to win) - then they should care. If someone is ill-informed (or worse doesn't care to be informed) they shouldn't get a say on how players are historically ranked.

TadDavis · Nov 15, 2016

timnz said:
"In the 90s there wasn't as big an emphasis on the masters series / super 9 title count as there is nowadays, similar to how the grand slam title count wasn't a big deal until Sampras was approaching Emerson's record in the 90s."

That's the point of this thread. The evidence shows that Sampras did actually compete in these events (see my first posting in this thread). People were using it as an excuse why Sampras' wins in that area were relatively small in number compared to the big three.

Still I've never bought the lazy 'only slams matter' approach to assessing players' careers, so while slams are the most important factor, in comparisons between Sampras and Federer/Nadal/Djokovic I think their records in other tour events should be brought to the table as well.
Agreed. THe problem is that people are minimising Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's Masters 1000 achievements based on the notion that Sampras didn't prioritize the events. The fact is the analysis shows he competed in these events - he shouldn't be given a free pass for 'not trying' as hard.

I have to say, if people are saying that Sampras didn't try at these events - that is a very strong and serious statement. There are rules about competing at events and not trying.......I would have to see very solid evidence if that was truly the case, before I would believe it - in the meantime we have to give Sampras the benefit of the doubt & believe that he tried to win these events and he just didn't have it in him to win on those occasions. If that is the case the big 3 have to have full credit for their amazing
Masters 1000 totals.

Timnz, I disagree. Makes no sense that he didn't have it in him to win these events, yet had it in him to win majors, unless there was a lack of motivation. The only thing those numbers show is that he bothered to show up.

timnz · Nov 15, 2016

TadDavis said:
Timnz, I disagree. Makes no sense that he didn't have it in him to win these events, yet had it in him to win majors, unless there was a lack of motivation. The only thing those numbers show is that he bothered to show up.

Okay it would help me the if you answer this question

Which Is superior

Sampras 14 slams, 5 Wtf, 11 masters 1000
Djokovic 12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000

My feeling is that Sampras doesn't get a free pass on masters 1000 because he, supposedly, wasn't motivated. And people don't have a right to depreciate the big 3's Masters 1000 achievements in comparison with Sampras, because 'he wasn't motivated'. Sorry, and achievement is an achievement and my achievement shouldn't be depreciated because the other person didn't care to put in the work to match my achievement.

TadDavis · Nov 16, 2016

timnz said:
Okay it would help me the if you answer this question

Which Is superior

Sampras 14 slams, 5 Wtf, 11 masters 1000
Djokovic 12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000

My feeling is that Sampras doesn't get a free pass on masters 1000 because he, supposedly, wasn't motivated. And people don't have a right to depreciate the big 3's Masters 1000 achievements in comparison with Sampras, because 'he wasn't motivated'. Sorry, and achievement is an achievement and my achievement shouldn't be depreciated because the other person didn't care to put in the work to match my achievement.

Timnz, maybe they just want the money more than Sampras did. What do you think is motivating them to pursue all of these Masters 1000 titles? Is it the glory? When they were kids, do you think they were dreaming of one day holding up some Masters 1000 trophy?

timnz · Nov 16, 2016

TadDavis said:
Timnz, maybe they just want the money more than Sampras did. What do you think is motivating them to pursue all of these Masters 1000 titles? Is it the glory? When they were kids, do you think they were dreaming of one day holding up some Masters 1000 trophy?

It's both - the money motive and the glory motive. Sure the slams motivate more, but that doesn't preclude them still being motivated to win these lesser (but still important) titles. But that is all somewhat irrelevant, because regardless of their motives - the achievement is the important thing, and winning 30 Masters 1000 is an incredibly impressive achievement in terms of difficulty (as mentioned before no players outside the big 4 has won more than 1 of these events in the last 5 years - so they are very difficult to win)

KG1965 · Nov 16, 2016

timnz said:
It's both - the money motive and the glory motive. Sure the slams motivate more, but that doesn't preclude them still being motivated to win these lesser (but still important) titles. But that is all somewhat irrelevant, because regardless of their motives - the achievement is the important thing, and winning 30 Masters 1000 is an incredibly impressive achievement in terms of difficulty (as mentioned before no players outside the big 4 has won more than 1 of these events in the last 5 years - so they are very difficult to win)

It's no doubt that winning one Masters is a very great achievement.
Win 30 Masters is lunar, interstellar.

KG1965 · Nov 16, 2016

timnz said:
Okay it would help me the if you answer this question

Which Is superior

Sampras 14 slams, 5 Wtf, 11 masters 1000
Djokovic 12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000

My feeling is that Sampras doesn't get a free pass on masters 1000 because he, supposedly, wasn't motivated. And people don't have a right to depreciate the big 3's Masters 1000 achievements in comparison with Sampras, because 'he wasn't motivated'. Sorry, and achievement is an achievement and my achievement shouldn't be depreciated because the other person didn't care to put in the work to match my achievement.

Which is superior ?
Sampras (14 slams, 5 Wtf, 11 masters 1000) or Djokovic (12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000)?

Premise: Sampras won 15 masters 1000 (11 + 2 Phila + 2 Indy) + 2 Grand Slam Cup.

IMHO 12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000 >> 14 slams, 5 Wtf, 2 Grand Slam Cup, 15 masters. but....
SAMPRAS > DJOKOVIC

timnz · Nov 16, 2016

KG1965 said:
Which is superior ?
Sampras (14 slams, 5 Wtf, 11 masters 1000) or Djokovic (12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000)?

Premise: Sampras won 15 masters 1000 (11 + 2 Phila + 2 Indy) + 2 Grand Slam Cup.

IMHO 12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000 >> 14 slams, 5 Wtf, 2 Grand Slam Cup, 15 masters. but....
SAMPRAS > DJOKOVIC

Why do you rate Sampras over Djokovic then?

90's Clay · Nov 16, 2016

He obviously wasn't a motivated masters player as his focus always went to the big ones, and keeping at #1 and the YEC. At the end of the day winning a buttload does have some value but not a ton of value.

You can obviously argue it knocks him down a few pegs for open era but most will conceded hes a top 1-2 player in the open era regardless. His time at #1, slam titles, Year titles, Year #1 record, and keeping all main rivals at bay (keeping them on single digit slams) trump any Masters Titles record.

Fed, Pete, Nadal all have good dibs at Open era GOAT depending on what you deem of most importance. Nole will be there within a few years. as well. It will be a 4 man race

metsman · Nov 16, 2016

If I had a dollar for every time Borg wasn't mentioned in open era GOAT talks I would be a millionaire.

90's Clay · Nov 16, 2016

metsman said:
If I had a dollar for every time Borg wasn't mentioned in open era GOAT talks I would be a millionaire.

Great peak but fizzled out at 25. Very early when you look at the Longevity that Fed, Nadal, Pete, Nole had

RoddickAce · Nov 16, 2016

timnz said:
It's both - the money motive and the glory motive. Sure the slams motivate more, but that doesn't preclude them still being motivated to win these lesser (but still important) titles. But that is all somewhat irrelevant, because regardless of their motives - the achievement is the important thing, and winning 30 Masters 1000 is an incredibly impressive achievement in terms of difficulty (as mentioned before no players outside the big 4 has won more than 1 of these events in the last 5 years - so they are very difficult to win)

Actually, I think the main driver is the #1 ranking and also rankings for slam seeding purposes.

metsman · Nov 16, 2016

90's Clay said:
Great peak but fizzled out at 25. Very early when you look at the Longevity that Fed, Nadal, Pete, Nole had

doesn't really matter...he still has the resume that the others did and revolutionized the game while playing a style that shouldn't have been possible in that era. Maybe he's not the GOAT but he should definitely be in the discussion. Also adjusted to surfaces better than probably any others did. Guy was grinding everyone to dust on clay, serve volleying at Wimbledon, and then punking Mac/Connors on carpet playing with heavy topspin with some piece of junk racquet while also flattening out when he needed to. He would be a complete animal with today's technology. Like Nadal but with a better BH and better serve and better at making adjustments.

If he didn't have his problems at the USO and stuck around a while longer, I would probably put him at GOAT.

timnz · Nov 16, 2016

90's Clay said:
He obviously wasn't a motivated masters player as his focus always went to the big ones, and keeping at #1 and the YEC. At the end of the day winning a buttload does have some value but not a ton of value.

You can obviously argue it knocks him down a few pegs for open era but most will conceded hes a top 1-2 player in the open era regardless. His time at #1, slam titles, Year titles, Year #1 record, and keeping all main rivals at bay (keeping them on single digit slams) trump any Masters Titles record.

Fed, Pete, Nadal all have good dibs at Open era GOAT depending on what you deem of most importance. Nole will be there within a few years. as well. It will be a 4 man race

I have already put Djokovic slightly ahead of Nadal based on his longer time as number 1, his 5 WTF vs 0 for Nadal and his fractionally better Masters 1000 record.

90's Clay · Nov 17, 2016

timnz said:
I have already put Djokovic slightly ahead of Nadal based on his longer time as number 1, his 5 WTF vs 0 for Nadal and his fractionally better Masters 1000 record.

Well Nadal still owns the big ones over him (the slam matches) and still a few slams ahead. (Nole got the better of him in slams for on year, the rest Nadal reigned supreme) Nole is on his way there in a few years but not quite IMO. I place a lot of value on what Nadal did to Nole, Murray, Federer in slams. He ravaged all 3 of those guys when it mattered most

KG1965 · Nov 18, 2016

timnz said:
Why do you rate Sampras over Djokovic then?

timniz, the majority of fans ... & Kg put Sampras > Djoker .. why?

For Majority of fans ...
1) Sampras peak > Djokovic peak
2) 14 > 12.

My version is very different but the result is identical.
1) I do not think that the peak of Sampras is superior.
2) I prefer the numbers indicated Djoker (although Master1000 Sampras are 5 or 6 more) but the problem is the slam titles that must be analyzed.

In 2016 the 4 slam have equal importance (I do not agree but I adapt.....)

In Pete's Era there were the
1) Big two
2) the RG, "the red clay's world championship"
3) Melbourne ...which was not yet the big event, which is now.

Wimbledon and US Open, the top tournaments, worth 3 or 4 Melbourne.
... and in Flushing and Wimbly Sampras built his myth.

KG1965 · Nov 18, 2016

timniz,
a serious analysis on the true Masters 1000 Pete should be done....
because even with the passing of years will gain importance.

.. because limit to 4 slam a sport like tennis is ... limited.

SAMPRAS IS > 14 SLAM TITLES

timnz · Nov 18, 2016

KG1965 said:
timniz, the majority of fans ... & Kg put Sampras > Djoker .. why?

For Majority of fans ...
1) Sampras peak > Djokovic peak
2) 14 > 12.

My version is very different but the result is identical.
1) I do not think that the peak of Sampras is superior.
2) I prefer the numbers indicated Djoker (although Master1000 Sampras are 5 or 6 more) but the problem is the slam titles that must be analyzed.

In 2016 the 4 slam have equal importance (I do not agree but I adapt.....)

In Pete's Era there were the
1) Big two
2) the RG, "the red clay's world championship"
3) Melbourne ...which was not yet the big event, which is now.

Wimbledon and US Open, the top tournaments, worth 3 or 4 Melbourne.
... and in Flushing and Wimbly Sampras built his myth.

The Australian open could be considered as being a main event at least since 1988 ie before Sampras time.

Do you think the 'majority' put Sampras ahead because they are only thinks of slam titles? This thread is there to make people think that other events have importance too, not as much, but still importance.

KG1965 · Nov 18, 2016

timnz said:
The Australian open could be considered as being a main event at least since 1988 ie before Sampras time.

Do you think the 'majority' put Sampras ahead because they are only thinks of slam titles? This thread is there to make people think that other events have importance too, not as much, but still importance.

I'm not agree with the first point, IMHO Melbourne was a great event, but not comparable to W + USO

I like instead of the thread.

KG1965 · Nov 18, 2016

KG1965 said:
Which is superior ?
Sampras (14 slams, 5 Wtf, 11 masters 1000) or Djokovic (12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000)?

Premise: Sampras won 15 masters 1000 (11 + 2 Phila + 2 Indy) + 2 Grand Slam Cup.

IMHO 12 slams, 5 wtf, 30 masters 1000 >> 14 slams, 5 Wtf, 2 Grand Slam Cup, 15 masters. but....
SAMPRAS > DJOKOVIC

I correct a my previous post.

I think it's fair to add 3 to 11 Master1000 won Sampras: Philadelphia 1990 + Philadelphia 1992 + Antwerp 1993 (not 1994); not Indianapolis, a good M500.

So Master1000 14 + 2 Grand Slam Cup.

timnz · Nov 18, 2016

KG1965 said:
I correct a my previous post.

I think it's fair to add 3 to 11 Master1000 won Sampras: Philadelphia 1990 + Philadelphia 1992 + Antwerp 1993 (not 1994); not Indianapolis, a good M500.

So Master1000 14 + 2 Grand Slam Cup.

In 1993 Antwerp was not at the level of prize money and points of the masters 1000 events or the Stuttgart indoor. Hence, doesn't deserve to be a masters 1000 equivalent. For example Antwerps total tournament prize money was 1.1 million and Sampras won 278 points for winning it. In comparison the Miami open (tournament prize money 1.65 million) which Sampras also won - he got 409 points for that. Hence Antwerp wasn't at Masters 1000 level. From 1993 to 1995 only the Stuttgart Indoor was at the same level as the Masters 1000's (outside of course the slams and the two season end finals)

In 1992 - Sampras

U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - tournament prize money $865,000 – 48 man draw - 272 points
Indianapolis, IN, USA - tournament prize money $865,000 - 56 draw - 321 points

So I don't understand why you would include Philadelphia and not include Indianapolis in 1992. 1991 and 1990 it is a similar story.

I prefer to look at it like this:

Sampras 14 slams, 7 season end finals (5 wtf+2 Grand Slam cups), 15 masters 1000 équivalents (11 official masters 1000 + 4 de facto Masters 1000 (2 Philadelphia + 2 Indianapolis))

KG1965 · Nov 18, 2016

timnz said:
In 1993 Antwerp was not at the level of prize money and points of the masters 1000 events or the Stuttgart indoor. Hence, doesn't deserve to be a masters 1000 equivalent. For example Antwerps total tournament prize money was 1.1 million and Sampras won 278 points for winning it. In comparison the Miami open (tournament prize money 1.65 million) which Sampras also won - he got 409 points for that. Hence Antwerp wasn't at Masters 1000 level. From 1993 to 1995 only the Stuttgart Indoor was at the same level as the Masters 1000's (outside of course the slams and the two season end finals)

In 1992 - Sampras

U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - tournament prize money $865,000 – 48 man draw - 272 points
Indianapolis, IN, USA - tournament prize money $865,000 - 56 draw - 321 points

So I don't understand why you would include Philadelphia and not include Indianapolis in 1992. 1991 and 1990 it is a similar story.

I prefer to look at it like this:

Sampras 14 slams, 7 season end finals (5 wtf+2 Grand Slam cups), 15 masters 1000 équivalents (11 official masters 1000 + 4 de facto Masters 1000 (2 Philadelphia + 2 Indianapolis))

timniz, Antwerp 1993 seems like a great tournament for prize money and seeding but I can also agree with your summary.

timnz · Nov 19, 2016

KG1965 said:
timniz, Antwerp 1993 seems like a great tournament for prize money and seeding but I can also agree with your summary.

In my opinion, it's a solid 500 equivalent level tournament for sure. Thanks for your open discussion

tacou · Nov 20, 2016

adil1972 said:
no bloody hell cares about the masters, as great as they may be

NonP said:
So our resident bean counter has been duped by the marketing campaign for the Masters Series. Color me shocked.

BeatlesFan said:
No tennis historians gives one damn about Masters 1000's and never had, never will.

Haha..what's it like caring about tennis just 8 weeks a year? Or six, because the Australian isn't a real major, right?

Moose Malloy · Nov 21, 2016

^well, it's not really about what we care about, but what Sampras cared about right? That's what this thread is about. you've said multiple times here that you didn't follow tennis in the 90s(like the majority of this board I'm sure)so here is something rather telling that Sampras said when he won his first ATP title at the age of 19. Normally a player is rather overjoyed at that sort of thing, but Sampras in the press conference afterwards said, "this is nice, but let's be honest, no one remembers Who won Philadelphia."
The OP has posted many threads about this stuff, he seems rather obsessed with his 'research' and getting others to respect it. I gather he's done a lot of work on wikepedia as well. That's fine and dandy, but its also important to also have knowledge of past eras and what players and media said at the time, which he seems incapable of. And knowledge of past ranking systems, you can't just assign todays points to players of the past and act like you're comparing apples to apples.

timnz · Nov 21, 2016

Moose Malloy said:
^well, it's not really about what we care about, but what Sampras cared about right? That's what this thread is about. you've said multiple times here that you didn't follow tennis in the 90s(like the majority of this board I'm sure)so here is something rather telling that Sampras said when he won his first ATP title at the age of 19. Normally a player is rather overjoyed at that sort of thing, but Sampras in the press conference afterwards said, "this is nice, but let's be honest, no one remembers Who won Philadelphia."
The OP has posted many threads about this stuff, he seems rather obsessed with his 'research' and getting others to respect it. I gather he's done a lot of work on wikepedia as well. That's fine and dandy, but its also important to also have knowledge of past eras and what players and media said at the time, which he seems incapable of. And knowledge of past ranking systems, you can't just assign todays points to players of the past and act like you're comparing apples to apples.

The main point of all of this thread is - did Sampras compete in these Masters 1000's? The hard evidence is that he did. Yes, the makeup of perception of these events and their relation to the overall tennis year may have been different, but the fact is Sampras competed in them. Now if you say, well he didn't try...that is a serious claim. There are rules about not trying.

I have watched tennis since the early 1970s , I DO Get that things have changed over time. if anything - in the 1990s the point system had the slams at less value relative to other events than they do now regardless of Sampras' slam focus. For instance, in 1993 Sampras won 409 points for winning Miami and only 637 points for winning the US open and only 654 points for winning Wimbledon. That means back in 1993 those slams were only worth a little more than 50% more than the Miami Masters 1000, compared to double today. So the implication is, as far as the ATP was concerned, Masters 1000's were worth more than they are today!

It's okay that Sampras had a slam focus. But that doesn't take away the achievements of the modern players. Because someone else didn't try (so goes the claim) doesn't mean that Djokovic efforts in winning 30 Masters 1000's aren't worth as much.

KG1965 · Nov 21, 2016

timnz said:
The main point of all of this thread is - did Sampras compete in these Masters 1000's? The hard evidence is that he did. Yes, the makeup of perception of these events and their relation to the overall tennis year may have been different, but the fact is Sampras competed in them. Now if you say, well he didn't try...that is a serious claim. There are rules about not trying.

I have watched tennis since the early 1970s , I DO Get that things have changed over time. if anything - in the 1990s the point system had the slams at less value relative to other events than they do now regardless of Sampras' slam focus. For instance, in 1993 Sampras won 409 points for winning Miami and only 637 points for winning the US open and only 654 points for winning Wimbledon. That means back in 1993 those slams were only worth a little more than 50% more than the Miami Masters 1000, compared to double today. So the implication is, as far as the ATP was concerned, Masters 1000's were worth more than they are today!

It's okay that Sampras had a slam focus. But that doesn't take away the achievements of the modern players. Because someone else didn't try (so goes the claim) doesn't mean that Djokovic efforts in winning 30 Masters 1000's aren't worth as much.

It seems unexceptionable.

Dispelling a Myth about Sampras regarding Masters 1000's

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

Rookie

Legend

Rookie

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Similar threads