If the Masters is the 5th biggest event of the year it does not mean it's a fact that it's a big tournament.
Do you even hear what you are saying? If you are trying to say the YEC with 1500 points is not a big tournament than how can you claim a slam with 2000 is a big tournament? You can't say on the one hand a slam with 2000 points is the biggest tournament but the YEC with 1500 points is not the next biggest tournament. Do you fail to see that logic?
Don't see why I should. You offer no basis for why you reject the sentiments of the players or the ATP. You simply say it's not factual. If anyone is simply giving an opinion here it's you.
Offer something constructive like what you think makes a tournament big. Otherwise we're going in circles...
1. There are no tournaments that get more than 2000 points so logically it means that slams are big tournaments according to the ATP.
2. I did not say that WTF is not the next most important tournament after slams, but I do not see how it proves it's a fact that WTF is a big tournament.
Winning majors means everything here - so they're all on an even keel in that respect.
Being runner or up a semi-finalists in a major means nothing compared to winning an Olympic gold medal. At this stage the Olympic gold is worth as much as another major imo - at least in kudos when considering the player of the year award. Murray has two ticks this year in that respect (Olympic Gold, USO) - Djokovic, Federer and Nadal only one each.
Imo, if Federer wins the WTF then Murray should be player of the year... Even though the WTF is worth more in points the Olympics is a grander achievement this year - because it was Murray who won it. It's been his breakthrough year and the peak of his career. The same can't be said for Djokovic or Federer.
Don't see why I should. You offer no basis for why you reject the sentiments of the players or the ATP. You simply say it's not factual. If anyone is simply giving an opinion here it's you.
Nobody in their right mind considers something like a MS1000, Slam, Olympics or WTF NOT a big tournament.
Okay, so only the biggest counts. Got it.
Therefore, the only big tournament is Wimbledon.
Nonsense, something is wrong with you. It's a fact that slams are big tournaments. It's questionable whether Olympics, WTF and MS1000 are big tournaments.
No. Who said there *had* to be big tournaments? Maybe they're all small according to the ATP, but those which get 1,000 points are even smaller than the ones which get 2,000.
It's logical that tournaments with most points are big tournaments according to ATP. It's common sense (something you lack).
By what criterion?
No. It's not common sense that only the category that awards the most points are "big" tournaments while all of the others are "small". That is your argument, and it doesn't hold water for a New York second. They could all be big, or small, or the line could be drawn elsewhere. Arbitrarily saying that it should be drawn right after the 4th tournament of the year just because that's the one your boy won won't get you anywhere but in troll-land.
No it's not. It's questionable whether challengers are big tournaments. ATP tournaments are big tournaments, especially if some of the big 4 play, and especially if there are more than 500 points for the winner. Even more if their only played 1 time in every four years, or are worth 1500 points with sellout crowds every day. You can keep stating that it's not a FACT, but if you think it's questionable, than MAKE YOUR FREAKIN CASE, instead of just saying that it's not a fact.Nonsense, something is wrong with you. It's a fact that slams are big tournaments. It's questionable whether Olympics, WTF and MS1000 are big tournaments.
No it's not. It's questionable whether challengers are big tournaments. ATP tournaments are big tournaments, especially if some of the big 4 play, and especially if there are more than 500 points for the winner. Even more if their only played 1 time in every four years, or are worth 1500 points with sellout crowds every day. You can keep stating that it's not a FACT, but if you think it's questionable, than MAKE YOUR FREAKIN CASE, instead of just saying that it's not a fact.
Burden of proof is on people who make positive claim. I claim it's not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments which is a negative claim.
Burden of proof is on people who make positive claim. I claim it's not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments which is a negative claim.
In order to even make a claim of what is and is not considered a big tournament a set of criteria for determining what IS a big tournament must be established.
Sooooo please tell us what is your criteria for determining a big tournament.
Oh, but you do, as you also stated many times that slams *are* big tournaments.
I do not have to say what is my criteria for determining big tournaments. I have to provide reliable sources to show it's a fact that slams are big tournaments (which I did).
Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis
I do not have to say what is my criteria for determining big tournaments. I have to provide reliable sources to show it's a fact that slams are big tournaments (which I did).
Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis
Major (pun intended) fail, young man. Nowhere does this state that the grand slam tournaments are "big" and all the others aren't. So, if that's your last-ditch defense, I'm afraid it's already been breached.
Game, set, and match.
Going by your logic :
I'm a human, so you're not
Ok here is a reliable source to prove the World Tour Finals is a big tournament.
Source ATP World Tour website: http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/11/45/London-Finale-One-Millionth-Fan.aspx
Your argument against the Word Tour Finals loses.
Britannica does say that slams are big tournaments. Checkmate.
Can you explain why going by my logic you are a human and I'm not?
If WTF is a prestigious tournament it does not mean it's a big tournament.
You all lost the argument.
If WTF is a prestigious tournament it does not mean it's a big tournament.
You all lost the argument.
What you said : "Grand Slams are big tournaments so the WTF isn't."
LMAO if there is one thing I have learned here at Talk Tennis it is you cannot argue with stupidity. You are a perfect example of that.
Did you even read the article?
Here are a few quotes directly from the article that reinforce big:
"The Barclays ATP World Tour Finals today welcomed its 1 millionth fan through the doors of The O2 to watch the prestigious season finale."
"It was announced this week that the world’s largest indoor tennis tournament would remain at The O2 through 2015 and that Barclays"
"Watched by more than 70 million viewers in 184 countries in 2011"
EDIT:
Just for reference total attendance for the French Open in 2011 was 429,105 (source) which is less than half of the attendance of the WTF which has not yet completed.
LMAO if there is one thing I have learned here at Talk Tennis it is you cannot argue with stupidity. You are a perfect example of that.
Did you even read the article?
Here are a few quotes directly from the article that reinforce big:
"The Barclays ATP World Tour Finals today welcomed its 1 millionth fan through the doors of The O2 to watch the prestigious season finale."
"It was announced this week that the world’s largest indoor tennis tournament would remain at The O2 through 2015 and that Barclays"
"Watched by more than 70 million viewers in 184 countries in 2011"
EDIT:
Just for reference total attendance for the French Open in 2011 was 429,105 (source) which is less than half of the attendance of the WTF which has not yet completed.
Uhm, let's be clear here. I'm pretty sure those O2 million spectators came in 4 years. They added 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 together.
^^ How do those stats compare to the second week of a Grand Slam?