WTF Winner Will Be Player Of The Year???

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
LOL. This is so full of nothingness. Fact, opinion, whatever. Nobody in their right mind considers something like a MS1000, Slam, Olympics or WTF NOT a big tournament.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
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.

Okay, so only the biggest counts. Got it.

Therefore, the only big tournament is Wimbledon.

Therefore, Federer should be PotY by a landslide, with Murray at 2nd best PotY should such a position exist. Because, let's face it, Murray was a finalist at the biggest tournament of the year and won the second biggest, while Djokovic only won the fourth biggest.

Happy, now?
 

5555

Hall of Fame
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?

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.
 

Carsomyr

Legend
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...

The one going in circles his him. He likes to throw a lot of logical fallacies at you that he half-learned in secondary school despite his argument boiling down to "big tournaments are slams, therefore slams are big tournaments," - a classic example of circular reasoning.

And yes, this is an ad hominem.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
1. There are no tournaments that get more than 2000 points so logically it means that slams are big tournaments according to the ATP.

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.

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.

See above. It's smaller than the slams, which are pretty small, too (cause, let's face it, 2,000 points is not that big when you compare this with the best players' totals).

Djokovic's win at the 4th tournament of the year, the Australian Open, awarded him 2,000 points, ie, less than one-sixth of his current total. So how big is that? Pretty small, if you ask me. Verging on the insignificant.
 
Last edited:

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

Murray is not even close to being the POTY if Federer wins IMO. He was eliminated from this discussion when he lost yesterday, again IMO. If Federer wins he will have 2 of the 6 big tournaments, as will Murray. I'm counting the WTF here. You would have to wouldn't you? I'll never put the Olympics on level with the slams despite what the players try to tell me because I think its major (no pun intended) appeal is that the players get to play for their country, but it is a great acheivement, and it is a big tournament, if only this year, but it's not a big tournament just because Murray won it. You're starting to sound like NSK here. Djokovic and Federer also have 3 M1000 each while Murray has zero, and I don't see why having a breakthrough year should come into play when talking about the POTY. Of course, if Djokovic wins all this doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

5555

Hall of Fame
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.

I did not reject what ATP says. Your claim is that ATP rankings points prove it's a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments but you did not explain how ATP rankings points prove it.

Nobody in their right mind considers something like a MS1000, Slam, Olympics or WTF NOT a big tournament.

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.

Okay, so only the biggest counts. Got it.

Therefore, the only big tournament is Wimbledon.

You lost the argument. You failed to rebut the following argument: Wimbledon is tournament in the same category as US Open, French Open and Australian Open.
 

Carsomyr

Legend
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.

By what criterion? Age? Draw size? Point value? Attendance? Prize money?
 
Last edited:

5555

Hall of Fame
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).
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
It's logical that tournaments with most points are big tournaments according to ATP. It's common sense (something you lack).

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.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
By what criterion?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis

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.

My argument is not that all other tournaments are small. I said it's questionable whether WTF and Olympics are big tournaments. Only person who lacks common sense can claim that there are no big tournaments.

PS In my opinion:
Big tournaments: Slams (fact)
Medium tournaments: Olympics, WTF, MS 1000 (questionable)
Small tournaments: ATP 500 and 250 (questionable)
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
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.
 

cknobman

Legend
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.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
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.

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).

Oh, but you do, as you also stated many times that slams *are* big tournaments.

Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
It's amazing how many people spam this burden of proof bullpoop all the time, as if it's another established and irrefutable fact/principle that must be adhered to and is beyond question. It's also humourous how people have clung onto this fad like sheep and then presume that using it creates a certain justification for the implied ramifications of their reasoning for the topic in question.
 

cknobman

Legend
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

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.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
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.

Britannica does say that slams are big tournaments. Checkmate.

Going by your logic :

I'm a human, so you're not :)

Can you explain why going by my logic you are a human and I'm 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.

If WTF is a prestigious tournament it does not mean it's a big tournament.



You all lost the argument.
 
Last edited:
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.

What you said : "Grand Slams are big tournaments so the WTF isn't."

I said : "I am a human so you are not."
 

cknobman

Legend
If WTF is a prestigious tournament it does not mean it's a big tournament.

You all lost the argument.

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.
 
Last edited:

5555

Hall of Fame
What you said : "Grand Slams are big tournaments so the WTF isn't."

I did not say that.

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.

You are an idiot. According to your logic WTF is bigger tournament than FO.
 

joeri888

G.O.A.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.

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.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Yeah, still roughly 500,000 people every year on average go to the O2.
 

cknobman

Legend
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.

Yes you are correct. To be more specific this year attracted 263,229 spectators over 8 days.

Here are some cool stats posted on ATP world tour website:
ON TV
• An estimated global cumulative audience of 100.7 million viewers tuned into the event.
• Televised by 56 broadcasters in 193 territories, a total of 5,580 hours were broadcast across the eight days of the tournament, a 27% increase on 2011.
• In the UK, more than 60 hours of coverage was featured live on Sky Sports and 20 hours on terrestrial television on BBC.

ONLINE
• ATPWorldTour.com attracted 3.4 million unique visitors throughout the tournament, a 10% increase on 2011.
• Live match streaming on TennisTV.com, the ATP’s official live streaming site, received more than 3.75 million total streams, an increase of 25% on 2011.
• ATP World Tour content posted to Facebook exceeded 40 million impressions (222% increase on 2011) and conversations on Twitter grew 93% from last year.
• ATP’s official YouTube channel drove 727,800 views and nearly 1 million minutes watched during the week (45% increase in views on 2011).
• ATP Official Live Scoring Flash and Mobile Applications recorded more than 23 million page impressions and total user sessions in excess of 3.1 million for the week.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Give it a rest people. the WTF IS an important/prestigious tournament.

A player who's consider one of all time great but not winning at least 1 WTF would have a big hole in their resume.
 

cknobman

Legend
^^ How do those stats compare to the second week of a Grand Slam?

I dont know but here are some stats on Grand Slam total attendance:
US Open 2012: 710,803
French Open 2011: 429,105
Wimbledon 2012: 484,805
Australian Open 2012: 686,006

So the Word Tour Finals over 8 days and played on 1 court had over 283000 people which is 65% of the French Open total attendance which is held over 14 days and 15+ courts.

I'd say the World Tour Finals is every bit as big as some of the Grand Slams.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Well, it turns out the POTY this year is the WTF winner as well. Not always true but it is this year. Also it was more significant for this season than others because the 2 top players' records were relatively close. In 2011 for instance, it didn't matter because no player could have overtaken Djoko, WTF title or not.
 
Top