"Grand Slams is where I've been playing my best, and thats what I intend to do"

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

EasyGoing said:
Again, not true. The pro tour is the entire tour, not just the 14 tournaments. Also, the ATP is not objective and is also not the only tennis organization so please spare me with this. It’s a marketing move. The pros don’t prioritize, they are forced to enter the Masters since 10 years ago.

All in all, we both know you have an agenda here, and I find it despicable how hard you are pushing it without even dipping into any reasoning. But it’s really see through and now you are just repeating yourself ad nauseum, which I guess means we are done here. Good luck with spreading the “Big titles” agenda, though

P.S.: Show me one quote where a pro groups Masters, Slams and Wtf together

(Some) Fed fans have the agenda. They want to equate masters with 250s and 500s and avoid any talk of Big Titles.

I don’t need any “luck” pushing Big Titles. the ATP, which is far more relevant than anything we discuss here, already does that.

As for marketing, well, yes, so what? The slams themselves are marketing. The slam race is marketing. It didn’t exist until a few decades ago. For years top players were perfectly comfortable skipping some of the slams. That, of course, is no longer the case. Why? Because of marketing.

As for pros talking about the top tournaments you can start with the video that’s in the initial post of this thread.

And it’s not that complicated. All pros want to win slams, and ideally all the slams. Similarly all pros want to win masters and ideally all the masters (see Fed’s comments on Nole’s Golden Masters). No one cares about how many 250s or 500s they won and even less about trying to win all 500s or 250s. There is a clear hierarchy to pro tournaments.

TMF · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
Right here on this thread there’s an example

There's nothing wrong with saying MS1000 is closer to ATP500/250 than it is to a 4 slams and you know it.

Rank in the order of the biggest tournament:

Four Grand Slam tournaments
(gap)
.
.
.
.
.
.
WTF
.
.
MS1000
.
ATP500
ATP250

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

TMF said:
There's nothing wrong with saying MS1000 is closer to ATP500/250 than it is to a 4 slams and you know it.

I certainly don’t “know” it. That’s not what either the ATP or the pros that play tennis think. They all agree that there are 14 tournaments that stand above the rest, even if there are obviously differences among them. Winning all Masters was a huge accomplishment for Nole. No one has ever sought to target any number of 500s or 250s.

Bender · Apr 21, 2019

He should just go to RG and skip all the M1000s

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

TMF said:
There's nothing wrong with saying MS1000 is closer to ATP500/250 than it is to a 4 slams and you know it.

Rank in the order of the biggest tournament:

Four Grand Slam tournaments
(gap)
.
.
.
.
.
.
WTF
.
.
MS1000
.
ATP500
ATP250

This is taught in the ATP 101 class. Ignorant ones choose to miss it to promote their agenda of "Big Titles".

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
This is taught in the ATP 101 class. Ignorant ones choose to miss it to promote their agenda of "Big Titles".

Actually ATP has a different view. Maybe someone else is ignorant?

TMF · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
I certainly don’t “know” it. That’s not what either the ATP or the pros that play tennis think. They all agree that there are 14 tournaments that stand above the rest, even if there are obviously differences among them. Winning all Masters was a huge accomplishment for Nole. No one has ever sought to target any number of 500s or 250s.

That's because you don't want to. Anyone tennis fans with a rational mind believe the 4 Grand Slams events are head and shoulder above everything else. MS1000 and other events are paled in comparison thus more appropriately belongs in the same group.

Who cares about what the ATP say. They can say their sport(tennis) is bigger than soccer but that doesn't mean it's true.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

TMF said:
That's because you don't want to. Anyone tennis fans with a rational mind believe the 4 Grand Slams events are head and shoulder above everything else. MS1000 and other events are paled in comparison thus more appropriately belongs in the same group.

Who cares about what the ATP say. They can say their sport(tennis) is bigger than soccer but that doesn't mean it's true.

You may not care what the ATP and the pros that actually play the sport say. That’s fine.

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
Actually ATP has a different view. Maybe someone else is ignorant?

Wrong, ATP has the same original view. But its busy promoting a meaningless stat like Big Title count.

23 M1000/WTF/OSG does not equate 23 GS's. That the kind of ignorance I am talking about.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
Wrong, ATP has the same original view. But its busy promoting a meaningless stat like Big Title count.

23 M1000/WTF/OSG does not equate 23 GS's. That the kind of ignorance I am talking about.

But no one claims that. So that’s a red herring.

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
But no one claims that. So that’s a red herring.

The Big Title count alone is exactly that, red herring. ATP needs to include "PVE" or use Big Tile Points. Thats the accurate one and the gap shows.

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
I certainly don’t “know” it. That’s not what either the ATP or the pros that play tennis think. They all agree that there are 14 tournaments that stand above the rest, even if there are obviously differences among them. Winning all Masters was a huge accomplishment for Nole. No one has ever sought to target any number of 500s or 250s.

Sorry, but here on TW it's about us fans and we decide the hierarchy not pros, so here our opinions are superior, that's the point of this forum.

In the end it's about us fans, we are also a huge part of tennis, without us there would be no goat, just guys hitting a ball and nobody would see it. Sorry to tell you but in goat discussions fans have the last word. Including how we value tournaments, we can decide whatever we want.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
The Big Title count is exactly that, red herring

You should feel free to believe whatever you want. But you may want to look up the definition of red herring.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
Sorry, but here on TW it's about us fans and we decide the hierarchy not pros, so here our opinions are superior, that's the point of this forum.

In the end it's about us fans, we are also a huge part of tennis, without us there would be no goat, just guys hitting a ball and nobody would see it. Sorry to tell you but in goat discussions fans have the last word. Including how we value tournaments, we can decide whatever we want.

You can decide whatever you want. Others will agree or disagree. I, for one, when analyzing tennis, give a lot of weight to what tennis pros say.

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
You should feel free to believe whatever you want. But you may want to look up the definition of red herring.

I mean to say "Big Title Count" is something that is grossly misleading. Or is there another definition for "red herring"?

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
The Big Title count alone is exactly that, red herring. ATP needs to include "PVE" or use Big Tile Points. Thats the accurate one and the gap shows.

Let see if ATP dares to use this. I'll best the won't.

Big Titles:

1. Federer 54 75.8K pts
2. Djokovic 52 69.1K pts
3. Nadal 51 67.7K pts

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

1. Slams are the single most important tournament tennis players participate in
2. But besides slams there are other tournaments that make up the top events tennis pros participate in. In the current system there are 14 of them (slams included)

Still don’t get why so many seem to think that point 1) invalidates point 2).

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
Let see if ATP dares to use this. I'll best the won't.

Big Titles:

1. Federer 54 75.8K pts
2. Djokovic 52 69.1K pts
3. Nadal 51 67.7K pts

What do you mean? Those points are what explains Fed’s time at #1, for example. So they are already incorporated in each player’s accomplishments.

TMF · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
The Big Title count alone is exactly that, red herring. ATP needs to include "PVE" or use Big Tile Points. Thats the accurate one and the gap shows.

Yep. This is so wrong.

They might as well include every single ATP events annually, not half-baked observation.

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
You can decide whatever you want. Others will agree or disagree. I, for one, when analyzing tennis, give a lot of weight to what tennis pros say.

Yes, but we aren't talking about tennis here, we are talking about marketing and history. I give value to pros when they talk technique, tactics, strategy, footwork. But why should I give weight to them about their subjective value of history?

Heck I bet I know more stats than most all time greats, you think Fed knows his stats? And on top of that, they contradict one another all the time, they even contradict themselves, so they have no credibility when they talk about their feelings.

IF they contradict themselves all the time on this topic, how can you give any weight to them?

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
Yes, but we aren't talking about tennis here, we are talking about marketing and history. I give value to pros when they talk technique, tactics, strategy, footwork. But why should I give weight to them about their subjective value of history?

Heck I bet I know more stats than most all time greats, you think Fed knows his stats? And on top of that, they contradict one another all the time, they even contradict themselves, so they have no credibility when they talk about their feelings.

IF they contradict themselves all the time on this topic, how can you give any weight to them?

???

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
???

Why are you listening to pros so much if they contradict themselves all the time? Do you know what contradiction means? Sorry, it might be that your English is not so great, if that is the case maybe we shouldn't talk about complicated stuff.

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
You should feel free to believe whatever you want. But you may want to look up the definition of red herring.

Red Herring - a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.

TMF · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
You may not care what the ATP and the pros that actually play the sport say. That’s fine.

Obviously the ATP are biased people who want to promote their events. The ITF would never agree that their 4 slams are comparable to ATP ms1000.

Sampras only cares about slams and skipped MANY ms1000 because it's not important to him.
Nadal plays Barcelona every year. An ATP500 which he values way more than something like Shanghai/Paris ms1000.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
Why are you listening to pros so much if they contradict themselves all the time? Do you know what contradiction means? Sorry, it might be that your English is not so great, if that is the case maybe we shouldn't talk about complicated stuff.

Don’t worry about my English. I think you haven’t been following the debate. What we are discussing, the comparative relevance of tennis tournaments, is something pros know much more about than any online poster.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

TMF said:
Obviously the ATP are biased people who want to promote their events. The ITF would never agree that their 4 slams are comparable to ATP ms1000.

Sampras only cares about slams and skipped MANY ms1000 because it's not important to him.
Nadal plays Barcelona every year. An ATP500 which he values way more than something like Shanghai/Paris ms1000.

Yes, and there was a time when top players didn’t care to participate in all the slams.

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
What do you mean? Those points are what explains Fed’s time at #1, for example. So they are already incorporated in each player’s accomplishments.

You are going off the rails with the #1 things.

Those points are exactly what makes up the Big titles.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
You are going off the rails with the #1 things.

Those points are exactly what makes up the Big titles.

Yes. And those points were captured in the rankings of all those players. Thanks to those points Fed reached 310 weeks at number 1, for example.

TMF · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
Yes, and there was a time when top players didn’t care to participate in all the slams.

With this ever ending discussion, the bottom line is it's illogical to count MS1000 and ignore other ATP events.

You either count them all or don't count them at all, and we are left with the 4 Grand Slam events are the only things that matter.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
Don’t worry about my English. I think you haven’t been following the debate. What we are discussing, the comparative relevance of tennis tournaments, is something pros know much more about than any online poster.

The way they contradict themselves all the time says they don't know it. Why are they contradicting themselves if they are such experts? Same with religious people, you can say they know more about the bible and yet every religious person has different interpretation of the bible. Just because I'm an expert about movie Superman, that doesn't mean Superman is real.

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
Yes. And those points were captured in the rankings of all those players. Thanks to those points Fed reached 310 weeks at number 1, for example.

I did mention once before that you are delving into topics thats not even remotely close to the problem at hand.

Say Djokovic wins another 4 M1000's. Then ATP sends out a picture showing 1. Djokovic - 56 2. Federer - 54 3. Nadal - 51. Thats wrong because Djokovic still lags Federer by 3K points to actually be listed #1. This inherent flaw is what ATP is currently promoting.

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
I did mention once before that you are delving into topics thats not even remotely close to the problem at hand.

Say Djokovic wins another 4 M1000's. Then ATP sends out a picture showing 1. Djokovic - 56 2. Federer - 54 3. Nadal - 51. Thats wrong because Djokovic still lags Federer by 3K points to actually be listed #1. This inherent flaw is what ATP is currently promoting.

Why is it a flaw, what is the correct way of doing it and who decides what the consensus should be?

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
Why is it a flaw, what is the correct way of doing it and who decides what the consensus should be?

The correct way is already determined by the established ATP points. Calculate the points for the titles won. Is this not how ATP runs its shop?

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
The correct way is already determined by the established ATP points. Calculate the points for the titles won. Is this not how ATP runs its shop?

No, don't they also include points for finals and semis and not just for titles won? So, you can be nr.1 with few bigger titles if you are consistent.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
The way they contradict themselves all the time says they don't know it. Why are they contradicting themselves if they are such experts? Same with religious people, you can say they know more about the bible and yet every religious person has different interpretation of the bible. Just because I'm an expert about movie Superman, that doesn't mean Superman is real.

You say tennis pros don’t know which tournaments are the most important, yet you do?

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
You say tennis pros don’t know which tournaments are the most important, yet you do?

Belief is not knowledge. They might believe some things and we fans can believe some things. In the end our beliefs are subjective there is no way to test it and create a proof. And without proof you only have opinions and that is not knowledge.

So, no I don't consider their beliefs knowledge.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
Belief is not knowledge. They might believe some things and we fans can believe some things. In the end our beliefs are subjective there is no way to test it and create a proof. And without proof you only have opinions and that is not knowledge.

So, no I don't consider their beliefs knowledge.

fine. I’ll continue trusting that tennis pros have a better understanding of which are the key tournaments than online posters. Opinions may vary.

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
fine. I’ll continue trusting that tennis pros have a better understanding of which are the key tournaments than online posters. Opinions may vary.

But they don't play them because they want to, they play them because they get paid, so they don't really make any judgement at all. How are they determining the value of tournaments, I don't get it. Also how is current value the same as historical value? Just because masters are valued today, doesn't mean you can use standards today to judge past players anyway.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
But they don't play them because they want to, they play them because they get paid, so they don't really make any judgement at all. How are they determining the value of tournaments, I don't get it. Also how is current value the same as historical value? Just because masters are valued today, doesn't mean you can use standards today to judge past players anyway.

We can’t even judge slams across time, it’s not limited just to masters.

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

JackGates said:
No, don't they also include points for finals and semis and not just for titles won? So, you can be nr.1 with few bigger titles if you are consistent.

huh, what has finals and semis got to do with the Big Title Count???? Not even close to being on topic.

Gary Duane · Apr 21, 2019

Noletheking said:
He doesn't have aggressive game like Sampras because it's baseline era einstien and had won alot more at 31 than Sampras did.

I was not comparing greatness, EINSTEIN. He doesn't have have as aggressive a game, EINTSTEIN, because his SERVICE GAME is not nearly as strong and never will be, EINSTEIN.

There. Did I make is simple enough for you to understand, EINSTEIN?

JackGates · Apr 21, 2019

AceSalvo said:
huh, what has finals and semis got to do with the Big Title Count???? Not even close to being on topic.

I don't know, you were mentioning rankings and finals contribute to rankings.

Noletheking · Apr 21, 2019

Gary Duane said:
I was not comparing greatness, EINSTEIN. He doesn't have have as aggressive a game, EINTSTEIN, because his SERVICE GAME is not nearly as strong and never will be, EINSTEIN.

There. Did I make is simple enough for you to understand, EINSTEIN?

Lmao as usual you said nothing useful. Tell us what Sampras aggressive game won him at 31? Nole has already won 3 slams in row and in this era of baseline a player like Sampras would be eaten alive . So Djokovic is playing what he needs to be succeful and itbhas yielded him result. Take your useless analogy somewhere else when reality is entirely different. Novak did well at 31 than even Fed did in his early 30s. Also, his service is fine to support his strong baseline game. Logic and reason are not your friend it seems.

Mainad · Apr 21, 2019

Steve0904 said:
They are grouped together by the ATP though, and it's a marketing ploy to make another "race" out of nothing at all. It's the biggest title Fognini or Lajovic will ever win, but it's not that big a deal for guys that are in the 30's title wise or close to it.

And that's basically what Djokovic is saying. Masters can definitely be considered big titles. They should be considered big titles, but the problem happens when people put so much importance on the records that surround the masters (most masters, golden masters etc....). These are nice accomplishments, but acting like they're in any way legacy defining in the big picture is just overrating them. And grouping them with slams so the ATP can make a "big titles" metric is even more ludicrous.

Sorry Steve, I just don't see the point of your argument. You and others seem to see it as some kind of 'insult' to the Slams just because Masters are also categorised as big titles. There is a clear pecking order and everybody knows what it is. If you can't accept it, fair enough but take it up with the ATP. I'd be interested to see what their response would be.

Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure Fognini will regard his Monte Carlo title as defining his legacy.

Steve0904 · Apr 21, 2019

Mainad said:
Sorry Steve, I just don't see the point of your argument. You and others seem to see it as some kind of 'insult' to the Slams just because Masters are also categorised as big titles. There is a clear pecking order and everybody knows what it is. If you can't accept it, fair enough but take it up with the ATP. I'd be interested to see what their response would be.

Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure Fognini will regard his Monte Carlo title as defining his legacy.

Of course he will. He's Fabio Fognini. He's not Federer or Djokovic or Nadal. Are you deliberately missing my point now? Did you even read what I said? The problem happens when fans put too much emphasis on the importance of the M1000 tournaments. It's not that they aren't big tournaments. It's that they won't be the first thing (or the 2nd or 3rd) that anybody thinks about when evaluating the careers of any of the Big 3.

In this era when evaluating these players it goes number of slams first, time at #1 (and YE#1's) probably 2nd, and WTF titles 3rd, and that holds for most other eras. And even after that most people are looking at things like overall domination, slam distribution, maybe consecutive weeks at #1. Masters titles are at best the 4th or 5th most important thing that anybody looks at for guys like Djokovic. If you can't figure out the better player between Federer Nadal and Djokovic by the time you get to the masters titles metric then you're doing it wrong.

But yet we have the ATP grouping them with slams to create a "race" that never existed before 2014 or 2015 or whenever they started that. I wouldn't even group the WTF with the slams tbh. There's one metric that 95% of tennis fans actually care about and it's not Masters titles.

Gary Duane · Apr 21, 2019

Noletheking said:
Logic and reason are not your friend it seems.

Logic tells us that Fed and Sampras both won around 89% of all service games.

Logic tells us that Djokovic and Nadal have only won around 86%, in spite of the fact that both are by far better returners.

Two of the best returners in the history of the game, Nadal and Djokovic, even though they have more weapons to back up the serve ace far less and have to work harder in every service game to hold. If either Nadal or Djokovic had the service advantage of Fed and Sampras, they have a lot more majors. That idea is pretty obvious since Murray had return skills in the range of Nadal and Djokovic, but his serve was far weaker, and that cost him many majors and big events.

If Fed or Sampas had the returning skills of Nadal or Djokovic, same thing. They would have a lot more majors. No one we've seen so far has both, that easy service game combined with the complete package on return.

Federer and Sampras are the #1 and #2 guys for winning service games for anyone their height and shorter. They both cruised through service games, Sampras even more so.

That's doesn't make them better players. It does mean that they can/could coast more. Your comparing Sampras at 31 to other players at that age has nothing to do whatsoever to the ability to be aggressive out of nowhere. That's linked to guys who serve easily.

Nowhere did I say that the aggressive servers are better players. I am saying and will continue to claim that such players can win matches more easily.

I was fine until you pulled out the "Einstein" slam, out of nowhere. But you decided to move right to insults, for no reason.

GabeT · Apr 21, 2019

Steve0904 said:
Of course he will. He's Fabio Fognini. He's not Federer or Djokovic or Nadal. Are you deliberately missing my point now? Did you even read what I said? The problem happens when fans put too much emphasis on the importance of the M1000 tournaments. It's not that they aren't big tournaments. It's that they won't be the first thing (or the 2nd or 3rd) that anybody thinks about when evaluating the careers of any of the Big 3.

In this era when evaluating these players it goes number of slams first, time at #1 (and YE#1's) probably 2nd, and WTF titles 3rd, and that holds for most other eras. And even after that most people are looking at things like overall domination, slam distribution, maybe consecutive weeks at #1. Masters titles are at best the 4th or 5th most important thing that anybody looks at for guys like Djokovic. If you can't figure out the better player between Federer Nadal and Djokovic by the time you get to the masters titles metric then you're doing it wrong.

But yet we have the ATP grouping them with slams to create a "race" that never existed before 2014 or 2015 or whenever they started that. I wouldn't even group the WTF with the slams tbh. There's one metric that 95% of tennis fans actually care about and it's not Masters titles.

I think you underestimate the importance of masters. A great part of what makes the Big 3/4 so “Big” is the utter domination of all the (14) key tournaments. And the great majority of those tournaments are masters. Had Fed, say, won the same number of slams but never won a masters (or won only 5, for example) the GOAT debate would be very different.

And part of the reason it would be different is because winning so many masters helped the Big 3/4 stay at the top. When you say that time at number 1 is important you are also indirectly saying winning masters is important since they offer the greatest number of available points of all, 9000. Take away Fed’s masters wins and his time at number 1 falls dramatically.

Winning masters is also important as part of the domination against the field, something else you mentioned. Nole has many records and one of the greatest was the points he had after the FO16. He held all four slams and the WTF. But he also held 5 Masters titles and reached the finals of 3 of the remaining 4. We may not see another similar level of dominance in our lifetimes.

Steve0904 · Apr 21, 2019

GabeT said:
I think you underestimate the importance of masters. A great part of what makes the Big 3/4 so “Big” is the utter domination of all the (14) key tournaments. And the great majority of those tournaments are masters. Had Fed, say, won the same number of slams but never won a masters (or won only 5, for example) the GOAT debate would be very different.

And part of the reason it would be different is because winning so many masters helped the Big 3/4 stay at the top. When you say that time at number 1 is important you are also indirectly saying winning masters is important since they offer the greatest number of available points of all, 9000. Take away Fed’s masters wins and his time at number 1 falls dramatically.

Winning masters is also important as part of the domination against the field, something else you mentioned. Nole has many records and one of the greatest was the points he had after the FO16. He held all four slams and the WTF. But he also held 5 Masters titles and reached the finals of 3 of the remaining 4. We may not see another similar level of dominance in our lifetimes.

If Fed only had 5 this might be true, but any decent number would suffice. Anything over 15 maybe 20 for example. He doesn't need 28 or whatever number he has now Even with slightly less time at #1 many would still consider Federer "GOAT" with 20 slams as things stand now. I take your other points as good ones. All true, but by themselves masters are nowhere near the prestige of slams so when Nole says he peaks for RG and not MC it's not at all surprising.

And as an extension of this, masters aren't half the value of a slam in the eyes of 95% of tennis fans. 1000 points (vs 2000 for a slam) is just an arbitrary number to keep races for #1 and the like decently close. If slams were valued properly to reflect their prestige in relation to M1000's in the eyes of most tennis fans, slams would be either 3000 or 4000 points.

Mainad · Apr 21, 2019

Steve0904 said:
Of course he will. He's Fabio Fognini. He's not Federer or Djokovic or Nadal. Are you deliberately missing my point now? Did you even read what I said? The problem happens when fans put too much emphasis on the importance of the M1000 tournaments. It's not that they aren't big tournaments. It's that they won't be the first thing (or the 2nd or 3rd) that anybody thinks about when evaluating the careers of any of the Big 3.

In this era when evaluating these players it goes number of slams first, time at #1 (and YE#1's) probably 2nd, and WTF titles 3rd, and that holds for most other eras. And even after that most people are looking at things like overall domination, slam distribution, maybe consecutive weeks at #1. Masters titles are at best the 4th or 5th most important thing that anybody looks at for guys like Djokovic. If you can't figure out the better player between Federer Nadal and Djokovic by the time you get to the masters titles metric then you're doing it wrong.

But yet we have the ATP grouping them with slams to create a "race" that never existed before 2014 or 2015 or whenever they started that. I wouldn't even group the WTF with the slams tbh. There's one metric that 95% of tennis fans actually care about and it's not Masters titles.

Look Steve, I get what you're saying (or at least I think I do). For you, Slams are everything and nothing else counts. I take a different view. I value the tour as a whole (without which the Slams could not survive) and, for me, it's not all about the Big 3 and what they have achieved. For me, it's about the lower ranked players too and what they have achieved and, just because it's not a Slam doesn't mean it has no value and I would stick my neck out and say that's what the majority of true tennis fans would think too. I see no problem with the ATP ranking big titles together because they put them in their proper order ie. Slams, WTF, Masters which is as it should be. These are special because their draws usually consist of the very top players by contrast to anything lower so they do have something in common in my view and the ATP grouping reflects that as far as I'm concerned. That's all.

AceSalvo · Apr 21, 2019

Steve0904 said:
If Fed only had 5 this might be true, but any decent number would suffice. Anything over 15 maybe 20 for example. He doesn't need 28 or whatever number he has now Even with slightly less time at #1 many would still consider Federer "GOAT" with 20 slams as things stand now. I take your other points as good ones. All true, but by themselves masters are nowhere near the prestige of slams so when Nole says he peaks for RG and not MC it's not at all surprising.

And as an extension of this, masters aren't half the value of a slam in the eyes of 95% of tennis fans. 1000 points (vs 2000 for a slam) is just an arbitrary number to keep races for #1 and the like decently close. If slams were valued properly to reflect their prestige in relation to M1000's in the eyes of most tennis fans, slams would be either 3000 or 4000 points.

Right on.

In the current Big 3 discussion, winning more M1000's does nothing until you hit the GS#20, YEC #6 and 5 YE#1.

"Grand Slams is where I've been playing my best, and thats what I intend to do"

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

Similar threads