ATP big titles kings

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
Rafa is the only one who has qualified for the WTF every year since he turned pro. Injury has plagued his success there. Many times he has not even played and even when he's played he has had to pull out with injury.
Yes, he hardly plays it. For sure he doesn't care about it as much as haters want to believe. Winning there would be cool but no way I would trade this USO for a WTF title.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
If only Rafa could have done something about that conspicuous zero against "Nitto ATP Finals Titles". If he had he would be THE Big Title King by now! :cool:
He almost never plays it, so how can he win? Last time he played more than 1 match there was in 2015.
 

Spider

Hall of Fame
I think Rafa would want 1 title under his belt. Again this is relative in terms of his greatness.
 

Spider

Hall of Fame
Maybe he should try to rectify that before it's too late. Who wants to see that zero every time the ATP publishes its latest list of Big Title Kings?
I agree with this. He has had a stellar career and keeping that in mind, zero, looks a bit weird. He should attempt to correct it.
 
Here's a list of winners of the Olympic Gold Medal in men's singles:

2016 and 2012: Andy Murray
2008: Rafael Nadal
2004: Nicolas Massu
2000: Yevgeny Kafelnikov
1996: Andre Agassi
1992: Marc Rosset
1988: Miloslav Mecir

I am not at all confident that I would rate Massu or Rosset as greater players than Zverev or Dimitrov. Indeed, I am not at all sure that, by the end of their careers, Zverev or Dimitrov will be worse players than Mecir or even possibly Kafelnikov.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Rafa is the only one who has qualified for the WTF every year since he turned pro. Injury has plagued his success there. Many times he has not even played and even when he's played he has had to pull out with injury.
I'm not sure that is correct since I believe he was pro in 2004.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
Maybe he should try to rectify that before it's too late. Who wants to see that zero every time the ATP publishes its latest list of Big Title Kings?
It's not like 1 title will look much better compared to Federer's and Djokovic's 6 and 5 titles. If he can win it-great. If not, he still won two MUCH more important titles this year.
 
Here's a list of winners of the Olympic Gold Medal in men's singles:

2016 and 2012: Andy Murray
2008: Rafael Nadal
2004: Nicolas Massu
2000: Yevgeny Kafelnikov
1996: Andre Agassi
1992: Marc Rosset
1988: Miloslav Mecir

I am not at all confident that I would rate Massu or Rosset as greater players than Zverev or Dimitrov. Indeed, I am not at all sure that, by the end of their careers, Zverev or Dimitrov will be worse players than Mecir or even possibly Kafelnikov.
They'll certainly be worse than Kafelnikov.
 

octogon

Professional
Here's a list of winners of the Olympic Gold Medal in men's singles:

2016 and 2012: Andy Murray
2008: Rafael Nadal
2004: Nicolas Massu
2000: Yevgeny Kafelnikov
1996: Andre Agassi
1992: Marc Rosset
1988: Miloslav Mecir

I am not at all confident that I would rate Massu or Rosset as greater players than Zverev or Dimitrov. Indeed, I am not at all sure that, by the end of their careers, Zverev or Dimitrov will be worse players than Mecir or even possibly Kafelnikov.
The value of Olympic Singles Gold has gone up considerably in the last 14 years or so, because all the elite players desperately want to win it and say so. Last 3 editions have only been won by the elite.

I'd liken it to the increase in prestige and value of the Australian Open, which half the players used to skip. When the top 3 GOAT contenders all scream about how desperately they want the title, it's prestige jumps immensely. It is clearly a big title.
 
They'll certainly be worse than Kafelnikov.
You're sure that Zverev will be worse than Kafelnikov? I agree that it is likely but not that it is certain. I know that Zverev's results in majors continue to be deeply disappointing, but here's an overall comparison, and bear in mind that Zverev isn't yet 22 and a half (although he is 22.75 in Slam years).

1. Slam titles: Kafelnikov 2-0 Zverev
2. Slam finals: Kafelnikov 3-0 Zverev
3. Slam semi-finals: Kafelnikov 6-0 Zverev
4. Slam quarter-finals: Kafelnikov 13-2 Zverev
Conclusion: Yes, most likely Kafelnikov better here.

5. Olympic + WTF titles (treating them as equally important, given that that's what is at stake in this thread): Kafelnikov 1-1 Zverev
6. Olympic + WTF finals: Kafelnikov 2-1 Zverev
Conclusion: Not much in it, but Zverev can't finish that much worse.

7. Masters Series titles: Kafelnikov 0-3 Zverev
8. Masters Series finals: Kafelnikov 5-5 Zverev
Conclusion: Zverev already better here and most likely to end up well ahead.

9. Overall titles: Kafelnikov 26-11 Zverev
10. Overall finals: Kafelnikov 46-17 Zverev
Conclusion: Kafelnikov has a substantial but hardly insurmountable lead.

11. Rankings achievements:
a. Highest ranking: Kafelnikov 1-3 Zverev
b. Highest year-end ranking: Kafelnikov 2-4 Zverev
c. Year-end finishes in top 2: Kafelnikov 1-0 Zverev
d. Year-end finishes in top 3: Kafelnikov 2-0 Zverev
e. Year-end finishes in top 4: Kafelnikov 3-2 Zverev
f. Year-end finishes in top 5: Kafelnikov 5-2 Zverev
g. Year-end finishes in top 10: Kafelnikov 6-2 Zverev [might well be 6-3 at end of 2019, but we don't know yet]

Overall, while I agree that Kafelnikov has a substantial lead, I don't think it is insurmountable. I think Zverev could still win a Slam or two and that, if he were to do so and to continue doing as he is otherwise, it could be close. Zverev could definitely end up with around 25 titles and around 45 finals.

I agree that it'd really take something for Dimitrov to rival Kafelnikov.
 
The value of Olympic Singles Gold has gone up considerably in the last 14 years or so, because all the elite players desperately want to win it and say so. Last 3 editions have only been won by the elite.

I'd liken it to the increase in prestige and value of the Australian Open, which half the players used to skip. When the top 3 GOAT contenders all scream about how desperately they want the title, it's prestige jumps immensely. It is clearly a big title.
I don't think it's gone up. I think it is what it was: about on a par with the tour finals. Surprise results were more common until the last 14 years or so because the tour wasn't so top-heavy. It's an important event, no doubt. But I don't think it's more important than the tour finals.
 
You're sure that Zverev will be worse than Kafelnikov? I agree that it is likely but not that it is certain. I know that Zverev's results in majors continue to be deeply disappointing, but here's an overall comparison, and bear in mind that Zverev isn't yet 22 and a half (although he is 22.75 in Slam years).

1. Slam titles: Kafelnikov 2-0 Zverev
2. Slam finals: Kafelnikov 3-0 Zverev
3. Slam semi-finals: Kafelnikov 6-0 Zverev
4. Slam quarter-finals: Kafelnikov 13-2 Zverev
Conclusion: Yes, most likely Kafelnikov better here.

5. Olympic + WTF titles (treating them as equally important, given that that's what is at stake in this thread): Kafelnikov 1-1 Zverev
6. Olympic + WTF finals: Kafelnikov 2-1 Zverev

7. Masters Series titles: Kafelnikov 0-3 Zverev
8. Masters Series finals: Kafelnikov 5-5 Zverev

9. Overall titles: Kafelnikov 26-11 Zverev
10. Overall finals: Kafelnikov 46-17 Zverev

11. Rankings achievements:
a. Highest ranking: Kafelnikov 1-3 Zverev
b. Highest year-end ranking: Kafelnikov 2-4 Zverev
c. Year-end finishes in top 2: Kafelnikov 1-0 Zverev
d. Year-end finishes in top 3: Kafelnikov 2-0 Zverev
e. Year-end finishes in top 4: Kafelnikov 3-2 Zverev
f. Year-end finishes in top 5: Kafelnikov 5-2 Zverev
g. Year-end finishes in top 10: Kafelnikov 6-2 Zverev [might well be 6-3 at end of 2019, but we don't know yet]

Overall, while I agree that Kafelnikov has a substantial lead, I don't think it is insurmountable. I think Zverev could still win a Slam or two and that, if he were to do so and to continue doing as he is otherwise, it could be close. Zverev could definitely end up with around 25 titles and around 45 finals.

I agree that it'd really take something for Dimitrov to rival Kafelnikov.
Appreciate the effort you've put in here - and yes, *if* Zverev becomes a multiple major winner, he could have a career that's better than Kafelnikov.

However, the man has only reached 2 slam QFs and really struggles in the 5-set format. I can't see him going from barely making slam QFs to winning multiple majors.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
If only Rafa could have done something about that conspicuous zero against "Nitto ATP Finals Titles". If he had he would be THE Big Title King by now! :cool:
Injury has been his biggest obstacle there. Although he has qualified every single year, He has missed quite a few and even when he's played he's had to pull out with injury. In 2017, he pulled out after the first RR against Goffin.


 
Appreciate the effort you've put in here - and yes, *if* Zverev becomes a multiple major winner, he could have a career that's better than Kafelnikov.

However, the man has only reached 2 slam QFs and really struggles in the 5-set format. I can't see him going from barely making slam QFs to winning multiple majors.
2019 was a disappointing year for Zverev overall, but it was actually a bit better in Slams than prior years. I think he will likely end up eventually winning one Slam or making a final. Agreed that if he never wins a Slam, there's almost nothing he can do in less important events to rival Kafelnikov. But if he does, say, win one Slam and lose another final, I think he'll be roughly comparable to Kafelnikov overall. The 2-1 lead for Kafelnikov in Slam titles would be huge, though.
 

octogon

Professional
I don't think it's gone up. I think it is what it was: about on a par with the tour finals. Surprise results were more common until the last 14 years or so because the tour wasn't so top-heavy. It's an important event, no doubt. But I don't think it's more important than the tour finals.
I think if you asked pretty much all the top players which they valued more, WTF or Olympic Singles Gold....WTF would lose heavily.

WTF is more important to Federer fans (and to Djoker fans, but they go on about it less) because it helps make their guy seem better than Nadal. But if Fed fans were honest with themselves, they'd admit the players don't actually value WTF as much as OSG
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
I don't think it's gone up. I think it is what it was: about on a par with the tour finals. Surprise results were more common until the last 14 years or so because the tour wasn't so top-heavy. It's an important event, no doubt. But I don't think it's more important than the tour finals.
The WTF is an exho, open only to the top 8 at YE or any random player available if one of those drop out and the alternate can't play. One year, Stepanek, as #22 ended up playing half way through the RR.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
The only reason the top players turn up for the WTF is the 1,500 points awarded and the big prize money. It could decide the YE #1. They turn up for the OG which offers no prize money and no points. That shows how much they value it.
 
The Olympics is an exhibition that doesn't offer ranking points and in which players may not qualify based on their nationality.

Overall, as I said, they are roughly equally important. We can agree to disagree on this. Note that I'm not saying, as many Federer fans would, that the WTF is more important. I think they are equal.

The WTF is an exho, open only to the top 8 at YE or any random player available if one of those drop out and the alternate can't play. One year, Stepanek, as #22 ended up playing half way through the RR.
 
I think if you asked pretty much all the top players which they valued more, WTF or Olympic Singles Gold....WTF would lose heavily.

WTF is more important to Federer fans (and to Djoker fans, but they go on about it less) because it helps make their guy seem better than Nadal. But if Fed fans were honest with themselves, they'd admit the players don't actually value WTF as much as OSG
I think you are wrong about what players think. But we don't know, as the survey hasn't happened. Even if we did, the view of players doesn't determine the value of an event. Players aren't the only ones with valid opinions. I'm happy to disagree with them. Anyway, note that I agree with you that Federer fans overstate the importance of the WTF, as I don't think it's more important than the Olympics, just equally important as the Olympics. I am happy to agree to disagree on this one.
 

TimHenmanATG

Professional
The WTF is a joke of a tournament.

It's a glorified exho, and awarding high amounts of ranking points for it is against the spirit of sport, and only serves to give the top players an unfair advantage over the rest of the field.

There are numerous reasons why the Tour Finals should not be taken too seriously as an important tournament, but the most obvious ones are:

1. The absurd format. You can win the tournament while losing 2 out of 5 matches. While this scenario is somewhat unlikely, winning while losing 1 out of 5 matches has happened before (including Zverev last year).

2. Due to very nature of the tournament, it has to be held right at the end of a physically demanding and gruelling 11-month season. Consequently, the quality of tennis is (comparitively) poor, as almost all of the players are exhausted.

3. As above, the winner is basically who is the freshest and least injured, rather than the best.

4. You get players who collected the vast majority of their points in the early half of the season qualifying for the tournament, and not being in any kind of "top 8" form by November.

5. The fact that you can't face the normal field further invalidates any possibility it has of being seriously considered as a major tournament.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Big Title count is a lazy measure of greatness, in all honesty. It basically counts Slams and Masters 1000 titles the same.

If you really want to go down that route, consider the Slams to be 2 points, the WTF/Olympics 1.5 points, and the Masters 1000 titles 1 point each, to keep consistent with the points awarded for winning each (which are undeniably fairer measurements than counting each tournament the same).

Big Title PointsFedererNadalDjokovic
Grand Slam points (x2)20 Slams >>> 40 points19 Slams >>> 38 points16 Slams >>> 32 points
WTF/Olympics points (x1.5)6 WTFs >>> 9 points1 Olympic Gold Medal >>> 1.5 points5 WTFs >>> 7.5 points
Masters 1000 points (x1)28 Masters >>> 28 points35 Masters >>> 35 points33 Masters >>> 33 points
Total points77 points74.5 points72.5 points

And no, I don't wanna hear the WTF/Olympics denigrating BS.
 
Big Title count is a lazy measure of greatness, in all honesty. It basically counts Slams and Masters 1000 titles the same.

If you really want to go down that route, consider the Slams to be 2 points, the WTF/Olympics 1.5 points, and the Masters 1000 titles 1 point each, to keep consistent with the points awarded for winning each (which are undeniably fairer measurements than counting each tournament the same).

Big Title PointsFedererNadalDjokovic
Grand Slam points (x2)20 Slams >>> 40 points19 Slams >>> 38 points16 Slams >>> 32 points
WTF/Olympics points (x1.5)6 WTFs >>> 9 points1 Olympic Gold Medal >>> 1.5 points5 WTFs >>> 7.5 points
Masters 1000 points (x1)28 Masters >>> 28 points35 Masters >>> 35 points33 Masters >>> 33 points
Total points77 points74.5 points72.5 points

And no, I don't wanna hear the WTF/Olympics denigrating BS.
For the sake of thoroughness you may as well include David Cups, the 500's and 250's for good measure.
 

jaydoc

New User
Until Roger's slam count record looked impregnable, that was apparently the only yardstick for measuring GOAT status. Once that became shaky, other criteria also began to emerge. It looks like, if not Rafa, Novak will likely convert every one of these additional "criteria" to stand in his favor by the time this is all over and done.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
True, but it would also make more sense than the usual title count. Connors wouldn't be the leader, that's for sure.
Very well, then. Here's a full table (with some other big names, but mostly the players who played nearly their full career in the era of Masters 1000s being officially established, so that excludes Connors). I don't take this one as seriously as the previous table I posted, but it does shed some light on the title race. I bumped the numbers up a digit so I won't have to deal with too many decimals.

Tournament PointsFedererNadalDjokovicSamprasAgassiMurray
Grand Slam points (x20)20 Slams >> 400 points19 Slams >> 380 points16 Slams >> 320 points14 Slams >> 280 points8 Slams >> 160 points3 Slams >> 60 points
WTF/Olympics points (x15)6 WTFs >> 90 points1 OSG >> 15 points5 WTFs >> 75 points5 WTFs >> 75 points1 WTF, 1 OSG >> 30 points1 WTF, 2 OSG >> 45 points
Masters 1000 points (x10)28 Masters >> 280 points35 Masters >> 350 points33 Masters >> 330 points11 Masters >> 110 points17 Masters >> 170 points14 Masters >> 140 points
ATP 500 points (x5)23 ATP 500s >> 115 points20 ATP 500s >> 100 points12 ATP 500s >> 60 points12 ATP 500 equivalents >> 60 points6 ATP 500 equivalents >> 30 points9 ATP 500s >> 45 points
ATP 250 points (x2.5)25 ATP 250s >> 62.5 points9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points20 ATP 250 equivalents >> 50 points27 ATP 250 equivalents >> 67.5 points16 ATP 250s >> 40 points
Total points:947.5 total points867.5 total points807.5 total points575 total points457.5 total points330 total points

So yeah. Fed has gained that massive lead partly because of the larger degree of "small" tournaments he's won. But he's also ahead in Big Title points so you can't really put that against him.
 
Very well, then. Here's a full table (with some other big names, but mostly the players who played nearly their full career in the era of Masters 1000s being officially established, so that excludes Connors). I don't take this one as seriously as the previous table I posted, but it does shed some light on the title race. I bumped the numbers up a digit so I won't have to deal with too many decimals.

Tournament PointsFedererNadalDjokovicSamprasAgassiMurray
Grand Slam points (x20)20 Slams >> 400 points19 Slams >> 380 points16 Slams >> 320 points14 Slams >> 280 points8 Slams >> 160 points3 Slams >> 60 points
WTF/Olympics points (x15)6 WTFs >> 90 points1 OSG >> 15 points5 WTFs >> 75 points5 WTFs >> 75 points1 WTF, 1 OSG >> 30 points1 WTF, 2 OSG >> 45 points
Masters 1000 points (x10)28 Masters >> 280 points35 Masters >> 350 points33 Masters >> 330 points11 Masters >> 110 points17 Masters >> 170 points14 Masters >> 140 points
ATP 500 points (x5)23 ATP 500s >> 115 points20 ATP 500s >> 100 points12 ATP 500s >> 60 points12 ATP 500 equivalents >> 60 points6 ATP 500 equivalents >> 30 points9 ATP 500s >> 45 points
ATP 250 points (x2.5)25 ATP 250s >> 62.5 points9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points20 ATP 250 equivalents >> 50 points27 ATP 250 equivalents >> 67.5 points16 ATP 250s >> 40 points
Total points:947.5 total points867.5 total points807.5 total points575 total points457.5 total points330 total points

So yeah. Fed has gained that massive lead partly because of the larger degree of "small" tournaments he's won. But he's also ahead in Big Title points so you can't really put that against him.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to do the math!
 
The WTF is a joke of a tournament.

It's a glorified exho, and awarding high amounts of ranking points for it is against the spirit of sport, and only serves to give the top players an unfair advantage over the rest of the field.

There are numerous reasons why the Tour Finals should not be taken too seriously as an important tournament, but the most obvious ones are:

1. The absurd format. You can win the tournament while losing 2 out of 5 matches. While this scenario is somewhat unlikely, winning while losing 1 out of 5 matches has happened before (including Zverev last year).

2. Due to very nature of the tournament, it has to be held right at the end of a physically demanding and gruelling 11-month season. Consequently, the quality of tennis is (comparitively) poor, as almost all of the players are exhausted.

3. As above, the winner is basically who is the freshest and least injured, rather than the best.

4. You get players who collected the vast majority of their points in the early half of the season qualifying for the tournament, and not being in any kind of "top 8" form by November.

5. The fact that you can't face the normal field further invalidates any possibility it has of being seriously considered as a major tournament.
And it's BO3, one break of serve and you're done for.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
Until Roger's slam count record looked impregnable, that was apparently the only yardstick for measuring GOAT status. Once that became shaky, other criteria also began to emerge. It looks like, if not Rafa, Novak will likely convert every one of these additional "criteria" to stand in his favor by the time this is all over and done.
Its funny fed fans and commentators even are now saying "maybe we are putting too . much emphasis on the slam count for greatest of all time".:-D
 
Top