Comparing Best of 3 WTF to Best of 5 Finals?

[BGod]

Djokovic has the 3rd most WTF titles with 4. However he started winning them after the format was changed to a best of 3 set final.

Does this denigrate the current WTF to years past when it was a best of 5 or do you put it at the same level?

For me I can't possibly value it the same as before. Here are some examples where the winning player in the best of 5 lost the first two sets or was down 1-2:

Lendl 81 (0-2)
Becker 88 (1-2)
Corretja 98 (0-2)
Nalbandian 05 (0-2)


And the 96 epic between Sampras vs. Becker that went: 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 7–6(7–4), 6–7(11–13), 6–4

Would have just ended 3-6, 7-6, 7-6........just LOOK at that 4th set tiebreak!

 

[NatF]

I see it as between the top 2 options. It's above a masters but not a joke compared to the best of 5 masters. I rate winning a best of 3 WTF undefeated higher or about the same as winning a best of 5 with a 4-1 record.

 

[GabeT]

Bo5 is not "better" than Bo3, just like a marathon is not better than a 5 k race. They are just different.

Bo5 gives you more opportunities to recover, if you have the physical stamina, while Bo3 forces you to be consistent from the beginning.

And the thing about the WTF is that, by definition, it has the highest ranked players so the competition is among the hardest of all. Everyone you play is a top 10. In a Slam you may not play a top 10 until SFs.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

It's the same. You can't penalize current winners for something that isn't in their control.

 

[Mustard]

The change to best of 3 sets has diluted it. In 1996, with Sampras vs. Becker (Sampras winning 3-6, 7-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4), the YEC final felt almost as big as a major final at the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon or US Open. These days, it feels around Masters 1000 level.

I say exactly the same about Masters 1000 finals. Some were best of 3 before 2007 anyway, but to make all of them best of 3 sets since has damaged its importance. Those epic Italian Open finals in Rome in 2005 and 2006, are things of the past. And for what were they changed to best of 3 sets? Because Federer and Nadal didn't turn up in Hamburg the next day in 2006 after a 5 hour plus marathon. The authorities forgot that it's those epics that people remember.

 

[Russeljones]

I think it devalues it a little but we shouldn't go overboard with the comparisons. A lot of tennis can go into 3 sets today.

 

[BGod]

A lot of tennis can go into 3 sets today.

This is the whole mentality of supporting Bo3.

However the fact a professional tennis match can end in under an hour on a regular basis is laughable.

The women's game does indeed see more rallies and they aren't equipped to go as long but a men's pro tennis match should be expected to go around 2 hours.

Look at what Federer is doing at the USO, finishing in straight sets in an hour and a half. Good for him. Is this enjoyable in semifinals of tournaments?

I think neutering a Best of 5 to a Best of 3 is akin to shortening a baseball game to 5 innings.

Even a less than competitive match should go about 2 hours. Stefi Graff winning the French Open in 34 minutes is a joke. Makes the sport look soft as all hell.

 

[Russeljones]

This is the whole mentality of supporting Bo3.

However the fact a professional tennis match can end in under an hour on a regular basis is laughable.

The women's game does indeed see more rallies and they aren't equipped to go as long but a men's pro tennis match should be expected to go around 2 hours.

Look at what Federer is doing at the USO, finishing in straight sets in an hour and a half. Good for him. Is this enjoyable in semifinals of tournaments?

I think neutering a Best of 5 to a Best of 3 is akin to shortening a baseball game to 5 innings.

Even a less than competitive match should go about 2 hours. Stefi Graff winning the French Open in 34 minutes is a joke. Makes the sport look soft as all hell.

I don't think bringing the women's tour in this is productive.

 

[GabeT]

This is the whole mentality of supporting Bo3.

However the fact a professional tennis match can end in under an hour on a regular basis is laughable.

The women's game does indeed see more rallies and they aren't equipped to go as long but a men's pro tennis match should be expected to go around 2 hours.

Look at what Federer is doing at the USO, finishing in straight sets in an hour and a half. Good for him. Is this enjoyable in semifinals of tournaments?

I think neutering a Best of 5 to a Best of 3 is akin to shortening a baseball game to 5 innings.

Even a less than competitive match should go about 2 hours. Stefi Graff winning the French Open in 34 minutes is a joke. Makes the sport look soft as all hell.

Maybe they need to space it out? Supposedly an average football game that goes over 3 hours has less than 15 minutes of the ball in play.