Defacto Masters 1000's in the 1990's

[timnz]

As you know, the Masters 1000's didn't become compulsory to compete in until the year 2000. So the 1990's were this transition between the time the Masters 1000's were formally announced as starting (1990) but weren't compulsory for a whole 10 years. Because of that lack of compulsory status, players were free to choose other tournaments to compete in. As you will see from this thread, there were many tournaments that were of similar prize money and points as some of the Masters 1000's - so the players quite naturally chose to go elsewhere. Lendl for instance, only competed in a total of 10 Masters 1000's out of a possible 27 from 1990 to 1992 inclusive . And why would he chose to do all of them, when there were other tournaments with equal prize money and points available? Because of that era being not compulsory it creates some anomolies when it comes to comparing players of different era's. I mean how do you compare Nadal/Djokovic etc who compete in most Masters 1000's with Lendl who competed in 2 out of 9 in 1990?

The Masters 1000's are supposed to be the top 9 tournaments, per year, outside of the Slams and the various season end finals (ATP, WCT and ITF). As you will see, this wasn't the case from 1990 to 1995.

Four era's of Masters 1000's
=======================

1990-1992 - 8/9 'Defacto Masters 1000' tournaments, per year, at equal level to some of the official Masters 1000's

1993-1995 - 1 'Defacto Masters 1000' tournament - the Stuttgart Indoors, per year, at equal level to some of the Masters 1000's

1996 - 1999 - No tournaments at level of Masters 1000's (except Slams and Season end finals)

2000 - present - Masters 1000's are compulsory (except laterly Monte Carlo) and at a level higher than any other tournaments (except Slams and Season end finals)

The focus of this posting will be from 1990 to 1995 - the non-compulsory era when there were tournaments of equal or higher prize money &/or points compared to the official Masters 1000.

I will list all of these 'Defacto Masters 1000's tournaments' per year, giving the field size, overall tournament prize money and points awarded the winner that year - and then compare it to 1 - 3 of the Masters 1000's that year.

1990 – Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $750,000 total prize money - Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Hamburg – all with 56 Man Draws. Indian Wells winner earned 314 points, Monte Carlo winner earned 314 points

Tournaments paid at least that or higher:
SkyDome World Tennis Tournament – Toronto Indoor - $1,005,000 – 32 man draw – 322 points - Winner: Ivan Lendl

U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $825,000 – 48 man draw - 334 points - Winner: Pete Sampras

Stuttgart - $825,000 – 32 Man draw – 313 points - Winner: Boris Becker

Suntory Japan Open Tennis – Tokyo- $825,000 – 56 man draw – 328 points - Winner: Stefan Edberg

Mercedes Cup - Stuttgart - $825,000 – 48 man draw – Winner: Goran Ivanišević

Indianapolis - $825,000 – 56 man draw – 293 points - Winner: Boris Becker

Volvo International - New Haven - $825,000 – 56 man draw – Winner: Derrick Rostagno

Australian Indoor Championships - Sydney - $750,000 – 48 man draw – 310 points - Winner: Boris Becker

Seiko Super Tennis Tournament – Tokyo - $750,000 – 48 man draw – 346 points - Winner: Ivan Lendl

1991 – Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $750,000 total prize money - Indian Wells (377 points), Monte Carlo (319 points), Hamburg (338 points) – all with 56 Man Draws

Tournaments paid at least that or higher:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $825,000 – 48 man draw – 338 points - Winner: Ivan Lendl

Stuttgart - $825,000 – 32 Man draw – 282 points - Winner: Stefan Edberg

Suntory Japan Open Tennis – Tokyo- $825,000 – 56 man draw – 325 points - Winner: Stefan Edberg

Mercedes Cup - Stuttgart - $825,000 – 48 man draw – Winner: Michael Stich

Indianapolis - $825,000 – 56 man draw – 339 points - Winner: Pete Sampras

Volvo International - New Haven - $825,000 – 56 man draw – Winner: Petr Korda

Australian Indoor Championships - Sydney - $750,000 – 48 man draw – 294 points - Winner: Stefan Edberg

Seiko Super Tennis Tournament – Tokyo - $750,000 – 48 man draw – 304 points - Winner: Stefan Edberg


1992 – Sample comparison Masters 1000's – $825,000 total prize money - Indian Wells with 56 Man Draw and 314 points. Canada 311 points $1,025,000, Monte Carlo $1,020,000 335 points

Tournaments paid at least that or higher:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $865,000 – 48 man draw – 272 points - Winner: Pete Sampras

Stuttgart Indoor- $865,000 – 32 draw – 356 points - Winner: Goran Ivanišević

Tokyo Outdoor, Japan - $865,000 - 56 draw – 304 points - Winner: Jim Courier

Stuttgart Outdoor - $865,000 - 48 draw – 371 points - Winner: Andrei Medvedev

Indianapolis, IN, USA - $865,000 - 56 draw – 321 points - Winner: Pete Sampras

Volvo International - New Haven, CT, USA - $865,000 - 56 draw – 326 points - Winner: Stefan Edberg

Australian Indoor Championships - Sydney, Australia - $825,000 - 48 draw – 317 points - Winner: Goran Ivanišević

Tokyo Indoor - - $825,000 - 48 draw – 338 points - Winner: Ivan Lendl
 
1993 – Comparison sample Masters 1000 - $1,400,000 total prize money – Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Canada, Cincinatti, Stockholm. Indian Wells winner got 379 points

Tournament paid at least that or higher:
Stuttgart Indoor, Germany - $2,125,000 - 32 draw – 414 points - Winner: Michael Stich
 
1994 Comparison sample Masters 1000 - 1.47 Million total prize money – Indian Wells, Monte Carlo. Points - Hamburg 408 points, Monte Carlo 447 points, Indian Wells 459 points, Miami 442 Points, Rome 444 points, Paris Indoor 559 points, Canada 423 Points, Cincinnati 429 points, Stockholm 494 points

Tournament paid at least that or higher:
Stuttgart Indoor, Germany - $2,125,000 – Winner: Stefan Edberg
527 points

1995 Comparison Masters 1000 – Hamburg – 56 man - 370 points
- $1,545,000

Tournament paid at least that or higher:
Stuttgart Indoors - $2,125,000 – 32 Draw – 414 points - Richard Krajicek

 

[Goosehead]

what about the super 9 or whatever they were called starting in 1970 ?.

since 1970 the 9 has existed even if it wasn't compulsory, or as in the 70s/80s we has rival tours like WCT clouding the scene.

 

[timnz]

Working on those

what about the super 9 or whatever they were called starting in 1970 ?.

since 1970 the 9 has existed even if it wasn't compulsory, or as in the 70s/80s we has rival tours like WCT clouding the scene.

Hi Goosehead - I am working on the 1970's/1980's - it is going to take some time though. I thought that I would start with the 1990's.

Example though of the 1980's, in 1989 Lendl won Forest hills, which had the same prize money as Hamburg ($485000) and only 1 point less for the winner - Hamburg 213 points and Forest Hills 212.

 

[timnz]

How does the 1990's defacto Masters 1000's affect the great players totals?

I have summarized here on how does the 1990's defacto Masters 1000's affect the great players totals? I extracted out the all time greats. I have also listed by year how many official Masters 1000's they competed in:

Lendl - normally thought as being on 22 Masters 1000's equivalents. But in addition perhaps:-
============

1990 - 2 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament wins:
SkyDome World Tennis Tournament – Toronto Indoor - $1,005,000 – 32 man draw - 322 points
Seiko Super Tennis Tournament – Tokyo - $750,000 – 48 man draw - 346 points

1991 - 4 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $825,000 – 48 man draw - 338 points

1992 - 4 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
Tokyo Indoor - Tokyo, Japan - $825,000 - 48 draw - 338 points

Sampras - normally thought as being on 11 Masters 1000's
=====================================

1990 - 6 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $825,000 – 48 man draw - 334 points

1991 - 7 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
Indianapolis - $825,000 – 56 man draw - 339 points

1992 - 7 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament wins:
U.S. Pro Indoor – Philadelphia - $865,000 – 48 man draw - 272 points
Indianapolis, IN, USA - $865,000 - 56 draw - 321 points

Becker - normally thought of as being on 13 Masters 1000's equivalents
=============================================

1990 - 6 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament wins:
Stuttgart - $825,000 – 32 Man draw - 313 points
Indianapolis - $825,000 – 56 man draw - 293 points
Australian Indoor Championships - Sydney - $750,000 – 48 man draw - 310 points

Edberg - normally thought as being on 8 Masters 1000's equivalents
==========================================

1990 - 6 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
Suntory Japan Open Tennis – Tokyo- $825,000 - 328 points

1991 - 7 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament wins:
Stuttgart - $825,000 – 32 Man draw - 282 points

Suntory Japan Open Tennis – Tokyo- $825,000 – 56 man draw - 325 points

Australian Indoor Championships - Sydney - $750,000 – 48 man draw - 294 points

Seiko Super Tennis Tournament – Tokyo - $750,000 – 48 man draw - 304 points

1992 - 5 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
Volvo International - New Haven, CT, USA - $865,000 - 56 man draw - 326 points

1994 - 7 Official Masters 1000's competed in

Defacto Masters 1000 tournament win:
Stuttgart - $2,125,000 – 527 points



A question could be - should Edberg be credited with 4 more Masters 1000 equivalents in 1991 since he competed in 7 official Masters 1000's that year? Perhaps he should get only 2 extra. In all other cases, Defacto Masters 1000's wins for all players doesn't push them over 9 tournament a year (Official and Defacto Masters 1000's) counted tournament wins.

 

[NatF]

^^ So by your count Sampras has 15 masters equivalents?

 

[timnz]

^^ So by your count Sampras has 15 masters equivalents?

Correct. He is straight forward because his wins started in 1990 (so I didn't have to do the 80's for him)

What do you think? Is it reasonable to judge him with 15?

 

[NatF]

Correct. He is straight forward because his wins started in 1990 (so I didn't have to do the 80's for him)

What do you think? Is it reasonable to judge him with 15?

I think it is. I remember a little while back I had a look at tournaments he won which had high point totals but weren't masters and came to the conclusion he had about 15 in reality.

Does Agassi have any additions? I'd be interested to see if he moves up the list considering he's close to the top already.

 

[timnz]

Agassi

I think it is. I remember a little while back I had a look at tournaments he won which had high point totals but weren't masters and came to the conclusion he had about 15 in reality.

Does Agassi have any additions? I'd be interested to see if he moves up the list considering he's close to the top already.

Agassi doesn't have any more from the 1990's (this first posting in this thread gives the entire number of the defacto Masters 1000's of the 1990's - and Agassi wasn't the winner of any of them).

Agassi's total tournament wins (at all levels) from the 1980's were:

1987
====

1. Itaparica, Brazil Hard vs Luiz Mattar 7–6(8–6), 6–2

1988
====

2. Memphis, US Hard (I) vs Mikael Pernfors 6–4, 6–4, 7–5

3. Charleston, US Clay vs Jimmy Arias 6–2, 6–2

4. Forest Hills, US Clay vs Slobodan Živojinović 7–5, 7–6(7–2), 7–5

5. Stuttgart, West Germany Clay vs Andrés Gómez 6–4, 6–2

6. Stratton Mountain, US(1) Hard vs Paul Annacone 6–2, 6–4

7. Livingston, US Hard vs Jeff Tarango 6–2, 6–4

1989
===

8. Orlando, US Hard vs Brad Gilbert 6–2, 6–1

Of those eight only two are in the running:-



Now for the 70's/80's I am using this web link for what are supposedly Masters 1000's equivalents (though I don't believe that there was such a thing as the 'Championship Series' at least from 1970):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

Agassi only competed in 2 of those tournaments listed for 1988. Looking at Agassi's wins at comparable tournaments to the ones listed in the URL:

Agassi possible defacto Masters 1000 wins
-----------------------------------------------

1988 Tournament of Champions, Forest Hills - Tournament Prize Money $485,000 - Draw 64 - 200 Points

1988 Stratton Mountain - Tournament Prize Money $400,000 - Draw 64 - 192 Points

1988 Comparison tournaments from the URL above:
- Stockholm - Tournament Prize Money $450,000 - Draw 56 - 187 Points - won by Boris Becker.
- Canada - Tournament Prize Money $410,000 - Draw 56 - Points 208 - won by Ivan Lendl

 

[elegos7]

As you know, the Masters 1000's didn't become compulsory to compete in until the year 2000. So the 1990's were this transition between the time the Masters 1000's were formally announced as starting (1990) but weren't compulsory for a whole 10 years. Because of that lack of compulsory status, players were free to choose other tournaments to compete in.

I agree that it is difficult to project back the Masters 1000's series back in the 1990s and is nearly impossible to do that in the 1970s and 1980s.

One thing is for sure: you have to deduct the bonus points from the points the winner got. If you do that, you get the following picture:

1990: 18 great events in 4 categories:
300 points: Paris indoor
265: Key Biscayne
250: Rome, Cincinnati
230: 14 other events
(180: 3 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events.

1991: 18 great events in 4 categories:
300 points: Paris indoor
265: Key Biscayne
250: Rome, Cincinnati
230: 13 other events
(180: 4 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events.

1992: 17 great events in 5 categories:
300 points: Paris indoor
280: Key Biscayne
260: Rome, Cincinnati
250: Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Canadian, Stockholm
230: 9 other events
(210: 3 events)
(200: 1 event)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events.

1993: 10 great events in 4 categories:
330 points: Stuttgart Indoor
320: Paris indoor
290: Rome
280: 7 other events
(230: 6 events)
(220: 1 event)
(210: 2 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events. But for the first time some of the World Series events offer that many points as the least significant Championship Series events.
One could say that this is the first year the tournament later called Super 9 stood out from the rest in terms of available points. The only exception is Stuttgart, a double-week event with a very high prize money, offering more points than any of the doub-week events.

1994: 10 great events in 4 categories:
380 points: Stuttgart Indoor, Paris indoor
360: Rome
350: Key Biscayne
330: 6 other events
(280: 6 events)
(270: 1 event)
(260: 2 events)
(250: 2 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series
Once again, Stuttgart is on top, tied with Paris.

1995: 10 great events in 4 categories:
390 points: Key Biscayne
380: Stuttgart Indoor, Paris indoor
360: Rome, Essen
340: 5 other events
(280: 5 events)
(270: 1 event)
(260: 2 events)
(250: 2 events)
There are 20 (10 single week +10 double week) Championship Series

1996: 9 Super 9 events, each with 370 points.
They are followed by 5 Championship Series events with 280 points.

From this year on it is easy to pick the Top9 events, but of course they were still not compulsory. And then there is the problem of the Grand Slam Cup which was also a significant event, without ATP points.

The ATP retroactively counts these Super 9 events as Masters equivalents between 1990 and 1995 as well (of course Stockholm and Essen in 1995 as the last event of the year, Stuttgart occupied that place only in 1996).
But based on the above compilation it is clear those catefories did not exist in such clear-cut fashion as after 1996, and especially after 2000.

 

[timnz]

I agree that it is difficult to project back the Masters 1000's series back in the 1990s and is nearly impossible to do that in the 1970s and 1980s.

One thing is for sure: you have to deduct the bonus points from the points the winner got. If you do that, you get the following picture:

1990: 18 great events in 4 categories:
300 points: Paris indoor
265: Key Biscayne
250: Rome, Cincinnati
230: 14 other events
(180: 3 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events.

1991: 18 great events in 4 categories:
300 points: Paris indoor
265: Key Biscayne
250: Rome, Cincinnati
230: 13 other events
(180: 4 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events.

1992: 17 great events in 5 categories:
300 points: Paris indoor
280: Key Biscayne
260: Rome, Cincinnati
250: Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Canadian, Stockholm
230: 9 other events
(210: 3 events)
(200: 1 event)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events.

1993: 10 great events in 4 categories:
330 points: Stuttgart Indoor
320: Paris indoor
290: Rome
280: 7 other events
(230: 6 events)
(220: 1 event)
(210: 2 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series Events. But for the first time some of the World Series events offer that many points as the least significant Championship Series events.
One could say that this is the first year the tournament later called Super 9 stood out from the rest in terms of available points. The only exception is Stuttgart, a double-week event with a very high prize money, offering more points than any of the doub-week events.

1994: 10 great events in 4 categories:
380 points: Stuttgart Indoor, Paris indoor
360: Rome
350: Key Biscayne
330: 6 other events
(280: 6 events)
(270: 1 event)
(260: 2 events)
(250: 2 events)
There are 21 (11 single week +10 double week) Championship Series
Once again, Stuttgart is on top, tied with Paris.

1995: 10 great events in 4 categories:
390 points: Key Biscayne
380: Stuttgart Indoor, Paris indoor
360: Rome, Essen
340: 5 other events
(280: 5 events)
(270: 1 event)
(260: 2 events)
(250: 2 events)
There are 20 (10 single week +10 double week) Championship Series

1996: 9 Super 9 events, each with 370 points.
They are followed by 5 Championship Series events with 280 points.

From this year on it is easy to pick the Top9 events, but of course they were still not compulsory. And then there is the problem of the Grand Slam Cup which was also a significant event, without ATP points.

The ATP retroactively counts these Super 9 events as Masters equivalents between 1990 and 1995 as well (of course Stockholm and Essen in 1995 as the last event of the year, Stuttgart occupied that place only in 1996).
But based on the above compilation it is clear those catefories did not exist in such clear-cut fashion as after 1996, and especially after 2000.

Excellent work - thank you

I see you agree that from 1993-1995 that the stuttgart indoor was the only other tournament to be at the super 9 level

Re. Grand slam cup - in my view it falls outside of this consideration . It was the ITF Season End final. Hence my definition of Masters 1000's should be the top 9 tournaments per year outside the slams and season end finals (WTF, WCt fInals, Grand Slam Cup)

In principle, what is your opinion about what I am trying to do. I mean, when you get Lendl only choosing to compete in 2 out of the 9 official Super 9's in 1990, because there were other tournament of comparable points and prize money - well who can blame him? And therefore shouldn't his wins in those comparable tournaments be counted as equivalents?

 

[elegos7]

In principle, what is your opinion about what I am trying to do. I mean, when you get Lendl only choosing to compete in 2 out of the 9 official Super 9's in 1990, because there were other tournament of comparable points and prize money - well who can blame him? And therefore shouldn't his wins in those comparable tournaments be counted as equivalents?

I myself tried to figure out such Masters equivalents, but it becomes increasingly difficult as you go back in time, especially before 1990.
The problem is we try to project back today's system to the past, when the structure of the tour was completely different.
Who knows, maybe in a few years there will only be seven Masters events, and then we will have to leave out certain events we have already chosen.

A better approach could be to assign weights to tournaments, based on their importance (prize money, tradition, computer points), in a scale 1 to 8. Another factor could be quality points (also in a scale of 1 to 8,), based on the strength of the draw.

In today's system the picture is clear: GS events would get 8, the Masters final 6, the Masters 1000 events 4, the ATP 500 events 2, and the ATP 250 events 1 point.
But already before 2009 the picture is muddled, as there was not such a clear-cut distinction between events. The question is where to draw the line between events with a similar number of points. You could say Wimbledon always gets 8 points, and you simply compare the ratio of the computer points at a certain event relative to the points available at Wimbledon.
Of course this can only be done in time periods where we know the computer points at every event (between 1973 and 1978, and after 1986). The first part of the 1980s is a time period where such points are not yet known.
And I think some great exhibitions (especially the Antwerp event in the 1980s) should also be taken into account, the question is how to compare them with regular events. The prize money alone (not always known precisely) is clearly not enough.

 

[timnz]

1990's

I myself tried to figure out such Masters equivalents, but it becomes increasingly difficult as you go back in time, especially before 1990.
The problem is we try to project back today's system to the past, when the structure of the tour was completely different.
Who knows, maybe in a few years there will only be seven Masters events, and then we will have to leave out certain events we have already chosen.

A better approach could be to assign weights to tournaments, based on their importance (prize money, tradition, computer points), in a scale 1 to 8. Another factor could be quality points (also in a scale of 1 to 8,), based on the strength of the draw.

In today's system the picture is clear: GS events would get 8, the Masters final 6, the Masters 1000 events 4, the ATP 500 events 2, and the ATP 250 events 1 point.
But already before 2009 the picture is muddled, as there was not such a clear-cut distinction between events. The question is where to draw the line between events with a similar number of points. You could say Wimbledon always gets 8 points, and you simply compare the ratio of the computer points at a certain event relative to the points available at Wimbledon.
Of course this can only be done in time periods where we know the computer points at every event (between 1973 and 1978, and after 1986). The first part of the 1980s is a time period where such points are not yet known.
And I think some great exhibitions (especially the Antwerp event in the 1980s) should also be taken into account, the question is how to compare them with regular events. The prize money alone (not always known precisely) is clearly not enough.

I agree it is more complex prior to 1990. But for, in particular 1990-1995 there is some clarity I think (since from 1996 onwards there doesn't seem to be any other tournaments at the level of the Masters 1000's (outside of the Slams and the two season end finals)). For example, it seems clear to me, that a Stuttgart Indoor win from 1993 to 1995 was in no way inferior to a Masters 1000 win in the same period. Same could be said for a Tokyo Outdoor or Volvo International - New Haven win from 1990 to 1992. And if that is the case then a player should be given credit as such.

Moving back to the 1980's and the top class exhibition tournaments - I agree about the Antwerp tournament and also the Suntory Tokyo in the early to mid-80's (even though the latter had a small field - it was a hugely classy field). I can't understand why the ATP website recognizes the Pepsi Grand Slam as a title but not the Antwerp title (or the Suntory).