Djokovic has won every significant tournament. Twice.

[duaneeo]

The term Cincinnati Masters or just Cincinnati is used by we fans, but the official name of the tournament is Western & Southern Open.

I see. But I'm sure that there's a reason why the term "Cincinnati Masters" is used.

 

[Mainad]

Seems like you're getting away from the point: that stupid chart. It gives Masters and Slams equal value. They're not.

And again: the Olympics don't offer points. That alone tells you the "significance" of that tournament relative to the rest of the tour. I have no idea why the ATP has recently suggested that it's a "big title" (has anything about the Olympics changed in the last few months when the ATP first unveiled this "big titles" chart? Of course not). But that alone tells you that it certainly is not a "big title," despite what that inaccurate chart suggests.

There is literally nothing fundamental about the Olympics that suggests that it's even more important than a Masters event. Do you play more rounds? No. Does it offer more points? No. Do you play more higher-ranked opponents? No. Is the format more difficult? No. Is it even best of 5 (except for the final round)? No. Do you play a higher-variety of opponents that you wouldn't ordinarily see in any other tournament? No.

It's not a "big title" just because someone called it that.

I really don't see your point in trying to deny the prestigiousness of the Olympic title. However it may have been viewed in the past (and don't forget some players didn't even value some of the Slams until much later on eg. the AO) Most top players now value it and want to play it and some have even won it. Federer and Djokovic definitely want it on their CVs and that should be good enough for anyone. The ATP has belatedly added it to its Big Titles list, something it should have done much sooner.

Listing events like this and Masters and WTF etc. as Big Titles does not mean they're as big as the Slams just that they're big titles in their own right. To repeat my African analogy, a lion is indisputably not as big as an elephant but it is still indisputably a big animal in its own right and appropriately makes the list of all Big African Animals. Anybody who tried to deny it would just look foolish as well as being wrong. Ditto all non-Slam events included in the ATP's Big Titles List.

 

[aldeayeah]

I said "significant." The Olympics don't even award points.

They did in 2004, 2008 (400 to the winner, equivalent to 800 today) and 2012 (750 to the winner)

Those points implicitly placed them between 500 level and the MS level, which probably was a fair assessment, although I think they should be equivalent to a MS/slightly higher.

 

[Red Rick]

But remember guys, you can't say for sure he's greater than Borg cause in Borgs time it wasn't only the Slams that mattered.

 

[aldeayeah]

But remember guys, you can't say for sure he's greater than Borg cause in Borgs time it wasn't only the Slams that mattered.

Borg also had much better hair, although Novak's psycho helmet is a force to be reckoned with.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

 

[xFedal]

So it was added to a piece of paper but still no points? Might as well throw Abu Dhabi on there as well.

Abu Dhabi pays exhibitions fees to players? U don't get much for Olympics though.

 

[Tony48]

I really don't see your point in trying to deny the prestigiousness of the Olympic title. However it may have been viewed in the past (and don't forget some players didn't even value some of the Slams until much later on eg. the AO) Most top players now value it and want to play it and some have even won it. Federer and Djokovic definitely want it on their CVs and that should be good enough for anyone. The ATP has belatedly added it to its Big Titles list, something it should have done much sooner.

Listing events like this and Masters and WTF etc. as Big Titles does not mean they're as big as the Slams just that they're big titles in their own right. To repeat my African analogy, a lion is indisputably not as big as an elephant but it is still indisputably a big animal in its own right and appropriately makes the list of all Big African Animals. Anybody who tried to deny it would just look foolish as well as being wrong. Ditto all non-Slam events included in the ATP's Big Titles List.

Several players skipped the last Olympics because they didn't see it as a priority. Querrey went so far as to say that he didn't even think tennis should be in the Olympics. And tennis was kicked out of the Olympics and didn't return until the 1980s. There's barely any history to it.

Saying it's "prestigious" without showing how is insufficient. Take the YEC. Why is it prestigious? Because you're only playing the top 8 players, you have to quality based on your results, and you're more than likely going to play at least 1 slam winner. Each round is against a tough opponent. Which is why you get a maximum of 1,500 points if you win. There's rationale behind the point allocation and the prestigiousness. All I've heard about the Olympics being prestigious is that it "just is." And that's not enough.

It's prestigious to individual players, but again, that doesn't translate to tennis as a whole.

 

[NoleFam]

Several players skipped the last Olympics because they didn't see it as a priority. Querrey went so far as to say that he didn't even think tennis should be in the Olympics. And tennis was kicked out of the Olympics and didn't return until the 1980s. There's barely any history to it.

Saying it's "prestigious" without showing how is insufficient. Take the YEC. Why is it prestigious? Because you're only playing the top 8 players, you have to quality based on your results, and you're more than likely going to play at least 1 slam winner. Each round is against a tough opponent. Which is why you get a maximum of 1,500 points if you win. There's rationale behind the point allocation and the prestigiousness. All I've heard about the Olympics being prestigious is that it "just is." And that's not enough.

It's prestigious to individual players, but again, that doesn't translate to tennis as a whole.

Agreed. I would say Olympic basketball has more history but when people talk about Kobe Bryant's career do they mention his 5 rings or his two Olympic golds?

 

[TMF]

The Olympic medal(s) won by the big 4:

Murray - 2 Gold, 1 Silver
Nadal - 2 Gold
Federer - 1 Gold, 1 Silver
Djokovic - 1 Bronze

 

[TheNachoMan]

The Olympic medal(s) won by the big 4:

Murray - 2 Gold, 1 Silver
Nadal - 2 Gold
Federer - 1 Gold, 1 Silver
Djokovic - 1 Bronze

Are we counting doubles now so Fed can be included? Lol

 

[TMF]

Are we counting doubles now so Fed can be included? Lol

This is the Olympic. Every individual and team competition are awarded with the same medal.

 

[Jai]

Are we counting doubles now so Fed can be included? Lol

How long is it before Laver cup is counted?

 

[I Am Finnish]

This topic oh boy

 

[TMF]

How long is it before Laver cup is counted?

Laver Cup became an officially sanctioned ATP Tour event. Anyway, the event has NOTHING to do with Olympic Games.

 

[Jai]

Laver Cup became an officially sanctioned ATP Tour event. Anyway, the event has NOTHING to do with Olympic Games.

So will laver cups won be cited next in goat debates? if an Olympics doubles gold is suddenly brought into the picture, one can't help but wonder.

 

[TMF]

So will laver cups won be cited next in goat debates?

It's part of the ATP tour so I've leave that to your own consciousness.

if an Olympics doubles gold is suddenly brought into the picture, one can't help but wonder.

Please try to understand that the Olympic Games is NOT the same as the ATP. It's like comparing apples-to-oranges.

 

[Mainad]

Several players skipped the last Olympics because they didn't see it as a priority. Querrey went so far as to say that he didn't even think tennis should be in the Olympics. And tennis was kicked out of the Olympics and didn't return until the 1980s. There's barely any history to it.

Saying it's "prestigious" without showing how is insufficient. Take the YEC. Why is it prestigious? Because you're only playing the top 8 players, you have to quality based on your results, and you're more than likely going to play at least 1 slam winner. Each round is against a tough opponent. Which is why you get a maximum of 1,500 points if you win. There's rationale behind the point allocation and the prestigiousness. All I've heard about the Olympics being prestigious is that it "just is." And that's not enough.

It's prestigious to individual players, but again, that doesn't translate to tennis as a whole.

The Olympics are prestigious and therefore any sport represented there is prestigious and its completely pointless to pretend otherwise and Slam winners have featured in the draw for most of the recent editions and most of the winners since its re-introduction in 1988 have, in fact, been Slam champions.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Borg also had much better hair, although Novak's psycho helmet is a force to be reckoned with.

Borg looked great with short hair too.

 

[Tony48]

The Olympics are prestigious and therefore any sport represented there is prestigious and its completely pointless to pretend otherwise and Slam winners have featured in the draw for most of the recent editions and most of the winners since its re-introduction in 1988 have, in fact, been Slam champions.

So it’s prestigious because it’s prestigious?

 

[Mainad]

So it’s prestigious because it’s prestigious?

Yep...just like other prestigious events.

 

[Tony48]

Yep...just like other prestigious events.

You should be asking yourself why you consider something prestigious when you can't even explain why it is. Sounds like you want it to be prestigious rather than it actually being prestigious.

 

[Mainad]

You should be asking yourself why you consider something prestigious when you can't even explain why it is. Sounds like you want it to be prestigious rather than it actually being prestigious.

Already explained. If you can't or won't accept it then that's on you.

 

[mr tonyz]

The ATP officially counts it, that's all that matters. He won the masters at the 7th slot of the tour twice.

It is kind of like how Nadal's Madrid title in 05 still counts as the 8th slot, even though he has never won Shanghai.

Federer has won Madrid 2009 in the third slot which is currently occupied by Rome. Doesn't count for Fed lol.

 

[Tony48]

Already explained. If you can't or won't accept it then that's on you.

You didn't explain anything. I explained that there's barely any history behind it, nothing separates Olympic tennis from other tennis tournaments, players have literally skipped the Olympics saying that it isn't a priority (tell me, has any athlete in the history of the Olympics ever said that other than in tennis?), and it offers no points.

You countered with nothing (repeating your claim doesn't act as an explanation).

You keep saying that it's prestigious and can offer no explanation why. Because it's not prestigious.

 

[flanker2000fr]

Bronze medal. Sorry.

This will be remedied soon enough.

 

[MichaelNadal]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406935220855754758

 

[Mainad]

You didn't explain anything. I explained that there's barely any history behind it, nothing separates Olympic tennis from other tennis tournaments, players have literally skipped the Olympics saying that it isn't a priority (tell me, has any athlete in the history of the Olympics ever said that other than in tennis?), and it offers no points.

You countered with nothing (repeating your claim doesn't act as an explanation).

You keep saying that it's prestigious and can offer no explanation why. Because it's not prestigious.

You don't want to read my explanations because you don't want to accept that there are any and, like I said, that's on you.

To summarise:

1. Tennis is part of the Olympic programme and, as the Olympics are the most prestigious sporting event in the world (or are you now going to dispute this too?) any sport taking part is automatically prestigious. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be included.

2. Most Olympic tennis champions since the event's re-introduction have also been Slam champions, in fact almost all of them multi-Slam champions. If that doesn't add prestige to a tennis tournament, I don't know what does.

3. The ATP, the recognised official organisation for men's tennis, recognises it as a Big Title (if you don't agree with them, take it up with them).

4. Although a relatively new event on the Tennis Calendar, other Big Title events are recognised as such with fairly recent history behind them. For instance, the YEC, which you are happy to accept as a Big Title, only dates back as far as 1970 (less than 20 years before Olympic tennis was revived). As I pointed out, some Slams in the past were regularly ignored by top players eg. the AO and therefore presumably lacked prestige but that hasn't affected their present status now.

5. Most top players recognise the prestigiousness of the Olympic title which is why, when uninjured or deterred by pandemics, the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all regularly play it. Call me picky, but I prefer to go with their opinions on this than with your's.

That's all I have to say. I'm not going to keep repeating it all just for your benefit. If you don't want to accept any of this, then that's on you. I'm done here.

 

[Tony48]

You don't want to read my explanations because you don't want to accept that there are any and, like I said, that's on you.

To summarise:

1. Tennis is part of the Olympic programme and, as the Olympics are the most prestigious sporting event in the world (or are you now going to dispute this too?) any sport taking part is automatically prestigious. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be included.

2. Most Olympic tennis champions since the event's re-introduction have also been Slam champions, in fact almost all of them multi-Slam champions. If that doesn't add prestige to a tennis tournament, I don't know what does.

3. The ATP, the recognised official organisation for men's tennis, recognises it as a Big Title (if you don't agree with them, take it up with them).

4. Although a relatively new event on the Tennis Calendar, other Big Title events are recognised as such with fairly recent history behind them. For instance, the YEC, which you are happy to accept as a Big Title, only dates back as far as 1970 (less than 20 years before Olympic tennis was revived). As I pointed out, some Slams in the past were regularly ignored by top players eg. the AO and therefore presumably lacked prestige but that hasn't affected their present status now.

5. Most top players recognise the prestigiousness of the Olympic title which is why, when uninjured or deterred by pandemics, the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all regularly play it. Call me picky, but I prefer to go with their opinions on this than with your's.

That's all I have to say. I'm not going to keep repeating it all just for your benefit. If you don't want to accept any of this, then that's on you. I'm done here.

1. Do you know what circular logic is?
2. 17 of the last 19 winners of Dubai has won a slam. Again, no different than a 500 event.
3. Firstly, the ATP recently added it, which shows that it was not even recognized just a few years ago. Secondly, yes: I disagree with it being called a "Big Title" as there is no inherent difference between Olympic tennis and any other tennis tournament.
4. This isn't given a reason for the Olympics being prestigious; you're just attacking the prestige of other tournaments. History is just one reason for the prestige. I already explained why the format of the YEC gives it prestige
5. They regularly play a lot of tournament. Yes, it's special to them but they make grandiose statements about a lot of tournaments. There is nothing inherently or subjectively different about Olympic tennis, which is my point. And again, players have skipped it citing it being a non-priority.

 

[SonicNirvana]

Keep crying, bud. Your hero only has a bronze medal. Not even good enough for a silver like FRAUD was.

was this account banned or deleted?

 

[Tony48]

Winning every significant tournament twice is a great achievement, but do you really count this? You really consider him a two-time Cincinnati champion, even though he won the 2nd title in New York and not in Cincinnati (a place he's always struggled...at least 4 wins at every other HC Masters, but one actual win in Cincinnati)?

He never "struggled" there. He ran into stiff competition at the end. That's like saying he "struggled" at RG simply because he kept losing to Nadal in the final.

And the YEC has been in multiple venues. It's still the YEC. But the circumstances warranted Cincy being moved. It's still Cincy.

 

[duaneeo]

He never "struggled" there. He ran into stiff competition at the end.

By 2017, Nole had won 22 HC Masters...5 Indian Wells, 6 Miami, 4 Canada, 3 Shanghai, 4 Paris...NONE at Cincinnati. Either he "struggled" at Cincinnati, or he never ran into stiff competition at the end of the other HC Masters.

And the YEC has been in multiple venues. It's still the YEC. But the circumstances warranted Cincy being moved. It's still Cincy.

You're really comparing a tournament being changed to a new venue to a tournament being temporarily moved? Okay.
And no, circumstances didn't warrant Cincy being moved. If circumstances meant Cincy couldn't be played at Cincy, it shouldn't have been played.

As is typical, this is going nowhere, so here's a compromise: Nole is a two-time champion of the Western & Southern Open, but a one-time champion of the Cincinnati Masters.

 

[Hitman]

By 2017, Nole had won 22 HC Masters...5 Indian Wells, 6 Miami, 4 Canada, 3 Shanghai, 4 Paris...NONE at Cincinnati. Either he "struggled" at Cincinnati, or he never ran into stiff competition at the end of the other HC Masters.



You're really comparing a tournament being changed to a new venue to a tournament being temporarily moved? Okay.
And no, circumstances didn't warrant Cincy being moved. If circumstances meant Cincy couldn't be played at Cincy, it shouldn't have been played.

As is typical, this is going nowhere, so here's a compromise: Nole is a two-time champion of the Western & Southern Open, but a one-time champion of the Cincinnati Masters.

No, he is a two time champion of the event. That is officially recognized by the governing body of tennis. Whether you like it or not is a different thing altogether.

 

[Tony48]

By 2017, Nole had won 22 HC Masters...5 Indian Wells, 6 Miami, 4 Canada, 3 Shanghai, 4 Paris...NONE at Cincinnati. Either he "struggled" at Cincinnati, or he never ran into stiff competition at the end of the other HC Masters.

He made five finals. My interpretation of "struggle" is that he lost well before the SFs or QFs.

You're really comparing a tournament being changed to a new venue to a tournament being temporarily moved? Okay.
And no, circumstances didn't warrant Cincy being moved. If circumstances meant Cincy couldn't be played at Cincy, it shouldn't have been played.

The point is that a new location does not mean it's not the same tournament. Whether it's moved temporarily or permanently.

Does Federer's Madrid win still count even though it was played on an experimental, and now permanently banned surface?

As far as the circumstances warranting it, well....the officials thought it could still be played. It was their decision. A lot of temporary changes were made: tournaments were canceled, post-poned, and this one was moved. We are in a pandemic. Not everything is going to perfect. You have to be willing to adjust and make exceptions.

As is typical, this is going nowhere, so here's a compromise: Nole is a two-time champion of the Western & Southern Open, but a one-time champion of the Cincinnati Masters.

This is the most arbitrary, pedantic "compromise" ever.

 

[ABCD]

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I love it when he throws the hearts to us after the match

 

[40-15 still haunts me]

According to Wikipedia it says Federer has won 2 different masters 1000 tournaments that Djokovic hasn’t won ( Hamburg which Fed won 4 times and Novak has never won once) and Madrid once? Hamburg was downgraded to a 500 though wasn’t it ?

 

[duaneeo]

He made five finals. My interpretation of "struggle" is that he lost well before the SFs or QFs.

For the supposed HC GOAT at a HC Masters, the interpretation of "struggle" is not winning the title.

 

[Hitman]

According to Wikipedia it says Federer has won 2 different masters 1000 tournaments that Djokovic hasn’t won ( Hamburg which Fed won 4 times and Novak has never won once) and Madrid once? Hamburg was downgraded to a 500 though wasn’t it ?

Hamburg was downgraded in 2009. 2008 was the last time it was a 1000 series.

Madrid Indoors basically became Madrid clay, and was replaced in 2009 by Shanghai.

 

[N01E]

Federer has won Madrid 2009 in the third slot which is currently occupied by Rome. Doesn't count for Fed lol.

That's because only scheduling was changed and the other 2 clay events remained at the same location so it's no brainer which one we count as what. We don't consider USO20 RG because it was the second slam of the year. Surfaces for events or sometimes venues often change, so there's no problem with 2020 Cincy.

c o p e

the tennis world will never accept novak as goat. that's why you continue to make these threads.

 

[Tony48]

For the supposed HC GOAT at a HC Masters, the interpretation of "struggle" is not winning the title.

How completely unreasonable of you.

 

[duaneeo]

No, he is a two time champion of the event. That is officially recognized by the governing body of tennis. Whether you like it or not is a different thing altogether.

If Miami had been held/played in New York and Nadal had won, I would've argued that Rafa still hasn't officially won Miami, and I'm sure many Nole fans would've argued the same, lol.

 

[mr tonyz]

He made five finals. My interpretation of "struggle" is that he lost well before the SFs or QFs.



The point is that a new location does not mean it's not the same tournament. Whether it's moved temporarily or permanently.

Does Federer's Madrid win still count even though it was played on an experimental, and now permanently banned surface?

As far as the circumstances warranting it, well....the officials thought it could still be played. It was their decision. A lot of temporary changes were made: tournaments were canceled, post-poned, and this one was moved. We are in a pandemic. Not everything is going to perfect. You have to be willing to adjust and make exceptions.



This is the most arbitrary, pedantic "compromise" ever.

Let's put it this way. Fed's 2012 Madrid Blue Clay is a 1/1 as is most likely "Cincinnati" 2020 being played in New York was a 1/1. Meaning only Fedovic share such rare M1000 accomplishments! 1/1 denoting that both tournaments were only ever held under those specific conditions "Once-In-A-Lifetime!"

& yes , it obviously is a different tournament if it's played in a different city!

If it's the same tournament despite being played in a different city then what would actually constitute a different HC M1000 tournament??

I could then easily say all HC M1000s are the same tournament, because ... Why not??

 

[mr tonyz]

If Miami had been held/played in New York and Nadal had won, I would've argued that Rafa still hasn't officially won Miami, and I'm sure many Nole fans would've argued the same, lol.

Djoker fans fail to realize that their guy now owns 10 distinct Masters 1000 tournaments! (unless we count Toronto & Montreal as distinct M1000s then he's 11/11) & thus are doing their guy a great disservice because he already has 1 Career Golden Masters under his belt. Forgoing a second Career Golden Masters for a full deck of 10/10 (or 11/11) is trade that i'd be more than willing to make as he still has a shot @ capturing that second legitimate Cincinnati M1000 crown

 

[Tony48]

Let's put it this way. Fed's 2012 Madrid Blue Clay is a 1/1 as is most likely "Cincinnati" 2020 being played in New York was a 1/1. Meaning only Fedovic share such rare M1000 accomplishments! 1/1 denoting that both tournaments were only ever held under those specific conditions "Once-In-A-Lifetime!"

& yes , it obviously is a different tournament if it's played in a different city!

If it's the same tournament despite being played in a different city then what would actually constitute a different HC M1000 tournament??

I could then easily say all HC M1000s are the same tournament, because ... Why not??

It's the same tournament because everyone says and recognizes that it is. Exceptional circumstances warranted the tournament being moved. It was the same surface, same climate, same everything else except location. It's not an every day thing where tournaments are relocated. Stop being a contrarian.

The summer Olympics are officially held every four years, but the upcoming games won't hold true to that official standard. Are they not the summer games because they're being held 5 years after 2020 instead of four?

 

[roysid]

2nd Cincinnati was actually not in Cincinnati so doesn't count

 

[Tony48]

2nd Cincinnati was actually not in Cincinnati so doesn't count

Novak Djokovic's Golden Rule: A Grandmaster Twice Over! | ATP Tour | Tennis

Novak Djokovic made history on Saturday, defeating Milos Raonic 1-6, 6-3, 6-4 to win the Western & Southern Open and complete his second Career Golden Masters.

www.atptour.com

ATP Masters 1000 Cincinnati | Overview | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis tournament profile of ATP Masters 1000 Cincinnati on the ATP Tour. Featuring news, who played, past champions, prize money, and more.

www.atptour.com

2020 Champion: N. Djokovic

Do you know something they don't? You should contact them right away.

Or alternatively, you can show us the rule that states that it's not the same tournament unless it's held in the same city.

 

[40-15 still haunts me]

2nd Cincinnati was actually not in Cincinnati so doesn't count

You’re a funny guy roysid, I like you. That’s why I’m going to mute you last

 

[Jai]

2nd Cincinnati was actually not in Cincinnati so doesn't count

This is like saying the Canada Masters which alternated between Montreal and Toronto, doesn't count if won in the other city.

 

[dr325i]

This is the Olympic. Every individual and team competition are awarded with the same medal.

How about Davis Cup -- why don't thy include that one too??
Has no lower significance (tennis-wise) than the Olympics