Djokovic/Sampras career comparison - how much is 12 Masters 1000's worth?

[timnz]

When you compare Djokovic's career to date with Sampras' what you see is that Sampras has 6 more Slam wins (14 vs 8 ) but 12 less Masters 1000 wins (11 vs 23). We will put aside discussion of Slam runner-ups and WTF's at the moment.

Now the ATP rate a Masters 1000 has being worth 1/2 a Slam win (2000 points vs 1000 points). So according to that then 12 Masters 1000 x 1000 points = 6 Slams x 2000 points.

But I suspect that many wouldn't see that that way.

So what is Djokovic's extra 12 Masters 1000's worth? 1 slam, 2 slams, 3 slams, 4 slams, 5 slams or 6 slams or zero slams?

It would be good to have some discussion.

(Note: In my research - since it wasn't until 2000 that Masters 1000's were compulsory - Sampras chose to compete in other events than the full complement of Masters 1000's in the 1990's. Sampras won a maximum of 4 events between 1990-1992 that could be considered Masters 1000's equivalents that aren't counted in his official 11 wins - but that is a conversation for another thread).

 

[Djokovic2011]

IMO they're probably worth a few slams but like you say, not many people will agree with you since they consider Masters to be "doggy scraps" compared to the mighty majors.

Btw timnz have you updated your list? :smile:

 

[BringBackSV]

They are worth 12 Masters.

 

[encylopedia]

ABSOLUTELY NONE. Zero, zip, nada.

Master's 1000 title is a great accomplishment which counts for essentially nothing in terms of greatness.

If you won a slam and 12 masters titles, what do you think you'd be introduced as: the 2016 USO champion? Or....the guy who won 12 masters titles!

More to the point, if you offered either guy one more slam, (this is true even though they both have multiple titles - let alone for a guy with none) or 12 masters titles....or even 20 or 30 masters titles....and you think they'd choose the masters titles....you don't know tennis.

 

[timnz]

IMO they're probably worth a few slams but like you say, not many people will agree with you since they consider Masters to be "doggy scraps" compared to the mighty majors.

Btw timnz have you updated your list? :smile:

I have updated the list - and noticed that Djokovic had jumped over Sampras. That partially is the reason for this thread. BTW I am reflecting on major changes to the list as I am becoming more and more of the opinion that there is no easy equivalent of matching pre-1996 Masters 1000 equivalents to post-1996 Masters 1000's (1995 was the last year that there were other events of the same $$ and points as Masters 1000's).

 

[timnz]

ABSOLUTELY NONE. Zero, zip, nada.

Master's 1000 title is a great accomplishment which counts for essentially nothing in terms of greatness.

If you won a slam and 12 masters titles, what do you think you'd be introduced as: the 2016 USO champion? Or....the guy who won 12 masters titles!

More to the point, if you offered either guy one more slam, (this is true even though they both have multiple titles - let alone for a guy with none) or 12 masters titles....or even 20 or 30 masters titles....and you think they'd choose the masters titles....you don't know tennis.

They would be introduced as the 2016 because that is their premier single achievement. But we are talking about an overall career comparison here with people on these forums who realise that the tennis calendar is more than 4 weeks a year. So really does Nadal 27 Masters 1000's count for nothing? As if he had won zero Masters 1000's - absolutely no difference?

Thanks for the comments - appreciate discussion

 

[jm1980]

ABSOLUTELY NONE. Zero, zip, nada.

Master's 1000 title is a great accomplishment which counts for essentially nothing in terms of greatness.

If you won a slam and 12 masters titles, what do you think you'd be introduced as: the 2016 USO champion? Or....the guy who won 12 masters titles!

More to the point, if you offered either guy one more slam, (this is true even though they both have multiple titles - let alone for a guy with none) or 12 masters titles....or even 20 or 30 masters titles....and you think they'd choose the masters titles....you don't know tennis.

This applies mostly to folks who started playing tennis after the late 90s, when the American media unilaterally and with no deliberation started to hype Slams as the one and only metric by which careers should be evaluated to prop up Sampras. Little did they know a Swiss guy would come and smash that record :lol:

 

[Noleberic123]

They should be considered when determinating the greatness of a player. but I know all fedal fans will disagree

 

[AngieB]

Zero.

You kids need to stop trying to compare tour level events with ITF-sanctioned grand slam events. It's impossible. Grand Slam events in the sport of tennis are the summit of the sport. Nothing is greater. No tour level event on any country on the planet Earth will ever compare to the grandeur and glory of an ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam event. #GirlBye

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[Deleted member 307496]

This applies mostly to folks who started playing tennis after the late 90s, when the American media unilaterally and with no deliberation started to hype Slams as the one and only metric by which careers should be evaluated to prop up Sampras. Little did they know a Swiss guy would come and smash that record :lol:

After the late 90s..

Sampras was hyped for his slams even when he was playing prime tennis. For example, the 1998 USO.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And they are worth 12 Masters. Masters titles weren't the same as they were today in the 90s and early 2000s, which is why players of today have so many in comparison.

Murray is only behind Sampras by 2 Masters. Two! Yet nobody compares them.

 

[AngieB]

IMO they're probably worth a few slams but like you say, not many people will agree with you since they consider Masters to be "doggy scraps" compared to the mighty majors.

Btw timnz have you updated your list? :smile:

The only reason you want to "dumb down" the grand slam events is to elevate #Novak's stature historically, because even you (and the OP) know he'll never be as great as #PeteSampras. That's all.

#PTL. #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[jm1980]

But on topic, clearly 12 Masters are worth less than 12 ITF sanctioned Futures events

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't understand how anyone can vote 'zero' on the poll. I mean, what's the point in having such tournaments as Masters 1000s if they're not gonna be worth anything?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I don't understand how anyone can vote 'zero' on the poll. I mean, what's the point in having such tournaments as Masters 1000s if they're not gonna be worth anything?

What's the point in having 250 tournaments? They aren't anywhere close to being compared to the WTF.

 

[Djokovic2011]

What's the point in having 250 tournaments? They aren't anywhere close to being compared to the WTF.

But 250 tournaments aren't mandatory so obviously the fields are much weaker.

 

[Noleberic123]

But 250 tournaments aren't mandatory so obviously the fields are much weaker.

Djokovic has equalled Federer!! you happy about that?

 

[timnz]

Zero - really?

I don't understand how anyone can vote 'zero' on the poll. I mean, what's the point in having such tournaments as Masters 1000s if they're not gonna be worth anything?

I just don't believe that Nadal's 27 Masters 1000's are of the same value as zero Masters 1000. They just don't count at all - people are saying!? No one is saying that they are on par with a Slam - but they are worth something surely? If they were so easy to win - why has Berdych only got 1 Masters 1000? He is a consistent top 10 performer. No, they are difficult to win - and therefore worth something considerable. I just don't believe that 1 Slams is worth more than 500 Masters 1000's.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic has equalled Federer!! you happy about that?

I am indeed. And I'll be even happier when he equals Nadal!

 

[Tiger8]

I don't understand how anyone can vote 'zero' on the poll. I mean, what's the point in having such tournaments as Masters 1000s if they're not gonna be worth anything?

Masters are ultimately prestigious tune-ups to Grand Slams. If someone won none of the clay masters, than won Roland Garros, do you think he'd be more or less happier if he won all 2 clay masters and didn't win Roland Garros? I don't however believe that they're worth nothing, anybody who claims they are is ridiculous. How can you compare a Masters with a 500 or 250 when all the best players play in Masters? A Masters has basically the same field as a Grand Slam, just a different format, which is what ultimately seperates them from the Slams. I think they're a good tool to use when comparing two players who are close in Slams, along with YEC's, Year End Numbers 1's, and weeks at number 1.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

People on this forum have a huge and somewhat irrational obsession with GS titles as the be all and end all. In reality, GS titles are the most important thing to consider but by no means the only thing. I have always felt that Masters events are more difficult to win than GS given the tightness of the draw. Often in GS events you can have a player cruise into the SF without facing top players (Nadal in 2010 at USO comes to mind). Novak deserves tremendous credit for what he has done at these events. Still, he needs more majors to surpass Pete.

 

[jm1980]

People on this forum have a huge and somewhat irrational obsession with GS titles as the be all and end all. In reality, GS titles are the most important thing to consider but by no means the only thing. I have always felt that Masters events are more difficult to win than GS given the tightness of the draw. Often in GS events you can have a player cruise into the SF without facing top players (Nadal in 2010 at USO comes to mind). Novak deserves tremendous credit for what he has done at these events. Still, he needs more majors to surpass Pete.

He'd need 7 more Slams to surpass Pete in Slam count, which is most likely unattainable at this point.

However if he manages to win RG, I'd consider him greater than Pete in Slams without getting to 14. Maybe 12 or 13 would be enough, depending on the distribution.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

If he equals Pete with 6 more then the huge disparity in Masters and overall win percentage edge come into play. Again, everyone can invent their own criteria for GOAT rankings. It is all relative and no, there are no universals. GS aren't universal and absolute either.

 

[NGM]

Masters should be counted as great achivements but it's meanings go down when your career goes up in term of greatness.

For example if you are Ferrer Masters titles are all you have. It would be counted as his biggest achivements.

But if you are Murray surely his 11 (?) Masters titles have much less meaning comparing with his USO and Wimbledon.

And if you are Federer Masters would only be used to make the thing more beautiful.

So Masters have 0 meaning if you compare Sampras and Djokovic careers.

 

[JanowiczJ]

My vote: 6 slams. Wanted to vote '12'.

 

[Supertegwyn]

I don't like this slam-centric view of the world. They obviously should be the first thing you compare, but they aren't the only tournament in the world.

I would say one person with 4 slams and 20 Masters would be better than one person with 6 slams and 2 Masters.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I don't like this slam-centric view of the world. They obviously should be the first thing you compare, but they aren't the only tournament in the world.

I would say one person with 4 slams and 20 Masters would be better than one person with 6 slams and 2 Masters.

Totally agree with this. You have to look beyond slams to an extent. Masters are obviously very important indicators of playing level throughout a season. Djokovic is second only to federer when it comes to overall consistency at GS and Masters (where he is actually better than Fed).

 

[Nadalgaenger]

He'd need 7 more Slams to surpass Pete in Slam count, which is most likely unattainable at this point.

However if he manages to win RG, I'd consider him greater than Pete in Slams without getting to 14. Maybe 12 or 13 would be enough, depending on the distribution.

I agree, but most people here are so obsessed with slams that they would throw this notion out in utero. Apparently it is much more meaningful to win a final at Wimbledon against Pioline or Washington than winning 11 straight Masters finals against top-flight opponents, including HC Goat Fed and Clay GOAT.

 

[TMF]

Zero.

You kids need to stop trying to compare tour level events with ITF-sanctioned grand slam events. It's impossible. Grand Slam events in the sport of tennis are the summit of the sport. Nothing is greater. No tour level event on any country on the planet Earth will ever compare to the grandeur and glory of an ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam event. #GirlBye

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

There are only 9 players in the history of tennis that have won 12+ Masters.
It's not that easy to win 12 MS but for you to say that it's worth zero is TROLLING.

At least say it's worth 1 or 2 slams, but not zero.



Most Master Series or equivalent win
1. Rafael Nadal 27
2. Roger Federer 23
= Novak Djokovic 23
4. Ivan Lendl 22
5. John McEnroe 19
6. Andre Agassi 17
= Jimmny Connors 17
8. Bjorn Borg 15
9. Boris Becker 13
10. Pete Sampras 11

 

[jm1980]

There are only 9 players in the history of tennis that have won 12+ Masters.
It's not that easy to win 12 MS but for you to say that it's worth zero is TROLLING.

At least say it's worth 1 or 2 slams, but not zero.



Most Master Series or equivalent win
1. Rafael Nadal 27
2. Roger Federer 23
= Novak Djokovic 23
4. Ivan Lendl 22
5. John McEnroe 19
6. Andre Agassi 17
= Jimmny Connors 17
8. Bjorn Borg 15
9. Boris Becker 13
10. Pete Sampras 11

Do you have the list of players who have won the most ITF-sanctioned Futures events, which have incomparable grandeur and glory due to their ITF-sanctioned status?

 

[cc0509]

I don't understand how anyone can vote 'zero' on the poll. I mean, what's the point in having such tournaments as Masters 1000s if they're not gonna be worth anything?

The Masters 1000s are only worth something when you are comparing two players with the same or a very close slam count. That is when you would start to look at other records such as weeks at number one, WTFs, Masters 1000s to compare the two players.

 

[LETitBE]

I dont think Sampras really worried too much about masters.

 

[TMF]

Do you have the list of players who have won the most ITF-sanctioned Futures events, which have incomparable grandeur and glory due to their ITF-sanctioned status?

The point is 12 MS titles aren't worth nothing, zero, or nada. The OP is asking what's the worth of the 12 MS. After all the MS is worth 1,000 points, not zero.

 

[DolgoSantoro]

I think Masters should be used as a metric of comparison between players who are already comparable, and nothing else. If you asked an Olympian how many bronze medals they'd trade their gold for, I imagine most would laugh at you.

 

[cc0509]

The point is 12 MS titles aren't worth nothing, zero, or nada. The OP is asking what's the worth of the 12 MS. After all the MS is worth 1,000 points, not zero.

No he isn't. The OP is asking what the worth of 12 Masters 1000s are IN RELATION to slams.

I think Masters should be used as a metric of comparison between players who are already comparable, and nothing else. If you asked an Olympian how many bronze medals they'd trade their gold for, I imagine most would laugh at you.

Yes.

 

[AngieB]

I don't understand how anyone can vote 'zero' on the poll. I mean, what's the point in having such tournaments as Masters 1000s if they're not gonna be worth anything?

They need tour level events like #MS1000's to award computer ranking points in determining proper seeding for ITF-sanctioned grand slam draws.

#MS1000s don't get you into the #ITHOF. #GS titles do. #GirlBye

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[AngieB]

There are only 9 players in the history of tennis that have won 12+ Masters.
It's not that easy to win 12 MS but for you to say that it's worth zero is TROLLING.

At least say it's worth 1 or 2 slams, but not zero.



Most Master Series or equivalent win
1. Rafael Nadal 27
2. Roger Federer 23
= Novak Djokovic 23
4. Ivan Lendl 22
5. John McEnroe 19
6. Andre Agassi 17
= Jimmny Connors 17
8. Bjorn Borg 15
9. Boris Becker 13
10. Pete Sampras 11

I see someone has warmed up their desktop and their Wikipedia entries.

First, there were about 80+ years of tennis before MS1000 events ever occurred. Their historical importance is by nature skewed and relative only to the #OpenEra. #MS1000's don't get you inducted into the ITHOF. ITF-sanctioned #GS titles, do, #MrWiki. #GirlBye

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[AngieB]

I don't like this slam-centric view of the world.

Well, they don't call them "grand" slam events for nothing. Without the ITF-sanctioned grand slam events, tennis wouldn't be all that great, now would it?

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[Supertegwyn]

Well, they don't call them "grand" slam events for nothing. Without the ITF-sanctioned grand slam events, tennis wouldn't be all that great, now would it?

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

I think tennis would be great with or without grand slams frankly.

 

[encylopedia]

This applies mostly to folks who started playing tennis after the late 90s, when the American media unilaterally and with no deliberation started to hype Slams as the one and only metric by which careers should be evaluated to prop up Sampras. Little did they know a Swiss guy would come and smash that record :lol:

Sigh.....

Ridiculous.

Yes....Sampras - media DARLING that he was - was the reason for this.

American Media: man...we love that Pete Sampras....well OK we criticize him a lot...but other than we LOVE HIM! How can we make sure he is the greatest of all time?
AM2: well.....we usually put a lot of emphasis on regular tour titles...but hey, how about we put the emphasis on those GRAND SLAMS....he's got a lot of those!! COINCIDENTLY...they even have a prestigious sounding name....GRAAANDDD SLAAAMMMMM.....
AM1: yeah!!! Nice! Let's do it...he'll definitely be the greatest then...nobody will EVER beat that...and then....um...we will...um....have an American as the greatest and that will help us in that....um.....well something! Wait....do you think the international media and tennis experts will go along?
AM2: of course....

....and all of that happened in 2000+.......never mind that Sampras said at the start of his career that nobody remembered Philadelphia (regular titles)....never mind that Connors, Lendl, Mac, Becker, Arthur Ashe, all have spoken about the premium importance of the slams....before Pete even started playing......

....but then again, it's not surprising that the old greats went along with it....by sheer coincidence, they won a lot of grand slam titles....people like Laver and Borg said: "Oh man, this is great! Thank goodness for the Sampras conspiracy.....people used to remember me as a guy who won a lot of masters 1000 level tourneys....now they can really emphasize my slam accomplishments! What a relief!! I am so tired of people remembering how many masters 1000 level tourneys I won ( the number of course I need not mention, if you were around in the 90's or earlier....because it was heavily emphasized back then....)


Yes...that's exactly how it happened....

 

[chjtennis]

We cannot directly compare these two players in this discussion. Masters 1000 events have been taken more seriously in the last 6-7 years. If Sampras was playing his prime tennis in 2010-2015, he would've definitely concentrated more on them rather than playing other events and he would've also tried harder to win them. The prize money have been increased to insane level, especially, so there's even bigger incentive to win them.

 

[encylopedia]

Masters are ultimately prestigious tune-ups to Grand Slams. If someone won none of the clay masters, than won Roland Garros, do you think he'd be more or less happier if he won all 2 clay masters and didn't win Roland Garros? I don't however believe that they're worth nothing, anybody who claims they are is ridiculous. How can you compare a Masters with a 500 or 250 when all the best players play in Masters? A Masters has basically the same field as a Grand Slam, just a different format, which is what ultimately seperates them from the Slams. I think they're a good tool to use when comparing two players who are close in Slams, along with YEC's, Year End Numbers 1's, and weeks at number 1.

Well I emphasized zero, but that is in comparison to slams, and greatness.

They aren't worth absolutely nothing, it's exactly as you say, they may be useful in fine differentiation between players who have similar slam and ranking accomplishments.

BUT....I posit to you this...while it might help make an argument for differentiation on a tennis forum....it probably will make no difference to overall greatness. I'd suggest to you, that if a guy showed up with 7 or 8 slams who won...say....40 masters 1000 titles.....and a guy showed up with 7 or 8 slams that won 3 titles....well yes, surely on here, that would be a strong argument that the first player can claim a better career.....but will this make a real difference in overall greatness? No. Both will still be remembered as greats belonging in the same tier and level as Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi, etc. - among most forum members let alone amongst the general fans, or the general public...most of whom will have no idea, nor care what the masters 1000 number is.

 

[encylopedia]

They need tour level events like #MS1000's to award computer ranking points in determining proper seeding for ITF-sanctioned grand slam draws.

#MS1000s don't get you into the #ITHOF. #GS titles do. #GirlBye

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

Uh....they also need them for something called: MONEY.

I don't think Djokovic 2011 even understands pro tennis.

It would be much harder to sell tickets, or get media attention if all regular tournaments were exo's.

You must add a competitive element to sell them. There has to be something "real" at stake, or at least the illusion of something real.

I assure you, that if the tour said: it turns out we can be just as successful, get just as much attention, sell just as many tickets, if we just have play for fun exos. You'll all get paid the same, you'll all get the same sponsors and attention, but only as much pressure as you put on yourself. We'll just play for real at the slams. Most of the players would say: Sure, sounds good!

I also assure you that if the tour realized they could make just as much money, and attract just as many fans by staging no masters 1000 events, they'd be fine with not holding any.

In the end, pro tennis as a business is about making money. PERIOD. The REASON we have masters 1000's...the reason why the calender is packed, and sometimes scheduled poorly, the reason why everyone agrees the off season is too short - but nobody does anything about it, the reason IS MONEY. That's why the tour tries to insure top players play...to attract fans/money.

...and finally, the competitive element helps to objectively determine WHO should be invited.

 

[encylopedia]

No he isn't. The OP is asking what the worth of 12 Masters 1000s are IN RELATION to slams..

Quite correct. Thank you. And I think I made that very clear in my response, but I'm not surprised the person you're responding to didn't get it.

Frankly, I wouldn't even have responded to him.

 

[vanioMan]

I view Masters 1000 as very important and prestigious events which matter a lot. They are far away from being minor events and I believe many users here tend to downgrade their value.

However, there is no way I can view 12 Masters being worth 1 or more GS titles. Therefore, I voted "zero"

 

[Cortana]

There are 9 Masters and 4 GS tournaments. Let's say GS are 2 times harder to win. So we get around 4 Masters = 1 GS.

 

[uscwang]

This is clearly an evolving issue. Today, the champion of a masters tournament needs to win 5, or 6 in IW and Miami, Bo3 within a week in a draw that often includes 90% of top 50 players. To say it means nothing compared to GS is quite simple minded.
I feel future generations will find smarter ways to evaluate today's tennis players. I'm sure GS will not be the only factor. I'm also sure that masters and WTF will be important factors. Whether future people will invent something to dwarf today's GS, say a best of 9 tournament with a draw of 1024 competed over 1 month in China, is anybody's guess.
So relax. Nobody here will have the final say on this.
I voted for 3 GS btw.

 

[chjtennis]

I view Masters 1000 as very important and prestigious events which matter a lot. They are far away from being minor events and I believe many users here tend to downgrade their value.

However, there is no way I can view 12 Masters being worth 1 or more GS titles. Therefore, I voted "zero"

I concur.

............

 

[BringBackSV]

There are 9 Masters and 4 GS tournaments. Let's say GS are 2 times harder to win. So we get around 4 Masters = 1 GS.

Why not just win majors instead of seeking false equivalencies? Novak needs Slams if he wants to be compared to Peter.

 

[Cortana]

Why not just win majors instead of seeking false equivalencies? Novak needs Slams if he wants to be compared to Peter.

And winning around 35-40 Masters titles till the end of his career wouldn't be a big achievement in tennis history? I'm sure he will also have 12-14 GS titles by then including RG and maybe even more WTF titles than Federer. And 250 weeks on #1 should also be doable for him.

That would make him (IMO) the 2nd best player of all time.