Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
I will take that as you would rather have a slam
Djokovic/Sampras career comparison - how much is 12 Masters 1000's worth?
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
I will take that as you would rather have a slam
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Like I said, only Wimbledon. After all, one could argue that winning 12 Masters over five years(and presumably beating numerous top players) is better than hitting the jackpot over a specific two week period where you might not have to even beat a top ten player. And if nothing else, the 12 Masters titles show much more consistency than winning 1 major and nothing else.
AngieB
Banned
No it isn't equivalent.
The point of this thread is not to even infer that a Masters 1000 is comparable to a Slam. The point is, in comparison of great players, we included all the top level achievements into the mix not just measure slam wins.
Now the majority polled here believe that:
8 Slams + 4 WTF + 7 Slam Runner-ups + 0 Masters 1000 + 150 weeks at number 1
is greater than
7 Slams + 4 WTF + 7 Slam Runner-ups + 100 Masters 1000's + 150 weeks at number 1
I don't - and since I believe that the tennis calendar is longer than 8 weeks at year (the time the slams are played in). Hence Masters 1000's have some value (we may differ on what their value is - but surely they are worth more than zero).
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I agree with you.
If we're talking about any slam other than Wimbledon, I would rather have 5-6 Masters than the slam, maybe less if I got to pick the Masters.
Doesn't mean they're "worth" a slam, but I'd rather have them.
For Wimbledon though, I would rather have that than 20+ Masters as I said the other day (unless I could win all nine different ones).
I would probably rather have Wimbledon than 2 of the same HC slam actually.
Not RG though, I value that at probably 0.75 Wimbledons for what I would personally want to win.
Wimbledon or bust.
Also some of the Masters are actually really nice events which I would love to win (MC, Cincy, Shanghai).
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
Meh, it doesn't matter. Masters wins just translate to YE#1 which any real fan of tennis recognizes as on the level of a slam. So yes, M1000s matter. Sorry to any casual fan that just checks in for the 4 slams during the year and thinks they know everything about tennis.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
Wimbledon is overrated. In 25 years it'll be less prestigious than the USO and whatever they call China's inevitable slam. Grass has no season and thus no specialists and worldwide lawn tennis is permanently in decline.
90's Clay
Banned
Its not as prestigious anymore for sure. You can tell that by how many good to great grass players we have had in the last 10 plus years. Barely any.
If Wimbledon was so prestigious you would have a solid grass court depth like previous eras
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Absolutely not. Option 2 of course. Only stubborn people who has already said masters have no value would still go for option 1.
Slams are not everything, as soon as people realize that, the better. This sport is more than that.
Pluss, with option two, you would have many many more weeks at number one.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
It's simply not this simple.
Answers will change depending on already accrued achievements. I think the point of most here is that a player who wins only 1 Slam in his career would be better than another player who only wins a whole load of Masters 1000s (making an assumption here, but the point is that not everybody would have imagined the same starting point for the comparison).
If both players have lots of Slams already then the opinion will vary, because both players can be given the benefit of the doubt for consistently proving themselves at the very highest level... or something like that.
I'll take 30-38 Rome titles over 1 Slam, from the col.
Now, true enough that you suggested the bounds for the comparison in the OP, but they won't have been observed by everyone. Also, it's hard to just compare Sampras and Nole in such a crude and mathematical manner like that; they played in different times and with different priorities.
Last edited by a moderator:
90's Clay
Banned
I would say Gaudio. When you are comparing someone who won a slam to someone who didn't. No amount of "smaller tournaments" can make up for a slam. Even if Gaudio is a weak slam winner. One is better than nothing
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I imagine that opinions on this will be quite split, which says a lot really because Davydenko won way more titles, including 3 Masters 1000s and 1 YEC.
Well since you are an obvious troll, you just made my point
90's Clay
Banned
3 1000's and a YEC doesn't make up for a slam anyway you want to slice it
The slams are ultimate holy grail in the open era.
You seriously believe that Davydenko would trade his career with Gaudio? :shock:
Even for you that is dumb
90's Clay
Banned
Well.. Call me crazy. But I would trade my SLAMLESS Career for at least 1 slam. Gaudio has gone down in the records as winning a tournament that is most difficult to win and something all players ultimately strive for . (A Grand Slam Event). Davydenko.. Did not
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
It seems that most look at majors won and time spent at number one when evaluating the greatness of a player, and then to some extent the supposed depth and strength of eras.
Slams satisfy the majors won column, and other tournaments are handsomely rewarded because they are often the difference between being #1 or not being #1.
At least, this is the case for the Open Era.
Slams satisfy the majors won column, and other tournaments are handsomely rewarded because they are often the difference between being #1 or not being #1.
At least, this is the case for the Open Era.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
You probably haven't done any sports at all.
encylopedia
Professional
Quite correct. Timnz is attempting to make a false argument with an extreme example - and indeed, one can make the difference between 1 slam seem minimal on the surface by giving both players very large accomplishments.......and indeed...for some...100 titles may be enough to equal one slam (but not for most....particularly if 1 slam is all you get).
Ironically though, the players described by Timnz in this extreme scenario will value that one slam far more.....any player with 7+ slams would gladly trade all his other titles for an extra slam. In terms of "greatness" which is the scale on which such players are competing, another slam means something.....masters titles don't.
90's Clay
Banned
Like I said, 3 1000's rinky dink tourneys and a WTF (Which wasn't the year damn near everyone was missing from the WTF ROLFMAO) does NOT equate to a slam win
The slams are what everyone strives for and want to win.. EVERYTHING else comes 2nd in line
Last edited:
This players are professionals. They make a living out of this. Davydenko make 16 millions in career earnings, Gaudio "just" 6. Both are living a comfortable life, but guess who is more comfortable? The one with the better career.
Majors are important, the most important metric obviously. But not the only one. I am from Argentina, and i can assure you while Gaston is well known, Nalbandian is much more popular and considered the far better player, and the one with the better career as well, between the 2 of them
Majors are important, the most important metric obviously. But not the only one. I am from Argentina, and i can assure you while Gaston is well known, Nalbandian is much more popular and considered the far better player, and the one with the better career as well, between the 2 of them
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Wimbledon, perhaps.
It's true; Becker and Edberg typically get rated above Wilander, even with them all having competed in the same era and Wilander winning one more Slam. Or.. perhaps it's about YEC accomplishments too, with it being more highly regarded back then?
90's Clay
Banned
Yea maybe.. If you play a ton of tournaments you can make a crapload. Kafelnikov is a great example there. But still.. Put my name under as a "slam winner" on the record books over 16 million
encylopedia
Professional
Like I said, 3 1000's rinky dink tourneys and a WTF (Which wasn't the year damn near everyone was missing from the WTF ROLFMAO) does NOT equate to a slam win
The slams are what everyone strives for and want to win.. EVERYTHING else comes 2nd in line
Well you're absolutely correct of course - as most of the greats, experts, and even - pleasant surprise - the majority of the posters here verify.
Of course, this is in terms of "greatness"....much like winning a challenger title will trump 50 amateur titles, there is no comparison.
In your current argument with ARFED, he isn't using "greatness" as a metric...he's using things like "money" or "good CAREER" (which implicitly favors consistent results) - not tennis "greatness". Of course, the other way he's skewing the argument is by using a 1 slam example - of course, nobody with only 1 slam is going to rank particularly high on the "greatness" scale....so it's easy to emotionally sway people with this kind of example. Of course though that 1 slam will still count, whereas the no-slam player will be nowhere in terms of "greatness".
To illustrate: what would one rather have? 7 YEC, and 21 masters 1000's.... or SEVEN grand slams? Pretty obvious then....even to people who don't know tennis.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Out of interest, how many Masters 1000s and WTFs do you think are equivalent to one slam?
90's Clay
Banned
I don't know if any of them are equivalent to be honest when comparing someone who never won a slam to someone who did.
EVERYONE goes hard for slams and ultimately everyone wants to win one. Do most really give two craps (Comparatively to slams) if they win masters or a WTF? I don't think so.
I bet you could find a ton of players who did well outside of slams who trade their achievements for saying they have gone down in the history books as a slam winner
90's Clay
Banned
encylopedia
Professional
Haha, thank you, but you don't need to know you're stuff to answer this basic question!
To further the example I gave of super Gaudio vs super Davydenko
7 slams and no other tournament wins will make you a bonfide great. You will be remembered with the Mcenroe's, Becker's, Edbergs, Wilander's etc. Below them perhaps, but up there with them. You will be a freak admittedly, and a trivia footnote will be: he didn't win any other tournies....but this will not take away from your greatness. In fact, most of the time, people won't be talking about it, and when they do, it will be in an oddly positive way:
"he brought out his best tennis when it really counted"
"he was a different player at the big ones"
"he was inconsistent, but he rose to the occasion at he big events"
"he played for the big ones"
"he was only interested in making history"
"he wasn't motivated from week to week, but in the majors...."
7 YEC and 21 masters with no slams = good career, an excellent tennis resume, but not even this will make you a great or a legend. In fact, some phrases commonly associated with you will be:
"a choker"
"he couldn't play his best when it really counted"
"fell short at the big ones"
"can console himself with his YEC and masters titles"
"not quite good enough to become a grand slam champion"
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Indeed.
You stated earlier something along the lines of it being even more important for one to separate themselves from their peers with the addition of majors, should the players in question be legends of their era. What do you make of the typical perception then regarding Edberg, Becker and Wilander, where the typical hierarchy is Edberg/Becker > Wilander?
Well, give me a real life example where that scenario works? Yeah, that`s what i thoght. A player who is good enough to win 7 majors, is always going to achieve something more, probably a lot more. I just give the most extreme example of a "one slam wonder" to illustrate the point that majors, while very important, are not, and should not be, everything.
People need to stop talking about this "greatness" stuff and get back to facts. I just gave one example, let me give you another: Mecir and Johansson. For the players, not the armchair experts, money comes first. That is where "greatness" resides. This glory stuff only comes a priority once you reached a certain economical status, that you know you are well assured for the rest of your life. Then you aim for the silverware and nothing more.
When we are all 15 years old, we all dream of being the Wimbledon champion. When you reach 25 ranked 200 in the world, and you are paying your bills, tell me, would you enter the Wimbledon qualies or a challenger with a surface that suits you more?
False.
And let me tell you why, here in Argentina, all the stuff you wrote about Gaudio, is how we remember Nalbandian. Gaudio, while talented, lack the mental toughness to bring it together for more than 2 weeks in his life. That is how we remember him. And that RG is remeberd more in Argentina as the one that Coria lost, not the one that Gaudio won.
Real life isn`t always black or white
It was an extreme example, but not unwarranted given the fact of the numbers who voted zero on this poll. Zero after all means zero. Hence according to those who voted zero, 100 masters 1000 is not rated as highly as winning 1 slam. I used an extreme example to show, my view, that zero is not a sustainable position to hold. It is important to dwell on these things because, in comparing great players they are seldom different in just one category of events - they have a mix of achievements in slams won, slams runner-up, Wtf's won and runner-up, masters 1000's won and time at number 1. So to do a comparison between players you have to ascribe various weightings to all these factors.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Maybe you should have added a 0.1 option. Too many probably thought it was worth closer to 0 than 1, and didn't look at it from the anal philosophical standpoint that you're describing.
I know. Nothing in tennis equates to a slam. No amount of "other" tournaments, no matter how big or small, can equal a slam.
And, your second paragraph is a big reason why - they are the only events that you know every guy is giving their very best to win. They plan their schedules around it, they train and plan to peak for it, they will play with injuries that might lead to withdrawals at any other event, etc. In short, they are THE measuring stick in tennis.
It is the equivalent of asking how many division titles equal a Super Bowl in the NFL. If you aren't sure, ask Dan Marino.
To add:
Emerson is below Borg, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors
Court is below Graf.
Serena is below Navratilova.
Connolly is behind Henin and Williams.
Well I guess I didn't expect that someone would rate 12 Masters 1000 cumulative wins as being equal to 1/10 of a slam when the ATP rates each Masters 1000 at 1/2 a slam in value. So, in that example if a Slam is 2000 points then someone who chose 0.1 would believe 12 Masters 1000's is worth a total of 200 points ie 16.7 points each. But truly every person's opinion is valid - I wanted this to be a discussion of opinions
. I was expressing mine that a Masters 1000 is worth a lot more than that. But it is fine if someone wants to choose zero. I am just really surprised by that choice. All good though
Last edited:
encylopedia
Professional
Well I think they should be right in the same tier, and I think most serious fans/experts would put them together....the exact ordering is debatable....between them, I think Wilander's slam breakdown hurts him.....only 1 USO/Wimbledon.....that really hurts. 3 AO's hurts as well....the AO has gone a long way towards bolstering itself in the 90's/2000's, but it was always the red-headed stepchild of the slams. Let's face it, when people think back on his grand slams wins....I bet if most were honest, they think first of his USO battle(s) with Lendl (with his first FO coming next). I bet even many of the serious fans on this forum have to think fairly hard (or dont' know at all) to recall which AO's he won, and who the opponent was.
I also think perception is hurt (but that's not necessarily legitimate) by Wilander's career collapse....you have two guys with sexy games playing well throughout their entire careers.....and you have a guy who became #1 and absolutely collapsed...immediately.....before taking an extended break...and coming back as a vague shadow of himself (still playing decent tennis....but not the same at all).
The two (or three) things combined: sexy games, at the top through their careers, and USO/Wimbledon feats make people think of Edberg and Becker first, but in the end, regardless of where one ranks them respectively, they should all be in the same general class in my opinion.
Depends...
Depends:
2 Indian Wells (or Miami) are worth more than one Australian Open (or Paris, minor slam) .
4 Indian Well do not make the US Open or Wimbledon (Slam major)
Shanghai is worth nothing .
Paris Bercy as well.
Cincinnati is worth a lot, so Monte Carlo and Canada .
Sampras won few major tournaments apart from W & USO .
If Djokovic reaches 30 Masters 1000 and 12 slam become better than him .
Depends:
2 Indian Wells (or Miami) are worth more than one Australian Open (or Paris, minor slam) .
4 Indian Well do not make the US Open or Wimbledon (Slam major)
Shanghai is worth nothing .
Paris Bercy as well.
Cincinnati is worth a lot, so Monte Carlo and Canada .
Sampras won few major tournaments apart from W & USO .
If Djokovic reaches 30 Masters 1000 and 12 slam become better than him .
Well Sampras did win 5 WTF (Djokovic is at WTF and counting). So in summary, and other things being equal you rate 19 Masters 1000 (30-11) as being worth slightly more than 2 slams, correct? ie about 10 Masters 1000 to one slam?
encylopedia
Professional
No, it isn't important to dwell on such things - the reason so many voted 0 is that they realize that in terms of "greatness"....the thing on which we would ultimately judge careers like those of Sampras and Djokovic, masters titles are worth ZERO when compared to grand slam titles.
I believe most of the posters are telling you that we would make a differentiation between the two of them in greatness based on masters titles if slam titles were equal.
The reason you can't comprehend this is because you aren't understanding what these people are saying - you still see them as being quantitative values: you think that slam titles and masters titles are the same thing.....just smaller and larger quantities....and that therefore....there must be SOME quantity of masters titles that will equal a slam....and then as more are added, exceed a slam. You think that slams are one kilometer.....but that masters titles are then 250 meters....or 100 meters....or even 10 meters.....so they MUST add up to a slam.
....but this isn't true. These aren't simple units of measurement....not by any stretch of the imagination. They are real-world events....very complex ones....and on top of that, we are talking about people's judgments on the value of the events in terms of certain scales/qualities.
....or to use a tennis analogy I used earlier...will 100 club championships earn equal prestige to wining a satellite tournament? No...they are qualitatively different in terms of prestige.
So, indeed, for some, like me, they are in fact worth ZERO relative to a slam. For others, they may assign some value....say 5, 10, 20....to be equal to a slam...which is fine - their choice...for many of them, they may have chosen 0 because they recognize that to get an equivalent number for them is simply unrealistic ie. 100. However, either way it is absolutely tenable and rational to assign a value of 0.
encylopedia
Professional
LOL
We've seen them sacrifice other tournaments for the sake of a CHANCE ...or increasing their chances at a slam - tanks, withdrawals, etc.
In my opinion, the problem I have with what you are saying is that great players don't just play slams. And therefore to compare their careers you are comparing a mix of events at various levels ie slams wins, slam runner-ups, Wtf wins and runner-ups and Masters 1000's Unless you therefor saying that in comparing great players careers only slam wins can be counted, then there must be some way of weighting the various events in a relative sense. For example, compare Connors and McEnroe:
Connors - 8 slams, 7 slam runner-ups, 1 Wtf, 2 WCT Finals, 1 WCT final runner-up, 17 Masters 1000 equivalents.
McEnroe - 7 Slams, 4 slam runner-ups, 3 Wtf, 1 wtf runner-up, 5 WCT Finals, 3 WCT final runner-ups, 19 Masters 1000 equivalents.
So who has the greater career achievements? If all of these top level achievements are to be factored in, then one must assign a relative weighting to each category.
Last edited:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
You meant to say no Wimbledon title I take it?
The thing about Wilander that interests me is that Edberg and Becker most likely get elevated above him for having won Wimbledon (multiple titles each). But Wilander had a three-major year in 1988, something which hadn't occurred since 1974 and did happen again for 16 more years until Federer did it in 2004.
It was an insanely rare feat to compete so well in one year and I'm surprised he doesn't get more kudos for it. He do equally as well as Nadal did in his best year (3 titles and a QF). Only Federer and Djokovic have had better single-year results at the majors since 1970!
I consider it a WTF equal ( more or less ) to a heavy current Master 1000 ( only Indian Wells , Miami and Monte Carlo ) , just over Cincinnati , Canada and Rome .
The other three I consider them less .
I think that W and US Open are worth a little more than Paris and Aus .
We should do the calculations ...
However tentatively a Wimbledon or USE to me is worth 3000 ,
Paris and Aus 2000
WTF , Indian Wells , Miami , M.Carlo 1500
Canada , Rome , 1000 Cincy
Shanghai , B. Paris , Madrid 700 .
Then the 500 .
It is not written on marble , are willing to change their minds , however, the history of the US Open is not that of Paris and Aus .
As well as that of Miami is not Shanghai.
