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

[KG1965]

Master 1000

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.

I agree , please note that the titles of Wikipedia are treated in the 1000 Masters in 1970 and 1980 are wrong .

Connors , Lendl , Borg and Mac equivalent to Masters 1000 tournaments you have won twice those reported !!!

 

[KG1965]

M1000 are almost slam

The Masters 1000 are almost slam , how do you maintain that all those Masters 1000 won by Djokovic are not worth a slam !!!!!!!!

The story progresses, Indian Wells , Miami , Cincy , Montecarlo neighbors are Australian .

 

[RF-18]

I think Federer would love to trade 2 Wimbledon titles for 1 additional French Open title.

No, he wouldn't.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

I think Federer would love to trade 2 Wimbledon titles for 1 additional French Open title.

Not in a hundred years. The dude is obsessed with Wimbledon.

 

[KG1965]

I think Federer would love to trade 2 Wimbledon titles for 1 additional French Open title.

no, do not think so.
Paris is worth a lot less .

 

[timnz]

I agree , please note that the titles of Wikipedia are treated in the 1000 Masters in 1970 and 1980 are wrong .

Connors , Lendl , Borg and Mac equivalent to Masters 1000 tournaments you have won twice those reported !!!

I agree their Masters 1000 equivalent totals are up for discussion. However, what of my point? Which was some relativity has to be established between these top levels events if we are to compare the greats total careers.

 

[KG1965]

Agree

I agree their Masters 1000 equivalent totals are up for discussion. However, what of my point? Which was some relativity has to be established between these top levels events if we are to compare the greats careers.

I agree with you.

 

[Cortana]

no, do not think so.
Paris is worth a lot less .

I think 16 slams and 2 career slams are more worth than 17 slams and 1 career slam. Maybe he wouldn't give 2 W titles, but 1? 100% sure.

I think you can't look at it that static. The value of a slam is highly variable. For Nadal AO > W > UO > FO. For Djokovic FO > UO > W > AO.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

I think 16 slams and 2 career slams are more worth than 17 slams and 1 career slam. Maybe he wouldn't give 2 W titles, but 1? 100% sure.

I think you can't look at it that static. The value of a slam is highly variable. For Nadal AO > W > UO > FO. For Djokovic FO > UO > W > AO.

Not to Federer. He'd lose the Wimbledon record, and that surely means more to him than any number of extra career slams. As long as you do win once everywhere, it hardly matters how many times you do it.

 

[veroniquem]

Evaluating greatness from 1 or even 2 parameters never ever works. You need many more than that: slams, masters, weeks at #1, WTF, surface versatility, longevity. The more parameters, the more accurate the hierarchy is. I don't think Djoko has passed Sampras yet but he's only 28 (almost) and his career is far from over. The reason he hasn't is not because of how many more masters he has, it's because there are too many other parameters where he hasn't passed Sampras (weeks at #1, slams, overall titles and WTF). Right now, he's passed him in 2 categories: masters and winning %

 

[Camus]

Player career is so much more than winning slams, but it is the most important thing.

 

[spinovic]

I think Federer would love to trade 2 Wimbledon titles for 1 additional French Open title.

Keep dreaming. There's no way Federer would trade a Wimbledon for a second French Open.

I bet Sampras wouldn't trade one to complete his career slam.

 

[spinovic]

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.

Connors. On the strength of one more slam win and 4 more finals.

 

[spinovic]

Evaluating greatness from 1 or even 2 parameters never ever works. You need many more than that: slams, masters, weeks at #1, WTF, surface versatility, longevity. The more parameters, the more accurate the hierarchy is. I don't think Djoko has passed Sampras yet but he's only 28 (almost) and his career is far from over. The reason he hasn't is not because of how many more masters he has, it's because there are too many other parameters where he hasn't passed Sampras (weeks at #1, slams, overall titles and WTF). Right now, he's passed him in 2 categories: masters and winning %

14 to 8 is the only parameter that is relevant when comparing Djokovic to Sampras. Until he closes that gap 100 Masters and 10 WTFs won't make a difference.

 

[spinovic]

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 agree on Wilander. His 3 slam year is vastly underappreciated, especially when considering the respect given to others who have accomplished that feat. Why? Because his is the only one that didn't include a Wimbledon. Personally, I would rate Wilander ahead of Becker and Edberg.

 

[spinovic]

The other point that gets lost is the attempt to retroactively apply the current calendar and current prestige of events to players in the past. It doesn't work. You can't hold Sampras to the same standard as Djokovic in terms of Masters. Players care about Masters more now than they ever have.

 

[GabeT]

When comparing across time, considering that the relative importance of torunaments has changed and, in some cases even the surfaces, I think the only question you can address with certainty is who dominated the most their own era.

And for that the only real stat is YE1 IMO. Winning a lot of individual events over time can be fun but if at the end of the year you are not number 1 then it means someone else had a better year. It seems that's Nadal's biggest issue, that his wins are so spread out he ended up dominating a lot less and so has a lot fewer YE1.

There is, of course, the issue of who each player had to face, but I don't see any easy way to compare relative strength of players from different eras.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I agree their Masters 1000 equivalent totals are up for discussion. However, what of my point? Which was some relativity has to be established between these top levels events if we are to compare the greats total careers.

The other tournaments are already handsomely accounted for by the number one ranking, at least in the last few decades. They have a significant indirect effect on one's legacy; in that they contribute elsewhere without us needing to directly refer to the tournament tallies below Majors level. It only becomes a problem with your crude ranking method.

 

[TMF]

Every achievements are not the same, but it has certain amount of weight in evaluation the player's career. While one may say there's no method to determine how MS, WTF or weeks at #1 is worth 1 slam because it's not an apple-to-apple comparison, but still each and every criteria has some weight, with slam titles is anniversary accept for having the most weight. The list of all time greatest players are based on many criteria, and not simply based on one...slam count.

For the people who voted zero, they view the Grand Slam titles and MS titles being completely different event(with slams being much, much bigger) rather than see it as an achievement. It's not a wrong answer because both are not apple to apple. However, if one had to give percentage weight in tennis career achievement between slams and masters, certainly he/she wouldn't say slam=100%, and MS=0%. Maybe 95% to 5%, or 90% to 10%, percentage varies depend on one's opinion.


If you look at the following criteria being use by tennis experts, they take everything into account, with total slam titles being the most important. The total scores are accumulated base numbers/stats, dominance, longevity...

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)

 

[KG1965]

Every achievements are not the same, but it has certain amount of weight in evaluation the player's career. While one may say there's no method to determine how MS, WTF or weeks at #1 is worth 1 slam because it's not an apple-to-apple comparison, but still each and every criteria has some weight, with slam titles is anniversary accept for having the most weight. The list of all time greatest players are based on many criteria, and not simply based on one...slam count.

For the people who voted zero, they view the Grand Slam titles and MS titles being completely different event(with slams being much, much bigger) rather than see it as an achievement. It's not a wrong answer because both are not apple to apple. However, if one had to give percentage weight in tennis career achievement between slams and masters, certainly he/she wouldn't say slam=100%, and MS=0%. Maybe 95% to 5%, or 90% to 10%, percentage varies depend on one's opinion.


If you look at the following criteria being use by tennis experts, they take everything into account, with total slam titles being the most important. The total scores are accumulated base numbers/stats, dominance, longevity...

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)

I agree on the basic concept .

I would like to humbly point out to you that the atp attributes to slam only twice that points to the 1000 Masters .
2 Montecarlo worth a Paris .
So 30 Masters 1000 win 15 slam .

5 Master 500 are worth more than a Wimbledon title .
On this site , and not only , not considered the ATP !!!!!

 

[KG1965]

The other tournaments are already handsomely accounted for by the number one ranking, at least in the last few decades. They have a significant indirect effect on one's legacy; in that they contribute elsewhere without us needing to directly refer to the tournament tallies below Majors level. It only becomes a problem with your crude ranking method.

I would like to humbly point out to you that the atp attributes to slam only twice that points to the 1000 Masters .
2 Montecarlo worth a Paris .
So 30 Masters 1000 win 15 slam .

5 Master 500 are worth more than a Wimbledon title .
On this site , and not only , not considered the ATP !!!!!
KG1965 is online now Report Post

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I would like to humbly point out to you that the atp attributes to slam only twice that points to the 1000 Masters .
2 Montecarlo worth a Paris .
So 30 Masters 1000 win 15 slam .

5 Master 500 are worth more than a Wimbledon title .
On this site , and not only , not considered the ATP !!!!!
KG1965 is online now Report Post

Exactly, so one can argue that the tournaments behind the Majors get more than enough respect when it comes to evaluating the greatness of players, under the assumption that the two main criteria we use are Majors won and world number one accomplishments.

 

[KG1965]

Exactly, so one can argue that the tournaments behind the Majors get more than enough respect when it comes to evaluating the greatness of players, under the assumption that the two main criteria we use are Majors won and world number one accomplishments.

Ok , before the majors and ranking . Then the Master 1000 ( major tournaments ) though.

Consider remote sidereal Masters 1000 is to be idiots .

Even several Master 500 have a specific weight .

 

[GabeT]

Exactly, so one can argue that the tournaments behind the Majors get more than enough respect when it comes to evaluating the greatness of players, under the assumption that the two main criteria we use are Majors won and world number one accomplishments.

Isn't that true of Majors as well? Aren't they included in rankings as well? Why would we double count Majors ( as part of ranking and on their own) and not other tournaments?

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Keep dreaming. There's no way Federer would trade a Wimbledon for a second French Open.

I bet Sampras wouldn't trade one to complete his career slam.

Totally disagree, especially Pete. The overrating of Wimby has reached epic proportions.

 

[timnz]

Every achievements are not the same, but it has certain amount of weight in evaluation the player's career. While one may say there's no method to determine how MS, WTF or weeks at #1 is worth 1 slam because it's not an apple-to-apple comparison, but still each and every criteria has some weight, with slam titles is anniversary accept for having the most weight. The list of all time greatest players are based on many criteria, and not simply based on one...slam count.

For the people who voted zero, they view the Grand Slam titles and MS titles being completely different event(with slams being much, much bigger) rather than see it as an achievement. It's not a wrong answer because both are not apple to apple. However, if one had to give percentage weight in tennis career achievement between slams and masters, certainly he/she wouldn't say slam=100%, and MS=0%. Maybe 95% to 5%, or 90% to 10%, percentage varies depend on one's opinion.


If you look at the following criteria being use by tennis experts, they take everything into account, with total slam titles being the most important. The total scores are accumulated base numbers/stats, dominance, longevity...

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)

And yet the ATP itself rates Masters 1000's at 1/2 a Slam and an unbeaten run at the WTF at 75% of a slam. Why the huge disparity between what you are suggesting and the ATP? ( I don't agree with the ATP myself but I believe the figures should be closer to what the say than what you indicate)

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Ok , before the majors and ranking . Then the Master 1000 ( major tournaments ) though.

Consider remote sidereal Masters 1000 is to be idiots .

Even several Master 500 have a specific weight .

Yes, all other tournaments at 1000 level and below do their work regarding ranking points, so they are often handsomely accounted for when evaluating the greatness of a player. A good example of this is Djokovic in 2012 and 2014. Without his success below the Slam level, he'd probably only have ended one single year as the world number one.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Isn't that true of Majors as well? Aren't they included in rankings as well? Why would we double count Majors ( as part of ranking and on their own) and not other tournaments?

We double count the Majors because they're special. We can't not count them when deciding who the best player (#1) in the world is. Grand Slams is the measure of ultimate dominance and the number one rank is something that encompasses everything that is achieved on the tour. The Slams then do get double counted and the other tournaments do not, but at least ranking accounts for what transpires throughout the season, rather than being Slam elitist. This means that the other events on tour do get a fair shake when evaluating the greatness of the legends, especially with them being given a very generous distribution of points relatively to the Slams, to the extent that it really does matter how the top players do in those events if they want to establish key records and benchmarks, such as spending as much time as possible in the very high ranking positions.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'd keep all the points distribution the same, including the Slam runner-up points, but raise the value of winning a Slam to 3000 points.

 

[timnz]

I'd keep all the points distribution the same, including the Slam runner-up points, but raise the value of winning a Slam to 3000 points.

I also would move slams to 3000 points (but I would elevate slam runner-ups and WTF's by the same proportions ie 1800 and 2250 points respectively, whilst leaving Masters at 1000 points). So therefore aren't you saying that the point value of a Masters 1000 is one third of a slam and therefore Djokovic's extra 12 Masters equals 4 slams?

 

[Cortana]

I would like to see something like that:

GS winner: 3000 points
GS runner-up: 1500 points
WTF winner (with 5 match wins): 2000 points

And keep the rest the same.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I also would move slams to 3000 points (but I would elevate slam runner-ups and WTF's by the same proportions ie 1800 and 2250 points respectively, whilst leaving Masters at 1000 points). So therefore aren't you saying that the point value of a Masters 1000 is one third of a slam and therefore Djokovic's extra 12 Masters equals 4 slams?

No, because I was only really thinking about how I wanted the ranking system to work, which is to especially reward the winner of the Slams.

Like I already said, it's not that simple to equate Slams to Masters 1000s.

0 Slams + 5 Masters vs. 1 Slam + 0 Masters looks different to 10 Slams + 20 Masters vs. 11 Slams + 15 Masters.


I can't say Djokovic's extra 12 Masters means any amount of Slams compared to Sampras. They played in different times and Sampras has 7 Wimbledon titles. The Slams are more equal in importance today than they were. The top ATP events are treated more seriously today than they were in the 90's. I can't really judge this hypothetical in a black and white manner. All I can say is that both players impress me greatly and that Djokovic could end up in Sampras' league.

I would like to see something like that:

GS winner: 3000 points
GS runner-up: 1500 points
WTF winner (with 5 match wins): 2000 points

And keep the rest the same.

Looks quite good to me.

 

[GabeT]

I would like to see something like that:

GS winner: 3000 points
GS runner-up: 1500 points
WTF winner (with 5 match wins): 2000 points

And keep the rest the same.

Winning a Slam requires winning 3 sets per match, for 7 matches. A total of 21.

For M1000s that's 3 per match for 6 matches ( I think MC is only 5 matches ?). A total of 12.

So two M1000 generally require more total sets and matches than one Slam.

The player quality is roughly the same since the top players participate in both types of events. But I suspect that if you do the numbers you need, on average, to beat more top 10 players to win two M1000 than you do to win one Slam.

Since 2009 about 16% of all slams were on by players outside the Big four. The equivalent figure for M1000 is about 8%. Assuming I got my math right this is anoth indication of how difficult it is to win a M1000.

All in all I think the current point system adequately reflects the relative difficulty of winning Slams and M1000 tournaments.

 

[spinovic]

Totally disagree, especially Pete. The overrating of Wimby has reached epic proportions.

Take it up with the players then. I'm only following their lead. Ivan Lendl, an all-time great clay court player, completely changed his style and even skipped Roland Garros in an attempt to win Wimbledon. Sampras sure never changed anything to win on clay, something that might have jeopardized his chances at Wimbledon. Borg and Evert skipped RG to play WTT.

I would say the refusal to accept reality is epic. But, whatever. If it helps you sleep at night to believe anyone would trade a Wimbledon title for anything else in tennis, far be it from me to cause insomnia.

 

[spinovic]

I would like to humbly point out to you that the atp attributes to slam only twice that points to the 1000 Masters .
2 Montecarlo worth a Paris .
So 30 Masters 1000 win 15 slam .

5 Master 500 are worth more than a Wimbledon title .
On this site , and not only , not considered the ATP !!!!!
KG1965 is online now Report Post

1. The value of slams go beyond ranking points.
2. They need a system that works, that doesn't skew the rankings too much based on a slam win. What they have is fine. The rankings would not work as well, IMO, if they made slams worth 5-10K points. In that case, a major win would virtually guarantee you a spot in the Top 4. Cilic and Wawrinka would have been in the top 4 until they failed to defend their titles.

The points system is fine.

 

[spinovic]

To those who like to call attention to point values...

Would you trade a Wimbledon or Roland Garros for 8 Buenos Aires or Delray Beach titles? For 4 Beijing or Tokyo titles? Just curious.

 

[GabeT]

To those who like to call attention to point values...

Would you trade a Wimbledon or Roland Garros for 8 Buenos Aires or Delray Beach titles? For 4 Beijing or Tokyo titles? Just curious.

I think there are two different questions. On the one hand is the prestige issue. Most would agree that winning Wimbledon is more prestigious than winning three M1000s.

But there's another way to look at it and that's ask ourselves which of the two outcomes indicates the "better" player. Three M1000s get you more points than Wimbledon and, IMO, if player A only wins Wimbledon in a year and Player B gets IW, Miami and Rome (for example) it is player B the one with the better season. It's why I think Federer had a better season than Cilic in 2014, even if Cilic won a Slam but Federer didn't.


I

 

[AngieB]

I think there are two different questions. On the one hand is the prestige issue. Most would agree that winning Wimbledon is more prestigious than winning three M1000s.

But there's another way to look at it and that's ask ourselves which of the two outcomes indicates the "better" player. Three M1000s get you more points than Wimbledon and, IMO, if player A only wins Wimbledon in a year and Player B gets IW, Miami and Rome (for example) it is player B the one with the better season. It's why I think Federer had a better season than Cilic in 2014, even if Cilic won a Slam but Federer didn't.


I

#Four Masters wins can get you to the Number One Ranking, but not into the #ITHOF. #Four Grand Slam wins will get you into the #ITHOF.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[encylopedia]

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!

Yes. I am saying he had only one title from USO/Wimbledon.

I agree...I always stand impressed by Wilander's "close" achievement that year (and were it not for a resurgent Mcenroe, who knows what may have happened....Wilander would not have been the favorite in the last rounds, but at that point, you couldn't count him out).

 

[encylopedia]

In my opinion, the problem I have with what you are saying is that great players don't just play slams..

Sigh.....right....because....frankly, you still don't get it despite my elaborate explanation.

Let me simply finish by saying that it doesn't matter if you have a problem with it - that you simply can't come to terms with not counting the other tournaments (which is not what i advocated anyways) - the fact remains that regardless of what you or I decide to judge on, the fact is that the slams are the thing the experts/players judge on - and realistically for good reason - they are the showcase for the game....the thing that hopefully even the casual sports fan is aware of.

That is simply a fact. Regardless of what you or I decide to judge on. Let me finally say that: because they play other tournaments is not in itself a strong argument. They play exos too....some are very competitive - the fact they exist does not make them meaningful. Nor that they need be counted.

How many exo tournament wins add up to make masters title? They don't. Nor can one win enough satellite tournies to equal the prestige of a masters title. Nor can one win enough club tournaments to equal the status of a satellite tour title.

Do you go to Olympic sites and insist on advocating that some number of bronze medals must equal and eventually beat a gold? Or perhaps you can start ordering by slam round....maybe a masters equals a quarterfinal....maybe you can add up round of 16's to exceed a masters. Maybe Andy Roddick's finals can be added up to exceed some multiple slam winners..... maybe you can then find some really interesting and ridiculous ways to assign more "greatness" to certain players.......but it will not reflect the reality....

 

[encylopedia]

To those who like to call attention to point values...

Would you trade a Wimbledon or Roland Garros for 8 Buenos Aires or Delray Beach titles? For 4 Beijing or Tokyo titles? Just curious.

Of course!!! The ATP says so!!! You will be just as "great"! ;-)

You really...really....really....have to wonder about the mentality of some people......

 

[NaBUru38]

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.

I totally agree with that.

 

[RacquetAbuse101]

The Grand Slams, The Four Majors, The Crown Jewels...

The Slams are the measure of everything in tennis, always have been, always will be.

Don Budge won an actual Grand Slam in 1938. I´m sure he won countless other titles in his career, but he will always be remembered as the original
Grand Slammer.

Caroline Wozniacki has won many titles, reached the No.1 spot but what is her
legacy so far? Good player BUT she hasn`t won a Slam.

Masters 1000`s don`t mean diddly in the big picture.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I agree...I always stand impressed by Wilander's "close" achievement that year (and were it not for a resurgent Mcenroe, who knows what may have happened....Wilander would not have been the favorite in the last rounds, but at that point, you couldn't count him out).

McEnroe? Didn't he get beaten by Mecir?

 

[astronautzor]

I would put about 15 masters as 1 major. Similarly 3WTF as 1 major. Weeks at No 1 is double accounting as we are considering majors, masters and YEC separately.

So, in your equation Novak does not cross Rafa. Best case he is same as Rafa.

18,000,000$ ,15,000 ranking points and 75 High level wins = 1 Grand Slam..


Damn 2015 was a filthy place here in TTW, i remember lurking.. yuck
60% voted 14,000,000$, and 12,000 points, 60 Wins(half against top 10) = 0 slams.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

About three fiddy

 

[astronautzor]

The Grand Slams, The Four Majors, The Crown Jewels...

The Slams are the measure of everything in tennis, always have been, always will be.

Don Budge won an actual Grand Slam in 1938. I´m sure he won countless other titles in his career, but he will always be remembered as the original
Grand Slammer.

Caroline Wozniacki has won many titles, reached the No.1 spot but what is her
legacy so far? Good player BUT she hasn`t won a Slam.

Masters 1000`s don`t mean diddly in the big picture.

It sure did, it put her as the world nr 1.. without her masters she would truly be nothing(at that time).. your just to stupid to realize that tbh.
Now obviously winning a slam, her legacy increased.

 

[BGod]

Sunshine Double. Novak has done it more than anyone else.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Sunshine Double. Novak has done it more than anyone else.

And i back him up to win at least one of those this season as well! IW is more preferable though, since Federer is still playing and who knows if he can still win one...just to make sure Novak needs as hard as he can to win another title here this season for a standalone all-time tournament record! Miami can wait though (even though this season those court will look especially gorgeous!), gonna route for Nadal there to win the damn title (And yes i am aware it will get him closer to Novak, but who cares? Nadal has a lot of defending to do from now on anyway...)

 

[OhYes]

What the hell is Master ?????????
Place where you will walk in, practice a bit with friends and all of them will agree that you are the coolest guy around so owners of that place will throw you suitcase with 1.000.000 $.
Oh and crowd came and paid just to see you having fun and light training. Idiots.


Honestly, I saw more great competitive Master tournaments held that looked way better than some uncompetitive Slams.