Does 1 slam = 2 Tier 1s?

pirateofthecarribean

Hall of Fame
Let's say player A wins Wimbledon and player B wins a Beijing title and a Miami title. Both players would have won 2,000 points. But in my opinion no sane person would say player B is just as accomplished as player A. Should title points be adjusted or what? What do you think? :confused:
 

timnz

Legend
Let's say player A wins Wimbledon and player B wins a Beijing title and a Miami title. Both players would have won 2,000 points. But in my opinion no sane person would say player B is just as accomplished as player A. Should title points be adjusted or what? What do you think? :confused:
I take your point, but at some point some multiple of lesser tournaments are going to be the same as a single slam. Is the answer to give the lesser tournaments like Masters 1000's zero points? (believe it or not some of the people in this forum believe that when comparing Great players anything other events other than slams count for zero). I mean that if you make slams 3000 points (and leave Masters 1000's at 1000 points) - then it still is the case that no-one would think that 3 Masters 1000 trumps a slam.

I tried a while back to ask people on this forum what they thought the relative value of a slam vs Masters 1000's were - there was no consensus at all - the points went all over the place. (Having said that I personally think that the Slams should be 3 x a Masters 1000 - but that is just my opinion).
That is why I have stuck with the ATP weightings in my ranking system (because no one can agree on a ratio - so the ATP weighting are all we can fall back on):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381

Excerpt from above URL:

NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments. Every time I post these rankings using these weightings people disagree with them, which of course they have a right to do. The problem is, how can we come to an agreement about them with so many opinions? We can't of course. The best I can do is just use the current ATP weightings.

Calculations (reduced by a factor of 1000) - Slams wins + Season end final wins (with no round robin losses)+ Season end final wins (with 1 round robin loss) + Season end final runner-ups (only if no round robin losses) + Slam runner-ups + Top 9:

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) = 77.4

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) = 64.2

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 62.2

Djokovic = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) = 55.4

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 52.8

McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 52.3

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 50.3

Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 46.7

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 44.7

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 41.7

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 28.3

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8
 
Last edited:

The-Champ

Legend
Timnz, I think people who won their masters and WTFs in five sets should be given more points.

I value Lendl's 22 higher than Rafa's 27 for this reason. Lend's WTF were also best of 5 finals. If you think about it, making the masters best of 3 enable today's players to be fresh during the majors. How many majors would the "big 3" win if all masters were still best of 5?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Let's say player A wins Wimbledon and player B wins a Beijing title and a Miami title. Both players would have won 2,000 points. But in my opinion no sane person would say player B is just as accomplished as player A. Should title points be adjusted or what? What do you think? :confused:
When you say "accomplished", what do you mean?

If you look just at prestige there is no doubt that Slams stand alone, and Wimbledon possibly above all the rest.

But if you are trying to measure how good or bad a player is then winning two M1000 is probably worth one Wimbledon, more or less. Depending on the M1000 to win two of them a player needs to win 24 sets over 12 matches (that's six matches per tournament). In comparison to win a Slam you need to win 21 sets over 7 matches.

The average quality of the players is higher when playing two Masters compared to a Slam since you start with a smaller pool and you need to beat them twice. Nole faced three top 10 players in both the AO and the FO. But he faced six top ten players to win MC and Rome.
 
Last edited:

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Timnz, I think people who won their masters and WTFs in five sets should be given more points.
I never understood this. Why would winning a five set match mean that you are a better player than someone who won a three set match? They are just different. Yes, a Bo5 requires more stamina but a Bo3 gives you much less room to make mistakes. Why would anyone say one is more difficult?

Do we say that winning a marathon is more difficult than winning 100 m? No. They just require different skills.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I never understood this. Why would winning a five set match mean that you are a better player than someone who won a three set match? They are just different. Yes, a Bo5 requires more stamina but a Bo3 gives you much less room to make mistakes. Why would anyone say one is more difficult?

Do we say that winning a marathon is more difficult than winning 100 m? No. They just require different skills.
Very well said GabeT.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Timnz, I think people who won their masters and WTFs in five sets should be given more points.

I value Lendl's 22 higher than Rafa's 27 for this reason. Lend's WTF were also best of 5 finals. If you think about it, making the masters best of 3 enable today's players to be fresh during the majors. How many majors would the "big 3" win if all masters were still best of 5?
This is very true. This is one reason the current. masters are just looked from a points perspective and not really as prestigious.

At least they should consider IW, Rome, Cinci and WTF for BO5.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I never understood this. Why would winning a five set match mean that you are a better player than someone who won a three set match? They are just different. Yes, a Bo5 requires more stamina but a Bo3 gives you much less room to make mistakes. Why would anyone say one is more difficult?

Do we say that winning a marathon is more difficult than winning 100 m? No. They just require different skills.
I think the point being made is masters are given half the points of majors which is huge. There are 9 of them.

It is very much possible that players like Fed and to some extent Novak , have such high ranking based on their BO3 , even though they do not have the corresponding performance in BO 5
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I think the point being made is masters are given half the points of majors which is huge. There are 9 of them.

It is very much possible that players like Fed and to some extent Novak , have such high ranking based on their BO3 , even though they do not have the corresponding performance in BO 5
Even if this were true, that some players do better in Bo3 than Bo5, so what? Why would anyone prize Bo5 over Bo3?

After all why not say that winning in grass is better than winning in clay? It makes the same sense.

I think we are simply talking about different types of tennis. None is "better", they are just different.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
This is very true. This is one reason the current. masters are just looked from a points perspective and not really as prestigious.

At least they should consider IW, Rome, Cinci and WTF for BO5.
Where did you get that Masters are looked down? I don't see that at all. Yes, winning a Slam is more prestigious. But winning a Masters is also prestigious, even if less so.

I know of no professional tennis player who would claim that winning a Masters is looked down upon. Absolutely none. This is something made up in online forums.
 

CHIP72

Rookie
Where did you get that Masters are looked down? I don't see that at all. Yes, winning a Slam is more prestigious. But winning a Masters is also prestigious, even if less so.

I know of no professional tennis player who would claim that winning a Masters is looked down upon. Absolutely none. This is something made up in online forums.
I would concur. I'm pretty sure Jo-Willie gained a good bit of additional respect from most people by winning his second Masters 1000 title in Toronto last year.
 

timnz

Legend
Timnz, I think people who won their masters and WTFs in five sets should be given more points.

I value Lendl's 22 higher than Rafa's 27 for this reason. Lend's WTF were also best of 5 finals. If you think about it, making the masters best of 3 enable today's players to be fresh during the majors. How many majors would the "big 3" win if all masters were still best of 5?
I see why you feel this way. But what can be done about it. For whatever reason the ATP has decided to make it best of 3 (a stupid decision - particularly with respect to the WTF). So are current players forever going to get less points, in people's minds? No, it is what it is - and we should see a correspondence between the events and not try to jack up the points for best of 5 , IMHO, with full respect to you.
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
It's a shame that Masters get 1000 points whereas Slams are only 2000. It's just a hype by ATP for the masters. There are a lot of shortcomings

Discrepancies are:
1) Even the masters are not same. IW and Miami are 96 player tourneys over 2 weeks whereas other masters are 56 player tourneys over week. So a top player plays 6 matches vs 5 matches in IW and Miami. Yet the points are same.

2) There are ATP 500s which are 56 player tourney thus the same as Masters 1000. And though they are not compulsory for all top players, yet many masrters see a lot of dropouts.

3) It's actually masters points which decide ranking, not slams. What has happened that the guy winning in masters have done well in slams.
2011: Djoko(3 slams, 5 masters)
2013: Nadal (2 slams, 5 masters)
2014: Djoko(1 slam, 3 masters)
2015: Djoko (already 4 masters, 1 slam).

But imagine if some player wins a lot of masters but not slams would get to No.1 ranking. That would be a shame.

4) Winning slams is such a big thing, ATP masters doesn't even come close.
 

BevelDevil

Hall of Fame
Depends on the major, and depends on the masters.

If we are accounting for fame/prestige, we'd have to do something like (totally guessing)

5 M1000 > W
4 M1000 > USO
3 M1000 (inc. IW) > FO
3 M1000 + 1 ATP500 > AO

where the all masters are won in a single year, and consideration given to the likelihood of reaching a #1 ranking. For example, 5 M1000s + 6 months at number 1 > 1 W but no #1 and no M1000s.

Another requirement for this list to hold is that the slam winner not be seen as a fluke, i.e., No cake draw, + wins over decent players and other titles in that year.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
In case you missed it, the OP made a thread about Serena's accomplishments, which I rebuffed with a nod to the vast gap in achievements outside of Slams between Serena and Graf, Navratilova and to some extent Evert.

The trick here, is for you to categorically deny any achievement outside of majors having an influence on a player being proclaimed the 'Greatest Ever'. That is what the OP is looking for.
 

AngieB

Banned
Once again, kids #majoring in #minors.

Masters1000, Masters500, YEC, WTF, are all #cheap substitutes for #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events which are the beacon of the sport of tennis. There are no #ATP tour level events exponentially equal to an #ITF-sanctioned grand slam. Everyone knows that it takes #ITF-sanctioned grand slam tournament wins to get into the #ITHOF. #minors don't #matter in the end. Praise be and hallelujah!

So, stop. Stop pedaling the #ATPTourLevel Events as if they are historical markers in the sport. They really aren't when faced with the weight of #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events.

#AngiesLyst
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
Depends on the major, and depends on the masters.

If we are accounting for fame/prestige, we'd have to do something like (totally guessing)

5 M1000 > W
4 M1000 > USO
3 M1000 (inc. IW) > FO
3 M1000 + 1 ATP500 > AO

where the all masters are won in a single year, and consideration given to the likelihood of reaching a #1 ranking. For example, 5 M1000s + 6 months at number 1 > 1 W but no #1 and no M1000s.

Another requirement for this list to hold is that the slam winner not be seen as a fluke, i.e., No cake draw, + wins over decent players and other titles in that year.
By your logic Djokovic has already won the French Open this year :)...congrats to Novak on that, I am sure he would be chuffed
 

Terry Tibbs

Hall of Fame
I take your point, but at some point some multiple of lesser tournaments are going to be the same as a single slam. Is the answer to give the lesser tournaments like Masters 1000's zero points? (believe it or not some of the people in this forum believe that when comparing Great players anything other events other than slams count for zero). I mean that if you make slams 3000 points (and leave Masters 1000's at 1000 points) - then it still is the case that no-one would think that 3 Masters 1000 trumps a slam.

I tried a while back to ask people on this forum what they thought the relative value of a slam vs Masters 1000's were - there was no consensus at all - the points went all over the place. (Having said that I personally think that the Slams should be 3 x a Masters 1000 - but that is just my opinion).
That is why I have stuck with the ATP weightings in my ranking system (because no one can agree on a ratio - so the ATP weighting are all we can fall back on):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381

Excerpt from above URL:

NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments. Every time I post these rankings using these weightings people disagree with them, which of course they have a right to do. The problem is, how can we come to an agreement about them with so many opinions? We can't of course. The best I can do is just use the current ATP weightings.

Calculations (reduced by a factor of 1000) - Slams wins + Season end final wins (with no round robin losses)+ Season end final wins (with 1 round robin loss) + Season end final runner-ups (only if no round robin losses) + Slam runner-ups + Top 9:

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) = 77.4

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) = 64.2

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 62.2

Djokovic = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) = 55.4

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 52.8

McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 52.3

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 50.3

Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 46.7

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 44.7

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 41.7

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 28.3

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8
I think that this demonstrates that Fed is the undisputed GOAT!
 

kiki

Banned
Once again, kids #majoring in #minors.

Masters1000, Masters500, YEC, WTF, are all #cheap substitutes for #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events which are the beacon of the sport of tennis. There are no #ATP tour level events exponentially equal to an #ITF-sanctioned grand slam. Everyone knows that it takes #ITF-sanctioned grand slam tournament wins to get into the #ITHOF. #minors don't #matter in the end. Praise be and hallelujah!

So, stop. Stop pedaling the #ATPTourLevel Events as if they are historical markers in the sport. They really aren't when faced with the weight of #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events.

#AngiesLyst
To its time its own.It wasn´t always like that, as you well know.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It's to hard to equate one to the other. For some the extra prize money might be a motivator for choosing 3x M1000's over a slam for those that chase history and have no money worries he answer will be quite different.
 

timnz

Legend
Once again, kids #majoring in #minors.

Masters1000, Masters500, YEC, WTF, are all #cheap substitutes for #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events which are the beacon of the sport of tennis. There are no #ATP tour level events exponentially equal to an #ITF-sanctioned grand slam. Everyone knows that it takes #ITF-sanctioned grand slam tournament wins to get into the #ITHOF. #minors don't #matter in the end. Praise be and hallelujah!

So, stop. Stop pedaling the #ATPTourLevel Events as if they are historical markers in the sport. They really aren't when faced with the weight of #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events.

#AngiesLyst
The ITF isn't the only official body of tennis today. The ATP is as well. They recognise each other's events. The ATP gives points in its ranking for players slam activities (ITF EVENTS), and the ITF Factor in ATP performance when determining its world champion for the year. I remember that when the ITF Made its announcement that Djokovic was the 2013 world champion, that along with his slam activity that year it was also his performance at the WTF (an ATP event) that influenced their decision.

No one is saying that any ATP event is equal to a slam. They are simply having a discussion about what multiple of ATP events is equal to a slam. Regarding history the WTF is on its 45th year. Even though it isn't as far back as the majors go....that still represents a sizeable tradition. Again, no one is saying they equal a slam, but they are saying they equal some weight. The WTF since 1970 for instance has been talked about by players and tennis journalists as having near slam status, so it's points weighting by the ATP of having up to 3/4s of the points of a slam seems appropriate to me. As to what Masters 1000's are worth relative to a slam , I believe they should be about a third the value of a slam - but that is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
The tennis structure throughout the ages has kept on changing.What matters is where the best player competed at and which were their priorities.

Take Laver.After 1969 slams had lost all interest for him.He, in addition to making as much money he could before retiring, focused on the WCT Championships.

The WCT title became an obsession.Yes, Newk,Ashe,Borg and even Connors followed on that.Only Newk played regularly at the AO and he had to as he was from there.

Borg was also obsedded with the Masters.Wilander, at one point, was also obseded with it.To each time, its own.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
The tennis structure throughout the ages has kept on changing.What matters is where the best player competed at and which were their priorities.
Agree.

For the last two decades or so that has been what some here call the Tier 1 events: Slams, Masters, and YEC. It is in those events where you face all the top players on a regular basis.
 

AngieB

Banned
Agree.

For the last two decades or so that has been what some here call the Tier 1 events: Slams, Masters, and YEC. It is in those events where you face all the top players on a regular basis.
#Stop including Masters and YEC's with #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events. They are inferior and shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as a grand slam event.

#AngiesLyst
 
Top