Hard Court Statistics (Big Hard Court Titles)

[mr tonyz]

I have been reading the Hard Court GOAT threads that recently popped up with vicious debate over who to place as The Number 2 all-time Hard Court GOAT between Djokovic/Sampras.

However I have dug up another little Hard Court Statistic that has never been brought up. Big Hard Court Titles.

Federer has the most comprehensive Big Hard Court Title set to date with 12 Big Hard Court Titles won @ Different Venues. (Feel free to double check on the numbers)

Big Hard Court Titles Won @ Different Venues. Along with Big Hard Court Titles Won Overall .
*Note* I only included Masters Cups/Tour Finals that were not converted when said player actually qualified to compete. (Hence if they did not qualify it was not added as a missing tournament)

#1 Federer 12/14 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Toronto/Cincinnati/U.S Open/Madrid Indoors/Shanghai/Paris/Tour Finals (Houston/Shanghai/London) Missing Stuttgart Masters/Montreal M1000 Total = 35

#2 Djokovic 10/12 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Toronto/Montreal/U.S Open/Shanghai/Paris/Tour Finals (Shanghai/London) Missing Madrid Indoors/Cincinnati M1000 Total = 35

#3 Agassi 9/15 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Toronto/Montreal/Cincinnati/U.S Open/Madrid Indoor/Masters Cup (Frankfurt) Missing Stuttgart Masters/New York/Hanover/Lisbon/Houston/Sydney Masters Cup Total = 21

#4 Sampras 7/11 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Cincinnati/U.S Open/Masters Cup (Frankfurt/Hanover) Missing Stuttgart Masters/Toronto-Montreal Masters/ Masters/Lisbon Masters Cup Total = 20

 

[TripleATeam]

I have been reading the Hard Court GOAT threads that recently popped up with vicious debate over who to place as The Number 2 all-time Hard Court GOAT between Djokovic/Sampras.

However I have dug up another little Hard Court Statistic that has never been brought up. Big Hard Court Titles.

Federer has the most comprehensive Big Hard Court Title set to date with 12 Big Hard Court Titles won @ Different Venues. (Feel free to double check on the numbers)

Big Hard Court Titles Won @ Different Venues. Along with Big Hard Court Titles Won Overall .
*Note* I only included Masters Cups/Tour Finals that were not converted when said player actually qualified to compete. (Hence if they did not qualify it was not added as a missing tournament)

#1 Federer 12/13 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Toronto/Cincinnati/U.S Open/Madrid Indoors/Shanghai/Paris/Tour Finals (Houston/Shanghai/London) Missing Montreal M1000 Total = 35

#2 Djokovic 10/12 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Toronto/Montreal/U.S Open/Shanghai/Paris/Tour Finals (Shanghai/London) Missing Madrid Indoors/Cincinnati M1000 Total = 35

#3 Agassi 9/14 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Toronto/Montreal/Cincinnati/U.S Open/Madrid Indoor/Masters Cup (Frankfurt) Missing New York/Hanover/Lisbon/Houston/Sydney Masters Cup Total = 21

#4 Sampras 7/11 Australian Open/Indian Wells/Miami/Cincinnati/U.S Open/Masters Cup (Frankfurt/Hanover) Missing Toronto-Montreal Masters/Madrid Indoors Masters/Lisbon Masters Cup Total = 20

You want Djokovic to win something that no longer exists? The Madrid Indoors went away 3 years after Djokovic arrived on the scene. It's statistics like these that can pull sway away from other, better indicators of skill.

It needs a more permanent fixture- not unique wins at each HC tournament, but rather how many total wins are there.

 

[mr tonyz]

You want Djokovic to win something that no longer exists? The Madrid Indoors went away 3 years after Djokovic arrived on the scene. It's statistics like these that can pull sway away from other, better indicators of skill.

Be sure to check up on whether Djokovic actually played in Madrid Indoors. He actually made The Semi Finals there 1 year if you were to check before you posted

 

[TripleATeam]

Be sure to check up on whether Djokovic actually played in Madrid Indoors. He actually made The Semi Finals there 1 year if you were to check before you posted

I did. My qualms were not about the fact that he did not play there (he did, to be sure) but rather about the fact that he had few chances to win it. You see, the fewer times you play something, the harder it is to have ever won it. Case in point- Sampras hardly ever played Hamburg during his career. As a result, he never won it.

 

[mr tonyz]

True - Most Tournaments were 1/1's such as many of the Tennis Masters Cups. I can see your point as a Djokovic fan but Andre Agassi was dealt the harsher card of the 2 by this formula.

Still Djokovic entered Madrid Indoors in 2006/07/08. 3 Attempts. I could agree with you more if he were to only have entered 1 Tournament (even though a lack of a conversion is still just that even @ a 1-off tournament such as Tennis Masters Cups) > It's a harsh world but the numbers are still the numbers & Agassi was dealt a far harsher card than Djokovic ever was.

 

[TripleATeam]

True - Most Tournaments were 1/1's such as many of the Tennis Masters Cups. I can see your point as a Djokovic fan but Andre Agassi was dealt the harsher card of the 2 by this formula.

Still Djokovic entered Madrid Indoors in 2006/07/08. 3 Attempts. I could agree with you more if he were to only have entered 1 Tournament (even though a lack of a conversion is still just that even @ a 1-off tournament such as Tennis Masters Cups) > It's a harsh world but the numbers are still the numbers & Agassi was dealt a far harsher card than Djokovic ever was.

Of course. I took Djokovic as an example, as it was the first case of that I saw. This is just the reason I think it's a flawed system to determine the greatest HC player, over slam titles, slam finals, and masters titles. It seems less intuitive.

 

[mr tonyz]

Let's take Houston M asters Cup for instance it was held 2 times in years 2003/2004. I higher Tier event in comparison to Madrid Indoors & only held twice yet Federer managed to win them both so I don't really see your argument here with Djokovic having more attempts @ a lower level Big Tournament yet still unable to convert.

 

[mr tonyz]

Of course. I took Djokovic as an example, as it was the first case of that I saw. This is just the reason I think it's a flawed system to determine the greatest HC player, over slam titles, slam finals, and masters titles. It seems less intuitive.

I Never mentioned that this was to be the number 1 Metric to be used in The Hard Court GOAT Debate. I personally go by ...

#1 Grand Slam Hard Court Victories
#2 Tour Final Victories
#3 Grand Flam Finals
#4 Masters 1000 Victories

Which all of the above combine together for Big Hard Court Titles in any case.

 

[TripleATeam]

Let's take Houston M asters Cup for instance it was held 2 times in years 2003/2004. I higher Tier event in comparison to Madrid Indoors & only held twice yet Federer managed to win them both so I don't really see your argument here with Djokovic having more attempts @ a lower level Big Tournament yet still unable to convert.

Many people disregard the various venues for each Masters Cup as separate tournaments, by the way.

It's not just about Djokovic. I appreciate the effort you went to to find these statistics. Even though it may not currently look it, I root for Federer as well. He's my second favorite. I'm just saying the system is a little more subjective than I care for.

 

[mr tonyz]

It's not just about Djokovic. I appreciate the effort you went to to find these statistics. Even though it may not currently look it, I root for Federer as well. He's my second favorite. I'm just saying the system is a little more subjective than I care for.

It's not subjective. Those are hard numbers that cannot be questioned , I never said it was fair . But all of my numbers are correct. I can agree with this being subjective in the use of any meaningful statistic in GOAT Debates. Nevertheless these are the numbers & they are concrete , however unfair it may be.

 

[mr tonyz]

Actually you should be agreeing with this format as 1 more victory for Djokovic would make him current Hard Court GOAT (in terms of Big Hard Court Titles)

 

[TripleATeam]

Actually you should be agreeing with this format as 1 more victory for Djokovic would make him current Hard Court GOAT (in terms of Big Hard Court Titles)

Again, both a Fed and Djoker fan. I'm cool with either.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Shanghai replaced Madrid indoors IIRC and Djokovic won that already

 

[mr tonyz]

Shanghai replaced Madrid indoors IIRC and Djokovic won that already

Big Hard Court Titles Won @ Different Venues. Along with Big Hard Court Titles Won Overall .

 

[NEW_BORN]

Op you overlooked the fact that Federer played the Stuttgart Masters twice early on in his career, so technically he's missing that title as well.

 

[KINGROGER]

Overall HC titles is the only one that counts. Fed clearly leads that over Djokovic.

 

[mr tonyz]

Op you overlooked the fact that Federer played the Stuttgart Masters twice early on in his career, so technically he's missing that title as well.

You are indeed correct , I never really receive any replies to my threads when I am 100% correct so what's the point right? . I also left out Lendl's achievements @ this level too (which should be a glaring omission to those that pay attention). I am glad some members on this Forum can pick the little mistakes that I leave on purpose just to initiate some type of a conversation. Otherwise I am just left providing statistics that I already know are correct which ultimately leave us all with nothing really to talk about.

Meanwhile this can give us something to talk about ...

Overall HC titles is the only one that counts. Fed clearly leads that over Djokovic.

Total Hard Court Titles

#1 Federer - 62
#2 Djokovic - 51

Would you classify Djokovic as Hard Court GOAT if he pads his resume with another 12 HC M1000's to reach # 63 to overtake Federer's count?

For argument's sake let's say Federer just stays on his current Number of 62 ...

 

[KINGROGER]

You are indeed correct , I never really receive any replies to my threads when I am 100% correct so what's the point right? . I also left out Lendl's achievements @ this level too (which should be a glaring omission to those that pay attention). I am glad some members on this Forum can pick the little mistakes that I leave on purpose just to initiate some type of a conversation. Otherwise I am just left providing statistics that I already know are correct which ultimately leave us all with nothing really to talk about.

Meanwhile this can give us something to talk about ...



Total Hard Court Titles

#1 Federer - 62
#2 Djokovic - 51

Would you classify Djokovic as Hard Court GOAT if he pads his resume with another 12 HC M1000's to reach # 63 to overtake Federer's count?

For argument's sake let's say Federer just stays on his current Number of 62 ...

I would first look at total HC Grand slams, then World tour finals, then use the likes of masters 1000, GS finals, overall titles etc as tie breakers.

 

[NBP]

Please stop this nonsensical thing that Montreal and Toronto are separate. They are the same event.

 

[mr tonyz]

I would first look at total HC Grand slams, then World tour finals, then use the likes of masters 1000, GS finals, overall titles etc as tie breakers.

So something like my system then?

#1 Grand Slam Hard Court Victories
#2 Tour Final Victories
#3 Grand Flam Finals
#4 Masters 1000 Victories

 

[Waspsting]

Case in point- Sampras hardly ever played Hamburg during his career. As a result, he never won it.

Not a great example!

Many people disregard the various venues for each Masters Cup as separate tournaments, by the way

If by "many people" you mean "everybody", I agree

It's not subjective. Those are hard numbers that cannot be questioned , I never said it was fair . But all of my numbers are correct.

Not quite. Sampras never played Madrid. You've got a glitch or two with Stuggart - Agassi and Sampras should both be missing that one.

I don't understand why you'd make something this unfair. Agassi is slightly outside the debate, so you're not getting flamed right left and center.

But this looks like the kind of conveniently selective analysis that some people put up to show... whatever they want to show basically

I appreciate the effort you went to to find these statistics... I'm just saying the system is a little more subjective than I care for.

I agree

I Never mentioned that this was to be the number 1 Metric to be used in The Hard Court GOAT Debate. I personally go by ...

#1 Grand Slam Hard Court Victories
#2 Tour Final Victories
#3 Grand Flam Finals
#4 Masters 1000 Victories
.

Yeah that works, nice.

I think you've just dragged a big, fat red herring across the track, stopped the bickering and reset the debate!

Sweet

 

[mr tonyz]

I don't understand why you'd make something this unfair. Agassi is slightly outside the debate, so you're not getting flamed right left and center.

I didn't make anything unfair , simply representing the facts , yeah I missed a few things as compiling this list was taking a lot of my time ...

But this looks like the kind of conveniently selective analysis that some people put up to show... whatever they want to show basically

What is selective about it? Apart from a few minor mistakes on my part ... Absolutely nothing Selective , Big Hard Court Titles is simply just that ...

 

[Waspsting]

I didn't make anything unfair , simply representing the facts , yeah I missed a few things as compiling this list was taking a lot of my time...

I wasn't having a go at you, sorry if it came out that way.

And your right, "selective" was a bad word choice from me and yes, you have just reported facts.

As for fairness (or lack of).... well, do you really think Djokovic missing Cincinnati or Sampras missing Montreal carries the same weight as missing Lisbon (1 tournament), Sydney (1 tournament) or Houston (2 tournaments)?

 

[mr tonyz]

I wasn't having a go at you, sorry if it came out that way.

Oh no i wasn't offended in the slightest , i was just curious as to why i was receiving the same retorts such as selective & subjective .

As for fairness (or lack of).... well, do you really think Djokovic missing Cincinnati or Sampras missing Montreal carries the same weight as missing Lisbon (1 tournament), Sydney (1 tournament) or Houston (2 tournaments)?

Oh no of course not as M1000's a lowest Tier of the Three-Layered-Tier of Big Titles. Again Djokovic will not move ahead of Federer if he pads his resume with HC M1000's to overtake Federer's overall count.
Seeing as Federer has 2 more HC Slams as well as 1 more extra HC Tour final. Again you already have my above answer as to the metrics that i use to determine HC GOAT (or any GOAT for that matter)

#1 Grand Slam Hard Court Victories
#2 Tour Final Victories
#3 Grand Flam Finals
#4 Masters 1000 Victories

I suppose all of my 4 criterion go according to ATP Points awarded also

#1 Grand Slam Win 2000
#2 Tour Final 1500 (undefeated) 1300 (Victory with 1 Round robin Loss)
#3 Grand Slam Runner Up 1200
#4 Masters 1000 Victory 1000
#5 Grand Slam Semi Finals 720
#6 Tour Finals Semi Final (3/4) 600
#7 Tour Finals Semi Final (2/4) 400
#8 Grand Slam Quarter Final 360 << Points wise these are both equal
#9 Master 1000 Quarter Final 360 <<<
#10 Tour Final 1 Round Robin Victory 200

But as of ATP Points the first 7 Tiers are all in line . Notice how Tour Finals Victories are just a slither ahead of a Grand Slam Runner Ups especially 1300 vs 1200. I really wonder if ATP thought very carefully to make sure a Tour Final Victory with 1 loss was still more valuable that a Grand Slam Runner up? Only 100 points in it!

 

[timnz]

I did. My qualms were not about the fact that he did not play there (he did, to be sure) but rather about the fact that he had few chances to win it. You see, the fewer times you play something, the harder it is to have ever won it. Case in point- Sampras hardly ever played Hamburg during his career. As a result, he never won it.

I wish people would take the same attitude when they mark down Borg as to his Hard Court prowess. He only got to play in 4 Hard Court Slam events total through his whole career (and I might add - got to the final in 3 out of those 4).

 

[TripleATeam]

I wish people would take the same attitude when they mark down Borg as to his Hard Court prowess. He only got to play in 4 Hard Court Slam events total through his whole career (and I might add - got to the final in 3 out of those 4).

I'll give him a pass, but I can't say that he's one of the greats without some more substance. In the events he did play, he was great, from what I gather. Didn't get to see the guy, but I would have loved to.

 

[mr tonyz]

I wish people would take the same attitude when they mark down Borg as to his Hard Court prowess. He only got to play in 4 Hard Court Slam events total through his whole career (and I might add - got to the final in 3 out of those 4).

I could provide a counter argument to say that Borg in this time with this technology against this level of competition may not have fared so well as he did during his day. I could say the same as Laver & others . Why do we automatically come to the conclusion that x player from the past with newer technology in this day & age would automatically do better? Sure he may play @ a higher level due to advances in technology, but he'd also be playing against higher level opponents during a totally different era.

Sometimes greats are just a product of their time , & we'll never have a sure way to measure that. But this is why i always lean to the newer Pro Era, because there really is no excuses , it's a fully professional game with 100's of Pro Players on a designated ranking. All have high level technology with the evolution of the game. I honestly think Tennis cannot really evolve anymore as some continue to say. There's only a certain amount of pace/spin/endurance/speed/agility that humans can perform @ . Will the next gen hit the ball harder? Run faster? How much can Racket Technology improve? Where do we go from this point forth?

I don't see any tennis evolution anymore. For all we know guys like Laver may be akin to a modern day top 50 player , the difference could have been now with the depth of the field those other 49 players did not exist during Laver's time. I'd really like to have a computer programmer run simulated tests on hypothetical match ups , that's about the close we could ever get. The computer would run thousands of simulations across every variable & surface speed/weather condition , you name it. I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much in it amongst all the greats anyway , the margins are so minimal @ the highest level of any sport it comes down to millimetres & fractions ...

 

[Waspsting]

I wish people would take the same attitude when they mark down Borg as to his Hard Court prowess. He only got to play in 4 Hard Court Slam events total through his whole career (and I might add - got to the final in 3 out of those 4).

Absolutely.

I take a broad view of these matters in that I don't even necessarily penalize a player for not winning x, y or z tournament.

To me, x tournament (even a slam) is a symbol of their proficiency on the surface x is played on.

As an extreme theoritical example, i'd rate a guy with 10 runner ups and 0 titles at wimbledon a greater grass courter than a guy with 1 title and 9 first rounders.

Real life examples. I'm happy to call Lendl a great grass courter with his resume of 2 runner ups, 5 semis at Wimbledon, along with 1 runner up and 1 semi on Australia's grass and couple of Queens Club titles.

Even if Edberg had won the French, I wouldn't assess him as a great clay courter.

Consistency in going deep is what I look at. "Achievements" is something else, more sentimental, and much more commonly accepted.

----

I rate Borg highly on hard courts for his 3/4 finals. Where I'm a tad dubious is in his only winning 7 hard court titles in his career (while he was wracking up 20+ on carpet, 30+ on clay and Wimbledon every year), especially while Connors was knocking up 50 and McEnroe 20+ on the same surface

 

[NEW_BORN]

#1 Grand Slam Win 2000
#2 Tour Final 1500 (undefeated) 1300 (Victory with 1 Round robin Loss)
#3 Grand Slam Runner Up 1200
#4 Masters 1000 Victory 1000
#5 Grand Slam Semi Finals 720
#6 Tour Finals Semi Final (3/4) 600
#7 Tour Finals Semi Final (2/4) 400
#8 Grand Slam Quarter Final 360 << Points wise these are both equal
#9 Master 1000 Quarter Final 360 <<<
#10 Tour Final 1 Round Robin Victory 200

Masters 1000 QF gets 180, SF gets 360.

 

[mr tonyz]

Masters 1000 QF gets 180, SF gets 360.

Oh yeah i was meant to type in M1000 Semi & what would be worth more considering both of the points are the same . A Semi in a M1000 or a Quarter Final in a Slam? I suppose everyone would assume the latter ...

Consistency in going deep is what I look at. "Achievements" is something else, more sentimental, and much more commonly accepted.

It's been scientifically proven that finishing Runner Up generates the most amount of anguish. It makes sense , being so close & just falling short. I would disagree & as much as i appreciate consistency there'd need
to be at least 1 tournament Victory for me to then consider it. I wonder how many Pro Athletes would choose 10 Runner Ups over 1 Victory , i cannot see many of them choosing the Former over the Latter. I played sports & losing in a Final for me was just as bad as to not finish in the top 4 to make Finals in the first place. The best athletes , the highest Tier of athletes want to win.You simply don't reach certain heights without having a certain drive to become the best (when becoming the best means you have to win as much as you can). Sure there could be a bunch of lower ranked players that would love to have a bunch of Runner Ups.

I'd personally pick 1 Tournament Victory over 10 Runner ups. Now ... If it were 1 Victory with 9 Runner Ups vs 2 Victories & 8 1st Round defeats i think it would be a much tougher debate ...

 

[timnz]

Absolutely.

I take a broad view of these matters in that I don't even necessarily penalize a player for not winning x, y or z tournament.

To me, x tournament (even a slam) is a symbol of their proficiency on the surface x is played on.

As an extreme theoritical example, i'd rate a guy with 10 runner ups and 0 titles at wimbledon a greater grass courter than a guy with 1 title and 9 first rounders.

Real life examples. I'm happy to call Lendl a great grass courter with his resume of 2 runner ups, 5 semis at Wimbledon, along with 1 runner up and 1 semi on Australia's grass and couple of Queens Club titles.

Even if Edberg had won the French, I wouldn't assess him as a great clay courter.

Consistency in going deep is what I look at. "Achievements" is something else, more sentimental, and much more commonly accepted.

----

I rate Borg highly on hard courts for his 3/4 finals. Where I'm a tad dubious is in his only winning 7 hard court titles in his career (while he was wracking up 20+ on carpet, 30+ on clay and Wimbledon every year), especially while Connors was knocking up 50 and McEnroe 20+ on the same surface

How many hard court events did Borg compete in? Remember there was not as many hard court events pre-1978 as now.

 

[Waspsting]

How many hard court events did Borg compete in? Remember there was not as many hard court events pre-1978 as now.

I've considered this.

According to Wikipedia, Borg lost 9 finals on hard courts, giving him a 7-9 record in finals on the surface.

By the end of 1981 when Borg retired, McEnroe, who'd been playing half as long, already had 9 titles, including 3 US Opens. Connors had 30.

For win-loss records, Borg's 2nd, 4th and 3rd on clay, grass and carpet respectively.

He's not in the top 10 on hard. Connors is 3rd, McEnroe 5th. Edberg and Becker are higher up than him

Fine hard court player, Borg, capable of winning any tournament or beating any opponent. Unlike say Edberg or Sampras on clay or Wilander on carpet.

But not top tier, in my considered opinion