How do you compare the WTF to Slams??

EasyGoing

Professional
The anecdotes were just here to show that even slams which some people think are common knowledge among the general public aren't. I don't need anecdotes to show how little known the WTF is outside of these circles.

The question was just a disguised version of how WTF influence GOAT debate. I would say very little since the media doesn't hype it and so the general public doesn't care. A big part of being the GOAT is making a player a buzzword associated with the sport to non fans.

What kind of brain dead posting is this? You can say the same for any sport - 90 % of World’s population would struggle to name an American football player or even correctly name a team that ever won a Superbowl. Does that make it obsolete?

Go to Europe and stop people on the street to ask them about major MLB achievements. Most won’t even recognise the sport you are talking about.

Now, ask a Chinese or and Indian guy about Ingemar Stenmark, Alberto Tomba, Bode Miller, Lindsey Vonn and the like. At best, they’ll think they are old (or young) Hollywood actors.

Nobody from the general tennis watching public would guess that Nole was at best 3rd in the OG, let alone know the exact number of his Wimbledon titles. They might know how many slams he won, but they sure as hell won’t remember what was his last Masters title or if he won IW last year, lol. Does that make all of his results outside of total slam numbers, and thus the whole sport obsolete?

And I know you’ll need an answer: no, it doesn’t. For correctly determining his place in tennis history, knowledgeable people will use his WTF performance alongside all other results. And it will be placed just below his performance in slams, exactly where @abmk put it.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
^^ Bad trolling.

:cool:


Nope. It was started in the 70's as a masters exhibition to show case top players and had no points. Was great for TV. When the ATP took it over they wanted to capitalize on it and turned it into the circus it is now especially when it was contracted in teh O2 arena and much more money was at stake.

So there is no real point value or prestige history of it until they made it so way late in the 90's and later 2000's.

(This also alludes to what I keep saying about Wimby needing an update)


Form Management today just a few years back:

To figure out where all this extra money's coming from, leave the grass of Wimbledon behind for a moment and travel across London to the O2 Arena, home of the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals. The clue's in the name. There's a sponsor for the event, another for the match statistics - even the aces are brought to you by Mercedes-Benz.

Revenue from official partners at the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals), which runs the worldwide men's tour, has increased 215% in six years. Sponsors aren't just splurging for names on billboards either. They're getting involved. There's a fan zone at the O2, where visitors can see how their serves compare with the pros' with Ricoh, watch Tecnifibre restring a racquet or pose for the chance to win goodies from Lacoste.

Tennis has taken entertainment values from entertainment venues, says Robert Datnow of the Sports Consultancy, which worked with the World Tennis Association to place the World Tour Finals' sister event in Istanbul. The event there featured a promotional match on the Bosphorus Bridge, courtesy of city authorities keen to get in on the action. 'The marketplace for eyeballs and filling stadia is more competitive now,' he explains. 'Tennis is competing for an entertainment audience. People are making a decision about whether to watch Strictly Come Dancing or the ATP or WTA finals.'

In the face of this competition, the sport is trying to get fans more involved, whether through sponsors or through a rapidly expanding digital media machine. Page impressions at the WTA Tour Finals site, where you can go behind the scenes with Serena Williams or Ana Ivanovic, increased 127% in only one year.

'In other sports, players are more remote. In tennis, players are made to be much more front and centre,' says Datnow.

Tennis allows a unique intimacy between players and spectators, says Clifford Bloxham of Octagon, a talent agency representing celebrities from footballer Daniel Sturridge and ballerina Darcey Bussell to chef Atul Kochhar. 'Every two games, they sit down in front of the camera and you get to share that moment,' he says. 'In football, you never get that.'

This isn't the only marketing box tennis ticks. It's a global, gladiatorial, year-round game, with natural breaks perfectly suited for commercials and analysis. Bloxham points to the way Baileys was invented by Diageo's marketers, who figured out their ideal drink's characteristics and only then made the product. 'If you were to do that with a sport, you'd end up with tennis. You couldn't do better if you tried.'

Female players are particularly marketable. There are three women in Forbes' list of the most endorsed sport personalities in the world - all are tennis players. Andy Murray has to compete with Lewis Hamilton and Cristiano Ronaldo for sponsorship; Maria Sharapova doesn't.

In common with other sports, tennis is busy capitalising on its previously unrealised commercial potential. Blaring rock, swooping spider cams and the thunderous heartbeats that accompany players' line call challenges at the O2 aren't just signs of fan engagement, they're also testament to a new and deliberate dynamism in tennis marketing.

'We've got to try to attract a younger audience and I don't mean kids of 12,' says ATP president Chris Kermode, who was tournament director at the World Tour Finals when it started in London six years ago. 'There's a huge market of light sports fans in their 20s, who maybe bypassed tennis growing up. We want them to taste it.'

Taste it, they have. Last year, 263,000 people came, making it the fourth biggest annual sport event in the UK. It's hard to escape the fact that the World Tour Finals and much of modern tennis are about as far from Wimbledon whites and strawberries and cream as you can get. 'Reaching through old preconceptions' is how Kermode puts it.

Of course, neither he nor anyone else in tennis has a bad word for Wimbledon, but the sport's dramatic transformation surely has implications for its place as the world's top tournament.

'There's only one Wimbledon and only one Centre Court. That place is hallowed. It's eerie, wonderful and superb,' says commentator and former British number one Andrew Castle. 'But the enemy is complacency. You can't stick around and hope it will continue. You've got to make things happen.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Easily below Slams, easily above all Masters. Would rather win the YEC than be runner-up of a Slam, but winning a Slam is way above winning the YEC.

Well undefeated champ gets 2.7 million for winning 10 sets as oppose to 1.1 million for 18 sets to get a Slam Final.

So you bet it's easier money. But legacy-wise you're better off losing a Slam Final.
 
Well undefeated champ gets 2.7 million for winning 10 sets as oppose to 1.1 million for 18 sets to get a Slam Final.

So you bet it's easier money. But legacy-wise you're better off losing a Slam Final.
Depends on the GS finalist's performance in the tournament..
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
there are WTFs that were more difficult to win than certain slams but it's also harder to just get hot and win a slam due to the format.

WTFs are clearly the 5th biggest event to me, and 4th when AO wasn't a real slam.


well, ao is clearly now the 4 major and is not debatable anymore.
 
Last edited:

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
even if talking about points, the wtf is between the grand slams and the master 1000, the masters cup as it was called in the past, is a tournament created at the beginning of the open era, more precisely in 1970.
It is indisputable that it is the fifth most important tennis tournament but it will never have the history of the big 4.
 

one-hand

Rookie
WTF can't be compared to IW, or Rome imo as it only has 8 players (most of whom are burnt out by the end of the season) and we get winners like Dimitrov and Zverev as a result. In no way can a Round-Robin format (whereby you can lose 2/3 of your singles matches, make it to the SF depending on other results in your section, then end up winning it with only 3 match wins and 2 losses) compare with knock-out tennis at M1000 level.

It's the same on the WTA, Radwanska won the WTA Finals in 2016 (or was it 2015?) with a 3-2 W/L record and her opponent in the final Kvitová had a 2-3 W/L record (that's losing *more* matches than winning and ending up in the final). It's ridiculous.

8 player RB format has unintended outcomes. WTF is just another venue for squeeze out more revenue from tickets at the expense of tired players.
 
Nope. It was started in the 70's as a masters exhibition to show case top players and had no points. Was great for TV. When the ATP took it over they wanted to capitalize on it and turned it into the circus it is now especially when it was contracted in teh O2 arena and much more money was at stake.

So there is no real point value or prestige history of it until they made it so way late in the 90's and later 2000's.

I am not going to waste my time with someone who obviously never heard of the WCT (of which the WTF is the true incarnation) and the players that played in it.

Your statements about the lack of ranking points, as well as its financial incentives show a total lack of knowledge of the complexities of the development of the professional tennis in the Open era.

Maybe you can show me the structure of the ranking points for the other tournaments, say in 1982?

:cool:
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
I am not going to waste my time with someone who obviously never heard of the WCT (of which is the WTF is the true incarnation) and the players that played in it.

Your statements about the lack of ranking points, as well as its financial incentives show a total lack of knowledge of the complexities of the development of the professional tennis in the Open era.

Maybe you can show me the structure of the ranking points for the other tournaments, say in 1982?

:cool:


You have to ask guys like rosewall, mcenroe, lendl.
 
You have to ask guys like rosewall, mcenroe, lendl.

I am interested, since the guy said that there were no points on offer, which is news to me, but maybe he can defend his stance...... somehow.

A comprehensive list of the tournaments with "points" on offer will reveal a great deal of what he is talking about.

Let's see.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

timnz

Legend
An undefeated champions winning 5 matches gets 1,500 points. So in this sense it's certainly worth more than a Masters in terms of rankings. All matches are Bo3 however and many past champions won the tournament with 4 match wins.

At 4 match wins, that's a 250 tournament requirement (and many lower ranked players need 5 to win one).

The biggest sticking point for supporters is how you're looking at the Top 8-10 players on the year, HOWEVER that doesn't necessarily mean they're in that form come that time if most of their points came say, before the USO hard court season for example. Furthermore from a Slam Quarter onwards you're typically facing a Top 10 opponent in a Bo5. So you need to win 9 sets as oppose to 8 sets (in a 4-1 WTF champion). This is my sticking point as I think that's where the WTF credibility breaks down.

The point totals serve more of a guarantee for top players to bring up their gap for the following season and to justify sponsorships and ticket prices for the event. With lame duck matches the tournament itself without Bo5 for the last two rounds appears as a glorified exhibition and 3 prize money matches.

I have come to rate Indian Wells and Miami ahead of the WTF in terms of a player's resume. Winning 6 rounds where most of the Top 10 players participate in at least 1 of the 2 is a greater performance than winning 4 matches at the WTF.

So if I have to make a comparison I'd say making a Slam Final is above the level of a WTF champion. Yes some players luck out with a draw to make a Final but the same happens with the WTF in RR play and who your SF opponent is. Upsets are more common in Bo3 tournaments with top players losing early than at the Slams. But most importantly in recent times the victories of Davydenko (who made two final appearances), Dimitrov and Zverev confirm that it's easier to win a WTF than making a Slam Final.
I disagree with your thoughts in comparing it to a 250. Dimitrov and Zverev (and he may turn into a future number 1) are the exceptions to WTF winners. If you look at the winners roll it is mostly made up of all time greats. Indeed no one has won the event who has had a career ranking high of less than 3 in the world
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
All the greatest players of all time have won a YEC (now WTF)

Its a "must have" item to have made it into the top tier

Wilander & Nadal unless you're specifically trolling those two.

Indeed no one has won the event who has had a career ranking high of less than 3 in the world

That's actually not as special as you might think. Since rankings system was introduced in 1973 there's been 55 players ranked #3 or higher.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
Wilander & Nadal unless you're specifically trolling those two.



That's actually not as special as you might think. Since rankings system was introduced in 1973 there's been 55 players ranked #3 or higher.

Lol, I think you are a “special” person for thinking this stat is not special. With a rolling weekly rankings to have just over 1 person per year reach no. 3 or better in 45 years...
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Lol, I think you are a “special” person for thinking this stat is not special. With a rolling weekly rankings to have just over 1 person per year reach no. 3 or better in 45 years...

55 players
46 tournament editions
23 different champions

It's not much of an achievement no player who's been outside Top 3 for their careers has won it.

Keep in mind Corretja, Nalbandian, Dimitrov achieved their career high #3 in large part due to winning the WTF.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
55 players
46 tournament editions
23 different champions

It's not much of an achievement no player who's been outside Top 3 for their careers has won it.

Keep in mind Corretja, Nalbandian, Dimitrov achieved their career high #3 in large part due to winning the WTF.

Oh, really? Now please name me 5 more tournaments that no player lower than no. 3 ever won. Since it’s not much of an achievement I am betting you can do it in 5 minutes. Tick, tack...
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I think one of the things most hurt by how physical the game has gotten is this tournament. Half the guys are out on their feet by the time it comes around. People talk about how you can win the title while losing a match, but more ridiculous still is how a guy can pull out and someone else that didn't even qualify for this prestigious tournament that at the end of the year everyone is chasing points for gets to come in as a replacement. The best of 3 final is lame too, for sure.

I definitely have a hard time putting it anywhere near to the 4th slam in all but name category that it used to occupy in the calendar. Points shmoints, some of those 1000s where every player has a chance, and guys tend to be more fresh are infinitely more meaningful.

Look at the end of last year where guys like Tsitsipas, Medvedev and Khachanov got hot, and then we come to the Finals, and none of those guys are playing and we're stuck with a bunch of guys that hardly won a match in 6 months. Great.
 
I think one of the things most hurt by how physical the game has gotten is this tournament. Half the guys are out on their feet by the time it comes around. People talk about how you can win the title while losing a match, but more ridiculous still is how a guy can pull out and someone else that didn't even qualify for this prestigious tournament that at the end of the year everyone is chasing points for gets to come in as a replacement. The best of 3 final is lame too, for sure.

I definitely have a hard time putting it anywhere near to the 4th slam in all but name category that it used to occupy in the calendar. Points shmoints, some of those 1000s where every player has a chance, and guys tend to be more fresh are infinitely more meaningful.

Look at the end of last year where guys like Tsitsipas, Medvedev and Khachanov got hot, and then we come to the Finals, and none of those guys are playing and we're stuck with a bunch of guys that hardly won a match in 6 months. Great.

Yeah, because the Majors are rolling blockbuster after blockbuster.

The tournament is well positioned, and the one thing that hurts it is a lack of best of 5 finals.

Can you point me at one M1000 in the last 10 years as meaningful as the WTF in 2016, which was arguably lacklustre compared to some of its other editions in that period?

:cool:
 

Zardoz7/12

Hall of Fame
Aren't the WTF's seen as the in-between in regards of Slams and Masters?

In Djokovic's and Federer's case in addition to their slam and Masters hauls their WTF victories are an amazing addition to their legacies.
 

Cortana

Legend
I would take 4 WTF titles over 1 slam title.

Nobody will remember you for 1 slam title. But winning the WTF multiple times against the best players?
 
Has Nadal ever beat 5 top- 8 players to win a title?

6WFjtDB.gif


:cool:
 

Rabe87

Professional
Yeah if the whole top 100 were injured, that'd be a pretty concerning state for tennis lol
Can you locate a Slam in the Open Era whereby a winner has only played players ranked 101 or below? Didn't think so.

And it's Bo3 sets, it doesn't even *compare* to Slams in the slightest.

Oh, and WTF Champions can lose 2 matches in their RR bracket and still win the trophy = absurd.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Can you locate a Slam in the Open Era whereby a winner has only played players ranked 101 or below? Didn't think so.

And it's Bo3 sets, it doesn't even *compare* to Slams in the slightest.

Oh, and WTF Champions can lose 2 matches in their RR bracket and still win the trophy = absurd.
You've clearly missed the point of my post. It's technically possible to win a slam without beating a player in the top 100 and its statistically more likely than at the YEC. It has of course never happened. Just as no male YEC champion has ever lost 2 matches en route. We shouldn't judge the merit of a win based on what could theoretically happen if it doesn't happen in practice

Of course the WTF isn't on the level of a slam. I've never suggested as such. It is, however, more prestigious than winning a masters 1000.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Oh, really? Now please name me 5 more tournaments that no player lower than no. 3 ever won. Since it’s not much of an achievement I am betting you can do it in 5 minutes. Tick, tack...

Top 8-10 players on the year and given historical precedent there's typically more than 50% chance the guy who wins will be #3 at some point in their career.

Slams have 128 players draws.
IW & Miami 96.

Do that math.

Funny enough though there are tournaments where no non-3 player has won.

Indian Wells since 1987 it moved there. More impressive with 96 entrants.

Miami since 85 inception has only had 2 with the 1st coming in the 1st year and the 2nd coming this past season. Again more impressive.

For the Slams with Bo5 it's not even a debate but AO has had 1 outside the skip years (Johansson) and I think Wimby and USO none in OE.

Rome pretty good I think only Sanchez, Ramirez and Pannatta and 2 of those guys were #4.

Back to the structure of the WTF it's designed so it's very unlikely a players wins it and is not Top 3. I mean, outside of a replacement in a strong year who never advances in their career. The margins between #3-#6 isn't typically that huge and you got the Top 4 split in 2 groups.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
Top 8-10 players on the year and given historical precedent there's typically more than 50% chance the guy who wins will be #3 at some point in their career.

Slams have 128 players draws.
IW & Miami 96.

Do that math.

Funny enough though there are tournaments where no non-3 player has won.

Indian Wells since 1987 it moved there. More impressive with 96 entrants.

Miami since 85 inception has only had 2 with the 1st coming in the 1st year and the 2nd coming this past season. Again more impressive.

For the Slams with Bo5 it's not even a debate but AO has had 1 outside the skip years (Johansson) and I think Wimby and USO none in OE.

Rome pretty good I think only Sanchez, Ramirez and Pannatta and 2 of those guys were #4.

Back to the structure of the WTF it's designed so it's very unlikely a players wins it and is not Top 3. I mean, outside of a replacement in a strong year who never advances in their career. The margins between #3-#6 isn't typically that huge and you got the Top 4 split in 2 groups.

So, in other words, you have nothing :) At least you are consistent.
 
Top