How many Masters titles to a WTF titles?

How many Masters 1000 titles is 1 WTF worth?

  • Total voters
    38
winstonplum

winstonplum

Hall of Fame
Less than one, because you have to actually win all your matches to win a 1000. As a general rule, I consider "tennis tournaments" superior to exhibitions.
 
E

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
timnz said:
I think it would be either Federer or Lendl or Connors. If you look at the below chart and assume that the players would have had a similar amount of runner-ups, semi's etc at the lower level events - then the results should still be about the same proportionally in comparison to each other.

I put this in for your interest. (I disown the results - because as I have mentioned - in the 70's/80's it was a lot easier for a great player to rack up many of these events):

Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (13 x 0.5) + (22 x 0.25)= 92.4

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (42 x 0.5) + (15 x 0.25) = 86.95

Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (49 x 0.5) + (33 x 0.25) = 79.25

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (1 x 0.75 olympics) + (15 x 0.5) + (7 x 0.25) = 74.2

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) + (23 x 0.5) + (20 x 0.25) = 68.8

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (12 x 0.5) + (20 x 0.25) = 63.8

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) + (17 x 0.5) + (18 x 0.25) = 63.3

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (1 x 0.75 olympics) + (6 x 0.5) + (27 x 0.25) = 55.2

Djokovic = (7 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) + (10 x 0.5) + (6 x 0.25) = 52.2

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (9 x 0.5) + (19 x 0.25) = 50.95

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (8 x 0.5) + (18 x 0.25) = 36.8

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (0 x 0.5) + (18 x 0.25) = 31.3
Click to expand...

TimNZ, I don't remember if we discussed this - does your system attempt to control for the Borg/Connors generation's tendency to play only 2-3 majors a year; often skip the YEC/Dallas events; and rarely if ever play all 9 events in a season now deemed MS1000 equivalents? Or is your view that it's their problem they skipped events that are now secure in their reputations (a totally valid POV, by the way).

Just curious, because it seems that generation is penalized twice in your system - once for failing to treat most of the current Top 14 events that compose your system (in particular the AO and RG) as mandatory and important, and another time by excluding events now deemed "500 status" that may've actually been more difficult to win (and possibly worth more points in the rankings at the time) than the events later deemed MS1000 equivalents that're currently counted in their tallies.

Interesting numbers as usual.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Revenant said:
What about Slams? How many Masters titles for 1 Slam?
Click to expand...
None really but, within plausible grounds, maybe 20.

No amount of masters titles can generally match the prestige and significance of a single major win. The majors are the pinnacle achievement - falling short of winning one by being a multiple times losing finalist is like winning a masters. - they're second-rate achievements and no amount of them can really equate to actually winning the biggest titles except in ranking points/prize money.
 
The_Order

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Bobby Jr said:
None really but, within plausible grounds, maybe 20.

No amount of masters titles can generally match the prestige and significance of a single major win. The majors are the pinnacle achievement - falling short of winning one by being a multiple times losing finalist is like winning a masters. - they're second-rate achievements and no amount of them can really equate to actually winning the biggest titles except in ranking points/prize money.
Click to expand...

Don't tell him that. He thinks 23 sf streak is just as valuable as winning 14 majors :lol:
 
T

timnz

Legend
eldanger25 said:
TimNZ, I don't remember if we discussed this - does your system attempt to control for the Borg/Connors generation's tendency to play only 2-3 majors a year; often skip the YEC/Dallas events; and rarely if ever play all 9 events in a season now deemed MS1000 equivalents? Or is your view that it's their problem they skipped events that are now secure in their reputations (a totally valid POV, by the way).

Just curious, because it seems that generation is penalized twice in your system - once for failing to treat most of the current Top 14 events that compose your system (in particular the AO and RG) as mandatory and important, and another time by excluding events now deemed "500 status" that may've actually been more difficult to win (and possibly worth more points in the rankings at the time) than the events later deemed MS1000 equivalents that're currently counted in their tallies.

Interesting numbers as usual.
Click to expand...

Yes it does control for the older players playing less slams per year. See link:

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

In summary I add in players WCT Final/Grand Slam cup wins/runner-ups for 70s/80s/and 90s players but ONLY IF the player didn't play all the slams in a particular year eg 4 of McEnroe's 5 Wct finals get included (he played all the slams in 1983), to even things out. Hence, it is a level playing field of the top 5 events per year just like todays players get. So no penalty there. Regarding the top 9 events per year outside of the slams and various season finals - I don't see any penalty there. It seems the greats of old have quite similar totals there compared to more recent players eg McEnroe and Djokovic at 19, Connors and Agassi at 17, Lendl and Federer on 22.

Regarding 500's and 250's it is clear looking at the results that greats of the 70's/80's won a lot more at that level than present players....so I made the decision not to include them at all - to level the playing field as it seems clear it was much easier for a past great to amass those titles compared to now.
 
Last edited:
SpicyCurry1990

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
timnz said:
Yes it does control for the older players playing less slams per year. See link:

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

In summary I add in players WCT Final/Grand Slam cup wins/runner-ups for 70s/80s/and 90s players but ONLY IF the player didn't play all the slams in a particular year eg 4 of McEnroe's 5 Wct finals get included (he played all the slams in 1983), to even things out. Hence, it is a level playing field of the top 5 events per year just like todays players get. So no penalty there. Regarding the top 9 events per year outside of the slams and various season finals - I don't see any penalty there. It seems the greats of old have quite similar totals there compared to more recent players eg McEnroe and Djokovic at 19, Connors and Agassi at 17, Lendl and Federer on 22.

Regarding 500's and 250's it is clear looking at the results that greats of the 70's/80's won a lot more at that level than present players....so I made the decision not to include them at all - to level the playing field as it seems clear it was much easier for a past great to amass those titles compared to now.
Click to expand...

I think Danger's point though is with the 2 different tours going on back then (WCT and ATP) there were quite a few WCT events that were Masters 1000 worthy that are looked at as only 500s now and this effects 70s/80s players. If you look back especially at McEnroe/Connors for example they never played all 9 Masters in a year or even 8 because they filled some of the slots with WCT events, many of which have been re-classified as below 1000 status now.
 
saintlaurent

saintlaurent

Banned
SpicyCurry1990 said:
Oh and to answer the topic, My valuations are:

Masters - 1
WTF - 2
Slam - 4
Click to expand...

IMO there is no way the gap between a slam and WTF today isn't greater than the WTF and Masters. So if the difference between a Masters and WTF is double, the gap between a WTF and slam is much more than double. And conversely if the gap between a slam and WTF is only half (already ridiculous IMO) than the gap between the WTF and a Masters would be almost nothing.

The value of a WTF title today is nothing like it was in the 70s and 80s when it was really a huge event. Even the early to mid 90s it was still pretty big, although already losing prestige.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The WTF is the 5th most important/prestigious tournament and only Nadal fanboys downplay it's significant because their boy never won one.

Nole won the last big turkey(2013 WTF) and afterward people were pondering as to who should be the player of the year.
 
E

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
SpicyCurry1990 said:
I think Danger's point though is with the 2 different tours going on back then (WCT and ATP) there were quite a few WCT events that were Masters 1000 worthy that are looked at as only 500s now and this effects 70s/80s players. If you look back especially at McEnroe/Connors for example they never played all 9 Masters in a year or even 8 because they filled some of the slots with WCT events, many of which have been re-classified as below 1000 status now.
Click to expand...

That's right - the question is how to deal with the fact that the three oldest guys on the list (Connors/Borg/Mac) scheduled themselves so radically differently from today - 2-3 majors a year; 5-7 "MS1000 equivalents"; etc. And as for Connors/Borg, those two each only had one season during their respective "peak" years - 1974-78 for Connors; 1976-1980 for Borg - where they played both Dallas and the Masters (and Connors in fact played neither from 1974-76).

Glad to see you back in the mix, SpicyCurry. Looking forward to future conversations.
 
T

timnz

Legend
SpicyCurry1990 said:
I think Danger's point though is with the 2 different tours going on back then (WCT and ATP) there were quite a few WCT events that were Masters 1000 worthy that are looked at as only 500s now and this effects 70s/80s players. If you look back especially at McEnroe/Connors for example they never played all 9 Masters in a year or even 8 because they filled some of the slots with WCT events, many of which have been re-classified as below 1000 status now.
Click to expand...

And yet the players of old ended up with around the same magnitude of wins in these top 9 events as more recent players ie Djokovic and McEnroe on 19, Agassi and Connors on 17, Federer and Lendl on 22. If the players of old were playing so few of these top 9 events as you say - why does McEnroe get to 19 wins at the age of 26 and Djokovic get to 19 at the age of 27, Lendl get to 22 at the age of 29 and Federer get to 22 at the age of 33?

I would be very happy to have a discussion on what were the top 9 events per year overall (on all pro tours combined) outside the Slams and the various season end finals. The only list I have seen is

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

Now I don't believe there was such a thing as a 'Championship Series' however if you look over the list of events I believe it is a pretty good representation of what were the Top 9 (outside of slams and the various season end finals) events each year.
 
Last edited:
T

timnz

Legend
eldanger25 said:
That's right - the question is how to deal with the fact that the three oldest guys on the list (Connors/Borg/Mac) scheduled themselves so radically differently from today - 2-3 majors a year; 5-7 "MS1000 equivalents"; etc. And as for Connors/Borg, those two each only had one season during their respective "peak" years - 1974-78 for Connors; 1976-1980 for Borg - where they played both Dallas and the Masters (and Connors in fact played neither from 1974-76).

Glad to see you back in the mix, SpicyCurry. Looking forward to future conversations.
Click to expand...

In my system I don't allow a player to get credit for more than 5 top level events per year (top level meaning higher than Masters 1000 equivalents). Yes, maybe these players of old did play less in this top 5 bracket....but isn't it interesting that in the ranking scheme they do so well against current players eg Connors and McEnroe still ahead of Djokovic.
 
Last edited:
The_Mental_Giant

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Revenant said:
How many Masters titles do you think is a WTF title worth? The ATP valuation is:

Masters - 1000 points
WTF - 1500 points
Slam - 2000 points

What I'm asking is, how many Masters 1000 titles do you think 1 WTF title is worth? Vote in the poll, please.
Click to expand...

wtf is 1100-1500 points... you can qualify to next round even 1-2 in RR, depending of others results.
 
The_Mental_Giant

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
saintlaurent said:
IMO there is no way the gap between a slam and WTF today isn't greater than the WTF and Masters. So if the difference between a Masters and WTF is double, the gap between a WTF and slam is much more than double. And conversely if the gap between a slam and WTF is only half (already ridiculous IMO) than the gap between the WTF and a Masters would be almost nothing.

The value of a WTF title today is nothing like it was in the 70s and 80s when it was really a huge event. Even the early to mid 90s it was still pretty big, although already losing prestige.
Click to expand...

Agreed, same as playing australian open in Borg's time and playing it nowadays. People used to claim wimbledon as the most important tournament 30 years ago, nowadays a slam is a slam, and winning Aussie open or Wimbledon is the same.
 
SpicyCurry1990

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
eldanger25 said:
That's right - the question is how to deal with the fact that the three oldest guys on the list (Connors/Borg/Mac) scheduled themselves so radically differently from today - 2-3 majors a year; 5-7 "MS1000 equivalents"; etc. And as for Connors/Borg, those two each only had one season during their respective "peak" years - 1974-78 for Connors; 1976-1980 for Borg - where they played both Dallas and the Masters (and Connors in fact played neither from 1974-76).

Glad to see you back in the mix, SpicyCurry. Looking forward to future conversations.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, I have given further thought to the Connors/Lendl debate in light of that and am more amenable to being convinced Connors is greater.

Also look forward to future discussions as well. Will be fewer and far between now that I have a lot more going on in school.

saintlaurent said:
IMO there is no way the gap between a slam and WTF today isn't greater than the WTF and Masters. So if the difference between a Masters and WTF is double, the gap between a WTF and slam is much more than double. And conversely if the gap between a slam and WTF is only half (already ridiculous IMO) than the gap between the WTF and a Masters would be almost nothing.

The value of a WTF title today is nothing like it was in the 70s and 80s when it was really a huge event. Even the early to mid 90s it was still pretty big, although already losing prestige.
Click to expand...

I agree that the absolute value of the WTF is closer to a Masters than a Slam, which is why a WTF is worth 1 more than a Masters and a Slam is worth 2 more than a WTF.

There are 9 Masters tournaments in a year but only 1 WTF and 4 Slams. Hence weights of 1-2-4 make sense to me.

timnz said:
And yet the players of old ended up with around the same magnitude of wins in these top 9 events as more recent players ie Djokovic and McEnroe on 19, Agassi and Connors on 17, Federer and Lendl on 22. If the players of old were playing so few of these top 9 events as you say - why does McEnroe get to 19 wins at the age of 26 and Djokovic get to 19 at the age of 27, Lendl get to 22 at the age of 29 and Federer get to 22 at the age of 33?

I would be very happy to have a discussion on what were the top 9 events per year overall (on all pro tours combined) outside the Slams and the various season end finals. The only list I have seen is

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

Now I don't believe there was such a thing as a 'Championship Series' however if you look over the list of events I believe it is a pretty good representation of what were the Top 9 (outside of slams and the various season end finals) events each year.
Click to expand...

Dilution, in masters series events today all of the top players play each event. Back in the 70s/80s very few masters had all of the top players playing because they picked and choose which ones to play in conjunction with the WCT events and hence had less competition for each individual title. Its not really possible to equate what was once with what is now because of how different the tour is. There pretty much were far more than 9 "Masters 750" events if you will when looking at WCT + Masters 1000 events etc... but some are now 500s and 1000s. The point is several of Connors' 500 level titles were probably won in tougher fields than some of his 1000s and there was no real hard and fast rule on which were more "prestigious" even then.
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
SpicyCurry1990 said:
I agree that the absolute value of the WTF is closer to a Masters than a Slam, which is why a WTF is worth 1 more than a Masters and a Slam is worth 2 more than a WTF.

There are 9 Masters tournaments in a year but only 1 WTF and 4 Slams. Hence weights of 1-2-4 make sense to me.
Click to expand...

… I've thought about this for a while… But I find no logic no matter how long I look or think :neutral:
 
T

timnz

Legend
SpicyCurry1990 said:
Yes indeed, I have given further thought to the Connors/Lendl debate in light of that and am more amenable to being convinced Connors is greater.

Also look forward to future discussions as well. Will be fewer and far between now that I have a lot more going on in school.



I agree that the absolute value of the WTF is closer to a Masters than a Slam, which is why a WTF is worth 1 more than a Masters and a Slam is worth 2 more than a WTF.

There are 9 Masters tournaments in a year but only 1 WTF and 4 Slams. Hence weights of 1-2-4 make sense to me.



Dilution, in masters series events today all of the top players play each event. Back in the 70s/80s very few masters had all of the top players playing because they picked and choose which ones to play in conjunction with the WCT events and hence had less competition for each individual title. Its not really possible to equate what was once with what is now because of how different the tour is. There pretty much were far more than 9 "Masters 750" events if you will when looking at WCT + Masters 1000 events etc... but some are now 500s and 1000s. The point is several of Connors' 500 level titles were probably won in tougher fields than some of his 1000s and there was no real hard and fast rule on which were more "prestigious" even then.
Click to expand...

I guess it is 'swings and roundabouts' players of old had less competition in the list top 9 events because they weren't compulsory (don't forget the events weren't compulsory until the year 2000) but played them less, so it balances out. Interesting that they end up with the same magnitude of wins as more recent players. Again, specifically which of these '750' events were higher in status / prize money than the ones listed for the 70s / 80s? HAppy to discuss list and potentially revise.
 
T

timnz

Legend
WTF closer to a Slam than a Masters 1000

I have surveyed journalists articles and what players have said about the event since 1970 (I posted the article references on this forum couple of years ago) - and what is very clear, is that the players historically have viewed it as only a little lower than a slam win eg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tennis/539395.stm

eg Regarding the WTF final in 1999 between Sampras and Agassi

"the last major tennis final of the millennium"

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...Qualifies.aspx

Or Berdych

For me, it’s always one of my goals at the beginning of each season and it’s an honour to qualify,” said Berdych. “It’s just great to be a part of it. It really is the celebration of tennis, only for the Top 8 guys. It’s a huge show which I suppose tennis should be, and for us tennis players I would say it’s the best tournament.”

These are just a few of the many quotes available showing journalists and players alike view it as a very important tournament.

(For a time in the late 70's and 1980's it was regarded as a defacto major). Hence, it's current value of 3/4s of a Slam for an unbeaten run at the WTF seems about right to me. So if Slams get valued up from their present 2 x Masters 1000's then the WTF should remain at 3/4s of a Slam.
 
Last edited:
E

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
timnz said:
I have surveyed journalists articles and what players have said about the event since 1970 (I posted the article references on this forum couple of years ago) - and what is very clear, is that the players historically have viewed it as only a little lower than a slam win eg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tennis/539395.stm

eg Regarding the WTF final in 1999 between Sampras and Agassi

"the last major tennis final of the millennium"

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...Qualifies.aspx

Or Berdych

For me, it’s always one of my goals at the beginning of each season and it’s an honour to qualify,” said Berdych. “It’s just great to be a part of it. It really is the celebration of tennis, only for the Top 8 guys. It’s a huge show which I suppose tennis should be, and for us tennis players I would say it’s the best tournament.”

These are just a few of the many quotes available showing journalists and players alike view it as a very important tournament.

(For a time in the late 70's and 1980's it was regarded as a defacto major). Hence, it's current value of 3/4s of a Slam for an unbeaten run at the WTF seems about right to me. So if Slams get valued up from their present 2 x Masters 1000's then the WTF should remain at 3/4s of a Slam.
Click to expand...

I agree it's the fifth biggest tournament of the year, though more due to its makeup (Top 8, indoor, etc.) than player comments, which have to be filtered through the PR-speak and diplomacy they're all schooled in these days.

That said, there's a clear gap to me as well between the YEC and the slams, and it's greater than 4:3. As someone else has mentioned in a prior thread, remember the commonly accepted image of Lendl before RG 1984 (and to an extent through the 1985 Open) as never having won the "big one," despite having won multiple Masters titles and a Dallas WCT before his first slam win. Same sort of statements have been made about Nalbandian and Davydenko, and it's hard to imagine folks would've been any less tough on Murray before the 2012 Open had he won, say, the 2008 or 2009 YEC while still losing the 4 slam finals.

So maybe I'd also say a 4:2:1 ratio for majors to YEC to MS1000s. Maybe a 4:3 ratio for YEC titles to slam finalists as well - just spitballing.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
This poll is flawed. Where is 0.5 and 0 option?

Because some people believe WTF is just an expo and not worth anything.
 
T

timnz

Legend
My own view

If you have Masters 1000 as a base of 1000 points, I think these events should have the following points:

Slam Wins = 3000 points
Slam runner-ups = 1800 points
WTF unbeaten = 2250 points
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll
How much should Slams be worth relative to Masters 1000's
Replies
26
Views
3K
Paul Murphy
P
T
Comparing Andy Murray with Guillermo Vilas
Replies
35
Views
2K
bm3
B
The_18th_Slam
  • Poll
Federer fans: 1 WTF title or 3 Masters titles?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
vive le beau jeu !
vive le beau jeu !
Eragon
Give your personal weightage/value for each ATP Tournament
Replies
6
Views
639
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
DIMI_D
  • Poll
1 grand slam for how many masters 1000?
2
Replies
55
Views
1K
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
Top