Masters 1000 equivalents and 500 equivalents combined - the medium to high strength events

timnz

Legend
Hello - I know that Masters 1000's are considered 'Big events' now (only lower than the Slams and the Season end finals). The problem in the past is the pre-1990 period. It is ambigious as to what constitutes a Masters 1000 equivalent (and a 500 equivalent for that matter). If we regard that sometimes what should have been perhaps a Masters 1000 equivalent, falls instead into the 500 bucket, then what is the combined value of both of these event totals for the great players?

Name - Masters 1000 equivalent + 500 equivalent = Total

Nadal 34 + 20= 54
Federer 28 + 22= 50
Djokovic 33 + 12= 45
Lendl 22 + 22=44
McEnroe 19 + 23=42
Connors 17 + 22= 39
Borg 15 + 17= 32
Becker 13+ 19 = 32 **
Agassi 17 + 9 = 26 **
Murray 14 + 10 = 24
Sampras 11 + 12= 23
Edberg 8 + 16 = 22 **
Wilander 8 + 8 = 16

** working on estimates of their 500 equivalents pre-1990.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Very difficult to rate the equivalent worth of pre-1990 non-Slam events apart perhaps from the YEC. This is why the ATP only dates records in these events from 1990 when the 9 Masters events were formally given their present status.
 

timnz

Legend
Very difficult to rate the equivalent worth of pre-1990 non-Slam events apart perhaps from the YEC. This is why the ATP only dates records in these events from 1990 when the 9 Masters events were formally given their present status.
Agreed but we try. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why Becker’s win at the Paris indoor in 1989 (before masters 1000’s) was a lessor achievement than his win at the Paris indoor in 1992 (after masters 1000 came in). Also in the early 1990s there were about 8 or 9 events a year that had similar points and prize money to some masters 1000 events but aren’t classed as masters 1000s eg Philadelphia (1990 to 1992). Hence my combining 1000 equivalents with 500s so they both in some way get recognised
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
Hello. The Masters 1000 are lower in relevance than the Grand Slams and Olympics/ATP finals.

Category of tournaments:

Tier A (Grand Slams)
Tier B (Olympics/ATP finals)
Tier C (Masters 1000)
Tier D (ATP 500)
Tier E (ATP 250)

Now that is the case but in the past? How do you compare achievements of great players over the whole of the open era.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Hello. The Masters 1000 are lower in relevance than the Grand Slams and Olympics/ATP finals.

Category of tournaments:

Tier A (Grand Slams)
Tier B (Olympics/ATP finals)
Tier C (Masters 1000)
Tier D (ATP 500)
Tier E (ATP 250)

Only a very select few would rate the Olympics that high. The majority would rate The Games lower than a Masters, but higher than a 500 event.
 

KG1965

Legend
Hello - I know that Masters 1000's are considered 'Big events' now (only lower than the Slams and the Season end finals). The problem in the past is the pre-1990 period. It is ambigious as to what constitutes a Masters 1000 equivalent (and a 500 equivalent for that matter). If we regard that sometimes what should have been perhaps a Masters 1000 equivalent, falls instead into the 500 bucket, then what is the combined value of both of these event totals for the great players?

Name - Masters 1000 equivalent + 500 equivalent = Total

Nadal 34 + 20= 54
Federer 28 + 22= 50
Djokovic 33 + 12= 45
Lendl 22 + 22=44
McEnroe 19 + 23=42
Connors 17 + 22= 39
Borg 15 + 17= 32
Becker 13+ 19 = 32 **
Agassi 17 + 9 = 26 **
Murray 14 + 10 = 24
Sampras 11 + 12= 23
Edberg 8 + 16 = 22 **
Wilander 8 + 8 = 16

** working on estimates of their 500 equivalents pre-1990.
It seems to me a good idea because unlike the comparable 1000 Masters that for the pre-1990 period substantially do not exist (those of Wikipedia are a joke) in this case, identifying the comparable Masters 250 before 1990 is very simple.
The problem is that Connors has won 57 titles ATP sanctioned > Masters 250... not 38.;)
And I could check, but even McEnroe, Lendl and Borg have won many more.
 

timnz

Legend
It seems to me a good idea because unlike the comparable 1000 Masters that for the pre-1990 period substantially do not exist (those of Wikipedia are a joke) in this case, identifying the comparable Masters 250 before 1990 is very simple.
The problem is that Connors has won 57 titles ATP sanctioned > Masters 250... not 38.;)
And I could check, but even McEnroe, Lendl and Borg have won many more.
It seems to me a good idea because unlike the comparable 1000 Masters that for the pre-1990 period substantially do not exist (those of Wikipedia are a joke) in this case, identifying the comparable Masters 250 before 1990 is very simple.
The problem is that Connors has won 57 titles ATP sanctioned > Masters 250... not 38.;)
And I could check, but even McEnroe, Lendl and Borg have won many more.
Its tricky to agree exactly on titles levels, but I respect your analysis. if you were to take the list of players I listed above - what are your totals?
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Hello - I know that Masters 1000's are considered 'Big events' now (only lower than the Slams and the Season end finals). The problem in the past is the pre-1990 period. It is ambigious as to what constitutes a Masters 1000 equivalent (and a 500 equivalent for that matter). If we regard that sometimes what should have been perhaps a Masters 1000 equivalent, falls instead into the 500 bucket, then what is the combined value of both of these event totals for the great players?

Name - Masters 1000 equivalent + 500 equivalent = Total

Nadal 34 + 20= 54
Federer 28 + 22= 50
Djokovic 33 + 12= 45
Lendl 22 + 22=44
McEnroe 19 + 23=42
Connors 17 + 22= 39
Borg 15 + 17= 32
Becker 13+ 19 = 32 **
Agassi 17 + 9 = 26 **
Murray 14 + 10 = 24
Sampras 11 + 12= 23
Edberg 8 + 16 = 22 **
Wilander 8 + 8 = 16

** working on estimates of their 500 equivalents pre-1990.


You are a historian of this sport.
Are you sure that only McEnroe has won what is now known as ATP 500, 23 of these tournaments?
I thought Lendl had also gotten that amount.
 

timnz

Legend
You are a historian of this sport.
Are you sure that only McEnroe has won what is now known as ATP 500, 23 of these tournaments?
I thought Lendl had also gotten that amount.
The truth is its hard to work out equivalents. I see these as indicative only. (unless the player had all their achievements post 1990). one can argue the points on a lot of them eg some would say that pre-1990 Queen's Club should be at the level of a 500, but others think it should be rated at 250 level. It has made both levels post 1990. Philadephia was a big tournament in the early 1990's - with similar prize money and points to the newly formed 'ATP Championship Series, Single-Week' (Masters 1000's), but wasn't given 'Masters 1000' status by the ATP.

You are too kind saying I am a historian of the sport (I am not really). I do look into the past in tennis, but my knowledge is nothing compared to some. KG1965 has looked in detail at the records of Connors and Lendl and McEnroe.

What would be very interesting to see, compiled by someone far patient than I. would be a list of the top 9 (points wise or money wise April 1968 to August 1973 when the ATP points system came in) events, in each year since 1968, outside of the Slams and the various season end finals (WTF, WCT Finals & Grand Slam Cup). This would only establish an approximate similarity to the Masters 1000. There is no real equivalent. And from then on, after working out these top 9 by year, go on to work out those events that had roughly half the points of the top 9 mentioned earlier - regardless of how many there were (I suspect less than the current 13). Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_500 - this shows that 500 series have 13 events now, but going back to the 1990's there were considerably less. Just another way it is hard to find equivalencies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

KG1965

Legend
Its tricky to agree exactly on titles levels, but I respect your analysis. if you were to take the list of players I listed above - what are your totals?
It's a job that takes some time but since you are a precise person I will make you a list with the opinion on the 4 players.
ATP ranking and ATP tournament prize money helps us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Hello - I know that Masters 1000's are considered 'Big events' now (only lower than the Slams and the Season end finals). The problem in the past is the pre-1990 period. It is ambigious as to what constitutes a Masters 1000 equivalent (and a 500 equivalent for that matter). If we regard that sometimes what should have been perhaps a Masters 1000 equivalent, falls instead into the 500 bucket, then what is the combined value of both of these event totals for the great players?

Name - Masters 1000 equivalent + 500 equivalent = Total

Nadal 34 + 20= 54
Federer 28 + 22= 50
Djokovic 33 + 12= 45
Lendl 22 + 22=44
McEnroe 19 + 23=42
Connors 17 + 22= 39
Borg 15 + 17= 32
Becker 13+ 19 = 32 **
Agassi 17 + 9 = 26 **
Murray 14 + 10 = 24
Sampras 11 + 12= 23
Edberg 8 + 16 = 22 **
Wilander 8 + 8 = 16

** working on estimates of their 500 equivalents pre-1990.
Hi timnz, I am afraid this can only be done on a case by case basis. Some don't deserve to he equated.
 

KG1965

Legend
The truth is its hard to work out equivalents. I see these as indicative only. (unless the player had all their achievements post 1990). one can argue the points on a lot of them eg some would say that pre-1990 Queen's Club should be at the level of a 500, but others think it should be rated at 250 level. It has made both levels post 1990. Philadephia was a big tournament in the early 1990's - with similar prize money and points to the newly formed 'ATP Championship Series, Single-Week' (Masters 1000's), but wasn't given 'Masters 1000' status by the ATP.

You are too kind saying I am a historian of the sport (I am not really). I do look into the past in tennis, but my knowledge is nothing compared to some. KG1965 has looked in detail at the records of Connors and Lendl and McEnroe.

What would be very interesting to see, compiled by someone far patient than I. would be a list of the top 9 (points wise or money wise April 1968 to August 1973 when the ATP points system came in) events, in each year since 1968, outside of the Slams and the various season end finals (WTF, WCT Finals & Grand Slam Cup). This would only establish an approximate similarity to the Masters 1000. There is no real equivalent. And from then on, after working out these top 9 by year, go on to work out those events that had roughly half the points of the top 9 mentioned earlier - regardless of how many there were (I suspect less than the current 13). Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_500 - this shows that 500 series have 13 events now, but going back to the 1990's there were considerably less. Just another way it is hard to find equivalencies.
I start with Connors.
Reference is made to the ATP scoring system which, up until 1976, divided into "Groups", then into "stars" and excluding the tournaments won in the last category.
Since the early 80s these references are missing but there are prize money.
The tournaments in the last category won these are from Jimmy:
1972: (6) Jacksonville, Roanoke, Albany, Cincinnati, Queen's, Columbus
1973: (7) Columbus, Paramus, Hampton, Salisbury, Salt Lake City, Roanoke, Baltimore
1974: (8) Manchester, Tempe, Salt Lake City, Hampton, Salisbury, Little Rock, Roanoke, Birmingham
1975: (8) Maui, Bermuda, Bahamas, Denver, Hampton, Boca Raton, Salisbury, Birmingham
1976: (4) Hampton, Birmingham, Cologne, Denver
1977: -
1978: (1) Stowe
1979: (3) Tulsa, Hong Kong, Stowe
1980: (1) Canton
1981: -
1982: (1) Columbus
1983-1987: -
1988: (2) Washington, Toulouse
1989: (2) Toulouse, Tel Aviv
=43

109-43-11 (YEC+slam)= 55 Masters 100/500
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

KG1965

Legend
The truth is its hard to work out equivalents. I see these as indicative only. (unless the player had all their achievements post 1990). one can argue the points on a lot of them eg some would say that pre-1990 Queen's Club should be at the level of a 500, but others think it should be rated at 250 level. It has made both levels post 1990. Philadephia was a big tournament in the early 1990's - with similar prize money and points to the newly formed 'ATP Championship Series, Single-Week' (Masters 1000's), but wasn't given 'Masters 1000' status by the ATP.

You are too kind saying I am a historian of the sport (I am not really). I do look into the past in tennis, but my knowledge is nothing compared to some. KG1965 has looked in detail at the records of Connors and Lendl and McEnroe.

What would be very interesting to see, compiled by someone far patient than I. would be a list of the top 9 (points wise or money wise April 1968 to August 1973 when the ATP points system came in) events, in each year since 1968, outside of the Slams and the various season end finals (WTF, WCT Finals & Grand Slam Cup). This would only establish an approximate similarity to the Masters 1000. There is no real equivalent. And from then on, after working out these top 9 by year, go on to work out those events that had roughly half the points of the top 9 mentioned earlier - regardless of how many there were (I suspect less than the current 13). Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_500 - this shows that 500 series have 13 events now, but going back to the 1990's there were considerably less. Just another way it is hard to find equivalencies.
BORG

1974: (2) Auckland, Adelaide
1975: (2) Richmond, Bologna
1976: (3) Toronto, San Paolo, Dusseldof
1977: (3) Nice, Basel, Cologne
1978: (1) Baastad
1979: (2) Baastad, Palermo
1980: (1) Nice
1981: (2) Stuttgart, Geneva
=16

64-16-14 (YEC+slam)= 34 Masters 100/500
 
Last edited:

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Hello. The Masters 1000 are lower in relevance than the Grand Slams and Olympics/ATP finals.

Category of tournaments:

Tier A (Grand Slams)
Tier B (Olympics/ATP finals)
Tier C (Masters 1000)
Tier D (ATP 500)
Tier E (ATP 250)

Judging by the priorities of players like Thiem, you can make a case for putting the Olympics in the tier below 250s.





(of course, we thinking men know that it really sits supreme at the top of the hierarchy, and that there is no achievement like the Double & Defended Olympic Singles Gold Medal©)
 

KG1965

Legend
The truth is its hard to work out equivalents. I see these as indicative only. (unless the player had all their achievements post 1990). one can argue the points on a lot of them eg some would say that pre-1990 Queen's Club should be at the level of a 500, but others think it should be rated at 250 level. It has made both levels post 1990. Philadephia was a big tournament in the early 1990's - with similar prize money and points to the newly formed 'ATP Championship Series, Single-Week' (Masters 1000's), but wasn't given 'Masters 1000' status by the ATP.

You are too kind saying I am a historian of the sport (I am not really). I do look into the past in tennis, but my knowledge is nothing compared to some. KG1965 has looked in detail at the records of Connors and Lendl and McEnroe.

What would be very interesting to see, compiled by someone far patient than I. would be a list of the top 9 (points wise or money wise April 1968 to August 1973 when the ATP points system came in) events, in each year since 1968, outside of the Slams and the various season end finals (WTF, WCT Finals & Grand Slam Cup). This would only establish an approximate similarity to the Masters 1000. There is no real equivalent. And from then on, after working out these top 9 by year, go on to work out those events that had roughly half the points of the top 9 mentioned earlier - regardless of how many there were (I suspect less than the current 13). Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_500 - this shows that 500 series have 13 events now, but going back to the 1990's there were considerably less. Just another way it is hard to find equivalencies.
MCENROE

1978: (1) Hartford
1979: (2) San Josè, South Orange
1980: (1) Brisbane
1981: (1) Los Angeles
1991: (1) Chicago
=6

77-6-15 (YEC+slam)= 56 Masters 100/500
 

KG1965

Legend
Its tricky to agree exactly on titles levels, but I respect your analysis. if you were to take the list of players I listed above - what are your totals?

LENDL

1980: (4) Basel, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo outdoor
1981: (5) Stuttgart, Madrid, Basel, Wien, Cologne
1982: (6) WCT Delray Beach, WCT Genova, WCT Munich, WCT Strasbourg, WCT Houston, WCT Los Angeles, WCT Naples, WCT Hartford
1983: (3) WCT Detroit, WCT Houston, WCT Hilton Head
1984: -
1985: (1) Stuttgart
1986-1988: -
1989: (1) Bordeaux
1990: -
1991: (1) Long Island
1992: -
1993: (1) Munich
=22

94-22-15 (YEC+slam)= 57 Masters 100/500
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
Its tricky to agree exactly on titles levels, but I respect your analysis. if you were to take the list of players I listed above - what are your totals?
My version is therefore this (slightly modifiable with possible checks)


Lendl 57
McEnroe 56
Connors 55
Nadal 54
Federer 50
Djokovic 45
Borg 34
.......
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
1980: (3) Basel, Hong Kong, Taipei
1981: (4) Stuttgart, Madrid, Basel, Wien
1982: (9) Cologne, WCT Delray Beach, WCT Genova, WCT Munich, WCT Strasbourg, WCT Houston, WCT Los Angeles, WCT Naples, WCT Hartford
1983: (3) WCT Detroit, WCT Houston, WCT Hilton Head
1984: -
1985: (1) Stuttgart
1986-1988: -
1989: (1) Bordeaux
1990: -
1991: (1) Long Island
1992: -
1993: (1) Munich
=23

94-23-15 (YEC+slam)= 54 Masters 100/500

So you think that the following tournament wins by Lendl were 1000 or 500 level ie not 250 level?
1980 - Houston, Barcelona, Tokyo Outdoor
1981 - Barcelona, Cologne, Buenos Aires
1982 - Frankfurt, Washington
1983 - San Francisco (And are you sure that WCT Detroit was a 250 not a 500?)
1984 - Luxembourg
1985 - Indianapolis, Sydney Indoor
1986 - Milan, Ft. Myers
1987 - Sydney Indoor
1989 - Sydney Indoor
1990 - Milan, Queen's Club

Now I think you are probably right with regard to the Tokyo Outdoor and the Sydney Indoor being at 500 level (particular the latter had good fields) and possibly Indianapolis also.

Thanks for your good work.
 

KG1965

Legend
So you think that the following tournament wins by Lendl were 1000 or 500 level ie not 250 level?
1980 - Houston, Barcelona, Tokyo Outdoor
1981 - Barcelona, Cologne, Buenos Aires
1982 - Frankfurt, Washington
1983 - San Francisco (And are you sure that WCT Detroit was a 250 not a 500?)
1984 - Luxembourg
1985 - Indianapolis, Sydney Indoor
1986 - Milan, Ft. Myers
1987 - Sydney Indoor
1989 - Sydney Indoor
1990 - Milan, Queen's Club

Now I think you are probably right with regard to the Tokyo Outdoor and the Sydney Indoor being at 500 level (particular the latter had good fields) and possibly Indianapolis also.

Thanks for your good work.
I do a further check.
 

KG1965

Legend
1980 - Houston, Barcelona, Tokyo Outdoor
Houston and Barcelona certainly belong to Masters 500 with $ 175,000 of Prize money. the cut was $ 175,000. Tokyo outdoor had lower prize money ($ 125,000). In view of the fact that many tournaments had much lower prize money, Tokyo outdoor ranks among the Masters 250 and 500 (Masters 400?:p). The seeding is very scarce so perhaps its right assignment is a Master 250.
1986 - Milan, Ft. Myers
1987 - Sydney Indoor
1989 - Sydney Indoor
These tournaments had a poor seeding but a very high prize money, so IMHO are among the Masters 500.
1990 - Milan, Queen's Club
Wikipedia actually places them as the last category but the prize money was quite high and the seeding (especially of the Queen's) was very good.
I tend to consider them both Masters 500.
 

KG1965

Legend
1985 - Indianapolis, Sydney Indoor
Indianapolis is almost a Master 1000 ($ 345,000), slightly less than Cincy and Canada, which played in the same summer period. Master 500 certainly. Sydney is more questionable, high prize money but less important seeding.
1984 - Luxembourg
Luxembourg is a tournament without history but in 84 with good prize money and excellent participation (8 top 20).
Master 500 at 100%.
1981 - Barcelona, Cologne, Buenos Aires
1982 - Frankfurt, Washington
1983 - San Francisco (And are you sure that WCT Detroit was a 250 not a 500?)
Tomorrow I am writing my impressions on these 3 years. ;)
 

timnz

Legend
Indianapolis is almost a Master 1000 ($ 345,000), slightly less than Cincy and Canada, which played in the same summer period. Master 500 certainly. Sydney is more questionable, high prize money but less important seeding.

Luxembourg is a tournament without history but in 84 with good prize money and excellent participation (8 top 20).
Master 500 at 100%.

Tomorrow I am writing my impressions on these 3 years. ;)
Thanks, I will await with interest. Thanks for your feedback. My thing with Queens Club - is that until recently it was only given 250 status. It is just in the last 3-4 years (since 1990???) it has been at 500 status. However, pre-1990 you may be making a good case for it being a 500. I do agree however that it is the most important non-Wimbledon grass court event - which alone should have put it at least at a 500 all these years. Which begs the question - why was it a 250 for so many years?
 

thrust

Legend
Hello. The Masters 1000 are lower in relevance than the Grand Slams and Olympics/ATP finals.

Category of tournaments:

Tier A (Grand Slams)
Tier B (Olympics/ATP finals)
Tier C (Masters 1000)
Tier D (ATP 500)
Tier E (ATP 250)
The Olympics are nothing more than a glorified Tennis Exhibition.
A- SLAMS
B- ATP FINALS/ MASTERS
C- ATP 500
E- ATP 250
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

KG1965

Legend
1981 - Barcelona, Cologne, Buenos Aires
1982 - Frankfurt, Washington
1983 - San Francisco (And are you sure that WCT Detroit was a 250 not a 500?)
1981 - Barcelona (not Madrid) and Buenos Aires are Masters 500, Cologne certainly no (you're right)

Frankfurt 1982 (it's a 250,000 $), Washington 1982 (240,000 $) and San Francisco 1983 (265,000 &) are definitely three excellent Masters 500s, ... almost three Masters 1000s.

On the WCT Detroit (and Queen's) I prefer to do a separate post.
 

KG1965

Legend
Thanks, I will await with interest. Thanks for your feedback. My thing with Queens Club - is that until recently it was only given 250 status. It is just in the last 3-4 years (since 1990???) it has been at 500 status. However, pre-1990 you may be making a good case for it being a 500. I do agree however that it is the most important non-Wimbledon grass court event - which alone should have put it at least at a 500 all these years. Which begs the question - why was it a 250 for so many years?
The Queen's tournament has a long and troubled history. I remember that in the 70s it was not important and was not played for a few years (as Wimbledon's warm-up was replaced by Nottingham until 1977 and Birmingham 1978) and then it became the main and then only warm-up at the beginning of the 80s. The prize money was not very high but the seeding was always very relevant. In the 80s they were all important editions, so I believe that even Ivan's two successes are related to a comparable Master 500.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Grand Prix Super Series were the next big thing after Grand Slams and Both WCT and ATP tour finals champnioships! Think of Grand Prix Super Series tournaments as worth of say - 700 ranking pts. instead of 1000 of these days! Everything else leave in tact! This is what they were...They still were the next biggest events, but they were closer by prestige towards today's ATP 500 events, than to today's Masters events!
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Now that is the case but in the past? How do you compare achievements of great players over the whole of the open era.
The key factors are prize money, competition, roll of honor. It's fully possible and logical to adapt them to the current levels. A very few tournaments are questionable.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Is this going to be another molefarm math thread?

You can't really compare masters to 500s. But, I will note that MC is non mandatory (so is really a 500 witb extra points). Also, pre ~2008 masters were Bo5 final and didn't have byes. So it's not apples to apples.
 

timnz

Legend
The finals are much better for me than 1000. The best 8 players play, all matches are top.
Agreed. And some period of tennis history had the WTF almost to the level of the Slams in the public imagination. Borg talked about it being a major when he was playing.
 

timnz

Legend
1981 - Barcelona (not Madrid) and Buenos Aires are Masters 500, Cologne certainly no (you're right)

Frankfurt 1982 (it's a 250,000 $), Washington 1982 (240,000 $) and San Francisco 1983 (265,000 &) are definitely three excellent Masters 500s, ... almost three Masters 1000s.

On the WCT Detroit (and Queen's) I prefer to do a separate post.
Thanks for all of the good reflection.

Its just a pity we can't have everybody agreeing on these.

Re. 1983 Detroit - worth reading this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e83-8aa9-b4ff6d1e902d/?utm_term=.54a0ad84d783

You can see it was a $250,000 event.
 

thrust

Legend
The finals are much better for me than 1000. The best 8 players play, all matches are top.
What I do not like about the ATP finals is the round robin format. In the Masters you cannot lose a match also against a very tough field. Also, the scheduling can be very tough, especially in Madrid and Rome. Overall though, I suppose you ar correct.
 

KG1965

Legend
Thanks for all of the good reflection.

Its just a pity we can't have everybody agreeing on these.

Re. 1983 Detroit - worth reading this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e83-8aa9-b4ff6d1e902d/?utm_term=.54a0ad84d783

You can see it was a $250,000 event.
I haven't been able to open the Washington Post site for many months but I think that the article has to do with the very high prize of the Detroit tournament.
The WCT Circuit actually lasted from 1970 to 1983, after it failed miserably and remained the tournament of Dallas that had become in reality an invitational event because the tour no longer existed.
The early years were frequented by the top dogs then in the mid 70s it "lost enamel" also because the WCT thought of dividing the circuit into two :rolleyes:and three :rolleyes::rolleyes:groups with obvious negative feedback as regards competitiveness because there were few top dogs and moreover divided into 3 groups.
Since 1977 it regained some prestige because there was only one group and from 1978 to 1981 it was incorporated into the Grand Prix.
In 1982 the WCT boss, Lamar Hunt, fights again with ATP and Grand Prix and separates, organizing a separate tour with rich prize money, but few good players.
ATP doesn't recognize points to WCT tournaments
(...as if they were not sanctioned) ... but later counted these titles.
There were not many top dogs in the tour and even the WCT Finals lose importance.
The winter finals held in Detroit IMHO is difficult to consider a Master 500. But it is my opinion.
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
I haven't been able to open the Washington Post site for many months but I think that the article has to do with the very high prize of the Detroit tournament.
The WCT Circuit actually lasted from 1970 to 1983, after it failed miserably and remained the tournament of Dallas that had become in reality an invitational event because the tour no longer existed.
The early years were frequented by the top dogs then in the mid 70s it "lost enamel" also because the WCT thought of dividing the circuit into two :rolleyes:and three :rolleyes::rolleyes:groups with obvious negative feedback as regards competitiveness because there were few top dogs and moreover divided into 3 groups.
Since 1977 it regained some prestige because there was only one group and from 1978 to 1981 it was incorporated into the Grand Prix.
In 1982 the WCT boss, Lamar Hunt, fights again with ATP and Grand Prix and separates, organizing a separate tour with rich prize money, but few good players.
ATP doesn't recognize points to WCT tournaments
(...as if they were not sanctioned) ... but later counted these titles.
There were not many top dogs in the tour and even the WCT Finals lose importance.
The winter finals held in Detroit IMHO is difficult to consider a Master 500. But it is my opinion.
Here is the text from the article.
"
Lendl Adds Vilas to List, Wins Title in WCT Finale






Ivan Lendl defeated Guillermo Vilas, 7-5, 6-2, 2-6, 6-4, to win yesterday's $250,000 World Championship Tennis winter final at Detroit's Cobo Arena.
The victory was the 62nd straight indoors for Lendl, 22, who last week beat John McEnroe in straight sets for the Volvo Grand Prix title.
Lendl won $125,000, Vilas $40,000.
Lendl, who didn't seem to get into the flow of the match until the fourth set, served seven aces, three in the final set. However, it was his machine-like play along the base line that kept him in contention until he found his serve.
"I was very disappointed because I was missing from the base line, especially in the second set," Lendl said. "It was very frustrating for me."
With the score 2-2 in the fourth set, Lendl broke Vilas' service after going to deuce, winning on two long rallies. Each man won his service the rest of the way, but it was clear that Lendl was the better.

Said Vilas, "When I had my chances I didn't take advantage" . . ."

My thoughts are - you placed other tournaments at 500 level because of prize money, why not this one? I agree, this is all in the realm of opinion.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
What I do not like about the ATP finals is the round robin format. In the Masters you cannot lose a match also against a very tough field. Also, the scheduling can be very tough, especially in Madrid and Rome. Overall though, I suppose you ar correct.
I really like RR. If you loose a match you still have a chance to qualify.
 

timnz

Legend
I really like RR. If you loose a match you still have a chance to qualify.
And seriously most Masters 1000's the winner only ends up playing 2 Top 8 players usually, whereas to win the WTF you have to beat 4 or 5. Remember that in the whole history of the WTF no-one has won the event whilst losing more than 1 match.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
And seriously most Masters 1000's the winner only ends up playing 2 Top 8 players usually, whereas to win the WTF you have to beat 4 or 5. Remember that in the whole history of the WTF no-one has won the event whilst losing more than 1 match.
That's what I like.
 

timnz

Legend
What are your views on WTF v M1000 level?
Wtf is clearly above. As I mentioned above “most Masters 1000's the winner only ends up playing 2 Top 8 players usually, whereas to win the WTF you have to beat 4 or 5. Remember that in the whole history of the WTF no-one has won the event whilst losing more than 1 match.”
 

KG1965

Legend
Here is the text from the article.
"
Lendl Adds Vilas to List, Wins Title in WCT Finale






Ivan Lendl defeated Guillermo Vilas, 7-5, 6-2, 2-6, 6-4, to win yesterday's $250,000 World Championship Tennis winter final at Detroit's Cobo Arena.
The victory was the 62nd straight indoors for Lendl, 22, who last week beat John McEnroe in straight sets for the Volvo Grand Prix title.
Lendl won $125,000, Vilas $40,000.
Lendl, who didn't seem to get into the flow of the match until the fourth set, served seven aces, three in the final set. However, it was his machine-like play along the base line that kept him in contention until he found his serve.
"I was very disappointed because I was missing from the base line, especially in the second set," Lendl said. "It was very frustrating for me."
With the score 2-2 in the fourth set, Lendl broke Vilas' service after going to deuce, winning on two long rallies. Each man won his service the rest of the way, but it was clear that Lendl was the better.

Said Vilas, "When I had my chances I didn't take advantage" . . ."

My thoughts are - you placed other tournaments at 500 level because of prize money, why not this one? I agree, this is all in the realm of opinion.
Thank you for the text of the article you reported to me.

What you collect is ... "the Problem", because it is an anomaly.
You rightly ask me the question: "did you place other tournaments at 500 levels because of the prize pool, why not?"

The WCT since 1982 is the problem, the anomaly because (while before it was part of the ATP / Grand Prix or before 1978 it was not an integral part of the ATP but the circuit was recognized by the ATP) it clearly stands out from ATP / Grand Prix.
The WCT Tour is not considered, no points are awarded for its tournaments, it is not ranked.
Essentially, WCT tournaments are all not-sanctioned.

The main assumption that guides me in trying to understand the various categories of tournaments is mainly the prize money (and ATP score), then the seeding, but always within the ATP / Grand Prix tournaments (we never discussed unreported tournaments).

WCT tournaments after 1982 are essentially not sanctioned (sanctioned only years later, at a later date) and sowing is really low profile.
Detroit is a winter version of Finals of a circuit that practically doesn't exist anymore.

There is a problem with the prize money, in the sense that the WCT tournaments of 1982-83 were very rich, Lamar Hunt had distributed money in explosions for real empty tournaments (the definition that comes to mind is "empty shells" ).

IMHO the inclusion of Detroit for the prize money among the Masters 500 is acceptable (although I disagree).

What risks is inserting all the WCT tournaments won by Lendl in 1982-83 (as done by TenniBase if I remember correctly) because they are rich in prize money, when they are all low-profile.

And in this case, Lendl's career is altered, overestimating it.

Looking back at the WCT titles won by Ivan instead of Detroit, I'd include Munich and especially Delray Beach, a good event.

Regardless of your choice to include WCT Detroit 1983 (or other WCT tournaments) between the 500-1000 Masters, your idea of the thread is very good.

The next part of IMHO that would be to identify those that are the real Masters 1000 (which are not those of Wikipedia) and the Masters 500 is more difficult because there were not two types of categories as in the last few years but more.

The roads you have available are substantially 3:

1) identify various categories between 1000 and 500, for example Masters 600, 700, 800, 900 .. but it seems excessive to me;

2) identify 2 categories between 1000 and 500, for example Masters 850 and Masters 700;

3) identify only one category between 1000 and 500: half ... Masters 750.
 
Top