Masters 1000 events are really not important at all

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
...in GOAT arguments in my opinion.

Cincinnati and Rome have always been important tournaments regardless of their masters 1000 status. Toronto and Montreal will never be as important as Monte Carlo regardless of it's masters 1000 status. Hamburg was always a terrible tournament and should never even have been a masters.

This very recent trend of adding up masters 1000 events like they're slams is stupid because only about half of them are tournaments with any kind of prestige.
 

6-1 6-3 6-0

Banned
Yep, they suddenly become irrelevant when Nadal is clearly going to win the most Masters 1000 shields in world history (already tied for the most, 21 with Federer, and is 5 years younger).
 

Rhino

Legend
Yep, they suddenly become irrelevant when Nadal is clearly going to win the most Masters 1000 shields in world history (already tied for the most, 21 with Federer, and is 5 years younger).

Hey, I was just trying to remember, perhaps you can help me. When was the last time Rafa won a Masters 1000 event off-clay??
 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
If the game's greatness and its players levels are to be determined with a very narrow yardstick - only GS, only H2H, no masters, no WTF, the surface domination, comparing from different era, across different technologies, surfaces, rules and trends....

Then no sport in the world will have a legend; no sport will have a great player to talk about; no sport will remain as a sport at all... Its like saying the club games are not important in football and only the worldcup matters; (Or any other sport's example for that matter)

The various challenges are all part of the sport's history, tradition, variety, culture and its obvious that no single player in any sport can excel above the sport itself.

One line: Masters are as equal as any other GS in my opinion. The only things that makes the GS greater for me are - an extra million, thousand points and one extra match to the final.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Hey, I was just trying to remember, perhaps you can help me. When was the last time Rafa won a Masters 1000 event off-clay??

Actually, Masters have suddenly become insignificant since Roger has equalled Nadal's count, and Nadal may not be around for a couple months. They were pretty much "up there" till last week, or if Fred had lost to Noel.

6163 is clearly losing it, he's forgotten that BeHappy is a senior member of his own camp, lol.
 
Agreed. The fact that some of the top players only participate so they don't lose ranking points or Grand Slam seedings is very telling. In fact, if they weren't mandatory, there'd be many more opt-outs. But they're nice to win and are challenging.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Yep, they suddenly become irrelevant when Nadal is clearly going to win the most Masters 1000 shields in world history (already tied for the most, 21 with Federer, and is 5 years younger).

Nadal's dominance at Rome and Monte Carlo is a much bigger deal to me than adding up how many masters 1000 events he's won.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Masters are to the best of 3 format what slams are to the best of 5 format. Any tennis site that compiles stats (including the atp site) keeps track of master stats and records. Now you can ignore them, if you feel like it but they exist and the majority of people will continue to be interested in them.
 

cork_screw

Hall of Fame
I guess being #1 or anything that factors into the points accumulation to the rankings standings also don't factor in for GOAT either. So Federer could be #20 and he would still be GOAT.

They are there for the points and that is a major factor in their importance. The GS are there for their prestige and points.

You think so primitively. That's like saying someone who knows nothing about a car looks at the spark plug and says, oh well this thing is so insignificant right? You can just toss it out, the real important thing is the engine, the car will keep running, right? The engine we keep, the other stuff that isn't so big and heavy we can toss out. Well everything plays a factor, no matter how insignificant you make it sound. Even the 500 series events mean something. People just talk about GS' because they like to round up. It's easier to count them than to count the whole sum of all the events. But in the minds of most players those events trigger a lot of significant changes to their careers and status (and yes even GOAT).

...in GOAT arguments in my opinion.

Cincinnati and Rome have always been important tournaments regardless of their masters 1000 status. Toronto and Montreal will never be as important as Monte Carlo regardless of it's masters 1000 status. Hamburg was always a terrible tournament and should never even have been a masters.

This very recent trend of adding up masters 1000 events like they're slams is stupid because only about half of them are tournaments with any kind of prestige.
 
Last edited:

Feather

Legend
Actually, Masters have suddenly become insignificant since Roger has equalled Nadal's count, and Nadal may not be around for a couple months. They were pretty much "up there" till last week, or if Fred had lost to Noel.

6163 is clearly losing it, he's forgotten that BeHappy is a senior member of his own camp, lol.

It's like a friendly fire :)

After talking to himself for long, he has lost track of people :wink:
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Are you going by history and prestige?

Yes. Toronto and Montreal, Miami, Shanghai etc might not even be around in ten years time. Hamburg has already had it's masters 1000 status revoked. Rome will always be a big tournament.

It's like Sampras said when he won Philadelphia, that it's nice to win Philadelphia but it might not even be around in 20 years, that's why he focused on the slams.


6163 is clearly losing it, he's forgotten that BeHappy is a senior member of his own camp, lol.
What does that mean? I like both Federer and Nadal by the way.
 
Last edited:

Apun94

Hall of Fame
Hey, I was just trying to remember, perhaps you can help me. When was the last time Rafa won a Masters 1000 event off-clay??

Hey, I was just trying to remember, perhaps you can help me. When was the last time Fed won a Masters 1000 event ON clay? (And no, blue clay is not real clay)
 

cknobman

Legend
LOL this is priceless.

Now we get Nadal fans arguing with each other about the validity of the masters series events since Fed has equaled Rafa who is out with injury and likely wont be picking any more titles up until next years clay season.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Can we just forget about Nadal for a minute? I'm just saying that masters 1000 status is irrelevant.

Top tier is the slams
2nd tier is the Year Ending Championships
3rd is Rome, Cincinnati, Monte Carlo, arguably Indian Wells

Those are the important tournaments that tennis fans actually care about.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Hey, I was just trying to remember, perhaps you can help me. When was the last time Fed won a Masters 1000 event ON clay? (And no, blue clay is not real clay)

Blue clay is the same clay died blue and a bit more slippery thats like me saying Djokovic's and Nadal's victory on hardcourt in Australia doesnt count because they won it on Plexicushion and not the original rebound ace. Atleast think before you post next time
 
Last edited:

cknobman

Legend
Hey, I was just trying to remember, perhaps you can help me. When was the last time Fed won a Masters 1000 event ON clay? (And no, blue clay is not real clay)

Well regardless of what you think he won Madrid 2012 on clay.

But playing your game:

Fed won Madrid 2009 on clay which ironically is also the last year Nadal won a masters 1000 event off clay!!!! (Indian Wells)

So what is your point again?????
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
Because Rome is the second biggest clay tournament and the biggest non slam tournament apart from the Year Ending Championships. And Monte Carlo isn't far behind.

Of course it is mate. Players are always bursting into tears when they lose in the semi-finals of Rome - not like that piffling Olympic tennis event - it clearly has no prestige in comparison to Rome.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Of course it is mate. Players are always bursting into tears when they lose in the semi-finals of Rome - not like that piffling Olympic tennis event - it clearly has no prestige in comparison to Rome.

No it doesn't, players and fans don't care about the olympics. If they did Massu couldn't possibly have won 2 golds as recently as 2004. Massu never made it past the 4th round in a slam. Mardy Fish was the silver medalist.

Mark Rosset also won a gold in 1992.

The Italian open (Rome) has been a huge tournament for the past 60 years.
 
Last edited:
and is 5 years younger).

Nadal may be 5 years younger but physically Fed and Nadal are around the same age. For a 26 year old Rafa has been injured far too much. Unlike Fed who has only retired from 2 matches in his ATP career and the longest he was off was a couple of months with mono. All together, Rafa has probably taken a year and a half off the tour.
 

RF_fan

Semi-Pro
Hey, I was just trying to remember, perhaps you can help me. When was the last time Fed won a Masters 1000 event ON clay? (And no, blue clay is not real clay)

This is one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on this forum.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
...in GOAT arguments in my opinion.

Cincinnati and Rome have always been important tournaments regardless of their masters 1000 status. Toronto and Montreal will never be as important as Monte Carlo regardless of it's masters 1000 status.

That's just not true. The Rogers Cup is the 3rd oldest tennis tournament in the world dating back to 1881. Only Wimbledon and the US Open are older. It is every bit as prestigious as Cincinnati and Monte Carlo.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
All masters are equivalent in points and prestige. Some are newer, others are older but they're all worth the same.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
That's just not true. The Rogers Cup is the 3rd oldest tennis tournament in the world dating back to 1881. Only Wimbledon and the US Open are older. It is every bit as prestigious as Cincinnati and Monte Carlo.

It doesn't matter. It has never been an important event and it never will be.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
No it doesn't, players and fans don't care about the olympics. If they did Massu couldn't possibly have won 2 golds as recently as 2004. Massu never made it past the 4th round in a slam. Mardy Fish was the silver medalist.

Mark Rosset also won a gold in 1992.

Oh please. Federer has long stated that London 2012 was one of his goals and one that he looked forward to playing. He's even now talking up the possibility of competing in Rio in 2016 despite the fact he will be 35 by then. He obviously hasn't quite given up on the idea of winning the singles gold medal. Nadal recently stated that pulling out of this year's Olympics was the worst decision he had ever had to take.

And why would Djokovic have sawn in half all his remaining racquets (see accompanying thread) if he didn't care about missing out on a bronze medal at Wimbledon?

Strange comments and behaviour for players who supposedly don't care!
 
Last edited:

Viper

Professional
Completely disagree. Master's titles shows that you have the chops to show more than 4 times a year, and allow a greater variety in terms of court surfaces, weather conditions etc.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Because Rome is the second biggest clay tournament and the biggest non slam tournament apart from the Year Ending Championships. And Monte Carlo isn't far behind.

Monte Carlo lost the prestige because it's not a mandatory event anymore.
 

slal1984

Professional
Yep, they suddenly become irrelevant when Nadal is clearly going to win the most Masters 1000 shields in world history (already tied for the most, 21 with Federer, and is 5 years younger).

He is 5 years younger, yet he has pulled out of more tournaments in his career than Federer due to the same injury. He will never be the same again.
 

benmarks1984

New User
This is the problem with the current tour in my opinion.the masters 1000 events don't mean very much to players or fans, yet there is 9 of them which the players are required to play and take up and extend their busy schedule. To give the masters events credibility in GOAT arguments they should be halved to 4 a year, last 2 weeks each, are 128 draw, best of 5 sets every round, and carry same points as slams. The 4 venues should be fixed and cannot be changed. For example 1 in Miami, 1 in Dubai, 1 in Rome, and 1 in China.
 

Apun94

Hall of Fame
Well regardless of what you think he won Madrid 2012 on clay.

But playing your game:

Fed won Madrid 2009 on clay which ironically is also the last year Nadal won a masters 1000 event off clay!!!! (Indian Wells)

So what is your point again?????

The point was that if Nadal hasnt been successful off clay, Fed hasnt been successful on clay. (I know that's a very cliched discussion an all but whatever)
 

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
Why? Because you say so? That superiority complex of yours is quite something to behold. Facts are verifyable things.

You've just asserted that players don't care about the OG. Some facts (as opposed to your opinion):

Federer cried after winning his semi-final.

Delpo cried after losing his semi-final.

Delpo stated publicly that his bronze medal meant as much to him as his USO title.

Rafa texted Murray after he won gold and told him he'd just won the toughest title he'd ever win.

Djokovic stated publicly that OG was one of his top 2 priorites and there are statements from the head of The Serbian Olympic Committee stating how disappointed Nole was.

That's a lot of evidence to suggest your assertion is arsegravy. Feel free to refute it with your own evidence.

NB - you simply asserting something is not evidence - it's your opinion.
Too many facts, too much sense... so much blood pouring out of my nose right now, oh god... :shock:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
This is the problem with the current tour in my opinion.the masters 1000 events don't mean very much to players or fans, yet there is 9 of them which the players are required to play and take up and extend their busy schedule.

How can they not mean much to players or fans when the top players are competing and gain a 1,000 ranking points for winning one?

To give the masters events credibility in GOAT arguments they should be halved to 4 a year, last 2 weeks each, are 128 draw, best of 5 sets every round, and carry same points as slams. The 4 venues should be fixed and cannot be changed. For example 1 in Miami, 1 in Dubai, 1 in Rome, and 1 in China.

In other words, have 8 Slams instead of 4? That would only devalue the Slams themselves and be the death-knell for the smaller tournaments on the tour.

Why not go the whole hog and just ban all tournaments that aren't Slams? Then the players and fans would only have to worry about 4 tournaments a year!
 

Enigma_87

Professional
That's the point! It hasn't lost ANY prestige. The Rogers Cup will NEVER be bigger than Monte Carlo.

Well let's see.

Federer from his peak till now 03-12 has missed MC 4 times.
Djokovic has missed MC last year.
Sampras played MC only 4 times.
Agassi played MC only 4 times.
Chang played only once in the 90's.
Courier played 3 times.

In the 90's the MC masters gathered the weakest draws in comparison to ANY other MS.

Most top ten players skipped it...
 

timnz

Legend
Monte carlo

Monte Carlo lost the prestige because it's not a mandatory event anymore.

Don't agree at all. The field attending is still consistently deep. Plus it has such a wonderful tradition. Dont think its non compulsory staus has taken anything from it.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Don't agree at all. The field attending is still consistently deep. Plus it has such a wonderful tradition. Dont think its non compulsory staus has taken anything from it.

simply not true. In the 90's most of the top ten players didn't attend. It continued in the 00's and will continue in the future now it is non mandatory anymore...
 

benmarks1984

New User
In other words, have 8 Slams instead of 4? That would only devalue the Slams themselves and be the death-knell for the smaller tournaments on the tour.

Why not go the whole hog and just ban all tournaments that aren't Slams? Then the players and fans would only have to worry about 4 tournaments a year!

why would that be death-knell for smaller tournaments? If you said a top 30 player would count points from 4 slams,4 masters 1000 events, masters cup final, and up to 6 masters 250/500 events then the top players would still play the smaller events. Plus they wouldn't want to go into a slam or a masters 1000 event with no matches under their belt
And would play 250 events as warm up tournaments like they currently do
With queens/Halle/Sydney etc
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
why would that be death-knell for smaller tournaments? If you said a top 30 player would count points from 4 slams,4 masters 1000 events, masters cup final, and up to 6 masters 250/500 events then the top players would still play the smaller events. Plus they wouldn't want to go into a slam or a masters 1000 event with no matches under their belt
And would play 250 events as warm up tournaments like they currently do
With queens/Halle/Sydney etc

So how would your system of halving the number of Masters and making the remainder identical to Slams (same draws, same duration, 5 sets matches, equal ranking points etc.) improve the present situation? There would then be 8 virtual Slams instead of 4 increasing the pressure on the players and a host of much smaller tournaments vying with each other to fit into the schedule and attract the top players.
 
Top