Masters 1000 vs Grand Slams

[TripleATeam]

If a passerby glanced at random Player v Player threads- (ie. Djokovic v Federer, Federer v Nadal, Djokovic v Lendl) they would see a lot of talk about Grand Slams. Obviously, Grand Slams are the crux of the sport, the pinnacle of pinnacles, and the crowning achievements for most tennis players. However, looking at the numbers, there doesn't seem to be a reason to treat these so much more highly than Masters 1000s.

Purely using the ATP numbers, Grand Slams are worth 2000 points vs the 1000 point Masters 1000s. Sure. Obviously the sport needs some markers- something to say this person can beat 7 other world-class tennis players consecutively with each match getting progressively harder. I get that.

However, the ATP Masters 1000 events are also incredibly important. They show how players are doing at any given point in the year, especially going into Slams. There are 9 events in total, 8 of which are mandatory. This means that all of the top players will be present at each Masters 1000 event, just like at the Slams. This means the competition is just as fierce.

The prize money is less, sure, but that's only because there is less on the line than in Majors. And it is worth half the points that a Grand Slam is worth- nearly as much as a player gets for being runner-up at a Grand Slam.

The way I see it, if Player 1 won every single Masters 1000, yet won nothing else, but Player 2 got the Calendar Year Grand Slam, yet won nothing else- Player 1 ends up being the Year End #1. But on these forums, everyone would argue that 4>>>>>>0, so Player 2 is far superior.

Why do some people consider Grand Slams the only measure of a player's worth?

Should we factor in Masters 1000 almost as much as Grand Slams when determining who's better? Half as much? A quarter?

 

[Purplemonster]

Majors is what it is all about, the prestige and tradition.

You have to win 7 matches in a row and they are the best of 5 sets, true test of character, mental strength and physical ability and conditioning.

Nobody remembers who won the most masters titles, nobody really cares, for example everyone knows who Wawrinka is, why would that be the case ???

 

[augustobt]

Masters were never that relevant, to be honest. Specially "now" (the past 10 years, almost) where the final is a BO3 instead of BO5.

 

[TripleATeam]

Majors is what it is all about, the prestige and tradition.

You have to win 7 matches in a row and they are the best of 5 sets, true test of character, mental strength and physical ability and conditioning.

Nobody remembers who won the most masters titles, nobody really cares, for example everyone knows who Wawrinka is, why would that be the case ???

They should be remembered. The fact is, the most prestigious tournaments became Slams, and the slightly less prestigious became 1000s. It's really not that big of a difference.

 

[Tennisanity]

Slams are much more important. Masters only really became important when the vocal Nadal and Djoker terds got their hands on the record.

 

[TripleATeam]

I mean, yes? In the sense that Nadal and Novak have more masters, but this isn't specifically for arguing that Djokovic or Nadal are better. It's just something I haven't understood, as it's a measure of consistency and all-around ability. If you can win Masters on all the courts, you're pretty good on each. Better than consistently losing to Nadal on the 1 clay court tournament that "really matters" to anyone.

 

[KINGROGER]

Grand slams > YEC >>>>> masters

Masters have been BO3 finals since 07 I believe? Which devalues them. Not to mention the fact they are regularly skipped by top players, and how many did Fed skip during his prime years to fully prepare for the grand slams?

 

[Urkezi]

Masters have no historical value, changing formats, surfaces, venues, degree of importance and were simply just (good) tournaments, although now they truly are a big deal. However, that only goes for the last 6-7 years IMO, when they were deemed mandatory and the ATP actually formed an almost universal schedule for most top players (which is bad for everyone but the sponsors and TV ratings).

It is obvious that even in the 80's and 90's with much less TV and media coverage nobody gave a rats ass about anything but the GS's and the only other important metric were the rankings. And it is also quite clear that a guy like Sampras could maintain domination of the ATP with less than 2 masters wins per years, or say Edberg, just as long as they won other smaller tournaments and did well at GS's. It wasn't that important to even play Masters, let alone win them. Players did they own schedules with a view to focus on GS's and get a good bonus amount of ranking points to be seeded high.

So, Masters 1000 are really only good if you want to talk about the current tennis achievements, say from 2010 on, but will probably stay a big deal for years to come. Hopefully they do balance it a bit with a grass masters and a couple of fast surface masters, though. However, when comparing player achievements now and in the past (and that's 95% of what we do here), you simply can't use Masters to make any sort of valid point. They are just tournaments that aren't GS's. WTF is a tier above Masters, if not 2-3 tiers, and even WTF is still a few tiers below GS's. Heck, you'll find people here that will tell you even Melbourne is a level below the other 3 GS's and they'll have a better case than anyone claiming Masters are even remotely as valuable as Grand slams.

 

[Purplemonster]

They should be remembered. The fact is, the most prestigious tournaments became Slams, and the slightly less prestigious became 1000s. It's really not that big of a difference.

Indeed, some of the legends of the game have won Masters titles, Pavel, Nalbandian, Rios and Davydenko.

 

[KG1965]

If a passerby glanced at random Player v Player threads- (ie. Djokovic v Federer, Federer v Nadal, Djokovic v Lendl) they would see a lot of talk about Grand Slams. Obviously, Grand Slams are the crux of the sport, the pinnacle of pinnacles, and the crowning achievements for most tennis players. However, looking at the numbers, there doesn't seem to be a reason to treat these so much more highly than Masters 1000s.

Purely using the ATP numbers, Grand Slams are worth 2000 points vs the 1000 point Masters 1000s. Sure. Obviously the sport needs some markers- something to say this person can beat 7 other world-class tennis players consecutively with each match getting progressively harder. I get that.

However, the ATP Masters 1000 events are also incredibly important. They show how players are doing at any given point in the year, especially going into Slams. There are 9 events in total, 8 of which are mandatory. This means that all of the top players will be present at each Masters 1000 event, just like at the Slams. This means the competition is just as fierce.

The prize money is less, sure, but that's only because there is less on the line than in Majors. And it is worth half the points that a Grand Slam is worth- nearly as much as a player gets for being runner-up at a Grand Slam.

The way I see it, if Player 1 won every single Masters 1000, yet won nothing else, but Player 2 got the Calendar Year Grand Slam, yet won nothing else- Player 1 ends up being the Year End #1. But on these forums, everyone would argue that 4>>>>>>0, so Player 2 is far superior.

Why do some people consider Grand Slams the only measure of a player's worth?

Should we factor in Masters 1000 almost as much as Grand Slams when determining who's better? Half as much? A quarter?

Bravo. This is the best and most interesting thread among all of conferring an alltime rankings.

For 70% of fans are interested only to slam tournaments.
For 20% the slam >>> Master1000
For 10% of the slam >> Master1000

But.... for ATP Grand Slam > Master1000.
In other historical periods, the difference was much smaller (just see Wikipedia).

What is right?

It's clear that based on who has reason, all the parameters change. It changes all the time rankings.

But someone is right?

 

[KG1965]

If a passerby glanced at random Player v Player threads- (ie. Djokovic v Federer, Federer v Nadal, Djokovic v Lendl) they would see a lot of talk about Grand Slams. Obviously, Grand Slams are the crux of the sport, the pinnacle of pinnacles, and the crowning achievements for most tennis players. However, looking at the numbers, there doesn't seem to be a reason to treat these so much more highly than Masters 1000s.

Purely using the ATP numbers, Grand Slams are worth 2000 points vs the 1000 point Masters 1000s. Sure. Obviously the sport needs some markers- something to say this person can beat 7 other world-class tennis players consecutively with each match getting progressively harder. I get that.

However, the ATP Masters 1000 events are also incredibly important. They show how players are doing at any given point in the year, especially going into Slams. There are 9 events in total, 8 of which are mandatory. This means that all of the top players will be present at each Masters 1000 event, just like at the Slams. This means the competition is just as fierce.

The prize money is less, sure, but that's only because there is less on the line than in Majors. And it is worth half the points that a Grand Slam is worth- nearly as much as a player gets for being runner-up at a Grand Slam.

The way I see it, if Player 1 won every single Masters 1000, yet won nothing else, but Player 2 got the Calendar Year Grand Slam, yet won nothing else- Player 1 ends up being the Year End #1. But on these forums, everyone would argue that 4>>>>>>0, so Player 2 is far superior.

Why do some people consider Grand Slams the only measure of a player's worth?

Should we factor in Masters 1000 almost as much as Grand Slams when determining who's better? Half as much? A quarter?

Laver in 1969 won the Grand Slam.
He also won many other great tournaments that no one remembers.

We assume that in 2017 Murray won the GS as Laver and loses all Master1000. All!

We now hypothesize that Djokovic won all Masters 1000.

Djokovic is the No. 1 ATP, but for you who the real number one?

IMHO Murray is unheard of and he should be the best.
But honestly I do not know if he would be better than Nole (win 9 of 9 Master1000 !!!).
Because? Why the Master1000 are supercompetitive and I think it even more difficult that win the GS.

 

[Sysyphus]

Masters are means to an end, being somewhat necessary for keeping your ranking competitive; Majors are the ends in themselves, the ultimate goal.

 

[augustobt]

They should be remembered. The fact is, the most prestigious tournaments became Slams, and the slightly less prestigious became 1000s. It's really not that big of a difference.

Slightly less? They're a world apart. Murray had a bunch of masters but until he won that USO in 2012, nobody cared.

 

[hoodjem]

History plays a big role.

Masters began in 1990. Slams in 1881, with the advent of the US Nationals in addition to Wimbledon.

26 year history compared to 135 year history.

 

[metsman]

Masters are 100% irrelevant when comparing across eras and even in eras for certain players. Their only worth is that they factor into weeks at #1, which is what you compare (but even there you must do it with plenty of context)

 

[Phoenix1983]

History plays a big role.

Masters began in 1990. Slams in 1881, with the advent of the US Nationals in addition to Wimbledon.

26 year history compared to 135 year history.

Surely slams began when Wimbledon began?

 

[Steve0904]

The one thing you can't do where Masters are concerned is try to elevate a guy with less slams over a guy with more on the basis of said Masters count. And yes I've seen that happen recently when some people were comparing Sampras and Djokvic for example, or Sampras and Nadal. Masters counts in themselves are irrelevant when comparing across eras. So the fact that Sampras "only" has 11 means jack squat if we're comparing him to the greats of this era who are playing in a time of homogenized conditions and mandatory participation. Plus there are no grass masters which you can bet Sampras would've mopped up if the tour was structured in the 90's like it is today.

 

[Tennis Analyst]

Grand Slams, Masters and WTFs, those are the tournaments that matter. Anything less is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[TripleATeam]

The one thing you can't do where Masters are concerned is try to elevate a guy with less slams over a guy with more on the basis of said Masters count. And yes I've seen that happen recently when some people were comparing Sampras and Djokvic for example, or Sampras and Nadal. Masters counts in themselves are irrelevant when comparing across eras. So the fact that Sampras "only" has 11 means jack squat if we're comparing him to the greats of this era who are playing in a time of homogenized conditions and mandatory participation. Plus there are no grass masters which you can bet Sampras would've mopped up if the tour was structured in the 90's like it is today.

Perhaps if their counts are very close- maybe within a slam or two, yet their Masters records are hugely different, it could play a role? There is a point at which they become a factor, and it isn't just when their Slams are equal, it could be comparing 1 slam vs 2, or 4 slams vs 6.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

The difference between Slams and Masters in points is quite smaller than their difference in prestige. Nobody will say that winning two Masters is just as valuable as winning one Slam.

Having said this, I don't think Masters are irrelevant tournaments. They aren't relevant enough to be used as a comparison between some of the greatest players, especially if they are from different eras, but they have a certain value, especially when it comes to ranking points.

 

[Steve0904]

Perhaps if their counts are very close- maybe within a slam or two, yet their Masters records are hugely different, it could play a role? There is a point at which they become a factor, and it isn't just when their Slams are equal, it could be comparing 1 slam vs 2, or 4 slams vs 6.

Don't think so. What's Djokovic at now? 30 Masters or something like that. Great for him, but as of now, nobody with an ounce of tennis knowledge would put him above Sampras despite the disparity in Masters count.

 

[TMF]

Slam and the #1 ranking are the two biggest focal point in tennis. Murray had to deal with all the pressure every season by the British to win his first slam, and then the fans/press were howling at him to reach the #1. No player is feel pressured to win the Master 1000. I mean Del Potro never won a Master 1000, but no one is criticizing him.

 

[Tennis Analyst]

The difference between Slams and Masters in points is quite smaller than their difference in prestige. Nobody will say that winning two Masters is just as valuable as winning one Slam.

Having said this, I don't think Masters are irrelevant tournaments. They aren't relevant enough to be used as a comparison between some of the greatest players, especially if they are from different eras, but they have a certain value, especially when it comes to ranking points.

Don't think so. What's Djokovic at now? 30 Masters or something like that. Great for him, but as of now, nobody with an ounce of tennis knowledge would put him above Sampras despite the disparity in Masters count.

Who told you so? Actually both of Djokovic and Nadal are greater than Sampras, and their Masters records play a big role in that.

 

[Steve0904]

Who told you so? Actually both of Djokovic and Nadal are greater than Sampras, and their Masters records play a big role in that.

Who told you so?

 

[TMF]

Who told you so? Actually both of Djokovic and Nadal are greater than Sampras, and their Masters records play a big role in that.

And weeks at #1 and Year End #1 isn't big?

If you had follow Murray throughout the 2nd half of the 2016 season, you would know that the ATP #1 ranking is much bigger than a Master 1000.

 

[Tennis Analyst]

Who told you so?

Check out my username, kiddo. This is my life.

 

[Gazelle]

OP has a strong 'avatar to thread content' correlation.

 

[Urkezi]

Check out my username, kiddo. This is my life.

Checked, remembered, and duly put on ignore list. It is so easy when the trolls save you the trouble of actually wondering if they are worth giving a chance to prove they have something worth contributing.

 

[Mainad]

The one thing you can't do where Masters are concerned is try to elevate a guy with less slams over a guy with more on the basis of said Masters count. And yes I've seen that happen recently when some people were comparing Sampras and Djokvic for example, or Sampras and Nadal. Masters counts in themselves are irrelevant when comparing across eras. So the fact that Sampras "only" has 11 means jack squat if we're comparing him to the greats of this era who are playing in a time of homogenized conditions and mandatory participation. Plus there are no grass masters which you can bet Sampras would've mopped up if the tour was structured in the 90's like it is today.

No, but there is still Queens (and also Halle) which has historically been the most prestigious grasscourt tournament after Wimbledon and the chief warm-up event. Sampras won only 2 Queens titles in 12 appearances there so it seems far from a given that he would have mopped up at any grass masters.

 

[Steve0904]

OP has a strong 'avatar to thread content' correlation.

I've also noticed that this is a consistent pattern. It is almost always the Djokovic fans that make threads about the relevancy of the Masters 1000's. The funny thing is that this was true even before Djokovic officially had the record.

 

[NGM]

For great champions Masters is like wine before the main course. You drink wine to enjoy main course, not vice versa. And whatever how much wine you drink, it doesn't make you satisfied untill you fill yourself enough with meat.

 

[TripleATeam]

I've also noticed that this is a consistent pattern. It is almost always the Djokovic fans that make threads about the relevancy of the Masters 1000's. The funny thing is that this was true even before Djokovic officially had the record.

I made this thread before I chose my avatar. I love Federer, too. I chose the picture because I found it funny. Why all the Djokovic fan hate?

 

[TripleATeam]

OP has a strong 'avatar to thread content' correlation.

And if I had a different avatar? This thread is meant- not to talk about Novak- but rather about Masters. If Federer had more Masters, I would still bring this up, because it's a valid argument. Why do Fed fans find the need to link everything to a GOAT argument? Want me to say it?

Right now, Federer is the GOAT. Then Laver. Then Nadal. Then Sampras or Djokovic. End of discussion, please.

 

[OhYes]

Ok, if only thing that maters to us are GSs, why do we watch players betwen Slams? If Slams are only thing important to best players, why are they suffering in Masters and are so eager to win them?

 

[Mainad]

Masters 1000 are important and have been at least since they became mandatory events. Of course they are not as important as the Slams but that doesn't mean they are irrelevent. They still carry a hefty 1,000 ranking points, more than any other event outside the Slams and the WTF. The fact that a lion is smaller than an elephant doesn't mean the lion isn't a big beast too.

If the tour only consisted of the 4 Slams, the tour would collapse. It would be unsustainable. Some people need to grasp this essential reality. It can't ALL be about the Slams even if they are the tournaments that players want to win most.

 

[Gazelle]

Masters 1000 are important and have been at least since they became mandatory events. Of course they are not as important as the Slams but that doesn't mean they are irrelevent. They still carry a hefty 1,000 ranking points, more than any other event outside the Slams and the WTF. The fact that a lion is smaller than an elephant doesn't mean the lion isn't a big beast too.

Yes, Murray is a lion.

 

[Tiki-Taka]

I guess those four tournaments stand out due to their long history which made them very prestigious, and the size of the draws. In my opinion it doesn't have to do much with the best of five format. WTA has the same format everywhere yet Slams are significantly more important tournaments than Premier Events.

Now Masters are important, otherwise they wouldn't be mandatory events. They also are a great ranking points boost. But when judging the very best players, especially the older ones, those tournaments definitely won't be the first thing that will be brought up. Those aren't the number one events where you should show what you are made of.

 

[Steve0904]

I made this thread before I chose my avatar. I love Federer, too. I chose the picture because I found it funny. Why all the Djokovic fan hate?

Fine. Good for you. It's just something I notice happens quite regularly.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

And if I had a different avatar? This thread is meant- not to talk about Novak- but rather about Masters. If Federer had more Masters, I would still bring this up, because it's a valid argument.

Why do Fed fans find the need to link everything to a GOAT argument?

Want me to say it?

Right now, Federer is the GOAT. Then Laver. Then Nadal. Then Sampras or Djokovic. End of discussion, please.

^ This +10,000​

 

[Djokovic2011]

I've also noticed that this is a consistent pattern. It is almost always the Djokovic fans that make threads about the relevancy of the Masters 1000's. The funny thing is that this was true even before Djokovic officially had the record.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure you had Djokovic above Nadal earlier in the year so you must think his Masters titles are worth something! Unless you believe it's only the slams, WTF and number 1 ranking that truly matter(which deep down I suspect is how you feel).

 

[BeatlesFan]

Majors is what it is all about, the prestige and tradition.

That's it in a nutshell. Ten Masters 1000 titles don't equal one slam in terms of tennis legacy and it's not even close.

The Djoker fans who O.D. on the Masters 1000s need to recognize that when Lendl, Pete, Edberg or Becker won a Masters 1000. it was best 3/5. That's vastly more difficult than the 2/3 format of today. Had Masters 1000's been best 2/3, Lendl almost certainly would have bagged 30 or more.

 

[Steve0904]

Hmm, I'm pretty sure you had Djokovic above Nadal earlier in the year so you must think his Masters titles are worth something! Unless you believe it's only the slams, WTF and number 1 ranking that truly matter(which deep down I suspect is how you feel).

I did and I still do, but not because of Masters titles. Or at least not directly because of them. You're not thinking this through at all. Djokovic has huge leads on Nadal in 3 very important metrics outside of slams. One of them is not Masters, even though he leads there as well.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I did and I still do, but not because of Masters titles. Or at least not directly because of them. You're not thinking this through at all. Djokovic has huge leads on Nadal in 3 very important metrics outside of slams. One of them is not Masters, even though he leads there as well.

Never been that big a fan of the Masters have you Steve?

 

[The Fedfather]

Grand Slams are unquestionably the most important tournaments for a player's legacy and rightfully so. However, I disagree with the notion that Slam titles are in a stratospheric category of achievement and other titles, no matter how many, count for nothing in comparison. It takes a lot of effort and skill that only the best players have to win Masters 1000 titles so they do matter when determining players' ability. Baffling that some dismiss it as irrelevant. The argument that Masters don't make for a fair comparison across eras is weak. Practically everything in tennis changes with time, from racquets and court speeds to players' regime and fitness. Why even bother comparing then?

 

[SinjinCooper]

If a passerby glanced at random Player v Player threads- (ie. Djokovic v Federer, Federer v Nadal, Djokovic v Lendl) they would see a lot of talk about Grand Slams. Obviously, Grand Slams are the crux of the sport, the pinnacle of pinnacles, and the crowning achievements for most tennis players. However, looking at the numbers, there doesn't seem to be a reason to treat these so much more highly than Masters 1000s.

Purely using the ATP numbers, Grand Slams are worth 2000 points vs the 1000 point Masters 1000s. Sure. Obviously the sport needs some markers- something to say this person can beat 7 other world-class tennis players consecutively with each match getting progressively harder. I get that.

However, the ATP Masters 1000 events are also incredibly important. They show how players are doing at any given point in the year, especially going into Slams. There are 9 events in total, 8 of which are mandatory. This means that all of the top players will be present at each Masters 1000 event, just like at the Slams. This means the competition is just as fierce.

The prize money is less, sure, but that's only because there is less on the line than in Majors. And it is worth half the points that a Grand Slam is worth- nearly as much as a player gets for being runner-up at a Grand Slam.

The way I see it, if Player 1 won every single Masters 1000, yet won nothing else, but Player 2 got the Calendar Year Grand Slam, yet won nothing else- Player 1 ends up being the Year End #1. But on these forums, everyone would argue that 4>>>>>>0, so Player 2 is far superior.

Why do some people consider Grand Slams the only measure of a player's worth?

Should we factor in Masters 1000 almost as much as Grand Slams when determining who's better? Half as much? A quarter?

Slams are, literally, the only measure of a player's historical worth.

You go astray when you try to compare the two based on their ranking points. Because not only are Master's tournaments worth nothing when it comes to historical significance, but so are ranking points. Neither measure has any historical value. They don't have less value, mind you. They have literally none. Only slams do. And the only way to measure them historically, is to compare them to the number of them gathered by their contemporaries.

That's why Djokovic's 12 slams aren't worth nearly as much in historians' eyes as Borg's 11.

 

[TheNatural]

Fed's 24 ms1000's are likely as prestigious or more-so than Djokovic's 30 ms1000's because Fed has 7 bo5 final ms1000's in his total, and Djokvic has just 1.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Like you said in your OP, the ATP needs to award certain amount of points to a Masters to make it interesting for the fan and provide incentive for the player. I don't think that means at 1000 points means a Masters is worth half as much as a slam at all. Slams are part of the sports fabric in the way Masters aren't. I think Masters do matter in evaluating a player's career in comparison with another, but only when the accomplishments are comparable in the slams, or at least in the same ballpark.

 

[Jonas78]

Do you think a player would win 1 slam or 5 Masters? Thats the question

 

[TripleATeam]

Like you said in your OP, the ATP needs to award certain amount of points to a Masters to make it interesting for the fan and provide incentive for the player. I don't think that means at 1000 points means a Masters is worth half as much as a slam at all. Slams are part of the sports fabric in the way Masters aren't. I think Masters do matter in evaluating a player's career in comparison with another, but only when the accomplishments are comparable in the slams, or at least in the same ballpark.

Same thoughts I had about their applicable usage. The hypothetical scenario, however, leads me to ask things like this.

Like, what if two VERY dominant players came on the field, and they performed as well as each other on grass, yet differed wildly on clay and hard court?

It would be
AO: P1 d. P2
FO: P2 d. P1
W: P1 d. P2 or P2 d. P1
US: P1 d. P2

In this example, P1 would clearly win 2.5 slams for every 1.5 slams P2 earned. In the end of an 8 year career, P1 has 20 slams, yet P2 has 12. Each one reached 32 Slam finals, yet P2 has a major disadvantage in slam record. P1 is clearly the better player.

Yet, if in every Masters, P2 somehow beat P1, P2 would clearly seem to be the better player. (Accusations would be made on P1's drive to win Masters over Slams, but that's besides the point)

There are instances where Masters would be more revealing than the slam record. In fact, a combination of the player's Slam final record and Masters may be better than just using Slam wins. But what do I know?


PS: Don't get all worked up- I did the math. Djoker- 21 finals, Fed God- 27 finals, Rafa- 21 finals, Murray- 11 finals, Sampras- 18 finals (jeez- 14/18?!), Lendl- 19 finals, Laver- 17 finals, Borg- 16 finals.

It doesn't change much, but it paints a picture of consistency vs dominancy regarding the slams. Clearly the most dominant, least consistent GOAT is Sampras. Most dominant is Fed. Nadal is more dominant than Novak, despite a similar consistency.

 

[TripleATeam]

Do you think a player would win 1 slam or 5 Masters? Thats the question

1 slam is impressive, but it makes them seem like a 1 slam wonder. Sure, history may remember them as someone, but someone who wins 5 consecutive Masters 1000s would be listed on the Wikipedia page for ATP Masters 1000 as approaching the record for most Masters in a single season. I can see merit to taking either. (Particularly prize money)