Masters 1000 vs Grand Slams

Jonas78

Legend
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)
You cant use the points though. Every tennis player who ever lived would win 1 slam instead of 2 Masters although the points are the same. I also think most would win 3 slams instead of 15 Masters.

If you compare Wawrinka and Murray, i place Murray miles ahead of Wawa although they have the same slam-number. Its because of the combination of Masters titles and slam-finals. But I dont think that Masters titles will ever even out the number of slams. If one player has 15 slams and 2 Masters, he will always be ranked higher than a player with 13 slams and 10 Masters.

Thats just the way it is.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
You cant use the points though. Every tennis player who ever lived would win 1 slam instead of 2 Masters although the points are the same. I also think most would win 3 slams instead of 15 Masters.

If you compare Wawrinka and Murray, i place Murray miles ahead of Wawa although they have the same slam-number. Its because of the combination of Masters titles and slam-finals. But I dont think that Masters titles will ever even out the number of slams. If one player has 15 slams and 2 Masters, he will always be ranked higher than a player with 13 slams and 10 Masters.

Thats just the way it is.
I'll... have to disagree with you there. Maybe in different eras? Still, winning 8 more Masters shows a level of consistency. Your example would be debatable, and I'd venture to say I'd need to know the slam final record to really rank one above the other. 2 masters for someone with 15 slams is pitiful.
 

Jonas78

Legend
6 masters = 6000 points

2 slams = 4000 points

Masters > slems
That wasnt my question. No tennis player would win 6 Masters instead 2 slams. Its not about the ATP points. Slams vs Masters is like Olympic/WC gold medals vs world cup event titles in for example Alpine skiing. Its all about the slams, not the points
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
That wasnt my question. No tennis player would win 6 Masters instead 2 slams. Its not about the ATP points. Slams vs Masters is like Olympic/WC gold medals vs world cup event titles in for example Alpine skiing. Its all about the slams, not the points
Pretty sure he's trolling. Like you said, hard to think anyone would choose 6 Masters over 2 slams.
 

Jonas78

Legend
I'll... have to disagree with you there. Maybe in different eras? Still, winning 8 more Masters shows a level of consistency. Your example would be debatable, and I'd venture to say I'd need to know the slam final record to really rank one above the other. 2 masters for someone with 15 slams is pitiful.
I agree the example wasnt that good. I think my main point is that its impossible to find a formula for comparing slams with Masters. I also think it varies a lot how players focus on the Masters, everybody puts 100% on the slams.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Masters has become a joke since the time Rafa mopping all clay events year after year and Novak feasting on a weak era.

People can't wait long enough for the majors to arrive.

Nobody is even keeping track of the master count.

If there is competitive era then the masters will find some relevance . Now it is painful and most big fans don't even watch it
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Masters has become a joke since the time Rafa mopping all clay events year after year and Novak feasting on a weak era.

People can't wait long enough for the majors to arrive.

Nobody is even keeping track of the master count.

If there is competitive era then the masters will find some relevance . Now it is painful and most big fans don't even watch it
That's circular logic. Because if masters count becomes relevant again in a so-called competitive era, when someone wins a lot of them it's instantly a weak era again JUST BECAUSE OF THAT by your definition.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
If one claims masters are non-significant, but YEno1 and weeks-no1 are significant, he has a big problem. If masters are just a trivia, then weeks and years no1 are too. Large portion of time-no1is actually masters wins. Many other career stats are very close tied with masters wins. Beside time-no1, also h2h records, peak levels, significant matches, basicly everything but GS records. If masters are non-significant, Nadal didn't dominate clay. Yes, you must claim that kind of idiocy in order to keep masters in non-significant category. Just Imagine Fed and Novak always winning all clay masters in last 10 years, and Nadal none. Imagine if Fed would win Nadal 20 times in clay masters, making their clay h2h record opposite of their their RG h2h record. Would you still say Nadal is "King of clay"? No! You would say Nadal is king of RG, but no way we could speak about his "clay domination".
Now please, tell me more about how masters wins are not significant?

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
 

Jonas78

Legend
If one claims masters are non-significant, but YEno1 and weeks-no1 are significant, he has a big problem. If masters are just a trivia, then weeks and years no1 are too. Large portion of time-no1is actually masters wins. Many other career stats are very close tied with masters wins. Beside time-no1, also h2h records, peak levels, significant matches, basicly everything but GS records. If masters are non-significant, Nadal didn't dominate clay. Yes, you must claim that kind of idiocy in order to keep masters in non-significant category. Just Imagine Fed and Novak always winning all clay masters in last 10 years, and Nadal none. Imagine if Fed would win Nadal 20 times in clay masters, making their clay h2h record opposite of their their RG h2h record. Would you still say Nadal is "King of clay"? No! You would say Nadal is king of RG, but no way we could speak about his "clay domination".
Now please, tell me more about how masters wins are not significant?

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
Masters are far from insignificant, but as you say, you have to see them in a larger picture. You cant compare them directly to slams, but they are important for ranking, YE#1, H2H etc.
 

MasturB

Legend
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.
The Power of this weapon is insignificant to the power of the Force.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
If one claims masters are non-significant, but YEno1 and weeks-no1 are significant, he has a big problem. If masters are just a trivia, then weeks and years no1 are too.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk

Here's a hint. Its ALL about the Slams. Everything else is either a "tune-up" or a "fill the ATP calendar" event. After all, ATP has to make money to feed many hands.

Every sport needs a #1. In tennis, a player with 3 YE#1 / 6 M1000's and another with just 3 GS has two different career ratings with the latter being the more highly rated.

2 GS a year can net you the #1 with deep runs in other events. I dont see the importance of winning M1000's to get to #1. If one is not GS material, then he/she would have to fight for the M1000's to get the #1.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
Here's a hint. Its ALL about the Slams. Everything else is either a "tune-up" or a "fill the ATP calendar" event. After all, ATP has to make money to feed many hands.

Every sport needs a #1. In tennis, a player with 3 YE#1 / 6 M1000's and another with just 3 GS has two different career ratings with the latter being the more highly rated.

2 GS a year can net you the #1 with deep runs in other events. I dont see the importance of winning M1000's to get to #1. If one is not GS material, then he/she would have to fight for the M1000's to get the #1.
You skipped to respond the whole argument. How convinient. So, are you claiming Rafa would be king of clay, even if he had 0 clay masters titles?

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
 

Zain786

Semi-Pro
Obviously Grand Slams are the premier tournaments in tennis but the ATP tour cannot survive as a viable sport if the grand slams are the only tournaments on the calendar. The tour was rescheduled into a proper and viable sport with Grand Slams, Masters 1000, ATP 500, ATP 250, and the WTF as the defacto tournaments that players can play all year round. No one is debating the significance of the grand slams and they are indeed where legends are made but the secondary tournaments in the masters and the wtf are there solely to determine how well players can play in a single season all year round. If the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Murray did not think there was any significance in the masters tournaments then they would hardly participate. But if they did so they would be heavily fined by the ATP as the ATP wants to create a SPORT that is not played for only 8 WEEKS A YEAR. The masters tournaments help fill this gap and believe me they are not easy to win.

ATP Masters 1000 winners Since 2009

1) Djokovic - 26
2) Nadal - 16
3) Murray - 12
4) Fed - 10

5) Stan - 1
6) Cilic - 1
7) Ferrer - 1
8) Berd - 1
9) Tsonga - 1

So the big four have won 66 tournaments since 2009 and the rest of the tour has won a combined FIVE masters 1000 titles. These tournaments are NOT "Mickey Mouse" tournaments, because if they were then the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Murray would not have won the amount that they have if they believed that these tournaments were not worth much to their overall tennis careers.
 

Zain786

Semi-Pro
Grand Slam tournaments, the Masters series and the ATP Finals are considered the top-tier events of men's singles tennis since the introduction of the ATP Tour in 1990.

The Association of Tennis Professionals defines them as follows:

“ They are the biggest tournaments in our sport, where participation is mandatory, entry is reserved for the world’s best and success is rewarded with fame and a rich haul of points and prize money.
Claiming a title at each level – Grand Slam, Barclays ATP World Tour Finals and ATP World Tour Masters – has its unique challenges. But the tournaments are all stages upon which legends are made, where careers are defined and where victory earns players universal respect from peers, fans and media. Not surprisingly, the players with the best ‘Big Titles’ records are regarded as the giants of the game."


Taken straight from the ATP's mouth, so if you know something that they dont please let them know that tennis should only be played 8 weeks a year.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
You skipped to respond the whole argument. How convinient. So, are you claiming Rafa would be king of clay, even if he had 0 clay masters titles?

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
with 9 GS alone, why not??

There are 0 M1000's on Grass. I believe there is a King of Grass. Its a Fact and not based on someone's Convenience.
 

Noelan

Legend
Obviously Grand Slams are the premier tournaments in tennis but the ATP tour cannot survive as a viable sport if the grand slams are the only tournaments on the calendar. The tour was rescheduled into a proper and viable sport with Grand Slams, Masters 1000, ATP 500, ATP 250, and the WTF as the defacto tournaments that players can play all year round. No one is debating the significance of the grand slams and they are indeed where legends are made but the secondary tournaments in the masters and the wtf are there solely to determine how well players can play in a single season all year round. If the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Murray did not think there was any significance in the masters tournaments then they would hardly participate. But if they did so they would be heavily fined by the ATP as the ATP wants to create a SPORT that is not played for only 8 WEEKS A YEAR. The masters tournaments help fill this gap and believe me they are not easy to win.

ATP Masters 1000 winners Since 2009

1) Djokovic - 26
2) Nadal - 16
3) Murray - 12
4) Fed - 10

5) Stan - 1
6) Cilic - 1
7) Ferrer - 1
8) Berd - 1
9) Tsonga - 1

So the big four have won 66 tournaments since 2009 and the rest of the tour has won a combined FIVE masters 1000 titles. These tournaments are NOT "Mickey Mouse" tournaments, because if they were then the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Murray would not have won the amount that they have if they believed that these tournaments were not worth much to their overall tennis careers.
Berd won his one and only Paris Masters 2005, after 2009 as you said in your post it was Soderling who won Paris 2010 .

And yes we should exclude everything in tennis where fedal aren't record holders.
Everything in tennis is irrelevant bar slams:oops:
 

N01E

Hall of Fame
He
Berd won his one and only Paris Masters 2005, after 2009 as you said in your post it was Soderling who won Paris 2010 .

And yes we should exclude everything in tennis where fedal aren't record holders.
Everything in tennis is irrelevant bar slams:oops:
He also forgot Ljubicic (IW'10) and Roddick (M'10).

I'd say M1000 are a very good way of telling player's consistency. I think they may play some role in GOAT debate, but as someone before me has said, they are too new and their format keeps changing too much. Also they aren't all equal, because you have to win 7 matches at Indian Wells, Miami and just 6 everywhere else.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Obviously Grand Slams are the premier tournaments in tennis but the ATP tour cannot survive as a viable sport if the grand slams are the only tournaments on the calendar.
The Super Bowl is the premier event in American Football. The NFL cannot survive as a viable sport if it's the only event on the calendar, either. They need the rest of the year in order to seed the playoffs which will determine who plays in the thing.

But the Super Bowl is quite clearly the only thing that matters in determining a season's relevance to a team's historical greatness.

Not everything that happens in the sporting world has to be important to the final draft of the story of the game. Some of it is just paying the bills and setting the table. That's what the Master's are for.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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.
Um, it kind of is.

Masters 10000s are worth half a slam as it is.
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
Slams invite the players whereas the rules-that-be make Masters attendence mandatory. Another word for mandatory is compulsory so Masters are not just like slams. Top players want to play the slams whereas they've been forced to play the Masters or suffer consequences. Some people just don't get this key difference.

Let's also note that Hamburg was a Masters but was downgraded to a ATP 500 event for 2009 and onwards. That's how important they are (not).
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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.
Good point,

Imagine if we had a proper grass season with queens and Halle as masters? Fed would've SWEEPED both during 03-08 and in many future years and inflated his masters total.

Just another minor tournament like 500 etc and a tiebreaker if say both players have 3 slams but one has 10+ extra masters/500.
 
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?
Competed in 120 out of 144 from 2000-2015. He did miss a few 2004/2005, but other than that in his prime years, he only missed 1 in 2003, 2 in 2006, 0 in 2007 or 2008, 1 in 2009/2010/2011. So 13 missed in 9 years out of 81.
 
Exactly. Compare that to how many Slams he missed and it shows you whether Slams or Masters 1000s are more important.
Don't think anyone is questioning what is most important, just that masters are relevant, shown by the number of masters in which the top players compete.
 

Elektra

Professional
It is all about your reach. Majors is what cements you in history books as well as getting sponsors. The Majors are the largest and far reach tournaments that even non causal tennis fans pay attention to. Majors are more important, do people remember Steffi Graf's WTA Titles or her GS Titles.
 

Username_

Hall of Fame
the only time a grand slam was ever worth less than a masters 1000, was the one where Novack got 4 walkovers into the final and won.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
with 9 GS alone, why not??

There are 0 M1000's on Grass. I believe there is a King of Grass. Its a Fact and not based on someone's Convenience.
There you go. How far is one ready to go against common sense and logic, in order to keep unfounded claim.
So, hipothetically, if Nadal would never win clay title out of RG, lost every single clay match vs fed and Novak, out of RG; if his clay h2h with them would be 9-30 (!),...... still, he is king of clay. His main rivals kicking his ass over and over again on all clay tournaments out of RG, during his peak/prime - their absolute clay domination (out of RG) is just not enough - Rafa is still king of clay.
That's what one must claim, if he wants to say masters are irrelevant. Are there really people beside AceSalvo ready to join this kind of statement?

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray always had a good number of Masters 1000 titles, but was still not a Slam champion until 2013 US Open. Slams will always be more important than everything else put together, except probably the YE No. 1 and Weeks at World No. 1 metrics.
Make that 2012. :cool:
 

AceSalvo

Legend
His main rivals kicking his ass over and over again on all clay tournaments out of RG, during his peak/prime

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
So a man with 9 GS on clay is susceptible to be kicked around in other lesser tournaments and should be penalized by giving him the title "Good enough for GS only"??? That's fresh in the land of dumbness.


Are there really people beside AceSalvo ready to join this kind of statement?

Stop spending time re-reading your posts which you feel is at the height of intelligence and start reading others post for a change.
 
Last edited:

itrium84

Hall of Fame
So a man with 9 GS on clay is susceptible to be kicked around in other lesser tournaments and should be penalized by giving him the title "Good enough for GS only"??? That's fresh in the land of dumbness.





Stop spending time re-reading your posts which you feel is at the height of intelligence and start reading others post for a change.
As I already said - in hippothetical situation, this guy would name Nadal "king of clay" despite losing every single clay masters match aginst Fed and Novak, with 9-30 clay record.

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
 

AceSalvo

Legend
As I already said - in hippothetical situation, this guy would name Nadal "king of clay" despite losing every single clay masters match aginst Fed and Novak, with 9-30 clay record.

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
In your hypothetical situation, who else would be the "King of Clay"?? A guy with 11 Clay M1000s' and 0 RG Slams who has a 10-0 H2H against Nadal with 9 RG GS's???

As I keep saying, stop with the dumb replies.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
In your hypothetical situation, who else would be the "King of Clay"?? A guy with 11 Clay M1000s' and 0 RG Slams who has a 10-0 H2H against Nadal with 9 RG GS's???

As I keep saying, stop with the dumb replies.
No one would be, that should be obvious. As I said before - Nadal would be "RG king" and nothing more. Because in sport of tennis, masters1000 tournaments have their recognized validity, importance and significance. Stop comparing them to GS, and think about their own value in tennis world.

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
 
Top