Masters Cup vs. a Grand Slam

[VictorS.]

Obviously the four main Grand Slam events are the pinnacle of the sport of tennis. However, how would you compare a Master's Cup win to a Grand Slam title?

I think most people hold a Grand Slam title in higher esteem, however one could argue that winning the Master's Cup is perhaps a bit tougher. Just to get to the final...blake had to beat Nadal, Davydenko, and Nalbandian. You look at a guy like Roddick and how he made it to the US Open final. I don't think he even played anyone in the top 10 until facing Federer. The Grand Slam though is physically more taxing with the five set matches.

 

[FedFan_2007]

Obviously the four main Grand Slam events are the pinnacle of the sport of tennis. However, how would you compare a Master's Cup win to a Grand Slam title?

I think most people hold a Grand Slam title in higher esteem, however one could argue that winning the Master's Cup is perhaps a bit tougher. Just to get to the final...blake had to beat Nadal, Davydenko, and Nalbandian. You look at a guy like Roddick and how he made it to the US Open final. I don't think he even played anyone in the top 10 until facing Federer. The Grand Slam though is physically more taxing with the five set matches.

In terms of degree of difficulty, a slam is still harder because you have win 7 straight best of 5. Masters Cup only has the top players, but you have round-robin best-of-3 and only the final is best-of-5. Also since the point value for a win is 700-750 points and any slam is 1000 points.

 

[Grimjack]

(Infinity X the Masters Cup) < The Australian Open < The French Open < The US Open = Wimbledon.

 

[Grimjack]

Which is all to say that US Opens and Wimbledons are the pinnacle of tennis achievement. Frenches have history, but are scarred in the modern game by favoring one-dimensional specialists. The Aussie isn't on the same level as the rest of these, but at least it's still a slam, and has historical significance. Every other tournament in the world, combined, isn't worth crap compared to even an Aussie Open.

 

[Grimjack]

Although it should be noted that even a semifinal appearance in the Thailand Open is a more impressive achievement than an Olympic Tennis medal.

I still chortle when I hear the phrase "Golden Slam."

 

[JBIMH]

Although it should be noted that even a semifinal appearance in the Thailand Open is a more impressive achievement than an Olympic Tennis medal.

I still chortle when I hear the phrase "Golden Slam."

That may being going a bit far but getting a medal in the Olympics is a walk in the park for a good pro

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

They are both good. Masters Cup is better than any single GS title, but I would put Masters Cup and Grand Slam on par.

 

[Zaragoza]

Every Grand Slam is at the same level: 7 matches, best of 5 sets.
If you like some Slam more or less, that´s different. Personally I think Wimbledon is the most boring Slam to watch, half of points are decided by a single shot, maybe 2. That´s a good reason to shorten grass season. Matches on clay and hardcourts are much more exciting to watch.
Also, there are some big tournaments (Masters Series) before the French and the USO, that makes these Slams more important for the players.
Previous tournaments before the Australian and Wimbledon are not big tournaments and players just play a single tournament before these.
Masters Cup is just a bonus, nothing compared to the Slams.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Also, there are some big tournaments (Masters Series) before the French and the USO, that makes these Slams more important for the players.
Previous tournaments before the Australian and Wimbledon are not big tournaments and players just play a single tournament before these.

strange, i'd never think "preparatory" tournaments make one slam more important than another one...
for many players, wimbledon is like the temple of tennis because of the historical aspect. the us open is the last one of the year, has only former #1 players as champions since 1978, so for me they are the 2 most important slams.

Masters Cup is just a bonus, nothing compared to the Slams.

"just a bonus" ?... :?
it's very degrading to say that for such a amazing and unique tournament !

i mean... for instance, wilander has 7 slams but he never won the masters, which is one of the reasons why i put him behind edberg or becker (who won it) and their 6 slams, in terms of career achievements. i'm also sure sampras and lendl are very proud of their 5 wins in that competition !
... and what about the 9 straight finals of lendl at the masters ?!
it's already amazing to qualify 9 straight years for this event... so playing 9 straight finals, i'm sure it's not considered just as a bonus !

 

[FedFan_2007]

Yes the YEC is a unique event and should only be put behind the 4 slams in importance, and you konw the ATP does by giving it the 2nd most points(750) after a slam win.

BTW, I don't think even Federer will come close to Lendl's 9 straight YEC finals. For all of his failure to win Wimbledon, Lendl did acheive some amazing things, like 8 straight US Open finals and 19 straight finals.

 

[jhhachamp]

Also since the point value for a win is 700-750 points and any slam is 1000 points.

The winner of the Masters Cup gets either 550, 650, or 750 ranking points depending on how many matches he wins in the Round Robin.

 

[psamp14]

(Infinity X the Masters Cup) < The Australian Open < The French Open < The US Open = Wimbledon.

you summed it up well!

 

[Rhino]

The winner of the Masters Cup gets either 550, 650, or 750 ranking points depending on how many matches he wins in the Round Robin.

So this time tomorrow Federer should have 8370 ranking points!!
A new record I think, wasn't it previously 8120 points in October?

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

I don't even know why this topic is in the Match Results forum. Seems like the mods are never here so this forum is completely disorganized.

 

[civic]

I think TMC is tough because it's indoor and it takes longer to get used to the surface and conditions. GS is tough because it's more grueling.

 

[PRADEEPKUMAR MANI]

Which is all to say that US Opens and Wimbledons are the pinnacle of tennis achievement.

And why is that? I don't mean to start an argument or anything, but just curious to know your reasoning behind such a statement. I can understand Wimby being more prestigious and all that, but why would you consider the US open over Aus Open or French? I think after wimbledon, the French is the most revered, because winning the french and wimby presents the maximum diversity in terms of tennis completeness, not the US open/Aus & Wimby.. Maybe because the majority of tournaments are played on Hard courts. just my 2 cents!

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

8370 points & 8343885 $ !

So this time tomorrow Federer should have 8370 ranking points!!
A new record I think, wasn't it previously 8120 points in October?

right.
(his previous record was for the week of the 6th november, just after winning basel)

roger also breaks the prize money for one season : more than 8 million $ !
(previous record was pete in 1997 with about 6.5 million $)
http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/stories/federer_money.asp

 

[tennis_hand]

Wimbledon has the highest prestige, but the grass season is so short nowadays.
Instead the damn clay season is so long ever after the Aussie Open.

 

[TennisBatman]

Obviously the four main Grand Slam events are the pinnacle of the sport of tennis. However, how would you compare a Master's Cup win to a Grand Slam title?

I think most people hold a Grand Slam title in higher esteem, however one could argue that winning the Master's Cup is perhaps a bit tougher. Just to get to the final...blake had to beat Nadal, Davydenko, and Nalbandian. You look at a guy like Roddick and how he made it to the US Open final. I don't think he even played anyone in the top 10 until facing Federer. The Grand Slam though is physically more taxing with the five set matches.

Grand Slams are each an international gathering of talent from all the corners of the world, and it is held in order to find out who is the "best" of the entire talent pool. Because it's sudden death, "best" means that you can't lose a match, and in the end there can be only one.

The Masters Cup is a celebration of tennis featuring the 8 players with the highest ranking of the year. The initial talent pool is much lesser, but the competition's real purpose is to give each of the 8 players a chance to be in the spotlight, no matter how good or bad their performance. After all, achieving a ranking in the top 8 is a sign of good achievement in itself.

As to which one is more important, I think you can look at it from two different perspectives. A Grand Slam certainly carries higher prestige than the Masters Cup, but without the Masters Cup it might well be possible for many of the top 8 players to never play each other.

In fact, in this year's Master's Cup, Nadal and Davydenko faced each other for the first time, and Blake and Nalbandian faced each other for the first time. So in a way, tournaments like the Master's Cup (and other tournaments in the future with the same format) are important in giving some of the players an opportunity to play against each other.

 

[MaxT]

GS can be won with some luck. Master's cup usually is won by the best player. That is why players on the edge but not at the top couldn't win it. Chang for example, 10 years or so at top 5, didn't have a chance. In this sense, MC is a great prize.

Last year was an exception, everyone pulled out.

 

[psp2]

Any one of the GS is more difficult to win, IMO. However, the MC is more difficult to get into.

Here's my reasoning. Any 17 y.o. unseeded player has a chance to win a GS. The odds are minuscule, but the opportunity is there. Conversely, there is zero chance for the same 17 y.o. player to win the MC because he would have never made it to the big dance in the first place. It will take a year long effort to get the Race Points needed to be invited to the show.

To me, the GS and the MC are two different animals with different facets, and they both add to the dimensionality of the sport.

 

[exruda]

What Fed thinks (Shanghai interview, after the final match)

Q. Comparing Grand Slam titles, how important is this title? I know your priorities are Wimbledon titles, but how about this title?

ROGER FEDERER: I mean, this is like one of the goals you set yourself for more long term, for the beginning of the year. You try to be a part of this elite group, you know. That's why it's an important goal, you know. Only eight players can qualify. It gives you the opportunity to only play against the best.

It's a possibility also to end a good season. For me, this was one of the breakthrough tournaments back in 2003 when I won my first Masters Cup. And when I was here in 2002 for the first time in Shanghai, I thought it was one of the most special atmospheres I've ever lived or gotten to know. That's why for me Masters Cup is always right up there for the biggest tournaments in the world, yeah.

 

[Moose Malloy]

GS can be won with some luck. Master's cup usually is won by the best player. That is why players on the edge but not at the top couldn't win it. Chang for example, 10 years or so at top 5, didn't have a chance. In this sense, MC is a great prize.

Compare Corretja's 1998 Masters Cup win to Chang's 1989 French Open win & tell me who got "lucky," beat the better players, etc.

Also Chang made the 1995 Masters Cup final(on ridiculously fast carpet) beating Sampras in the SF. So he did have "a chance."

 

[Moose Malloy]

many tanks, meaningless matches(like when a 0-2 plays a 2-0 on final day) over the years at MC. Plus withdrawls mid event that have given some players an "easy draw" to sf/final.

A slam is always impressive even when a few top 10 players are missing, since it is 128 draw, single elimation. Being the last man standing in such an event is a monumental achievement.
In the masters cup, a few players withdraw & the field goes down a notch, & is not as impressive to win.

Plus one weak player in MC(like Robredo) hurts the prestige of the event. Nothing can hurt the prestige of a slam.