Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

[mightyrick]

Has Federer ever said his goal is to end another year #1? No. He has said his goal is to win Slams. That proves Slams > YE#1 for greatness.

So because Federer says his goal is to win slams... that proves that slams are greater than being the best player of the year? Don't really see your logic there, but okay.

And Federer can say what he wants to the press -- sure. Because he knows if he says otherwise, he can't be the considered the best. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. At night, I'm sure the guy has sweaty fever dreams because he knows that by dropping his form in 2008 and 2010 that he has no chance of being the best anymore.

But he shouldn't be that hard on himself. He has a storied career and firmly cemented himself among the greats in the game.

 

[mightyrick]

Has Federer ever said his goal is to end another year #1?

No. He isn't going to state a goal that he has little to no chance of reaching.

 

[Mayonnaise]

So because Federer says his goal is to win slams... that proves that slams are greater than being the best player of the year? Don't really see your logic there, but okay.

It proves Federer thinks Slams > YE#1 for greatness. Heck, everybody, even Sampras fans, have Federer over Sampras. So it's not just him.

And Federer can say what he wants to the press -- sure. Because he knows if he says otherwise, he can't be the considered the best. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. At night, I'm sure the guy has sweaty fever dreams because he knows that by dropping his form in 2008 and 2010 that he has no chance of being the best anymore.

In 2012, Federer prioritized the WTF over the YE#1. He lost any chance of ending the year #1 by skipping Paris in order to rest for the WTF. Sure seems like a guy that has sweaty nightmares about not ending another year #1 :lol: You troll.

 

[Mayonnaise]

No. He isn't going to state a goal that he has little to no chance of reaching.

Federer often talked about surpassing Sampras's 14 Slams. But he never mentioned Sampras's 6 YE#1s. Not even in 2007, when he was dominating. Why do you think that is?

 

[eldanger25]

slams (or any other legitimate tournament) aren't played in overall RR format, which is only for entertainment (ie for the spectacle) purposes! huge difference!

You and I disagree on the value of the YEC - I think it's among the most important non-slam titles in this era (though I agree with you that you couldn't automatically assume its strength in the 70s, and it really wasn't until the 1977 edition or so when you knew the top 2-3 guys of a given year would be there bar injury, year after year).

I also think another event where you can lose and still win - Davis Cup - is very important, and I rate Nadal's accomplishments (particularly 2004 and 2011) and Sampras's (particularly 1995) higher than Federer and others. I'd imagine most objective folks would do the same, given its history and importance to the sport - even if they prefer other players to Nadal or Sampras.

I also think in 20-30 years, and from then on, the Olympic Gold will be considered more prestigious than either. I think Federer, Djokovic, etc. know this as well as anyone, and are gonna make hard runs at gold in Rio.

So there you have it - since this thread has devolved into a proxy war between Nadal, Federer, and Sampras fans - everybody's got something, Open Era wise: Fed has the most slams and YECs, Pete has the most YE #1s, Nadal has the most RGs, the lone Olympic gold medal among the three, and the best Davis Cup resume of all three.

Just rep your player - don't sh*t all over events (YEC, DC, Olympics) that were around before your guy made his mark and will still be standing long after all three of these guys will have retired to limp around golf courses with steak and scotch bellies.

 

[kiki]

Jimmy Connors was ranked number one in 1975 and 1978, not impressive years for him.

Lendl had an unimpressive 1989 year, yet he was ranked nº 1 andMc Enroe had a lousy 1982 when he was still top of the ATP ranks

ATP ranks value 52 weeks, not just majors.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Nadal has the most RGs, the lone Olympic gold medal among the three, and the best Davis Cup resume of all three.

 

[eldanger25]

Jimmy Connors was ranked number one in 1975 and 1978, not impressive years for him.

Lendl had an unimpressive 1989 year, yet he was ranked nº 1 andMc Enroe had a lousy 1982 when he was still top of the ATP ranks

ATP ranks value 52 weeks, not just majors.

Agree with a lot of this, though I think "lousy" and "unimpressive" are a bit strong.

Becker had the "greatest" season in 1989 for sure - hard not to love the Wimbledon/US Open/DC triple if you love tennis history - but Lendl was no slouch - anytime you can net a major title, 10 or more titles, and a 90+ w/p in a season, you've done just fine for yourself. I'd take Becker's 1989 over Lendl's any day of the week - particularly given what happened in their big showdowns that year - but Lendl's season was absolutely impressive in its own way.

Mac also had a solid 1982, and a great fall in particular - including his last great DC run as top dog. Think he was on a 25 or 26 match winning streak to end that year before Lendl beat him at the YEC.

Connors had a great year in 1978 too - 66-6 in sanctioned tourneys, with 10 titles incl. the US Open title via his last big win over Borg. Think Jimmy went something like 22-1 to start the year, and had a separate 30 match winning streak at one point later in the season. It's just that Borg's 1978 was a little more impressive - nevertheless, I rate Connors's 1978 campaign as one of the strongest #2 seasons in the Open Era, alongside Novak 2013 and others.

I agree that Connors's 1975 wasn't as impressive - good consistency, but faltered time and again on the biggest stages. Was a bit of a sophomore slump.

 

[eldanger25]

Well, that's fair - but I think you know I meant singles gold.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Well, that's fair - but I think you know I meant singles gold.

Perhaps. But Federer is a more decorated Olympian than Nadal is

 

[eldanger25]

Perhaps. But Federer is a more decorated Olympian than Nadal is

You got me there, I suppose (and made me laugh) - you'd be a really good press secretary for a politician, actually:

"Roger Federer has received just as many trophies at RG as Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander. Even more impressively, he can actually throw a dinner party with his - so not only is Roger as decorated a player at RG as Lendl and Wilander, he can get far more uses out of his trophies than the others."

 

[Mayonnaise]

You got me there, I suppose (and made me laugh) - you'd be a really good press secretary for a politician, actually:

"Roger Federer has received just as many trophies at RG as Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander. Even more impressively, he can actually throw a dinner party with his - so not only is Roger as decorated a player at RG as Lendl and Wilander, he can get far more uses out of his trophies than the others."

Federer may have gotten as many trophies as Wilander and Lendl, but his trophies are different and less valuable. On the other hand, Federer's Gold medal is the same as Nadal's Gold medal. Look at them; they're identical!

 

[eldanger25]

Federer may have gotten as many trophies as Wilander and Lendl, but his trophies are different and less valuable. On the other hand, Federer's Gold medal is the same as Nadal's Gold medal. Look at them; they're identical!

They are. I imagine you feel similarly about Mac's Wimbledon hardware versus Fed's.

 

[Mayonnaise]

They are. I imagine you feel similarly about Mac's Wimbledon hardware versus Fed's.

Do these look the same to you?

On the other hand, these are identical, and the Olympics rated them as equal achievements.

 

[eldanger25]

Do these look the same to you?

On the other hand, these are identical, and the Olympics rated them as equal achievements.

Look, we both know how this needs to end, so let's just cut to the chase: if you reply to this post with the word "grandpa," I'll agree with you that Federer's gold medal in doubles is composed of the same earth-based material as Nadal's gold medal in singles, and that they both are identical in structure (if not stature).

 

[Mayonnaise]

Look, we both know how this needs to end, so let's just cut to the chase: if you reply to this post with the word "grandpa," I'll agree with you that Federer's gold medal in doubles is composed of the same earth-based material as Nadal's gold medal in singles, and that they both are identical in structure (if not stature).

I'm not sure I understand.

 

[eldanger25]

I'm not sure I understand.

I like it when you say grandpa - it's sort of your thing, and I get a kick out of it. Feels kind of like performance art.

If you said grandpa in your next post, I'd be happy enough with you to agree with the point you seem to be making, which is that divorced of the context of the particular event in which the medals were earned, both Nadal and Federer have identical medals made out of gold presented to them by the IOC.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I like it when you say grandpa - it's sort of your thing, and I get a kick out of it. Feels kind of like performance art.

If you said grandpa in your next post, I'd be happy enough with you to agree with the point you seem to be making, which is that divorced of the context of the particular event in which the medals were earned, both Nadal and Federer have identical medals made out of gold presented to them by the IOC.

Federer's Gold Medal = Nadal's Gold Medal in terms of value. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the Olympic committee.

However, Nadal's Gold Medal is a Singles' achievement, and Federer's is a Doubles' achievement. That said, it's just a 750-event that comes around every 4 years, so I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[eldanger25]

Federer's Gold Medal = Nadal's Gold Medal in terms of value. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the Olympic committee.

However, Nadal's Gold Medal is a Singles' achievement, and Federer's is a Doubles' achievement. That said, it's just a 750-event that comes around every 4 years, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Fair enough - I imagine either one could pawn his gold medal for identical value at the same pawn shop, if life ever took one of those unlikely turns.

I know you're on the front lines for Federer, but I really do think the Olympic singles gold medal is gonna be the next big thing in tennis prestige. The every-four-years thing is just gonna add to the exclusivity of it.

Basically, if tournaments had commercials, the Olympic gold medal would get Federer to appear in them. That kind of exclusivity/rarity.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I know you're on the front lines for Federer, but I really do think the Olympic singles gold medal is gonna be the next big thing in tennis prestige. The every-four-years thing is just gonna add to the exclusivity of it.

Perhaps. Who knows. The fact will remain, though, that during Federer's time, it was a 750-event, and experts will always know that. We don't know what the future holds, so you can't artificially inflate today's achievements by speculating about the future.

 

[eldanger25]

Perhaps. Who knows. The fact will remain, though, that during Federer's time, it was a 750-event, and experts will always know that. We don't know what the future holds, so you can't artificially inflate today's achievements by speculating about the future.

Well, I don't go in much for bare appeals to authority re: how the ATP ranks the Olympic games. It's relevant, but subject to change and not dispositive.

We both know Fed would trade any one of his MS 1000 titles for an Olympic gold in singles, for instance - as well as any of his 1200 point slam finalist results.

Back in 2012 - Federer targeting Rio 2016 http://www.si.com/tennis/2012/12/06/roger-federer-2016-olympics-rio

Never - Federer plans to play on through Bercy 2017, or IW 2018, or Madrid 2015, or fill-in-the-blank.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Well, I don't go in much for bare appeals to authority re: how the ATP ranks the Olympic games. It's relevant, but subject to change and not dispositive.

We both know Fed would trade any one of his MS 1000 titles for an Olympic gold in singles, for instance - as well as any of his 1200 point slam finalist results.

Back in 2012 - Federer targeting Rio 2016 http://www.si.com/tennis/2012/12/06/roger-federer-2016-olympics-rio

Never - Federer plans to play on through Bercy 2017, or IW 2018, or Madrid 2015, or fill-in-the-blank.

He was in Brazil. What do you expect him to say?

 

[eldanger25]

He was in Brazil. What do you expect him to say?

I actually think 750 points for the Olympics is a fair compromise by the ATP. The Olympics and Davis Cup are the only events with ranking points where a highly ranked player can be excluded based purely on nationality rather than results. If you've got eight French guys in the Top 50, and only two Italians, it's unfair to the French guys outside the Olympic team quota to be overtaken too much in the rankings by lower ranked guys from other countries. Same for Davis Cup.

None of this impacts that the Olympics and DC are more valuable to players and historians than Masters events - it isn't surprising to me that Fed is playing DC this year and shooting for Rio in 2016.

Anyway, here's a Bloomberg article from this year -when Roger pulled out of Madrid - noting that Fed "frequently" tells reporters he'll be at Rio 2016: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-out-of-madrid-to-be-with-pregnant-wife.html

 

[Mayonnaise]

I actually think 750 points for the Olympics is a fair compromise by the ATP. The Olympics and Davis Cup are the only events with ranking points where a highly ranked player can be excluded based purely on nationality rather than results. If you've got eight French guys in the Top 50, and only two Italians, it's unfair to the French guys outside the Olympic team quota to be overtaken too much in the rankings by lower ranked guys from other countries. Same for Davis Cup.

None of this impacts that the Olympics and DC are more valuable to players and historians than Masters events - it isn't surprising to me that Fed is playing DC this year and shooting for Rio in 2016.

Anyway, here's a Bloomberg article from this year -when Roger pulled out of Madrid - noting that Fed "frequently" tells reporters he'll be at Rio 2016: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-out-of-madrid-to-be-with-pregnant-wife.html

It would probably elevate the Olympics if no points were offered for it. Making it completely a patriotic/prestige thing.

 

[eldanger25]

It would probably elevate the Olympics if no points were offered for it. Making it completely a patriotic/prestige thing.

You might be right - I could see that.

 

[Zoid]

I actually think 750 points for the Olympics is a fair compromise by the ATP. The Olympics and Davis Cup are the only events with ranking points where a highly ranked player can be excluded based purely on nationality rather than results. If you've got eight French guys in the Top 50, and only two Italians, it's unfair to the French guys outside the Olympic team quota to be overtaken too much in the rankings by lower ranked guys from other countries. Same for Davis Cup.

None of this impacts that the Olympics and DC are more valuable to players and historians than Masters events - it isn't surprising to me that Fed is playing DC this year and shooting for Rio in 2016.

Anyway, here's a Bloomberg article from this year -when Roger pulled out of Madrid - noting that Fed "frequently" tells reporters he'll be at Rio 2016: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-out-of-madrid-to-be-with-pregnant-wife.html

I don't think any kid grows up dreaming of winning olympic gold in tennis - and if they do, i'm sure it's because they're are bored of dreaming about wimby/french/aussie/us/wtf etc etc….nothing will ever surpass wimby

 

[eldanger25]

I don't think any kid grows up dreaming of winning olympic gold in tennis - and if they do, i'm sure it's because they're are bored of dreaming about wimby/french/aussie/us/wtf etc etc….nothing will ever surpass wimby

I agree that the slams are bigger dreams, but I think Olympic gold is gonna be at least valued as much as the YEC down the line, if not more.

You've got a generation of future greats watching how fired up Nadal, Murray, Serena, Federer, Novak etc. get at the event. Nadal-Novak 2008, Fed-Del Potro 2012, Murray-Fed 2012, Serena v. the field, etc.

Maybe it replaces Davis Cup as the venue for tennis patriotism, but I think it'll be a bigger goal than any besides the four slams. Just a hunch.

 

[Zoid]

I agree that the slams are bigger dreams, but I think Olympic gold is gonna be at least valued as much as the YEC down the line, if not more.

You've got a generation of future greats watching how fired up Nadal, Murray, Serena, Federer, Novak etc. get at the event. Nadal-Novak 2008, Fed-Del Potro 2012, Murray-Fed 2012, Serena v. the field, etc.

Maybe it replaces Davis Cup as the venue for tennis patriotism, but I think it'll be a bigger goal than any besides the four slams. Just a hunch.

I just think the ATP schedule works so hard to try and get it right, and olympics are always a few weeks out here and there every 4 years, it is just too far removed to make it that important i feel. Plus, how does the Olympics pic players for the event? is it a limit of two per country? what happens to guys when you're from spain and miss out even though you may be ranked top 20?

 

[eldanger25]

I just think the ATP schedule works so hard to try and get it right, and olympics are always a few weeks out here and there every 4 years, it is just too far removed to make it that important i feel. Plus, how does the Olympics pic players for the event? is it a limit of two per country? what happens to guys when you're from spain and miss out even though you may be ranked top 20?

Yeah, I think that's why a 750 point value on the tour is solid, so as not to penalize deep countries like Spain etc. who can only send a few guys.

But I think getting a shot at Olympic gold - just like showcasing yourself to get picked for Davis Cup back in the old days (and to an extent now) - will be part of the hustle for plenty of guys on tour.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

MY favorite pro is better than anybody!..I need to say this!..my life depends on it!

Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles

Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls

Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

Despite Federer has one year #1 less than Sampras, he was much more dominant than Sampras, and more consistent on every surfaces. Sampras never had a 90+ winning percentage in a year while FEderer has 3.

And don't forget Federer has 44% more whitening power than Sampras while 4 out of 5 dentists recommended Federer to their patients in a taste test.


Did both players play the very same opponents? No.

Is an arbitrary 'apples to oranges' standard being used to compare the two records? Yes.

Thread fail.



That is all.




__________________

 

[DRII]

You and I disagree on the value of the YEC - I think it's among the most important non-slam titles in this era (though I agree with you that you couldn't automatically assume its strength in the 70s, and it really wasn't until the 1977 edition or so when you knew the top 2-3 guys of a given year would be there bar injury, year after year).

I also think another event where you can lose and still win - Davis Cup - is very important, and I rate Nadal's accomplishments (particularly 2004 and 2011) and Sampras's (particularly 1995) higher than Federer and others. I'd imagine most objective folks would do the same, given its history and importance to the sport - even if they prefer other players to Nadal or Sampras.

I also think in 20-30 years, and from then on, the Olympic Gold will be considered more prestigious than either. I think Federer, Djokovic, etc. know this as well as anyone, and are gonna make hard runs at gold in Rio.

So there you have it - since this thread has devolved into a proxy war between Nadal, Federer, and Sampras fans - everybody's got something, Open Era wise: Fed has the most slams and YECs, Pete has the most YE #1s, Nadal has the most RGs, the lone Olympic gold medal among the three, and the best Davis Cup resume of all three.

Just rep your player - don't sh*t all over events (YEC, DC, Olympics) that were around before your guy made his mark and will still be standing long after all three of these guys will have retired to limp around golf courses with steak and scotch bellies.

good post, however i did not shet all over the YEC.

i said its relative significance is only lower than that of the slams, Singles Olympics Gold., and the most coveted M.S. tourneys.

i also said its a hole in Nadal's resume.

and thank you for reminded everyone how important Davis Cup was at one point (with players actually skipping slams to play DC). Obviously now, it does not rank as high. if i was really trying to be a Nadal fanboy or Federer-hater i would bring up DC much more, but i don't...

 

[SoBad]

i already showed you the definition i used, the generally understood definition. if you could follow context, it wouldn't have to be explained to you!

again, since you need things repeated: YEC/WTF = elite exhibtionary event (Triple E)!

deal with it...

just in case you don't have a thesaurus handy:

synonyms:

(public) display, show, showing, presentation, demonstration, exposition, showcase, exhibit

Yes, it is an exhibition event designed to provide top-ranked players an opportunity to relax at the conclusion of the season and entertain the public in a friendly round-robin format to kick off the holiday season. People get confused because ATP actually started awarding points for this holiday show (as if points matter when the season is over!!:lol. Traditionally, there were no points, but apparently this change was called for in the 1990s after the players got into the habit of skipping the event or showing up drunk/stoned for their matches.

 

[TMF]

Jimmy Connors was ranked number one in 1975 and 1978, not impressive years for him.

Lendl had an unimpressive 1989 year, yet he was ranked nº 1 andMc Enroe had a lousy 1982 when he was still top of the ATP ranks

ATP ranks value 52 weeks, not just majors.

Lendl didn't have a bad 1989 year since I can name numerous YE #1s that are not as impressive has his. He still had a 90 percent winning season and won 10 titles.


Agree with Mac in 1982. His YE #1 that year was worse than Sampras in 1998.

 

[DRII]

Yes, it is an exhibition event designed to provide top-ranked players an opportunity to relax at the conclusion of the season and entertain the public in a friendly round-robin format to kick off the holiday season. People get confused because ATP actually started awarding points for this holiday show (as if points matter when the season is over!!:lol. Traditionally, there were no points, but apparently this change was called for in the 1990s after the players got into the habit of skipping the event or showing up drunk/stoned for their matches.

really :shock:

i knew the WTF was much about political jockeying between the ITF and ATP and a way to reward and coddle the top players at the end of the year, which they mostly deserve. But, i didn't know it went as far as you suggest...

 

[kiki]

Lendl didn't have a bad 1989 year since I can name numerous YE #1s that are not as impressive has his. He still had a 90 percent winning season and won 10 titles.


Agree with Mac in 1982. His YE #1 that year was worse than Sampras in 1998.

I didn´t say it was bad.For 95% of the ATP, it would be their best ever year.For a player of his stature, it was a disappointing year.Lendl is one of the most self exigent players I have seen ( like all champions)

 

[kiki]

good post, however i did not shet all over the YEC.

i said its relative significance is only lower than that of the slams, Singles Olympics Gold., and the most coveted M.S. tourneys.

i also said its a hole in Nadal's resume.

and thank you for reminded everyone how important Davis Cup was at one point (with players actually skipping slams to play DC). Obviously now, it does not rank as high. if i was really trying to be a Nadal fanboy or Federer-hater i would bring up DC much more, but i don't...

Olimpics are so overrated here.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Olimpics are so overrated by Nadal fans

Fixed that for you

 

[DRII]

Fixed that for you

your demigod rates the Olympics very highly!

deal with it

 

[Mayonnaise]

your demigod rates the Olympics very highly!

deal with it

1. He never said Olympics > Masters

2. It doesn't matter what he rates them. The ATP rates them below Masters.

 

[jg153040]

i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating my opinion. it just that hypocrisy annoys me! if your going to only go by stats and strict ATP classification, then don't dare try to bring in subjective/qualitative criteria! many of these posters, mostly fedephants or Nadal-haters, try to have it both ways :twisted:

like i've said before, Federer is the relative GOAT in my book cemented by his 2012 performance. Nadal is very close, but not quite there yet overall IMO...

I'm not trying to convince you, I was just curious what your opinion is, because even after your posts, I still didn't know.

I don't think it's hypocrisy. I think Fed fans are baited into those subjective arguments by Fed haters. Maybe because they are insecure for whatever reasons. I do it for fun.

But to be fair, this thread wasn't subjective at all. Sampras needed way less achievements than Fed to gain nr.1 ranking. That is a fact, it's not subjective at all.

It's impossible to go only by ATP. Because there aren't h2h trophies or goat trophies. Or points for total weeks nr.1 or streaks. So of course it's partly subjective to call Fed goat, I agree. He has the records, that is objective and a fact. But interpreting those facts is subjective, I know. But it's not all subjective like some people think. Fed still has numbers.

I think Fed has best case for goat right now. But this is still not 100%. Part of this is based on subjectivity but only a small part. Because it's impossible to compare eras with 100% objectivity. BUT, that doesn't mean that we have 0% objectivity and 100% subjectivity. Big part why Fed has best case for goat is based on objectivity, but of course small part is still subjective, we can't get around that.

Maybe you are bothered when some fans say that it's 100% objective. And I agree here with you.

And I proposed a solution to end Fedal wars. Let them both be goats. Lefty and righty category. Since lefties have the edge and it's not 100% fair to compare like this. So, both sides win. Ironically both sides rejected me. They just want to fight, they don't want reality.

 

[furryballs]

tennis in the olympics is like soccer(football).it doesnt hold too much weight.

 

[fed_rulz]

slams (or any other legitimate tournament) aren't played in overall RR format, which is only for entertainment (ie for the spectacle) purposes! huge difference!

Damn, are you telling me that the so-called group stages in the recently concluded FIFA world cup were just exhibition matches?? Crap, I sure spent a lot of time watching an illegitimate tournament.

 

[TMF]

tennis in the olympics is like soccer(football).it doesnt hold too much weight.

Soccer has the World Cup and tennis has the World Tour Final.

Enough said.

 

[bullfan]

Soccer has the World Cup and tennis has the World Tour Final.

Enough said.

Big difference, when 1 is played every year versus the other played once every 4 years.

 

[TMF]

Big difference, when 1 is played every year versus the other played once every 4 years.

The biggest tournament in soccer is the World Cup.

The biggest tournament in tennis is Wimbledon.

The biggest event for gymnastics, track & field or swimming is the Olympics.


Got it now ?

 

[bullfan]

The biggest tournament in soccer is the World Cup.

The biggest tournament in tennis is Wimbledon.

The biggest event for gymnastics, track & field or swimming is the Olympics.


Got it now ?

Bad analogy..... And Wimbledon is equal to all other GS titles, they all count for 1.

 

[TMF]

Bad analogy..... And Wimbledon is equal to all other GS titles, they all count for 1.

When given a choice, most pro players and tennis fans would pick Wimbledon over any other tournaments. Wimbledon is the holy grail in tennis.

 

[jg153040]

Bad analogy..... And Wimbledon is equal to all other GS titles, they all count for 1.

Yeah and WTF is just an exhibition and Olympic gold and Davis cup are the measure for greatness.

Sure.

Hey, maybe FO is worth more than any other slam, since it's the hardest to win.

 

[jg153040]

The biggest tournament in soccer is the World Cup.

The biggest tournament in tennis is Wimbledon.

The biggest event for gymnastics, track & field or swimming is the Olympics.


Got it now ?

True, but this is only in the real world, not here .

 

[DRII]

Damn, are you telling me that the so-called group stages in the recently concluded FIFA world cup were just exhibition matches?? Crap, I sure spent a lot of time watching an illegitimate tournament.

again, i suggest you try and comprehend the difference and distinction between a team sport (like boring soccer) and an individual sport like tennis!

your comparison is rather meaningless.