Pete Sampras - Masters 1000 equivalents discussion

[timnz]

There has been discussion that it isn't fair to say that Sampras only won 11 Masters 1000's because other titles he competed for were very close in
points to Masters 1000's - and that pre-2000 the Masters 1000's weren't compulsory. Hence, the thinking goes that Sampras hunted down other titles
that were nearly as much points and because Masters 1000's weren't compulsory in the 1990's he didn't distinguish them.

I have done an analysis of Sampras' tournament wins - and out of this 64 titles - 14 were slams, 5 were ATP World Tour Championships, 2 were Grand
Slam Cups and 11 were official Masters 1000's. This totals 32 Tournaments at Masters 1000 or higher level. So 64-32 = 32. So of the 32 tournaments remaining, were there tournament victories remaining of 'near Masters 1000' status? Of that 32 only 12 could reasonably be in consideration. They were classed as 'ATP International Series Gold' - roughly equivalent to todays ATP 500 series. But were any of these actually close to Masters 1000 series - since they weren't strictly exactly matched to today's ATP 500 series?

I don't have a list of the points these 12 tournaments attracted compared to Masters 1000's of the same season. However, I have the relative prize
money. There isn't necessary a super strict connection between prize money and points - but it is generally indicative:

1990
----
Philadelphia Prize Money $825,000 compared to least prize money Masters 1000 of that season $750,000 - so that possibly is a candidate

1991
----
Indianapolis Prize Money $825,000 compared to least prize money Masters 1000 of that season $750,000 - so that possibly is a candidate

1992
----
Philadelphia Prize Money $865,000 compared to least prize money Masters 1000 of that season $825,000 - so that possibly is a candidate

Indianapolis Prize Money $865,000 compared to least prize money Masters 1000 of that season $825,000 - so that possibly is a candidate


The other 8 candidates:
-----------------------
1993: Tokyo
1994: Tokyo
1996: Memphis
1996: Tokyo
1996: Indianapolis
1997: Philadelphia
1998: Philadelphia
1998: Vienna

Of these last 8, none of them awarded prize money of even 2/3rd the least prize monied Masters 1000 of their respective seasons. In fact many were
under 1/2 the prize money.

This establishes to me that one could only claim a Maximum of 4 more Masters 1000's equivalents for Sampras. There isn't any other of his tournament
victories that come even close to consideration. NB: Masters 1000's are the top 9 tournaments outside the Slams and any season end finals (ATP, WCT, ITF) in a particular year.

If, in people's opinions there are other tournament victories that should come under consideration as Masters 1000's equivalants (or near equivalents) I'd be happy to discuss.

SORRY - THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FORMER PLAYER SECTION - POSTED HERE BY MISTAKE

 

[90's Clay]

You're greatness is generally judged by what you do on the big stage, your success against your main rivals, and your stint at #1 and to a lesser extent at the end of the year in the YEC.

I don't see many people that rate winning a crap ton of Masters as a big deal. If they did, Nadal would be considered the runaway GOAT right now.

Maybe winning a ton of Masters SHOULD get importance but ultimately most people don't put huge value on it.

Sampras won his fair share of Masters equivalents, but is his legacy and greatness even judged by that?

 

[timnz]

What Sampras cared about career wise

You're greatness is generally judged by what you do on the big stage, your success against your main rivals, and your stint at #1 and to a lesser extent at the end of the year in the YEC.

I don't see many people that rate winning a crap ton of Masters as a big deal. If they did, Nadal would be considered the runaway GOAT right now.

Maybe winning a ton of Masters SHOULD get importance but ultimately most people don't put huge value on it.

Sampras won his fair share of Masters equivalents, but is his legacy and greatness even judged by that?

The only 3 things that Sampras cared about career wise were:

1/ Slams
2/ Season end finals
3/ YE number 1's.

From what I remembered Masters 1000's didn't even come into his conversation. HOWEVER, there are some points to be made.

1/ Just because Sampras didn't care so much about Masters 1000's doesn't mean that those who did shouldn't get the credit for them.

2/ Yes Masters 1000's don't count as much as slams - but they still are worth something. In fact they are worth a significant amount. If the ATP is anything to go - it lists them a 1/2 the value of a slam. (I disagree with them - but that is another matter).

Now when comparing Open era players - Slams aren't the only consideration, even though they are rated the highest. Masters 1000's do factor in, less than slams, but they still have significance. Now if they have significance - how many of them did Sampras win? Now officially it is 11, but some have argued (and I can understand their argument) that in the 1990's Masters 1000's weren't compulsory - so Sampras was free to compete in alternative events. Of these alternative events I think only 4 tournament wins were of the same order of magnitude as a Masters 1000 win. That's all.

 

[PMChambers]

Masters are extremely important, anyone who says otherwise does not know tennis. Some, such as Rome where nearly the No.4 GS.

The 70's where worse for players not turning up to Masters or even GS events. Players went where the money was and often to invitationals where they were guaranteed cash, win or lose. Players who choose not to participate is their problem, even Muster turned up to Kooyong to play Pat Cash in R1 knowing he was screwed before he started. Luckily the Sweeds (except Borg) turned up to everything to play tennis rather than take a cheque, Lendl was also pretty good at attendances.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Sampras Masters record - 11 titles out of 83 appearances - 13.2% success rate

Compared to the top 3 title getters Sampras definitely underperformed -

Nadal - 26 titles out of 79 appearances - 32.9% success rate
Lendl - 22 titles out of 71 appearances - 30.9% success rate
Federer - 21 titles out of 108 appearances - 19.4% success rate

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras Masters record - 11 titles out of 83 appearances - 13.2% success rate

Compared to the top 3 title getters Sampras definitely underperformed -

Nadal - 26 titles out of 79 appearances - 32.9% success rate
Lendl - 22 titles out of 71 appearances - 30.9% success rate
Federer - 21 titles out of 108 appearances - 19.4% success rate

21 titles in 108 appearances isn't performing well either though. Thats 25 more appearances than pete with only 10 more titles

 

[Kenshin]

Pete Sampras was definitely an underachiever at Masters 1000. On the other hand, we have a player like Djokovic who has more Masters 1000 than Pete has but has far less grandslam titles. I will take Sampras' career in a heart beat because grand slams far outweight the masters 1000's.

 

[helloworld]

1 slam title is worth more than 100 masters. So what's your point?

Did Masters 1000 even exist in the 90s!? :shock:

 

[Kenshin]

21 titles in 108 appearances isn't performing well either though. Thats 25 more appearances than pete with only 10 more titles

I think Nadal has the most balanced resume regarding Grandslams-Masters 1000. Federer is also an underachiever considering the amount of grandslam titles. Djokovic seems to me really lopsided. His mind should focus more on grandslams.

 

[helloworld]

I think Nadal has the most balanced resume regarding Grandslams-Masters 1000. Federer is also an underachiever considering the amount of grandslam titles. Djokovic seems to me really lopsided. His mind should focus more on grandslams.

Djokovic is focused on Grand Slams. He just couldn't beat the top guys when it really matters.

 

[Kenshin]

Djokovic is focused on Grand Slams. He just couldn't beat the top guys when it really matters.

You have a point. Come to think of it, he has lost to a player always on fire (Nadal at FO and USO, Wawrinka at AO) or on mission (Murray at Wim). He was always in the finals. Maybe I was a bit too harsh on him.

 

[Kenshin]

Djokovic is focused on Grand Slams. He just couldn't beat the top guys when it really matters.

Delete post.

 

[timnz]

1 slam title is worth more than 100 masters. So what's your point?

Did Masters 1000 even exist in the 90s!? :shock:

Yes they did - that is where Agassi won most of his 17. I don't know if I agree that Masters are only 100th of a Slam. I do however, think they are significantly less that 1/2 a slam (which is what the ATP thinks). Masters 1000's however, are not worth nothing. They are still significant tournament wins.

 

[timnz]

Pete Sampras was definitely an underachiever at Masters 1000. On the other hand, we have a player like Djokovic who has more Masters 1000 than Pete has but has far less grandslam titles. I will take Sampras' career in a heart beat because grand slams far outweight the masters 1000's.

Instead of OR why not AND? Include Slam titles AND Masters 1000 victories in a players profile. Obviously weight the Slam victories higher, but still include the Masters 1000's. The ATP weight Slams at 2 x Masters 1000's - I disagree - but that is a starting point. One could compare them as follows using the current ATP weighting for events:

Sampras = (14 Slams x 2000 = 28000) + (5 WTF x 1300 **= 6500) + (4 Slam Runner-ups x 1200 = 4800) + (11 Masters 1000's x 1000= 11000) = 50300 points

Djokovic = (6 Slams x 2000 = 12000) + ((2 WTF x 1500) + (1 WTF x 1300) = 4300 ) + (6 Slam Runner-ups x 1200 = 7200) + (18 Masters 1000 x 1000 = 18000) = 41500 points


As you can see, even including Masters 1000's - Pete Sampras is clearly ahead.



** all of Sampras WTF's were with 1 round robin loss (hence 1300 points instead of 1500 points). One of Djokovic's WTF's was with a round robin loss.

 

[insideguy]

They are fun tournaments to watch but I dont think they mean a heck of alot in a players legacy. If a guy wins 50 masters and no slams his career is not as impressive as a guy who wins 5 slams and 5 masters. Guys like Courier who only won a couple of masters but 4 slams were still great players. If some dude won 15 masters and no slams I would never consider him as great or anywhere near as great as Courier.

That being said they are important as far as ranking points and money and players want them to get good seedings for the slams.

 

[big ted]

i dont think the smaller tournaments he won are equivalent since the competition wasnt as great as a masters tournament. but some players like lendl and sampras really only cared about grand slam titles anyway and i would even say they did not even give 100% in the smaller tournaments all the time unless it was advantageous to them in some way.

 

[PMChambers]

The Masters are the bread and butter of tennis, GS are what distinguishes the best from the best. They are not nothing.

Just checking stats, and without spending much time so could be wrong, Pete did seem to play a lot of 4 & 5 set matches and has a lot of tie breakers. The best of 3 sets format might not suit him as well. Courier also was better in 5 sets, hence better GS record than masters as well.

 

[Goosehead]

Tennis has had 9 Grand Prix Championships / Super 9 / Masters Series / Masters 1000 Tourneys since 1970.

Sampras had his career and he did what he did, trying to inflate other Tourneys via what prize money they offered isn't going to cut it around here..or anywhere else really.

 

[insideguy]

The Masters are the bread and butter of tennis, GS are what distinguishes the best from the best. They are not nothing.

Just checking stats, and without spending much time so could be wrong, Pete did seem to play a lot of 4 & 5 set matches and has a lot of tie breakers. The best of 3 sets format might not suit him as well. Courier also was better in 5 sets, hence better GS record than masters as well.

I mean if you even look at courier and these other guys careers at the time they skipped a ton what were the masters to. Courier didnt play Monte Carlo or Hamburg very often. He hardly played Hamburg at all and skipped Monte Carlo 7 times. He would use Rome as his warmup for RG and thats about it.

 

[helloworld]

Instead of OR why not AND? Include Slam titles AND Masters 1000 victories in a players profile. Obviously weight the Slam victories higher, but still include the Masters 1000's. The ATP weight Slams at 2 x Masters 1000's - I disagree - but that is a starting point. One could compare them as follows using the current ATP weighting for events:

Sampras = (14 Slams x 2000 = 28000) + (5 WTF x 1300 **= 6500) + (4 Slam Runner-ups x 1200 = 4800) + (11 Masters 1000's x 1000= 11000) = 50300 points

Djokovic = (6 Slams x 2000 = 12000) + ((2 WTF x 1500) + (1 WTF x 1300) = 4300 ) + (6 Slam Runner-ups x 1200 = 7200) + (18 Masters 1000 x 1000 = 18000) = 41500 points


As you can see, even including Masters 1000's - Pete Sampras is clearly ahead.



** all of Sampras WTF's were with 1 round robin loss (hence 1300 points instead of 1500 points). One of Djokovic's WTF's was with a round robin loss.

Still, we all know that Slams are worth far more than 2000 points in terms of historical importance and player greatness.

 

[timnz]

i dont think the smaller tournaments he won are equivalent since the competition wasnt as great as a masters tournament. but some players like lendl and sampras really only cared about grand slam titles anyway and i would even say they did not even give 100% in the smaller tournaments all the time unless it was advantageous to them in some way.

I think the record shows they cared a bit though:

Lendl: 22 Master 1000 equivalents, 42 ATP 500 series equivalents, 15 ATP 250 equivalents.

Sampras: 11 Masters 1000's, 12 ATP 500 series equivalents, 20 ATP 250 equivalents.

 

[timnz]

Still, we all know that Slams are worth far more than 2000 points in terms of historical importance and player greatness.

I agree, but the problem is that it is impossible to come to a collective agreement about how much more than 2000 points. (My own feeling is around 3000 points - but you will have as many opinions as people on this forum).

 

[Towser83]

You're greatness is generally judged by what you do on the big stage, your success against your main rivals, and your stint at #1 and to a lesser extent at the end of the year in the YEC.

I don't see many people that rate winning a crap ton of Masters as a big deal. If they did, Nadal would be considered the runaway GOAT right now.

Maybe winning a ton of Masters SHOULD get importance but ultimately most people don't put huge value on it.

Sampras won his fair share of Masters equivalents, but is his legacy and greatness even judged by that?

Nadal has 5 more masters than Federer, but 4 less slams at this point. Even if masters were rated highly, they'd still be rated below slams so Nadal would not be a runaway GOAT on the basis of slams/masters won, (even rating them the same it would be 39 to 38not counting the WTF) though of course he will add more masters/slams in the future

 

[Kenshin]

Masters are extremely important, anyone who says otherwise does not know tennis. Some, such as Rome where nearly the No.4 GS.

The 70's where worse for players not turning up to Masters or even GS events. Players went where the money was and often to invitationals where they were guaranteed cash, win or lose. Players who choose not to participate is their problem, even Muster turned up to Kooyong to play Pat Cash in R1 knowing he was screwed before he started. Luckily the Sweeds (except Borg) turned up to everything to play tennis rather than take a cheque, Lendl was also pretty good at attendances.

I agree. It is certainly not near Grandslams in terms of significance but it is still a very important tournament. The Atp tournaments is mostly made up by masters 1000 and only the top elite has the privilige to participate. When considering a players career, it defininately needs to be considered.

 

[PMChambers]

If you want to compare greatness, using point system won't work, it's easily flawed. The number of GS won and RU come into play as do how you got there and who you played against.

As far as worth I rank them the following,
GS Win - 10,000 pt
GS RU - 6,000 pt
ATP1000 Win - 3,000 pt
GS SF - 3,000 pt
ATP1000 RU - 1,500 pt
GS QF - 1,500 pt

I value making a GS final about 2x a ATP1000 win, making finals is important, Semi at GS are about the same as a ATP1000.

 

[TMF]

Sampras fans give little weight(if any) for Master Series but Nadal fans overvalued them.

However, their view about the WTF is completely the opposite.

 

[PMChambers]

Fans are always bias, that what fan s are meant to be.

Of the 6 years he finished No1 he won 2x GS in 4 of them negating the effect of Masters, Masters only come into play in ranks when the GS are split. 96 was very close as he only won 1 GS, end of year there was less 2,000 points between 1 & 6 compared to today with 2,000 pt between 1 & 2 and 8,000 between 1 & 3.