Precise definition of the Career Golden Masters

timnz

Legend
It is more complicated than simply saying winning 9 distinctly different Masters 1000's, isn't it? Most people think that Federer would have to win the Monte Carlo AND Rome tournaments to have the Career Golden Masters - but he already has 9 distinct Masters 1000 tournaments.

1/ Indian Wells - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012
2/ Miami - 2005, 2006
3/ Hamburg - 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007
4/ Madrid Outdoor Clay - 2009, 2012
5/ Toronto/Montreal - 2004, 2006
6/ Cincinnati - 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014
7/ Madrid Indoor - 2006
8/ Shanghai - 2014
9/ Paris Indoor - 2011

Now you may say that Hamburg and the Madrid Outdoor clay are effectively the same event - but how exactly are they? Same goes for Madrid Indoor and Shanghai. So what more precise definition of the Career Golden Masters should there be - than simply saying 9 distinct Masters 1000's?

I don't believe Federer has achieved the career golden masters. I just think that a more precise definition is needed for it.
 

ScottleeSV

Hall of Fame
Personally I think you have to have won all the ones that are still active, which means only Djokovic can realistically do it.

But not taking away from Fed. 23 over 8 or 9 events is a damn fine effort.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Indeed a good question.

Some people reason by slots, there are nine master series slots. For example number 2 is Miami, number 9 is Paris. Nadal still needs to win slot number 2 and 9. If Paris get's replaced by let's say Brussels:), Nadal needs to win Brussels.

Shanghai is slot 8 = former Madrid Indoor
So Federer's Madrid 2006 is seen as the same master as Shanghai 2014


Hamburg was slot 5, replaced by Madrid Outdoor (which is not the same as Madrid Indoor).
So Federer's Hamburg 2005 is seen as the same master as Madrid 2009


So far this system works...

Till Rome and Madrid (till 2010 slot 4 and 5) swapped places and are now slot 5 and 4. Yet Federer's Madrid 2012 is not seen as different from his Madrid 2009, despite being in different slots. What if Rome get's replaced by Sydney? Federer still misses Monte Carlo and Rome, would he then need to win Monte Carlo and Sydney, despite having won the Sydney slot (slot 5). And if Sydney and Madrid swap places, does Federer need to win slot 4 Sydney, despite having won slot 4 Madrid 2012?

Here the system falls totally apart. The problem is Masters changing all the time, both the tournament itself as the slot.

There is no career golden masters, who btw invented that name?
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
Personally I think you have to have won all the ones that are still active, which means only Djokovic can realistically do it.

But not taking away from Fed. 23 over 8 or 9 events is a damn fine effort.

That surely can't be correct can it? You mean if in 2015 Cincinnati - Djokovic wins and get the career golden masters, and if in 2016 Cincinnati is dropped as a Masters 1000 event (like Hamburg was) and swapped with say Auckland, in 2016 Djokovic is then regarded as not having completed the Career Golden Masters anymore (until he wins Auckland?)
 

timnz

Legend
The ATP did

Indeed a good question.

Some people reason by slots, there are nine master series slots. For example number 2 is Miami, number 9 is Paris. Nadal still needs to win slot number 2 and 9. If Paris get's replaced by let's say Brussels:), Nadal needs to win Brussels.

Shanghai is slot 8 = former Madrid Indoor
So Federer's Madrid 2006 is seen as the same master as Shanghai 2014

Hamburg was slot 5, replaced by Madrid Outdoor (which is not the same as Madrid Indoor).

So far this system works...

Till Rome and Madrid (till 2010 slot 4 and 5) swapped places and are now slot 5 and 4. Yet Federer's Madrid 2012 is not seen as different from his Madrid 2009, despite being in different slots. What if Rome get's replaced by Sydney? Federer still misses Monte Carlo and Rome, would he then need to win Monte Carlo and Sydney, despite having won the Sydney slot (slot 5). And if Sydney and Madrid swap places, does Federer need to win slot 4 Sydney, despite having won slot 4 Madrid 2012?

Here the system falls totally apart. The problem is Masters changing all the time, both the tournament itself as the slot.

There is no career golden masters, who btw invented that name?

The ATP did. I personally would have preferred Career Masters Slam.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/08/32/Cincinnati-Draw-Preview.aspx

screenshot_by_nimbus_1.png
 
Last edited:

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's be honest, it's just an expression the ATP invented on the fly in order to increase the drama/interest.
 

AngieB

Banned
There is no phrase known as "Career Golden Masters" in tennis history because it is not ITF-sanctioned.

Creating these recent "career phrases" typically only apply to portions of the Open Era which may or may not have encompassed the tournaments required to accomplish the latest and greatest "career golden whatever"

Majoring in minors is futile and a waste of energy.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
There is no phrase known as "Career Golden Masters" in tennis history because it is not ITF-sanctioned.

Creating these recent "career phrases" typically only apply to portions of the Open Era which may or may not have encompassed the tournaments required to accomplish the latest and greatest "career golden whatever"

Majoring in minors is futile and a waste of energy.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

But there's more than twice the amount of those minors as there is majors!
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
That surely can't be correct can it? You mean if in 2015 Cincinnati - Djokovic wins and get the career golden masters, and if in 2016 Cincinnati is dropped as a Masters 1000 event (like Hamburg was) and swapped with say Auckland, in 2016 Djokovic is then regarded as not having completed the Career Golden Masters anymore (until he wins Auckland?)

Yeah, buddy! 8)

Does anyone know why it's called "Golden" Masters?
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
But there's more than twice the amount of those minors as there is majors!

So if I have two pounds of sand and you have 1 pound of gold which is worth more?

Tennis is a business and the ATP has to create events throughout the year in order to make lots of money. It does not mean those lesser events even though there are more of them are worth more than slams.

The other events are fillers. Extra frosting on the cake if you will.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
So if I have two pounds of sand and you have 1 pound of gold which is worth more?

Tennis is a business and the ATP has to create events throughout the year in order to make lots of money. It does not mean those lesser events even though there are more of them are worth more than slams.

The other events are fillers. Extra frosting on the cake if you will.

I realise that but those Masters tournaments are still important and still prestigious in their own right. You really do love your slams don't you cc0?! :shock:
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
I realise that but those Masters tournaments are still important and still prestigious in their own right. You really do love your slams don't you cc0?! :shock:

Up to a point. Masters tournaments do not make a great player's legacy, they only act as supporting characters in the story to look at after slams. Slams are the benchmark.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Up to a point. Masters tournaments do not make a great player's legacy, they only act as supporting characters in the story to look at after slams. Slams are the benchmark.

And yet they weren't up until around twenty years ago. Sampras really has a lot to answer for. :twisted:
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
And yet they weren't up until around twenty years ago. Sampras really has a lot to answer for. :twisted:

Sampras has zilch to answer for. He is tied with Nadal for the second greatest of the Open Era. Sampras never cared about Masters 1000 events, he only cared about slams. He could never get pumped for the Masters and has admitted that many times. He knew his legacy was based mostly on the slams and number one stats.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Sampras has zilch to answer for. He is tied with Nadal for the second greatest of the Open Era. Sampras never cared about Masters 1000 events, he only cared about slams. He could never get pumped for the Masters and has admitted that many times. He knew his legacy was based mostly on the slams and number one stats.

What I meant is that many people used to put nowhere near as much weight on the Slams until he started racking them up back in the 90s. No need to be so defensive cc0! :wink:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
What I meant is that many people used to put nowhere near as much weight on the Slams until he started racking them up back in the 90s. No need to be so defensive cc0! :wink:

But is that really true? While winning RG and the AO may have lagged behind for a period of time most of the top players always regularly played Wimbledon and the US Open. They were considered the pinnacle of tennis for as far back as I can remember especially Wimbledon!

Winning these 2 Slams and eventually the other 2 always carried the ultimate prestige!
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
What I meant is that many people used to put nowhere near as much weight on the Slams until he started racking them up back in the 90s. No need to be so defensive cc0! :wink:

I am not defensive at all, I am not even much of a Sampras fan but I am only stating what Sampras said himself, i.e. that slams were what mattered to him.

And no that is not correct that people did not care about slams until Sampras started racking them up. Slams were important long before that. Ask Borg or McEnroe for example.
 

timnz

Legend
Only Slam wins count?

Sampras has zilch to answer for. He is tied with Nadal for the second greatest of the Open Era. Sampras never cared about Masters 1000 events, he only cared about slams. He could never get pumped for the Masters and has admitted that many times. He knew his legacy was based mostly on the slams and number one stats.

In your opinion, do only Slam tournament wins count? Not WTF's, not Slam runner-up's? Does the fact that Nadal has two more Slam runner-ups count for anything or 16 more Masters 1000's? Also do Sampras WTF wins count at all? In my opinion, the tennis circuit is longer than 8 weeks a year.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Indeed a good question.

Some people reason by slots, there are nine master series slots. For example number 2 is Miami, number 9 is Paris. Nadal still needs to win slot number 2 and 9. If Paris get's replaced by let's say Brussels:), Nadal needs to win Brussels.

Shanghai is slot 8 = former Madrid Indoor
So Federer's Madrid 2006 is seen as the same master as Shanghai 2014


Hamburg was slot 5, replaced by Madrid Outdoor (which is not the same as Madrid Indoor).
So Federer's Hamburg 2005 is seen as the same master as Madrid 2009


So far this system works...

Till Rome and Madrid (till 2010 slot 4 and 5) swapped places and are now slot 5 and 4. Yet Federer's Madrid 2012 is not seen as different from his Madrid 2009, despite being in different slots. What if Rome get's replaced by Sydney? Federer still misses Monte Carlo and Rome, would he then need to win Monte Carlo and Sydney, despite having won the Sydney slot (slot 5). And if Sydney and Madrid swap places, does Federer need to win slot 4 Sydney, despite having won slot 4 Madrid 2012?

Here the system falls totally apart. The problem is Masters changing all the time, both the tournament itself as the slot.

There is no career golden masters, who btw invented that name?

This. 10 points.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
It is more complicated than simply saying winning 9 distinctly different Masters 1000's, isn't it? Most people think that Federer would have to win the Monte Carlo AND Rome tournaments to have the Career Golden Masters - but he already has 9 distinct Masters 1000 tournaments.

1/ Indian Wells - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012
2/ Miami - 2005, 2006
3/ Hamburg - 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007
4/ Madrid Outdoor Clay - 2009, 2012
5/ Toronto/Montreal - 2004, 2006
6/ Cincinnati - 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014
7/ Madrid Indoor - 2006
8/ Shanghai - 2014
9/ Paris Indoor - 2011

Now you may say that Hamburg and the Madrid Outdoor clay are effectively the same event - but how exactly are they? Same goes for Madrid Indoor and Shanghai. So what more precise definition of the Career Golden Masters should there be - than simply saying 9 distinct Masters 1000's?

I don't believe Federer has achieved the career golden masters. I just think that a more precise definition is needed for it.

I think Gazelle's post tells what it is.

Here's some more completion record:

Of the 11 Masters Federer has been a part of, he misses 3 - Stuttgart, Monte Carlo and Rome
Of the 10 Masters Nadal has been a part of, he misses 3 - Miami, Shanghai and Paris
Of the 10 Masters Djokovic has been a part of, he misses 2 - Cincinnati and Hamburg

Federer cant win Stuttgart any more, Djokovic can't win Hamburg any more. Nadal can still win Shanghai, Miami and Paris :) True Master of Masters in waiting :)
 
Top