Royal Slam
- Thread starter itrium84
- Start date
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
It's summer in Australia in January.
It's spring in the USO when the Miami Masters is held.
OK, how about the slow HC slam?
metsman
G.O.A.T.
rafter, roddick, rafa are the only ones to do it. Agassi got to the final of the USO after winning Canada/Cincy but was stopped by Pete. The closest Federer ever got was in 07 where he lost to Djokovic at Montreal in the finals. He was 6-5 40-0 in the first set so maybe if he wins that one he does it.Canada + Cinci + USO = Summer Slam.
70後
Hall of Fame
The Colonial Quintuple (Australian Open, Wimbledon, Canadian Open, Hongkong Open and US Open) may be rarer than the CYGS. It is made much more difficult by the fact that, unlike the Olympics held every four years, the Hongkong Open is not always held. You go a decade without it being held at all, if they can't find a sponsor. In recent years only the women's event has been held.
Laver and Agassi have the Career Colonial Quintuple.
While we are on the topic of 'uples and apples; 4 GS + 9 Masters + YEC = The Super Quattuordecuple
Laver and Agassi have the Career Colonial Quintuple.
While we are on the topic of 'uples and apples; 4 GS + 9 Masters + YEC = The Super Quattuordecuple
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Looking at it the Clay Slam must be the hardest, 3 Masters + 1 Major. Even for Rafa for all the unprecedented domination on clay, he has done it only once.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I would agree.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Let's not forget "Andre the real deal Agassi".
Andre needs: MC and Hamburg.
In my book he was the closest to completing this set. He hardly played MC and Hamburg those days. In fact Masters weren't mandatory at all during his time. Only he has won the big 7. Isn't it special!
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
Indian Wells
Miami
German Open
Canadian Open
Cincinnati
Madrid Indoors
Madrid Clay
Shanghai
Paris
That's 9 Masters. So even if you don't count Madrid as a different tournament although indoor hard and outdoor clay coudn't be much more different. But even if you do that he's won the same amount of different Masters tournaments as Djokovic.
Difference with the YEC/WTF is a different name. Like the Premier League and old First division in football, it's the same tournament. Or the Miami Masters and the Sony Ericson Open.
duaneeo
Legend
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. I think you didnt' get me there. I am not counting Madrid tournaments as one. I am counting German Open and Madrid Clay as one. Same goes with Shanghai Masters and Madrid Indoor Open. What you're basically saying is Federer has won 9 different Masters from a possible 11 tournaments. That's not level playing field and a fair comparison. At any given point there are only 9 different Masters. It becomes unfair to players if tournaments keep changing, hence the concept of slots. Federer has won only 7 of those, Djoker 8.
2. Difference with YEC and WTF is not just in name!
Fed won 4 YEC as TMC and 2 as WTF. They were different tournaments, ie, different venues. Heck even surfaces changed at some points in between. Yet as far as legacy goes Federer's combined haul is what matters. Because they are essentially one tournament. Similarly Shanghai Masters today is different from the TMC at Shanghai back then because they are different kind of tournaments even if venues are the same.
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
If somebody does it should be known in his name. Like Dimitrov Slam, may be. Who knows
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
That's "Tennis Masters Series records and statistics":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
xFedal
Legend
Rafael Is very smart... He about to rise from the ashes and win another Medal to make 2016 another successful season.A 2 year ranking was proposed by Nadal if you can believe it! He was running out of steam and about to lose his #1 ranking to Nole the 1st time and while VP of the ATP, he was pushing for it! Roger was the President at the time and put the kibosh on it; poor thing! Rafa isn't as innocent and slow as we think; always maneuvering and "running game" on all of us and his fellow competitors!
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
1. I think you didnt' get me there. I am not counting Madrid tournaments as one. I am counting German Open and Madrid Clay as one. Same goes with Shanghai Masters and Madrid Indoor Open. What you're basically saying is Federer has won 9 different Masters from a possible 11 tournaments. That's not level playing field and a fair comparison. At any given point there are only 9 different Masters. It becomes unfair to players if tournaments keep changing, hence the concept of slots. Federer has won only 7 of those, Djoker 8.
2. Difference with YEC and WTF is not just in name!
Djokovic has won 8 of 11. Djokovic has played in all those tournaments. Federer has won 9 of 11. It's a level playing field. You're the one trying to move the goal posts.
Surface form hard to hard yeah? Different venues but the same tournament. Not all the slams have been at the same venue but they are the same tournament.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. I don't know how hard it is to get it. It's not level playing field . Djokovic and Federer hasn't played 11 Masters for the same number of times. The chances federer got to compete at his best at those 11 is different from what Djokovic has got.
Think about why ATP was hyping up djoker's career masters Slam around last Cincinnati as the first man to ever complete all Masters if he's really won only 8 of the 11.
2. No, YECs during Federer's time moved from hard to carpet to hard again. The tournaments were that different, yet we count it as one, because they are essentially one tournament. See who is moving goal posts here. When Majors and Tour finals move venues or change surfaces they are one tournament, but when Masters do, they are different? You got to understand at any given point there are only 4 Majors (from 1920s or so) and 1 YEC (when things were standardised, from around 00's or so) and similarly 9 Masters (at least since ATP took over things in 1990).
3. If Madrid HC and Madrid CC are different tournaments then Federer has played 12 different Masters (won 9) one of which was Stuttgart which he didn't win, and you know why. Hope at least now what I mean by level playing field is clear. Djoker has played only 11 such, winning 8.
By your logic:
1. Federer has won 9 of 11 (if they were really important tier 1 tournaments why were two important tournaments scraped off? They weren't. It simply switched places with others. This is the logic Wikipedia uses too when listing masters record).
2. Federer has won 2 of the 2 different YECs, while Djokovic only one of two.
Last edited:
Fiero425
Legend
If a tournament isn't on the tour anymore, you can't fault Nole for not owning one; no Madrid Indoor or Grand Slam Cup on schedule! When he acquires Cincy, he'll own what was available making it 9 of 9 Masters 1000's!
duaneeo
Legend
Likewise, if a tournament isn't on the tour anymore, you can't fault Federer for having won it. People counting two different Masters tournaments as one? Come on.
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
Oh ok, so they need to be exactly the same number of opportunities to win the titles for it to count. That makes sense.
Djokovic played in both tournaments when he was already a grand slam champion and likewise in 2007 when he was already a masters champion. No excuses, he's played them, the idea that the have to have had as many opportunities to win each title is just ridiculous.
Why do you think? Anything to generate interest. He has only won 8 of the 11 he's played. That is a fact. The tournaments have different names are in different places and on different courts. Just because they have replaced a tournament doesn't mean they are the same tournament. Would've thought they were obvious.
Australian Open used to be grass. So did the US Open. The US Open was once clay as well. Those two have both been played in different places. But it's the same tournament. As is the end of year finals. But if you want to call it two different tournaments you're welcome to do that. Have fun.
So Fed's won 9 out of 12 and Djokovic 8 out of 11. Doesn't make much difference. Fed's won a slightly higher percentage of the masters tournaments he's played but it's basically the same. Neither have won all of them though, so who cares. Even if they had, they are only masters tournaments. That they' won all the slams is the important thing.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Gist of your post:
1. It's comparable even if two players haven't got the same opportunity. Level playing field is not important
2. When Majors and Finals change venues and surfaces they are one tournament because they are. When Masters do they are different because they are. (point to ponder: why has there been always only 9 Masters)
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
They have had the opportunity to win those tournaments at least the 11 in question. Djokovic played at them in 2007 and 2008. He was already a very good player by this point. Federer is much older so of course he has had more chances. But we don't do that. They have had opportunities for these tournaments while they are good players. That's all you can do. Players rarely have exactly the same number of opportunities for any particular tournament. You're certainly reaching with that argument.
The Masters don't just change surface. They change name, city and sometimes continent. To call them the same tournament is absurd. Just because they have replaced a tournament. You could say it is of the same value as the tournament that preceded it and indeed why would you not? But it is not the same tournament and any attempt to claim otherwise is just a transparent attempt to inflate Djokovic's achievements in tournaments that aren't even that important anyway.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. The question here is were the players "presented" with same number of opportunities (the answer is no), not if players "took" the same number of opportunities. Level playing field is all that matters here.
2. YECs too change all that, still I hear nobody claim Federer's TMC and WTF titles as different.
3. That is exactly the point. It is because they are of the exact same value nobody counts TMC and WTF as different. Federer winning 9/12 "different tournaments" is a trivia just like he has won only 7/9 "different slots". The latter is just much more important when considering Masters versatility. It seems you have come to terms with the idea that there can only be 4 Majors and 1 Finals but not with the fact that there are only 9 Masters.
I have summarised your arguments in my last post quite aptly. I am not sure how much sense it makes.
TupeloDanger
Professional
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
Unless two players start their career at the same time. They will not. There is no such thing as a level playing field unless two players start their career on the same day, never get injured, (or get injured at exactly the same time for exactly the same length of time) and retire on the same day. Even then you can make cases with draws and whatever. So it's pointless to try and get a completely level playing field. What I would consider of note (although not great note - they are only masters tournaments), would be either winning at least one of every masters tournament that a player as played, nobody is close to doing that, Federer is closest with 9 out of 12, Djokovic may well overtake him with 9 out of 11 soon but so what, both players have achieved far greater things in their careers, these are little more than a footnote. Or what would be considerably more impressive winning every one that is contested in a season. Neither have done that either and in all probability, neither will.
It's the end of year finals for the best players in the world. A change of name doesn't mean much, any more than the Sony Ericson Open being the Miami Open makes it a different tournament. But if you want to call it a different tournament go ahead.
If say the Australian Open stopped being a slam and say China for instance got a grand slam the Chinese Open. I would not call it the same tournament. If that happened next year and Djokovic won one, it wouldn't be his 7th Chinese Open, it would be his first. Likewise if for instance Federer won it, it wouldn't be his fifth, Nadal it wouldn't be his second. It would be a different tournament, just because it would have taken the slot that the Australian Open was in, it's still a different tournament.
If for instance Djokovic hadn't won Madrid but had won Hamburg would you still say he'd won 8 of the 9 masters? You may claim you would but I doubt you would and nor would people mention it. They'd see Madrid as missing, they wouldn't say well he won the one that was previously in it's spot.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. You have no idea what a level playing field is even after my explanation with emphasis on certain words.
2. TMC to WTF wasnt just a change of name??
You are the one who thinks tournaments are different if they change venue, sometimes even continents. This time there was a change in continents too. It seems you have pretty opportunistic logic there. The bottom line is you are willing to apply the concept of slots when it comes to Majors and YECs but not Masters, as simple as that. Just like you say "it's the finals for best players", same logic applies to Masters too - they too come with a specific requirement and for a specific case.3. If Djokovic won Hamburg and not Madrid people would still consider him as having won 8/9, I am willing to bet on it
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
1. You have no idea what a level playing field is even after my explanation with emphasis on certain words.
2. TMC to WTF wasnt just a change of name??
3. If Djokovic won Hamburg and not Madrid people would still consider him as having won 8/9, I am willing to bet on it
You're explanation was crap. I'm sorry. Players are almost never presented with the same number of opportunities. The point is both have opportunities. Counting Stuttgart for Fed is fine. Along with any others for other players who've played in when they were young. He was already a pretty good player by then anyway, it was an opportunity to win it. He didn't. Djokovic played Hamburg and Madrid indoors as a masters, then as a grand slam champion. He had opportunities. You could also say it's not a level playing field because of having to win best of 3 finals now and not 5, not to mention being treated more seriously than they used to be. There is never a completely level playing field. So forget that.
Just a change of name, same unique format, same exclusive qualification criteria. It's the same tournament. The nature of that tournament is to move it about that's the difference. The nature of the German Open is not that. In fact it still exists it has merely been downgraded. How can you count titles in that as another tournament whilst it still exists. It's been replaced, by a different tournament, it's not that hard to comprehend.
There is no doubt in my mind people would not be saying that. They would be saying Madrid and Cincinnati are missing if that hypothetical had been the case. Although it is all hypothetical and we cannot know that prove it either way so no bet could be won or lost.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I cannot further explain to a tennis follower who believes having a level playing field by being presented equal number of opportunities can be compared to or is same as the level playing field by virtue of playing the exact same opponents. Even if my idea of level playing field doesnt match your crazy correctness at least it is more just than your idea of simply counting number of tournaments one barely participated. Leave it bro..
And oh, nobody is counting titles at Hamburg as titles at Madrid. That's the flaw in your perception. Titles at Hamburg is counted against the slot Hamburg previously and Madrid currently filled. Yeah true, the German Open still exists as a downgraded version, and likewise Shanghai TMC still exists as a downgraded version, so I assume by your logic if am considering YEC versatility then I can ask, how can you count titles at TMC as different when there exists Shanghai already as a downgraded tournament. YEC, 1000s and 500s all have their own set of rules. The continued opportunistic circus played with tournaments to suit one's view point is quite comical.
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
People don't have the same number of opportunities, it doesn't happen. I merely said that to show how absurd the idea of a completely level playing field is. Djokovic played 3 times in Hamburg and 4 times in Madrid. That's not barely playing a tournament. Probably more than some top players played some of the masters back in the day.
You win masters tournaments not slots. On the wikipedia page for a player's career stats (which seems to be what you are basing your whole argument on)they have slots because there are nine masters and it would be confusing to have every masters tournament there has ever been on the table but it doesn't make it the same tournament. A replacement is not the same. A tournament that by it's nature moves to different locations every few years is not the same as a tournament that is at a particular place, is named after said place that is replaced by a different tournament under a different name, run by different organisers in a different part of the world on a different court and so on and so forth. It's quite simple really.
In answer to your question, It wasn't called the Shanghai masters cup any more than the current edition is called the London World Tour Finals. Shanghai was the venue. On a topical note, the Olympic tennis tournament last time weren't called the Wimbledon Olympic tennis, it was Olympic tennis, likewise with this one (don't know the name of the venue) it is just Olympic tennis. There is a difference between venues and tournaments. On the other hand Hamburg, or the German Open was that before and it is that now. The tournament is in the same place and under the same name, at the same venue, it's the same tournament, it's merely been downgraded.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
??? I'm basing on Wikipedia?
I just stated yet another place where people use my logic. No you still haven't got any clue what level playing field is when comparing two different players. And I have realised you're never going to get it either.
Continued opportunistic circus with logic. The same tournament as TMC Shanghai exists at the same venue as a downgraded Masters, just a name and rule change to accommodate the downgrade. Much like German open. None of these are anyway in any position to validate your notion on what makes a tournament "truly different for a player when assessing his legacy".
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
??? I'm basing on Wikipedia?
No you still haven't got any clue what level playing field is when comparing two different players. And I have realised you're never going to get it either.
Continued opportunistic circus with logic. The same tournament as TMC Shanghai exists at the same venue as a downgraded Masters, just a name and rule change to accommodate the downgrade. Much like German open. None of these are anyway in any position to validate your notion on what makes a tournament "truly different for a player when assessing his legacy".
Nope they don't they just don't put every masters tournament there's ever been in the same table what would be the point. They would think nobody would be stupid enough to think they are the same tournament because they are replacements. They would think, the different name place, surface, organisation etc. would be a big enough clue. But it seems not.
No I have, I just realised there is no such thing. You are still yet to realise that however. Pity. Maybe one day eh?
The Masters Cup that's what it's called, or what it was called then. A tournament which changes it's venue. Shanghai is the venue. There has never been a tournament called the Masters Cup Shanghai. Just like the Olympic tennis isn't the Olympic tennis centre Olympic tennis. Or Wimbledon Olympic tennis last time etc. Nor was it a downgraded Wimbledon, it was just a venue like Shanghai for the masters cup. So it is completely unlike the German Open which is a tournament in itself. Not a venue.
Of course Masters tournaments are largely irrelevant to an all time great player's legacy anyway so that takes the pressure off somewhat.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
The circus goes on.. from continental changes to surface changes to name changes to what not. I think things have settled now... Digging up irrelevant details of a tournament to cite some difference between another to drive a point no way related. Hey wanna hear one more? Hamburg is clay and Shanghai is hard, I think that's enough for it to be different
You don't even get what it means to be presented with equal opportunities when assessing two career or hardly understands relevance of playing tournaments in peak forms. It is in this regard I say "a player barely playing a tournament". The number of chances Federer got to win Madrid indoors and Hamburg in peak shape is different from what Djokovic got. Much like it was in the case of Madrid clay for both players, this time reverse. These are so obvious man. And you were stupid enough to literally take the word "barely" there and give it a reply. Wanna hear an analogy for your dumb world view?
Guy1: Emerson got more Majors than laver, hence wins in most important metric.
Guy2: Not a fair comparison. Laver was a pro during his peak and wasn't able to compete in Majors during his peak. Not a level playing field.
Guy1: There's never level playing field in tennis unless two players start and end career on same day, with similar injury breaks. Even then you can argue the opponents were different. Also they both grew up differently with different genes running in their body, so there's no level playing field, forget that.
You're the guy1 here. Heck you could have just said 9 > 8 instead of 9/12 > 8/11 without the emphasis on 12 and 11, after all we have to "forget" level playing field, no? Even for such never seen before levels of wisdom the question remains. Is my criterion more just than yours even if not perfect?
Let's put it this way:
Federer has won 9/12 different Masters events.
Djokovic has won 8/11 different Masters events.
Federer has won 7/9 different Masters slots.
Djokovic has won 8/9 different Masters slots.
Both are meaningful trivias. One last time, do you really think people would think first piece of trivia is more impressive than second? I find the first one more meaningful as it has a more just cause.
Last edited:
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
The circus goes on.. from continental changes to surface changes to name changes to what not. I think things have settled now... Digging up irrelevant details of a tournament to cite some difference between another to drive a point no way related. Hey wanna hear one more? Hamburg is clay and Shanghai is hard, I think that's enough for it to be different
You don't even get what it means to be presented with equal opportunities when assessing two career or hardly understands relevance of playing tournaments in peak forms. It is in this regard I say "a player barely playing a tournament". The number of chances Federer got to win Madrid indoors and Hamburg in peak shape is different from what Djokovic got. Much like it was in the case of Madrid clay for both players, this time reverse. These are so obvious man. And you were stupid enough to literally take the word "barely" there and give it a reply. Wanna hear an analogy for your dumb world view?
Guy1: Emerson got more Majors than laver, hence wins in most important metric.
Guy2: Not a fair comparison. Laver was a pro during his peak and wasn't able to compete in Majors during his peak. Not a level playing field.
Guy1: There's never level playing field in tennis unless two players start and end career on same day, with similar injury breaks. Even then you can argue the opponents were different. Also they both grew up differently with different genes running in their body, so there's no level playing field, forget that.
You're the guy1 here. Heck you could have just said 9 > 8 instead of 9/12 > 8/11 without the emphasis on 12 and 11, after all we have to "forget" level playing field, no? Even for such never seen before levels of wisdom the question remains. Is my criterion more just than yours even if not perfect?
Let's put it this way:
Federer has won 9/12 different Masters events.
Djokovic has won 8/11 different Masters events.
Federer has won 7/9 different Masters slots.
Djokovic has won 8/9 different Masters slots.
Both are meaningful trivias. One last time, do you really think people would think first piece of trivia is more impressive than second? I find the first one more meaningful as it has a more just cause.
Irrelevant details like it being a different tournament. "But it replaced so it's the same". "No a replacement means it's taken it's place but it isn't different." "But it's replaced it, slots how many masters slots have been won" etc. That well known phrase. The only thing these tournaments have in common with each other is that they are masters tournaments and usually at the same time. It doesn't make them the same tournament.
Yeah well I say too bad. We don't live in a fair world, but as you say Djokovic didn't have too many peak years at Hamburg just like Fed for the Clay Madrid. Fed was able to win Madrid however without being at his
I'm afraid it was a pitiful analogy so I won't waste time dissecting that one.
People win events, they don't win slots. It's not about picking the one that sounds more impressive anyway. It's about the more accurate and truthful and 9 out of 12 and 8 out of 11 is the more accurate and reflective way of putting it. Sorry, but if it's any consolation Djokovic is likely to make that 9 out of 11 and have won more different masters tournaments. Good on him.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Man the level of nonsense. So much for cherry picking on words
Of course players win events, sometimes they are designated tournaments to fill a slot, which is the point. I can show you enough places where people talkin about winning "slots" hopeful of readers "getting" it. And ya I was indeed talking about which is more impressive (not that it is any less true or accurate).
macattack
Professional
Nothing of substance to add here, except this made me bust out laughing. Poor Mac.
Similar threads
