The definition of a career Golden Masters is flimsy

[timnz]

Is it winning 9 Masters 1000's? Federer has won 9 distinct Masters 1000's already and people say he hasn't won the Career Golden Masters yet (he has won Hamburg and the Madrid Indoor - when they were Masters 1000's as well as 7 of the current 9). Djokovic has 8 - and supposedly needs only Cincinatti to achieve the career Golden Masters.

So Federer has 9 distinct Masters 1000's - and apparently is 2 away
Djokovic has 8 distinct Masters 1000's - and is only 1 away ???? Does this make sense???

Here's an interesting scenerio. If Djokovic wins Cincinatti in 2016 - and achieves the Career Golden Masters - he has 9 of 9 - but Shanghai stops being a Masters 1000 in 2017 and get replaced by say , Sydney which say Djokovic doesn't win in 2017. Does he then go from 9 of 9 back to 8 of 9? Does he then have to win the Career Golden Masters all over again?

Here are Federer's 9:


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, 2015
7/ Madrid Indoor - 2006
8/ Shanghai - 2014
9/ Paris Indoor - 2011

 

[nolefam_2024]

I understand but MC and Rome never vanished, both have long long long long history. Where are those titles in fed's resume? While Hamburg stopped by 2009 when Novak was just starting. And got replaced by Madrid, its simple really unless you want to complicate it.

 

[timnz]

I understand but MC and Rome never vanished, both have long long long long history. Where are those titles in fed's resume? While Hamburg stopped by 2009 when Novak was just starting. And got replaced by Madrid, its simple really unless you want to complicate it.

And if one of the current 9 drops off being a Masters 1000 then is Djokovic back to 8 of 9?

 

[nolefam_2024]

And if one of the current 9 drops off being a Masters 1000 then is Djokovic back to 8 of 9?

Hmm, it will be replaced by someone else which Novak would have already won. Same as Lendl. 8/9

 

[timnz]

Hmm, it will be replaced by someone else which Novak would have already won. Same as Lendl. 8/9

That's an assumption. What if it is a new event like Sydney (name chosen at random)?

 

[nolefam_2024]

That's an assumption. What if it is a new event like Sydney (name chosen at random)?

What is assumption? That they makes 10 masters? Then yes, its obvious he won't have won it.
If they replace it with any current ones, it will be 8/9.

 

[Sysyphus]

I agree with OP, and think this is a more interesting point than most will think at first.

Masters that get replaced aren't the same just because they get replaced by another. This fact muddles the waters somewhat in these comparisons.

 

[timnz]

What is assumption? That they makes 10 masters? Then yes, its obvious he won't have won it.
If they replace it with any current ones, it will be 8/9.

So he will lose the Career Golden Masters..... My point is the definition is flimsy. There has to be more complexity than simply winning 9 distinct Masters 1000's - a statistic that Federer has already achieved.

Here is another point about Djokovic. In 2008 there was still Hamburg as a Masters 1000. In 2008 Djokovic won a Slam and the WTF. So he was already a top player back then. So really Djokovic is 8 of 10 at the moment.

 

[nolefam_2024]

So he will lose the Career Golden Masters.....

Of course if he is still active

 

[HipRotation]

Monte Carlo and Rome are just too big to ignore, Monte Carlo has been around forever and Rome has the clay prestige only bettered by the French. Even Sampras has won Rome

 

[timnz]

Of course if he is still active

So you can have the Career Golden Masters taken away from you if you have previously won it. Would he have to give back a trophy (there's likely to be trophy).

Sorry to be sarcastic. I am just trying to show that the definition simply doesn't hold up.

 

[timnz]

Monte Carlo and Rome are just too big to ignore, Monte Carlo has been around forever and Rome has the clay prestige only bettered by the French. Even Sampras has won Rome

And Djokovic didn't win Hamburg. I am not saying that Federer has won it. I agree he has to win Monte Carlo and Rome. My point is simply saying that one has to win 9 distinct Masters 1000 - just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

There have always been 9 Masters. That is a constant numbers. Some were replaced by others, which was out of players' control. What was in their control is to win the ones that were present in their moments.
When looking at all kinds of Masters tournaments, Lendl won 11 out of 12 different Masters tournaments in which he participated in, only missing Paris. But during his time, the Masters list changed a lot, almost every 2nd year I believe, which prevented him from winning 9 under the same list.
According to wiki, Federer won 8 out of 11 Masters he participated in (I guess they count Madrid indoor hard and clay as one, not sure), with him missing Monte Carlo, Rome and Stuttgart. If we separate two Madrids, that is 9 out of 12. Under one list though, which is the current one running since 2009, he won 7 out of 9.
Djokovic won 8 out of 10, missing Cincinnati and Hamburg (or 8 out of 11 if we separate two Madrids). But, under the current list, Djokovic won 8 out of 9, only missing Cincinnati. If he manages to win Cincinnati before any new change in Masters list is made, the Golden Masters will be complete and nothing can ruin it.

 

[HipRotation]

And Djokovic didn't win Hamburg.

Djokovic has won clay Madrid which is the substitute for Hamburg. If Rome was substituted for a different event on the calendar then there would be some sort of argument but not like this.

 

[veroniquem]

No, Fed does NOT have 9 different masters, he has 7. Hamburg and Madrid are the same master (3rd clay, one replaced the other but it's still the same master). Same thing for Madrid indoor and Shanghai: 1st fall.
Fed misses 2 : M-C and Rome
Nadal misses 2: Miami and Paris
Djoko misses 1: Cincy
Which is why Djoko is the closest to have all 9.

 

[PeterHo]

I think to win career masters, its the 9 master tournaments that are STILL running. So if say madrid becomes another tournament one day, then Nole will drop to 7 different masters won.

Wait too long and the tournaments change and it won't be the same anymore.

 

[timnz]

Djokovic has won clay Madrid which is the substitute for Hamburg. If Rome was substituted for a different event on the calendar then there would be some sort of argument but not like this.

So you are now moving into a different definition. That is good. So you think it means that someone has to win the 9 'slots' of the year? But that has issues also, yes? What if the slots change? People are talking about a Grass Masters 1000 between the FO and Wimbledon - that would mean dropping probably a Clay Masters 1000 from the 3 clay slot period between Miami and the FO.

 

[Sysyphus]

There have always been 9 Masters.

There have always been nine in a single season, but that's missing the point made of the OP.

The fact that Madrid replaced Hamburg doesn't make them the same tournament, for instance. These things muddies the waters in any case, whether one thinks the invented golden masters record remains as constant or not.

 

[timnz]

I think to win career masters, its the 9 master tournaments that are STILL running. So if say madrid becomes another tournament one day, then Nole will drop to 7 different masters won.

Wait too long and the tournaments change and it won't be the same anymore.

So he would go from having won the Career Golden Masters to losing it again? Trophy returned to the ATP?

 

[timnz]

There have always been 9 Masters. That is a constant numbers. Some were replaced by others, which was out of players' control. What was in their control is to win the ones that were present in their moments.
When looking at all kinds of Masters tournaments, Lendl won 11 out of 12 different Masters tournaments in which he participated in, only missing Paris. But during his time, the Masters list changed a lot, almost every 2nd year I believe, which prevented him from winning 9 under the same list.
According to wiki, Federer won 8 out of 11 Masters he participated in (I guess they count Madrid indoor hard and clay as one, not sure), with him missing Monte Carlo, Rome and Stuttgart. If we separate two Madrids, that is 9 out of 12. Under one list though, which is the current one running since 2009, he won 7 out of 9.
Djokovic won 8 out of 10, missing Cincinnati and Hamburg (or 8 out of 11 if we separate two Madrids). But, under the current list, Djokovic won 8 out of 9, only missing Cincinnati. If he manages to win Cincinnati before any new change in Masters list is made, the Golden Masters will be complete and nothing can ruin it.

Madrid indoor is definitely distinct from Madrid clay - different surface, different time of year. Federer has won 9 distinct Masters 1000's.

 

[nolefam_2024]

So you can have the Career Golden Masters taken away from you if you have previously won it. Would he have to give back a trophy (there's likely to be trophy).

Sorry to be sarcastic. I am just trying to show that the definition simply doesn't hold up.

Nope, I said if they ADD 10th masters and Novak is active, then yeah, I can understand it taken away from Novak.
If its replaced, then choose one of the replaced places. Its injustice otherwise to players. Because Novak in long run could win Madrid indoor and Hamburg but Roger couldn't win Rome and MC even if he somehow had matchpoint to win some ( sorry to be sarcastic )

 

[timnz]

There have always been nine in a single season, but that's missing the point made of the OP.

The fact that Madrid replaced Hamburg doesn't make them the same tournament, for instance. These things muddies the waters in any case, whether one thinks the invented golden masters record remains as constant or not.

It gets even murkier when you consider that the changed the order that Monte Carlo, Rome and Madrid are played in. Yes Madrid replaced Hamburg initially, but now you could consider that Rome and Madrid have swapped - so Madrid has replaced Rome now.

 

[timnz]

Nope, I said if they ADD 10th masters and Novak is active, then yeah, I can understand it taken away from Novak.
If its replaced, then choose one of the replaced places. Its injustice otherwise to players. Because Novak in long run could win Madrid indoor and Hamburg but Roger couldn't win Rome and MC even if he somehow had matchpoint to win some ( sorry to be sarcastic )

I neve think an achievement should be taken away from a player. If he won it - he should be always allowed to keep the trophy.

Question: How is Novak going to win Hamburg now? or the Madrid indoor ?

 

[veroniquem]

I think to win career masters, its the 9 master tournaments that are STILL running. So if say madrid becomes another tournament one day, then Nole will drop to 7 different masters won.

Wait too long and the tournaments change and it won't be the same anymore.

It doesn't matter how often they change as long as the total # remains 9. It's whatever tournament occupies a given "slot". Most masters have not changed much however
1- IW (since 1987)
2- Miami (since 1987)
3- M-C (since 1970)
4- Rome (since 1970)
5- Madrid ( since 2009, 1978-2008 was Hamburg)
6- Canada (since 1978, alternates between Toronto and Montreal)
7- Cincy ( since 1981)
8- Shanghai (since 2009, 2002-2008 was Madrid ind, before was Stuttgart ind)
9- Paris (since 1989)

ETA: if they add a 10th master, then players will have to win the new one on top, whatever that is. But there is no possible substitution with 3rd clay (or 1st fall). In order to have this one counted, one will have to have won Madrid OR Hamburg for clay. The 10th master will just be a new slot.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I neve think an achievement should be taken away from a player. If he won it - he should be always allowed to keep the trophy.

Question: How is Novak going to win Hamburg now? or the Madrid indoor ?

You do understand its not player's who choose which masters are to stay and go right? Rome and MC have been on the tour since ages. And they STAYED. Did Hamburg stay? No, we all know politics that made Shanghai a new masters and Madrid shift to clay INSTEAD of Hamburg. Would have been same for older masters as well.

Roger is not complete without Rome/MC and Novak is complete if he wins Cincy.

 

[Sysyphus]

It doesn't matter how often they change as long as the total # remains 9. It's whatever tournament occupies a given "slot". Most masters have not changed much however
1- IW (since 1987)
2- Miami (since 1987)
3- M-C (since 1970)
4- Rome (since 1970)
5- Madrid ( since 2009, 1978-2008 was Hamburg)
6- Canada (since 1978, alternates between Toronto and Montreal)
7- Cincy ( since 1981)
8- Shanghai (since 2009, 2002-2008 was Madrid ind, before was Stuttgart ind)
9- Paris (since 1989)

So Fed has in effect won both Rome and Madrid then, given that he has won tournaments in both those "slots" in the masters set.

Good to know.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

So you are now moving into a different definition. That is good. So you think it means that someone has to win the 9 'slots' of the year? But that has issues also, yes? What if the slots change? People are talking about a Grass Masters 1000 between the FO and Wimbledon - that would mean dropping probably a Clay Masters 1000 from the 3 clay slot period between Miami and the FO.

Here is what I think - If Djokovic wins Cincy before any new change, the Golden Masters is his. If a change happens lets say next year, he will probably have to win all 9 all over again to achieve the actual Golden Masters, or Masters Jackpot as I like to call it. But he will always have 8 out of 9 under the 2009-2015 system.

There have always been nine in a single season, but that's missing the point made of the OP.

The fact that Madrid replaced Hamburg doesn't make them the same tournament, for instance. These things muddies the waters in any case, whether one thinks the invented golden masters record remains as constant or not.

Because Masters events do change, it is impossible to win all. But winning all current 9 is possible. Djokovic managed to win 8 out of 9 under the current system, which is since 2009. With him the unique thing is that all of the Masters he won are still active ones. Fed won Hamburg before but did the same with Madrid clay in the current system. He won Madrid indoor but also won Shanghai.
If we are going to look at all times, Fed won 9 out of 12 because he participated in 12 different Masters. He is missing MC, Rome and Stuttgart. Looking at every system individually, he won 6 out of 9 in 2002-08 system, missing MC, Rome and Paris, while in the current 2009- system he also won 6 out of 9, again missing MC, Rome, but this time Montreal instead of Paris which he won in 2011.
Djokovic overall won 8 out of 11, missing Cincy, Madrid indoor and Hamburg. Under the 2002-08 system, he won only 4 out of 9, but under the current one, he won 8 out of 9, only missing Cincy. If he wins that title before any change happens, the collection is complete.

 

[veroniquem]

So Fed has in effect won both Rome and Madrid then, given that he has won tournaments in both those "slots" in the masters set.

Good to know.

No, you don't understand. "Slot" has nothing to do with date. Rome and M-C have been the first 2 clay masters since the start- 1970 (nothing to do with the permutation of starting date, just 2 out of the 3 clay masters). Madrid REPLACED Hamburg. It is the only clay master that has changed. So in order to have the 3 masters on clay one has to have M-C, Rome and EITHER Hamburg OR Madrid.

And to reply to the title of this thread: the definition of what the 9 masters or super 9 are is not flimsy at all. It's crystal clear (unless one is trying to cheat of course )

 

[Sysyphus]

No, you don't understand. "Slot" has nothing to do with date. Rome and M-C have been the first 2 clay masters since the start- 1970 (nothing to do with the permutation of starting date, just 2 out of the 3 clay masters). Madrid REPLACED Hamburg. It is the only clay master that has changed. So in order to have the 3 masters on clay one have M-C, Rome and EITHER Hamburg OR Madrid.

And to reply to the title of this thread: the definition of what the 9 masters or super 9 are is not flimsy at all. It's crystal clear (unless one is trying to cheat of course )

Which means that you do actually assign some specialness to the actual venue, which quite clearly contradicts the notion of there being just 9 slots throughout the year independently of changes in venue. Madrid replaced Hamburg by virtue of being put in as a masters in the same place in the set that Hamburg had been. By the same token, Madrid and Rome also changed places within the set. Your argument does not compute.

 

[timnz]

Here is what I think - If Djokovic wins Cincy before any new change, the Golden Masters is his. If a change happens lets say next year, he will probably have to win all 9 all over again to achieve the actual Golden Masters, or Masters Jackpot as I like to call it. But he will always have 8 out of 9 under the 2009-2015 system.

Because Masters events do change, it is impossible to win all. But winning all current 9 is possible. Djokovic managed to win 8 out of 9 under the current system, which is since 2009. With him the unique thing is that all of the Masters he won are still active ones. Fed won Hamburg before but did the same with Madrid clay in the current system. He won Madrid indoor but also won Shanghai.
If we are going to look at all times, Fed won 9 out of 12 because he participated in 12 different Masters. He is missing MC, Rome and Stuttgart. Looking at every system individually, he won 6 out of 9 in 2002-08 system, missing MC, Rome and Paris, while in the current 2009- system he also won 6 out of 9, again missing MC, Rome, but this time Montreal instead of Paris which he won in 2011.
Djokovic overall won 8 out of 11, missing Cincy, Madrid indoor and Hamburg. Under the 2002-08 system, he won only 4 out of 9, but under the current one, he won 8 out of 9, only missing Cincy. If he wins that title before any change happens, the collection is complete.

Your post illustrates that it is a lot more complex than 'winning 9 Masters 1000's'. The issue still is - if Djokovic wins Cincinatti but then one of the current ones change (and as we have seen it isn't unusual for things to change) to an event he hasn't won - does he lose the Career Golden Masters?

 

[veroniquem]

Which means that you do actually assign some specialness to the actual venue, which quite clearly contradicts the notion of there being just 9 slots throughout the year independently of changes in venue. Madrid replaced Hamburg by virtue of being put in as a masters in the same place in the set that Hamburg had been. By the same token, Madrid and Rome also changed places within the set. Your argument does not compute.

Madrid and Rome changed their starting date. As I said, that has NOTHING to do with "slot".
M-C is M-C. Rome is Rome. Hamburg switched to Madrid. Very simple really.

 

[veroniquem]

Your post illustrates that it is a lot more complex than 'winning 9 Masters 1000's'. The issue still is - if Djokovic wins Cincinatti but then one of the current ones change (and as we have seen it isn't unusual for things to change) to an event he hasn't won - does he lose the Career Golden Masters?

The slot cannot change. They could change Shanghai every single year and whatever substitution there is would count as 1st fall master. Not complicated at all actually. (And no, a player couldn't lose his "1st fall " master credit, no matter which one it would be, ie Nadal got Madrid indoor, Djoko got Shanghai, they got 1st fall no matter what)

 

[nolefam_2024]

AO has changed its dates from December to January to March and venues from Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and even Aukland. Let's say those are different AOs now.

 

[Sysyphus]

Madrid and Rome changed their starting date. As I said, that has NOTHING to do with "slot".
M-C is M-C. Rome is Rome. Hamburg switched to Madrid. Very simple really.

So what is it in a slot that makes it the same every year? You either have to connect it to venue or to their order in the set of masters, or else it's just "because I feel like it".

 

[veroniquem]

So what is it in a slot that makes it the same every year? You either have to connect it to venue or to their order in the set of masters, or else it's just "because I feel like it".

It is connected to a venue of course (or more precisely an event) but sometimes an event REPLACES another one (the bottom line being 9 are being played every year, that is why I'm refering to "slots").

ETA: by the way Canada is 1 event with 2 different venues. It's still the Canada master. Same "slot".

 

[veroniquem]

AO has changed its dates from December to January to March and venues from Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and even Aukland. Let's say those are different AOs now.

Ha ha exactly. AO is AO is AO. (It's the same event even if the venue changes)

 

[nolefam_2024]

Ha ha exactly. AO is AO is AO. (It's the same event even if the venue changes)

Yes, one is AO Aukland, another is AO Sydney. All big three have only won AO Melbourne so none will have career slam I guess.

 

[Sysyphus]

It is connected to a venue of course (or more precisely an event) but sometimes an event REPLACES another one (the bottom line being 9 are being played every year, that is why I'm refering to "slots").

ETA: by the way Canada is 1 event with 2 different venues. It's still the Canada master. Same "slot".

Yesh, that's a fair enough way to view it, I'll agree to that. But that still doesn't change the point of the thread in that, say, Madrid and Hamburg are not the same tournament, whatever notions of "slots" we conceive.

 

[veroniquem]

Yesh, that's a fair enough way to view it, I'll agree to that. But that still doesn't change the point of the thread in that, say, Madrid and Hamburg are not the same tournament, whatever notions of "slots" we conceive.

Sure but with the perspective of winning "all 9", it can only be conceived as winning the 9 that are being played any given year. So it will be either Hamburg or Madrid, whichever got played. It cannot be both since they never got played in the same year. It has to be "either...or".

 

[PeterHo]

So he would go from having won the Career Golden Masters to losing it again? Trophy returned to the ATP?

No if a player has won the 9 masters which have existed at the same time then he holds the record. I'm just saying if Madrid goes next yr, then nole will need to win the new masters and cincy to get it.

 

[Sysyphus]

Sure but with the perspective of winning "all 9", it can only be conceived as winning the 9 that are being played any given year. So it will be either Hamburg or Madrid, whichever got played. It cannot be both since they never got played in the same year. It has to be "either...or".

Yesh. You can obviously win 9 out of the 9 masters that are possible to win at any given time. I agree with that. I just mean that it makes such a record somewhat historically contingent, if you will.

 

[veroniquem]

No if a player has won the 9 masters which have existed at the same time then he holds the record. I'm just saying if Madrid goes next yr, then nole will need to win the new masters and cincy to get it.

That's absolutely ridiculous. It's whatever got played during a player's career. Nadal doesn't suddenly have 6 out of the 9 masters because Shanghai happened to replace Madrid ind. That makes no sense, sorry.

 

[veroniquem]

Yesh. You can obviously win 9 out of the 9 masters that are possible to win at any given time. I agree with that. I just mean that it makes such a record somewhat historically contingent, if you will.

Whatever. Nobody has done it anyway
(But Djoko is the only player to be 1 short).

 

[Sysyphus]

That's absolutely ridiculous. It's whatever got played during a player's career. Nadal doesn't suddenly have 6 out of the 9 masters because Shanghai happened to replace Madrid ind. That makes no sense, sorry.

The sensical way is to say that No1e has 8 of the 10 he has played, Fed has 9 of the 12 he has played, and so on. No1e does have 8 of the 9 current ones is also correct.

 

[Mainad]

So you can have the Career Golden Masters taken away from you if you have previously won it. Would he have to give back a trophy (there's likely to be trophy).

Sorry to be sarcastic. I am just trying to show that the definition simply doesn't hold up.

No-one can retroactively take away an achievement that was valid at the time you achieved it. It doesn't matter how many Masters event they may add on in the future, if you won all the ones that existed at the time, then that stands forever.

 

[veroniquem]

The sensical way is to say that No1e has 8 of the 10 he has played, Fed has 9 of the 12 he has played, and so on. No1e does have 8 of the 9 current ones is also correct.

No that's actually NON-SENSICAL. Because they're a set of 9. You cannot win 10 out of 9 lol. It HAS TO be 9 out of 9. So Fed has to win M-C and ROME, no other way.

 

[PeterHo]

It doesn't matter how often they change as long as the total # remains 9. It's whatever tournament occupies a given "slot". Most masters have not changed much however
1- IW (since 1987)
2- Miami (since 1987)
3- M-C (since 1970)
4- Rome (since 1970)
5- Madrid ( since 2009, 1978-2008 was Hamburg)
6- Canada (since 1978, alternates between Toronto and Montreal)
7- Cincy ( since 1981)
8- Shanghai (since 2009, 2002-2008 was Madrid ind, before was Stuttgart ind)
9- Paris (since 1989)

ETA: if they add a 10th master, then players will have to win the new one on top, whatever that is. But there is no possible substitution with 3rd clay (or 1st fall). In order to have this one counted, one will have to have won Madrid OR Hamburg for clay. The 10th master will just be a new slot.

No idea what this slot thing is. A new term?

That's absolutely ridiculous. It's whatever got played during a player's career. Nadal doesn't suddenly have 6 out of the 9 masters because Shanghai happened to replace Madrid ind. That makes no sense, sorry.

I don't believe in this "slots" thing. If a player won 8 distinct masters, and all those tournaments changed, then he won 1 masters today, does he have a career masters?

The ATP website obviously only considers the EXISTING masters. That's the official definition, sorry.

 

[Sysyphus]

No that's actually NON-SENSICAL. Because they're a set of 9. You cannot win 10 out of 9 lol. It HAS TO be 9 out of 9. So Fed has to win M-C and ROME, no other way.

Yes, but the set is not constant. The number of the set is, bet not the make-up of it. Fed has played 12 different masters in his career, not 9. Never said that he has won MC and Rome, or any imaginary contingent record.

 

[veroniquem]

No idea what this slot thing is. A new term?



I don't believe in this "slots" thing. If a player won 8 distinct masters, and all those tournaments changed, then he won 1 masters today, does he have a career masters?

The ATP website obviously only considers the EXISTING masters.

I really don't care about lexical issues here. The only way to win all 9 is to win all 9. Which means that an event that REPLACES one of the 9 masters counts as the SAME. You still have to win the other 8.

 

[veroniquem]

Yes, but the set is not constant. The number of the set is, bet not the make-up of it. Fed has played 12 different masters in his career, not 9. Never said that he has won MC and Rome, or any imaginary contingent record.

No. Because Hamburg = Madrid clay
Toronto = Montreal
Shanghai = Madrid indoor

Those are substitutions, not "extra" events. Which is why the number stays at 9.