The definition of a career Golden Masters is flimsy

T

timnz

Legend
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
 
nachiket nolefam said:
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.
Click to expand...
And if one of the current 9 drops off being a Masters 1000 then is Djokovic back to 8 of 9?
 
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.
 
nachiket nolefam said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
nachiket nolefam said:
Of course if he is still active
Click to expand...
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.
 
HipRotation said:
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 :eek:
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
HipRotation said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
There have always been 9 Masters.
Click to expand...
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.
 
PeterHo said:
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.
Click to expand...
So he would go from having won the Career Golden Masters to losing it again? Trophy returned to the ATP?
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Madrid indoor is definitely distinct from Madrid clay - different surface, different time of year. Federer has won 9 distinct Masters 1000's.
 
timnz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 )
 
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
nachiket nolefam said:
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 )
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
PeterHo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
timnz said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
veroniquem said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
timnz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 ;))
 
veroniquem said:
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 ;))
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
timnz said:
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?
Click to expand...
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)
 
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.
 
veroniquem said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Sysyphus said:
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".
Click to expand...
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 said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
timnz said:
So he would go from having won the Career Golden Masters to losing it again? Trophy returned to the ATP?
Click to expand...

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.
 
veroniquem said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
PeterHo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Whatever. Nobody has done it anyway :)
(But Djoko is the only player to be 1 short).
 
veroniquem said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
timnz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
veroniquem said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

veroniquem said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
veroniquem said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PeterHo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sysyphus said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. Because Hamburg = Madrid clay
Toronto = Montreal
Shanghai = Madrid indoor

Those are substitutions, not "extra" events. Which is why the number stays at 9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Precise definition of the Career Golden Masters
Replies
23
Views
5K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
T
  • Poll Poll
Will Djokovic join Lendl in the Career Golden Masters?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Chadillac
C
M
Novak's 17 consecutive finals in Grand Slams/Year End/ATP Masters 1000 is insane
2 3
Replies
129
Views
9K
TheMaestro1990
TheMaestro1990
Fedeonic
Masters 1000 wins without a single Top-10 win
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
sbengte
sbengte
B
Titles with best-of-5-sets Finals = Federer 33, Nadal 31, Djokovic 25
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
9K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
Back
Top