The definition of a career Golden Masters is flimsy

[Mainad]

The definition of a career Golden Masters is flimsy

A career Golden Masters is winning all the Masters events that were in existence at the time you won them irrespective of what they were before or since.

 

[Sysyphus]

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

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

Toronto and Montreal are organized and fronted as the same tournament, Rogers Cup—Hamburg/Madrid, Shanghai/Madrid are not, they are distinct tournaments.

But if one wished to be logical, then one probably should distinguish even between Montreal and Toronto.

You are right in saying that they are "substitutions". Which is what the word means. When FC Barcelona substitutes one player for another during a match, we readily understand that 12 different players have played the match for them, even though two of them served the same function/position, and there were never more than 11 at any single point in time. We do not say they are the same player.

 

[PeterHo]

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.

That's a different definition to the official ATP.

Shanghai is a distinctly new masters, completely different to what it replaced. A player can't have a career masters without winning shanghai, regardless of whether he won the replaced one. ATP won't recognise it. Neither does china. You can't say player A has won shanghai even if he won the replaced Madrid.

 

[timnz]

That's a different definition to the official ATP.

Shanghai is a distinctly new masters, completely different to what it replaced. A player can't have a career masters without winning shanghai, regardless of whether he won the replaced one. ATP won't recognise it. Neither does china. You can't say player A has won shanghai even if he won the replaced Madrid.

The definition probably should be around slots - the 9 slots of the year. Problem is - I see a time when even the slots will change (Grass Masters 1000/ 1 less clay Masters 1000 ???)

 

[duaneeo]

The career Golden Masters is winning the 9 current Masters. Djokovic needs to win Cincinnati, Federer Monte Carlo and Rome, and Nadal Miami, Shanghai, and Paris.

 

[duaneeo]

Here are Federer's 9:

1/ Indian Wells
2/ Miami
3/ Hamburg
4/ Madrid Outdoor (red) Clay
5/ Toronto
6/ Cincinnati
7/ Madrid Indoor
8/ Shanghai
9/ Paris Indoor

Federer also won Madrid blue clay, so he's won 10 'different' Masters tournaments.

Djokovic has won 9: Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid red clay, Canada/Montreal, Canada/Toronto, Shanghai, Paris.

Nadal has won 9: Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Madrid red clay, Madrid hard, Canada/Montreal, Canada/Toronto, Cincinnati.

 

[PeterHo]

The definition probably should be around slots - the 9 slots of the year. Problem is - I see a time when even the slots will change (Grass Masters 1000/ 1 less clay Masters 1000 ???)

The problem with slots is that there's real no concensus, or official definition for it. A masters being replaced by a new one, on a different surface, a different country, is in the same "slot"?

The ATP has stuck with the basic and simplest definition, ie. 9 masters won out of the 9 currently available masters. Other than that nothing else is called career masters, maybe you can call "career slots"?

 

[timnz]

The problem with slots is that there's real no concensus, or official definition for it. A masters being replaced by a new one, on a different surface, a different country, is in the same "slot"?

The ATP has stuck with the basic and simplest definition, ie. 9 masters won out of the 9 currently available masters. Other than that nothing else is called career masters, maybe you can call "career slots"?

9 out of 9 of the current masters ie as at 2015. So if in 2016 Djokovic wins Cincinatti but in 2017 Shanghai gets replaced with Sydney (which he hasn't won)- then Djokovic won't hold the career golden masters anymore? It seems then the duration which a player can hold that distinction is dependent on hold long the ATP will hold to the 'current' set.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The definition probably should be around slots - the 9 slots of the year. Problem is - I see a time when even the slots will change (Grass Masters 1000/ 1 less clay Masters 1000 ???)

That's an issue for the ATP to concern themselves with, not us.

 

[PeterHo]

9 out of 9 of the current masters ie as at 2015. So if in 2016 Djokovic wins Cincinatti but in 2017 Shanghai gets replaced with Sydney (which he hasn't won)- then Djokovic won't hold the career golden masters anymore? It seems then the duration which a player can hold that distinction is dependent on hold long the ATP will hold to the 'current' set.

In that scenario Nole will still hold the career masters record. Not the current set, but a previous set of 9 masters whom he has won and all were available at the same time (or year).

The changing of master tourneys actually make this achievement harder.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No. Because Hamburg = Madrid clay

But it doesn't.
They are separate tournaments.
Hamburg is still played lol, it's just not a 1000 any more.

Nice definition which is all-inclusive:

If both the tournament's name and venue change, and it still only occupies one spot in each season, the tournament has changed.
So:
- The time of the year a tournament is held in doesn't matter
- Both Toronto and Montreal are the same tournament, as they are both called the Roger's Cup and it's still just the one event in each season
- The AO has always been the same tournament, as it's always been called the Australian Open, regardless of changes in venue
- Hamburg and Madrid clay are different tournaments - the name changed, the venue changed, and they now occupy two separate spots in the calendar (pls stop Vero)

Further to this:
The actual way to do this is to say that if you win all the tournaments (as per the above definition) which were currently running at any particular point in time, you've won the Career Golden Masters.

Some examples to show how this would work, if that's not easy to understand:
- If Novak wins Cincy next year, he achieves it (assuming they make no changes in the Masters schedule)
- Federer has not currently achieved it and would need MC and Rome to do so
- If they change Shanghai to Sydney as OP says, they are different tournaments (as both their name and venue changes), and Novak would then have to win Cincy and Sydney to get it
- Madrid 2012 was the same tournament despite the different surface because neither the name nor venue changed
- If they were to remove MC and bring back Hamburg, Fed would only need to win Rome to achieve it
- If they were to remove both MC and Rome (not likely though lol) and replace them with Hamburg and Madrid indoors, Federer would automatically achieve it
- If they were to remove Cincy and bring back Hamburg, Novak would have to win only Hamburg instead
- If they were to remove Cincy and elevate Belgrade to 1000 status (once Chico takes over the ATP in 2021), Novak would not automatically achieve it as Belgrade was not a Masters when Novak won it. Same For Fed if they got rid of MC/Rome and elevated Basel and Halle to 1000 status (once I take over the ATP). They'd have to win Belgrade/Basel/Halle again as Masters events.
- If they were to add a tenth Masters, you do not lose the achievement if you have previously gained it by winning all nine which were available at some previous point in your career. Likewise, it is not necessary to win it if you make up a set of nine which was the set at some point in your career even after the introduction of the tenth Masters; (think about this for a second, this sounds weird but is necessary if we are to be consistent).

Additionally, if you have, in the past, won all the Masters which were available as of a certain season during your career (say 2005) bar one (let's say MC) and some of these become defunct (Hamburg and Madrid indoors), if you later win the remaining ones (MC), you have also achieved it.
So you don't have to win all the Masters which are available at the current point in time, as this would mean that the achievement must be taken away if they change the schedule, you must only win all the Masters which are available at a particular point in time, including in the past, so long as it's during your career.
So by winning MC now, you've won all the Masters which were available at at least one point during your career, even if it's no longer the case.

An example of this would be that even if Fed had not ever won Madrid clay or Shanghai, he'd still only need Rome and MC to achieve it as those haven't always been required (or available) and Fed has won those which were required instead (Hamburg and Madrid indoors).

Basically though, there has been no year in Fed's career (or in history) when the nine different Masters which Fed has (yes he has nine lol, can't believe the bias of some people on here) have been the nine which are on the calendar.
That is the only fair and consistent requirement for this achievement.

One more thing - if you win a Masters but it becomes a 500 or something later on, you've still won that many Masters events.
If you win a 500 or something and it later becomes a Masters, you have not won extra Masters events.
Just in case that wasn't already clear.

 

[PeterHo]

But it doesn't.
They are separate tournaments.
Hamburg is still played lol, it's just not a 1000 any more.

Nice definition which is all-inclusive:

If both the tournament's name and venue change, and it still only occupies one spot in each season, the tournament has changed.
So:
- The time of the year a tournament is held in doesn't matter
- Both Toronto and Montreal are the same tournament, as they are both called the Roger's Cup and it's still just the one event in each season
- The AO has always been the same tournament, as it's always been called the Australian Open, regardless of changes in venue
- Hamburg and Madrid clay are different tournaments - the name changed, the venue changed, and they now occupy two separate spots in the calendar (pls stop Vero)

Further to this:
The actual way to do this is to say that if you win all the tournaments (as per the above definition) which were currently running at any particular point in time, you've won the Career Golden Masters.

Some examples to show how this would work, if that's not easy to understand:
- If Novak wins Cincy next year, he achieves it (assuming they make no changes in the Masters schedule)
- Federer has not currently achieved it and would need MC and Rome to do so
- If they change Shanghai to Sydney as OP says, they are different tournaments (as both their name and venue changes), and Novak would then have to win Cincy and Sydney to get it
- Madrid 2012 was the same tournament despite the different surface because neither the name nor venue changed
- If they were to remove MC and bring back Hamburg, Fed would only need to win Rome to achieve it
- If they were to remove both MC and Rome (not likely though lol) and replace them with Hamburg and Madrid indoors, Federer would automatically achieve it
- If they were to remove Cincy and bring back Hamburg, Novak would have to win only Hamburg instead
- If they were to remove Cincy and elevate Belgrade to 1000 status (once Chico takes over the ATP in 2021), Novak would not automatically achieve it as Belgrade was not a Masters when Novak won it. Same For Fed if they got rid of MC/Rome and elevated Basel and Halle to 1000 status (once I take over the ATP). They'd have to win Belgrade/Basel/Halle again as Masters events.
- If they were to add a tenth Masters, you do not lose the achievement if you have previously gained it by winning all nine which were available at some previous point in your career. Likewise, it is not necessary to win it if you make up a set of nine which was the set at some point in your career even after the introduction of the tenth Masters; (think about this for a second, this sounds weird but is necessary if we are to be consistent).

Additionally, if you have, in the past, won all the Masters which were available as of a certain season during your career (say 2005) bar one (let's say MC) and some of these become defunct (Hamburg and Madrid indoors), if you later win the remaining ones (MC), you have also achieved it.
So you don't have to win all the Masters which are available at the current point in time, as this would mean that the achievement must be taken away if they change the schedule, you must only win all the Masters which are available at a particular point in time, including in the past, so long as it's during your career.
So by winning MC now, you've won all the Masters which were available at at least one point during your career, even if it's no longer the case.

An example of this would be that even if Fed had not ever won Madrid clay or Shanghai, he'd still only need Rome and MC to achieve it as those haven't always been required (or available) and Fed has won those which were required instead (Hamburg and Madrid indoors).

Basically though, there has been no year in Fed's career (or in history) when the nine different Masters which Fed has (yes he has nine lol, can't believe the bias of some people on here) have been the nine which are on the calendar.
That is the only fair and consistent requirement for this achievement.

One more thing - if you win a Masters but it becomes a 500 or something later on, you've still won that many Masters events.
If you win a 500 or something and it later becomes a Masters, you have not won extra Masters events.
Just in case that wasn't already clear.

The only issue with this definition is, will the ATP actually recognise you for the career masters even though the 9 you hold (by winning MC for example) is not the current 9?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

This is really quite simple.

I can only conclude those arguing against the obvious are biased.

 

[CYGS]

Desperate trolls are desperate.

 

[Mainad]

Federer also won Madrid blue clay, so he's won 10 'different' Masters tournaments.

Djokovic has won 9: Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid red clay, Canada/Montreal, Canada/Toronto, Shanghai, Paris.

Nadal has won 9: Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Madrid red clay, Madrid hard, Canada/Montreal, Canada/Toronto, Cincinnati.

Not so. Canada is just 1 Masters event that rotates yearly between Montreal and Toronto. Hamburg and clay Madrid are also 1 Masters event as the former was simply replaced by the latter. Ditto Madrid hardcourt and Shanghai.

 

[duaneeo]

Not so. Canada is just 1 Masters event that rotates yearly between Montreal and Toronto. Hamburg and clay Madrid are also 1 Masters event as the former was simply replaced by the latter. Ditto Madrid hardcourt and Shanghai.

Clearly you didn't get the gist of my comment. If I thought Canada was two different Masters, I would have earlier said that the career Golden Masters is winning the 10 current Masters.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

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?

Djokovic is in the race with time. If he wins Cincy before the change, the Golden Masters is his and it cannot be taken away from him.
But this is just my guess, I could be wrong of course.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

The only issue with this definition is, will the ATP actually recognise you for the career masters even though the 9 you hold (by winning MC for example) is not the current 9?

Not sure.
I obviously think it should though, otherwise it's not being consistent.

The only way to know for sure (short of asking them) is for it to be tested of course, which probably won't happen any time soon.
They will definitely recognize Novak's if he wins Cincy though (as they've talked about it), and it meets the simplest definition of all the current ones too.

Someone said they'll probably have a trophy, do we have any confirmation of that?
Sounds interesting.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Not so. Canada is just 1 Masters event that rotates yearly between Montreal and Toronto. Hamburg and clay Madrid are also 1 Masters event as the former was simply replaced by the latter. Ditto Madrid hardcourt and Shanghai.

Montreal and Toronto are definitely the same tournament, but the others are clearly different, distinct tournaments.
Madrid 2012 is also the same tournament.
Read my post #61.

 

[The Harkleroad]

I thought Nadal has a career golden slam?

So Nadal is missing AO Sydney, AO Brisbane, AO Adelaide, AO Perth, AO Christchurch and AO Hastings?

and a bunch of Roland Garros and US Opens as well.

He's also missing Gold Medals in London, Athens, Sydney, Atlanta, Barcelona etc?



/s

 

[Krish872007]

Confusion over the Masters themselves. Imagine what would happen if the ITF suddenly started tweaking with Slam events.

 

[zep]

I have heard this argument from Fed fans before (no surprises there). You may have your own opinion but that's not how ATP recognizes it. Both Federer and Nadal have won 7/9 masters and Djokovic 8/9. That's how it is officially.

 

[zep]

A career Golden Masters is winning all the Masters events that were in existence at the time you won them irrespective of what they were before or since.

Not sure about that. Suppose ATP replaces a current masters 1000 (other than Cincy) with a different one, would Djokovic need 2 to complete his set of 9? I don't think so. He would still need to win only Cincy.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

You can look at all Masters in general (past and present), you can look at a certain individual system (for example just 2002-08 or just 2009-20??), you can look at those "slots"... It can make you dizzy.

 

[Ogi44]

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

This was explained many times. There was always nine masters tournaments but venues changed few times. Its like US Open was played in Forest Hills before and now its played in Flushing Meadows. Hamburg masters was moved to Shangai but its still the same tournament. You cant count it twice just because venue changed. If Shangai will move to Sydney in the future the win in Shangai or Hamburg still counts as the same one. Like Tilden US Open title is the same as Samprases.

 

[Russeljones]

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.

If Novak hasn't won it, it doesn't count. Simple indeed.

 

[Gazelle]

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.

So you take the approach of using slots (IW=1 Miami=2 etc.). Problem with this though is when masters series get swapped places. Till 2010 Rome came before Madrid. So Fed won the third clay masters in 2004/05/07 (Hamburg) and 09 (Madrid) but won the second clay masters in 2012 (Madrid). So according to your logic he is only missing Monte Carlo, which is the first clay masters.

 

[Gazelle]

The career Golden Masters is winning the 9 current Masters. Djokovic needs to win Cincinnati, Federer Monte Carlo and Rome, and Nadal Miami, Shanghai, and Paris.

While this might seem a bit unfair to guys who have won masters that were removed or replaced later (like Nadal's Madrids indoor), it's the only way practical way to define the Golden Masters.

 

[nolefam_2024]

If Novak hasn't won it, it doesn't count. Simple indeed.

At least I give reason, instead of just trolling, Novak has not won Golden master but knowing that Madrid shifted to Shanghai and Hamburg to Madrid, I don't try to just cause confusion like STILL it doesn't make sense, oh it perfectly make sense.

 

[BVSlam]

Well I understand the idea. Hamburg and Madrid play differently and Madrid 2012 definitely did. Madrid indoor and Shanghai outdoor, same thing. But the definition has always been winning a masters within the regular time slots, wherever it's held or on whatever surface it's played on.

Masters are much more subject to change than Slams of course, so how much the definition and the accolade itself is worth is questionable. Nevertheless, Djokovic winning all 9 time slots would be hugely impressive and unprecedented, and Fed's winning in so many different conditions is hugely impressive as well, no matter how we define anything.

 

[CYGS]

Well I understand the idea. Hamburg and Madrid play differently and Madrid 2012 definitely did. Madrid indoor and Shanghai outdoor, same thing. But the definition has always been winning a masters within the regular time slots, wherever it's held or on whatever surface it's played on.

Masters are much more subject to change than Slams of course, so how much the definition and the accolade itself is worth is questionable. Nevertheless, Djokovic winning all 9 time slots would be hugely impressive and unprecedented, and Fed's winning in so many different conditions is hugely impressive as well, no matter how we define anything.

I know what you did there, but no, Djokovic's is much more impressive.

 

[BVSlam]

I know what you did there, but no, Djokovic's is much more impressive.

Nah, you have no idea what I did there.

 

[timnz]

I have heard this argument from Fed fans before (no surprises there). You may have your own opinion but that's not how ATP recognizes it. Both Federer and Nadal have won 7/9 masters and Djokovic 8/9. That's how it is officially.

What are the 7 Masters 1000 that Federer has won? In the first thread I counted 9. And if you say that Hamburg and Madrid indoor don't count anymore - well that is just unfair to take away a players achievements.

 

[Ogi44]

What are the 7 Masters 1000 that Federer has won? In the first thread I counted 9. And if you say that Hamburg and Madrid indoor don't count anymore - well that is just unfair to take away a players achievements.

I really dont understand why its so difficult to accept that Hamburg is the SAME tournament as Shangai and Madrid Indoor is the SAME tournament as current Madrid Masters as Australian Open played in December on Grass in Sydney in the past is the SAME tournament played in January on Hard in Melbourne. So yes Federer has 7 Masters tournaments out of nine as he is still missing Rome and MC. And he will still miss this two masters tournaments even they will move in the future to Dubai and Tokyo for example. This count has nothing to do with current or past venues but with winning the 9 tournaments which changed their venues over time.

 

[timnz]

I really dont understand why its so difficult to accept that Hamburg is the SAME tournament as Shangai and Madrid Indoor is the SAME tournament as current Madrid Masters as Australian Open played in December on Grass in Sydney in the past is the SAME tournament played in January on Hard in Melbourne. So yes Federer has 7 Masters tournaments out of nine as he is still missing Rome and MC. And he will still miss this two masters tournaments even they will move in the future to Dubai and Tokyo for example. This count has nothing to do with current or past venues but with winning the 9 tournaments which changed their venues over time.

Fair enough. This thread was about provoking discussion about the Golden Masters.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Ogi44]

Fair enough. This thread was about provoking discussion about the Golden Masters.

Thanks for your comments.

Thank you. It was a refreshing thread to have on this forum.

 

[Jaitock1991]

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.

I agree. This kind of thinking mainly works only for the slams, where the stqtus of the tournament doesn't just go away.

 

[timnz]

Thank you. It was a refreshing thread to have on this forum.

Here is an interesting question though. If Federer had never won Madrid outdoor clay or Shanghai - but went onto win Monte Carlo and Rome - according to your reckoning he would have won the Career Golden Masters - but in practice would people and the ATP remember that - or would people be on his back to win Madrid outdoor clay and Shanghai - to complete the set? I am not asking for the clinically correct answer, according to your view - the answer is that he would have won the Career Golden Masters - what I am asking is what do you think the tennis public and the ATP would say in practice?

 

[Ogi44]

Here is an interesting question though. If Federer had never won Madrid outdoor clay or Shanghai - but went onto win Monte Carlo and Rome - according to your reckoning he would have won the Career Golden Masters - but in practice would people and the ATP remember that - or would people be on his back to win Madrid outdoor clay and Shanghai - to complete the set? I am not asking for the clinically correct answer, according to your view - the answer is that he would have won the Career Golden Masters - what I am asking is what do you think the tennis public and the ATP would say in practice?

Its a good question. I think that ATP will recognize it as complete set (this logic was created by them in the first place in order to keep continuity of most prestigious ATP tournaments) and do enough PR around the feat that common tennis public will get quickly educated.

 

[Fedalforever]

The career Golden Masters is winning the 9 current Masters. Djokovic needs to win Cincinnati, Federer Monte Carlo and Rome, and Nadal Miami, Shanghai, and Paris.

Nadal has won Madrid. He doesn't need to win Shanghai.

 

[Fedalforever]

I have heard this argument from Fed fans before (no surprises there). You may have your own opinion but that's not how ATP recognizes it. Both Federer and Nadal have won 7/9 masters and Djokovic 8/9. That's how it is officially.

Good one Zeppy. Sometimes Fed fans can be just like Tendulkar fans...but at least Fed is genuinely an ATG player...

 

[duaneeo]

Nadal has won Madrid. He doesn't need to win Shanghai.

I disagree. If Nadal wins Miami and Paris, how can it be considered the Career Golden Masters (winning all 9 Masters 1000 events) without Shanghai? And, Madrid has always been a Masters tournament. Wouldn't it make more sense to say Nadal doesn't need to win Shanghai because he's won Hamburg?

Anyway, I think we tend to forget that the "Career Golden Masters" wasn't coined until 2013, and the only reason it was coined is because for the first time, a singles player came within one tournament of winning all 9 Masters. But now, some fans seem to think it's unfair that though Djokovic and Federer have both won 8 different Masters tournaments, Nole only needs to win one more (Cincinnati) for the CGM while Roger needs two (Monte Carlo and Rome).

 

[Fedalforever]

I disagree. If Nadal wins Miami and Paris, how can it be considered the Career Golden Masters (winning all 9 Masters 1000 events) without Shanghai? And, Madrid has always been a Masters tournament. Wouldn't it make more sense to say Nadal doesn't need to win Shanghai because he's won Hamburg?

Anyway, I think we tend to forget that the "Career Golden Masters" wasn't coined until 2013, and the only reason it was coined is because for the first time, a singles player came within one tournament of winning all 9 Masters. But now, some fans seem to think it's unfair that though Djokovic and Federer have both won 8 different Masters tournaments, Nole only needs to win one more (Cincinnati) for the CGM while Roger needs two (Monte Carlo and Rome).

Sampras won Rome. Fedr couldn't.

 

[jm1980]

I disagree. If Nadal wins Miami and Paris, how can it be considered the Career Golden Masters (winning all 9 Masters 1000 events) without Shanghai? And, Madrid has always been a Masters tournament. Wouldn't it make more sense to say Nadal doesn't need to win Shanghai because he's won Hamburg?

Anyway, I think we tend to forget that the "Career Golden Masters" wasn't coined until 2013, and the only reason it was coined is because for the first time, a singles player came within one tournament of winning all 9 Masters. But now, some fans seem to think it's unfair that though Djokovic and Federer have both won 8 different Masters tournaments, Nole only needs to win one more (Cincinnati) for the CGM while Roger needs two (Monte Carlo and Rome).

Nadal won Madrid in 2005, when it had Shanghai's spot (indoor HC near the end of the season). Thus he only needs Miami and Paris.
Hamburg got replaced by the Madrid clay masters... You can't count them as two separate events won by Fed.

It's like if the AO gets moved to China after Fedal retire they don't lose their career Slam... Neither would Djokovic complete the Career Slam if he won the now Slamified China Open and got 4 "different" Slams.

It's not that difficult, folks.

 

[duaneeo]

Hamburg got replaced by the Madrid clay masters...

It's not that difficult, folks.

It obviously is, folks.

Hamburg wasn't "replaced" by Madrid. Hamburg was downgraded from an ATP Masters Series to an ATP 500 event and Shanghai became the new Masters. So if anything, Hamburg was replaced in the Masters series by Shanghai.

And, Hamburg and Madrid are counted as separate tournaments. Federer is considered a 4-time Hamburg champion and a 3-time Madrid champion...not a 7-time Madrid champion, or a 7-time Hamburg champion.

 

[jm1980]

It obviously is, folks.

Hamburg wasn't "replaced" by Madrid. Hamburg was downgraded from an ATP Masters Series to an ATP 500 event and Shanghai became the new Masters. So if anything, Hamburg was replaced in the Masters series by Shanghai.

And, Hamburg and Madrid are counted as separate tournaments. Federer is considered a 4-time Hamburg champion and a 3-time Madrid champion...not a 7-time Madrid champion, or a 7-time Hamburg champion.

Yes, it was. Hamburg was demoted to a 500, and Madrid was moved up the calendar and changed from indoor HC to outdoor clay. Shanghai replaced Madrid as the new end of the season indoor HC.

There were two replacements: Hamburg -> Madrid (clay), and Madrid (indoor hard) -> Shanghai.

It's not rocket science.

 

[duaneeo]

It's not rocket science.

The 9 Masters in 2008: Canada, Cincinnati, Hamburg, Indian Wells, Madrid, Miami, Monte Carlo, Paris, Rome.

The 9 Masters in 2009: Canada, Cincinnati, Indian Wells, Madrid, Miami, Monte Carlo, Paris, Rome, Shanghai.

No Shanghai Masters in 2008, no Hamburg Masters in 2009. Yes, it's not rocket science. Oh, and Paris has always been the end of the season indoor HC Masters. Shanghai Masters was always outdoors.

 

[jm1980]

The 9 Masters in 2008: Canada, Cincinnati, Hamburg, Indian Wells, Madrid, Miami, Monte Carlo, Paris, Rome.

The 9 Masters in 2009: Canada, Cincinnati, Indian Wells, Madrid, Miami, Monte Carlo, Paris, Rome, Shanghai.

No Shanghai Masters in 2008, no Hamburg Masters in 2009. Yes, it's not rocket science. Oh, and Paris has always been the end of the season indoor HC Masters. Shanghai Masters was always outdoors.

2008 Masters: IW - Miami - MC - Rome - Hamburg - Canada - Cincy - Madrid (HC) - Paris
2009 Masters: IW - Miami - MC - Rome - Madrid (clay) - Canada - Cincy - Shanghai - Paris

Hamburg -> Madrid (clay)
Madrid (HC) -> Shanghai

This is common-sense, accepted by literally every sports journalist I've seen when they talk about which Masters each of Fedalovic are missing. Why are you being so obtuse?

• Madrid Masters up to 2008: Held in October, on indoor hard, in the Madrid Arena
• Madrid Masters after 2009: Held in May, on outdoor clay, in the Caja Mágica

There is literally nothing in common between the two other than the city they are played in.

 

[duaneeo]

For the record, I've already said that IMO, the career Golden Masters is winning the 9 current Masters. But the suggestion that winning hard Madrid means you've won Shanghai, or winning clay Hamburg is the same as winning clay Madrid is totally ridiculous! Shanghai is outdoor hard played in China. Hard Madrid was indoor hard played in Spain. Two totally different tournaments, played in different venues, affected by different weather conditions, and outdoor/indoor conditions. Likewise with Hamburg and clay Madrid for the first 3 mentioned conditions. Again, I don't think it has anything to do with the "Career Golden Masters" (a term just created two years ago), but to say that you can't count them as separate tournaments, and winning one is considered winning the other is simply ridiculous.

Now, yawn. I'm done with with senseless "argument".

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If Career Golden Masters is defined is defined as having won at least one Masters 1000 for each of the nine spots - not necessarily always the ones that occupy the spots currently - Lendl should be considered to have one. Paris replaced Tokyo in 1989, and Lendl won Tokyo before. That was the year he completed the nine-spot matrix with his last ever GP Super Series win, Stockholm. If Paris were introduced a year later, Lendl would be clearly considered to have obtained the 'Golden Masters', but he was screwed like that. :|