Some Masters 1000 are far more prestigious than others. I think the big 3 are IW, Rome and Shanghai now. Miami is in freefall, Cincinatti i think shouldnt even be a Masters 1000, Monte Carlo has the weakest field of all 9, and Paris is always just a build up to WTF.
The definition of a career Golden Masters is flimsy
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Some Masters 1000 are far more prestigious than others. I think the big 3 are IW, Rome and Shanghai now. Miami is in freefall, Cincinatti i think shouldnt even be a Masters 1000, Monte Carlo has the weakest field of all 9, and Paris is always just a build up to WTF.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Who even coined that phrase, "Golden Masters"? Some fan in a chat forum? A journalist trying to get his foot in the door? Someone looking for a new way to promote the game? Seems like an arbitrary designation, and something that's catchy, like "Rafa Slam" or "Serena Slam," which I remember hearing. Since the landscape of the tour shifts pretty constantly (even the values of the tournaments themselves), maybe the # of titles is really the more objective measure. Obviously, have to bear in mind the level of competition at the events, but maybe not bundling tournaments together in handsome and marketable packaging.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Some of us on here think Cincinatti is 'the real Slam'. You don't even think it's worth a Masters. I guess there are just no half-measures on here when it comes to evaluating its worth!
The ATP defined it. They posted it on their website. It is the wrong designation - it should be Career Masters 1000 slam. There is no Golden in it. It would be a tremendous achievement though. I created this thread though to help it get more precisely defined. Federer has already won 9 distinct Masters 1000's. But, as some have said, it is winning the 9 'slots' (though there is still the ambiguity if they move the 'slots' around).
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah pretty much this. It is pretty straightforward.
Monte Carlo and Rome were there Federer's entire career, so it is perfect sense to say he is missing them.
Madrid indoors and Hamburg ended when Djokovic was all of 21. It is perfectly stupid to fault him for missing them.
At most you could count Hamburg/Madrid as the same event given one replaced one, and the same thing for Madrid Indoors/Shanghai, and if you win either one it would be good. It would make no difference, Djokovic is still at 8 of 9, Federer at 7 of 9.
Monte Carlo hardly has a depreciated field most years. It is hardly different than the others. However, its status is assured because of its long tradition. People like Doherty and Wilding were winning it, as a prestigious event in the early 1900's.Some of us on here think Cincinatti is 'the real Slam'. You don't even think it's worth a Masters. I guess there are just no half-measures on here when it comes to evaluating its worth!
mattosgrant
Banned
No since Shanghai/Sydney would basically count as the same Masters as that is the exact one it is replacing.
Same as with Madrid/Hamburg, Madrid Indoors/Shanghai. Rome and Monte Carlo were never replaced, and Federer never won either one.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Well, what about a Platinum Globetrotter™ medal awarded to the player with wins in the most cities? Why not mold a trophy for the guy who secures the most titles within a particular calendar month, and call it the Pewter Crucible™. If it happens to occur in an Olympics year, and the gold medal is earned, then it gets upgraded to the Glimmering Gilt Goblet™.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Hopefully you agree that since Lendl won all nine spots, and Paris was only introduced right before his swift decline, he should be considered to have achieved the nonet.
mattosgrant
Banned
Hopefully you agree that since Lendl won all nine spots, and Paris was only introduced right before his swift decline, he should be considered to have achieved the nonet.
Sure. That sounds reasonable. I didn't know that about Lendl. If that is something he has, I am actually glad, since it wont make the people who do rank him over Connors seem as crazy and biased to me anymore (not saying I would agree with them, but I wont find them out to lunch anymore).
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, Lendl was clearly the first player to take all nine tier 1 tournaments seriously - the fun thing is that he finally completed the nonet with his last ever tier 1 win (Stockholm 1989), and what's even funnier is that it was also the very last Grand Prix Super tournament, as since 1990 the ATP took over, turning them into Super 9, and Lendl's decline just happened to coincide with it.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah, Lendl was clearly the first player to take all nine tier 1 tournaments seriously - the fun thing is that he finally completed the nonet with his last ever tier 1 win (Stockholm 1989), and what's even funnier is that it was also the very last Grand Prix Super tournament, as since 1990 the ATP took over, turning them into Super 9, and Lendl's decline just happened to coincide with it.
Thanks for sharing that with me. I honestly had no idea of that feat by Lendl until now.
Get what you are saying however there is little logic to your argument on the basis that both Monte Carlo and Rome (2 Federer is missing) have been in existence for the entirety of Federer's career.
In many ways Madrid Indoor became Shanghai and Hamburg became Madrid clay so Federer has really won M1000 titles at 7 distinct events, it just so happens that it's been in 9 different places.
And to answer your "hypothetical" on Djokovic, no he would still have won 9 distinct M1000 events because you'd effectively just be transferring the Cincinnati M1000 license to Sydney....same event just different location.
mattosgrant
Banned
21 year old Murray managed not to miss Madrid indoors!
Well Murray is the king, we all know that.
Yeah, Lendl was clearly the first player to take all nine tier 1 tournaments seriously - the fun thing is that he finally completed the nonet with his last ever tier 1 win (Stockholm 1989), and what's even funnier is that it was also the very last Grand Prix Super tournament, as since 1990 the ATP took over, turning them into Super 9, and Lendl's decline just happened to coincide with it.
Interesting, isn't the consensus that no one has achieved the "golden masters" and Djokovic would be the first? That has to be wrong, how could they separate that from what Lendl did?
For example, in 1986 the 9 tournaments in the masters series were Philadelphia, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Canada, Cincinnati, Hamburg, Tokyo, and Stockholm. Lendl has won all 9 of these events. So, if we are going by different "slots", then Lendl has achieved the golden masters. Are we saying that he doesn't have it because he didnt win Stockholm before Tokyo changed to Paris and because he didnt win many of the others before Philadelphia changed to Indian Wells?
If that is the case, then we have to agree that Djokovic would have to win Cincinnati before any of the other masters change. If he just needs to win cincinnati, at any point in the future, then Lendl has already achieved this.
Does that make sense?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
That seems to be the official idea and the consensus indeed. Doesn't make good sense to me, however, since that way it's easy to screw a player at any time by changing a venue of any Masters tournaments, and the possibility of winning a 'Golden Masters' becomes dependent on ATP changes, which is unfair in perspective.
Yes, I agree that it becomes pretty unfair, but we all know Djokovic has had ample opportunity to win Cincinnati and he could definitely do it this year.
So do we all agree that there are 2 scenarios?
1. Djokovic needs to win cincinnati at any point in the future to achieve the golden masters AND Lendl has already achieved the golden masters
OR
2. Djokovic needs to win cincinnati before the Masters 1000 Series changes to achieve the golden masters AND he would be the first to achieve it
It seems to me, that the current stance of the ATP is that Djokovic needs to win cincinnati at any point, and he would be the first to achieve it... Honestly, this was my view before looking at this thread, but I no longer feel that way.
This is a good site for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
When it comes to "slots":
Lendl: 9/9
Djokovic: 8/9
Federer: 7/9
Nadal: 7/9
Agassi: 7/9
Borg: 7/9 (arguably, harder to define the slots)
When it comes to locations:
Lendl: 11 different
Federer: 9 different
Connors: 9 different
Djokovic: 8 different
Nadal: 8 different
Borg: 8 different
When it comes to winning in the period that the Masters Series is constant:
1989-1994
Lendl: 4/9
Sampras: 4/9
Edberg: 4/9
Chang: 4/9
1996-2001
Rios: 5/9
Agassi: 4/9
Kuerten: 4/9
2002-2008
Federer: 6/9
Nadal: 6/9
Djokovic: 4/9
Agassi: 4/9
2009-present
Djokovic: 8/9
Nadal: 6/9
Federer: 5/9
Murray: 5/9
Hard to look farther back than this, since the layout changed a lot more often.
This last category is the one where Djokovic stands out. So if the golden masters is unique to him, the criteria has to be that its winning all 9 while the layout remains constant. This really only makes the achievement relevant from around 1990 to the present, since the layout was much more erratic before that. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are the only 3 to achieve at least 6 in a constant period, and Nadal is the only one to achieve at least 6 in two different layouts.
When it comes to "slots":
Lendl: 9/9
Djokovic: 8/9
Federer: 7/9
Nadal: 7/9
Agassi: 7/9
Borg: 7/9 (arguably, harder to define the slots)
When it comes to locations:
Lendl: 11 different
Federer: 9 different
Connors: 9 different
Djokovic: 8 different
Nadal: 8 different
Borg: 8 different
When it comes to winning in the period that the Masters Series is constant:
1989-1994
Lendl: 4/9
Sampras: 4/9
Edberg: 4/9
Chang: 4/9
1996-2001
Rios: 5/9
Agassi: 4/9
Kuerten: 4/9
2002-2008
Federer: 6/9
Nadal: 6/9
Djokovic: 4/9
Agassi: 4/9
2009-present
Djokovic: 8/9
Nadal: 6/9
Federer: 5/9
Murray: 5/9
Hard to look farther back than this, since the layout changed a lot more often.
This last category is the one where Djokovic stands out. So if the golden masters is unique to him, the criteria has to be that its winning all 9 while the layout remains constant. This really only makes the achievement relevant from around 1990 to the present, since the layout was much more erratic before that. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are the only 3 to achieve at least 6 in a constant period, and Nadal is the only one to achieve at least 6 in two different layouts.
Last edited:
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
21 year old Murray managed not to miss Madrid indoors!
duaneeo
Legend
Federer and Nadal both won Hamburg at the age of 21; Nadal won indoor Madrid at age 19. And, "all of 21" Djokovic had wins at the Australian Open, Tennis Masters Cup, Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, and Canada.
At least we all agree there is a big hole in the definition of "Golden master."
In the past, there was not a single player who are close to win this 9 tournaments at the same time and same location or same slot whatever.
but after Djoker starts to collect more and more and at the time he has only 1 left to go, Cincy, and there is a high chance he can do it. I remember there were a lot of forums in many tennis websites about this and later on ATP started using the term "Golden master."
it look like ATP have to come up with a name before it happen.
In the past, there was not a single player who are close to win this 9 tournaments at the same time and same location or same slot whatever.
but after Djoker starts to collect more and more and at the time he has only 1 left to go, Cincy, and there is a high chance he can do it. I remember there were a lot of forums in many tennis websites about this and later on ATP started using the term "Golden master."
it look like ATP have to come up with a name before it happen.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
No, we don't agree.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
As may have pointed out, there are 9 masters series slots. You have to check off all 9. Doesn't matter if you win "slot 3" at three different venues, it's still the Slot 3 masters title.
Also, this is not some mainstream, oft discussed achievement. I don't think defining it is all that important, so if people disagree on the definition, so be it.
Also, this is not some mainstream, oft discussed achievement. I don't think defining it is all that important, so if people disagree on the definition, so be it.
Sorry, what I mean is ATP didnt give a solid definition for the term yet . that why we have this long discussion.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Yes. We can agree on that, although ATP is celebrating Djokovic 9/9 if it happens as Career masters.
Im happy to be re-educated. Plese explain why Cinci is the Real Slam (apart from it being Federers pet tournament of course)Some of us on here think Cincinatti is 'the real Slam'. You don't even think it's worth a Masters. I guess there are just no half-measures on here when it comes to evaluating its worth!
Similar threads
