The WTF is harder to win than a slam for a 30+ player

[DRII]

Yes that's very important for year end raniking, and its also 1500 ranking points for the next year.

And I find it interesting (and surprising) that the Master cup prize money for the winner was equal to the USO prize money for USO winner, at least in 89. It shows how important this tournament was for the players.

uhm no

it shows how unimportant the tournament (YEC, WTF, Master's Cup, Elite Exhibitionary Event, etc) relative to the slams overall. the WTF has been knee deep in politics since its inception, whenever you want to decide it actually started. resulting in a vast array of inconsistencies throughout the events history! the ATP had to offer huge prize money and points (and lavish circumstance) to try and ensure that the players would show up at the end of the year and not compete in other like-minded tourneys in the past.

 

[dh003i]

Purely in terms of difficulty of achievement, YE #1 is more rare and thus more difficult to achieve than winning a major.

To illustrate, in the open era, there have been:

54 different players who have won a major
16 different players have been YE #1

Or looking at it a different way:

Many players were able to achieve a slam win but not YE #1
No player (I think) has yet achieved YE #1 without also having a slam win

That is true, but tennis is played throughout the season and YE #1 is no-more inherently valuable than August-end #1. The player who was YE #1 was best over the calendar year, the player who was mid-year #1 was best from the previous mid- to this mid-year. There isn't a real reason why YE #1 is more valuable. They're both equally difficult.

Thus, the appropriate comparison is the number of players who have achieved the #1 ranking at any point in time vs. the number of players who have won a Major.

 

[coloskier]

I really don't think it has much to do with age. I think WTF is very tough because you are guaranteed to have to play at least 3 top 8 players to win, and sometimes the same player twice. That rarely happens in a slam and never the same player twice.

 

[BringBackSV]

If there were one Slam a year, would it still be harder to win the WTF? Is this really a good comparison? I don't think the field has much to do with it.

 

[JMR]

Interesting stuff. As others have mentioned, the numbers would probably be a bit closer together if you factored in or out the early 70s, when over-30 guys like Rosewall won a few slams and skipped the YEC (alongside Laver and others in that age group) regularly.

I think the least manipulative way of handling the data was to include the entire history of the YEC (it's quite unusual for a new event created near the dawn of the open era to have endured to the present) and all the slams played in the same time frame. Note that by omitting 1969, I left out four slams won by a 30+ player, which would have further separated the percentages.

 

[eldanger25]

Along with this, given what we know about the bell-shape of the Slam winners' distribution (i.e. that 23-26 year-olds have the best results), can we use that as a predictor of how many 30 year-olds have actually competed? It requires several leaps (of good faith, mind you) in logic, as Federer will compete this year having won no majors, and he won the event as a 30 year old in 2011 win no majors, and names like Agassi and Connors will come readily to mind.

But as that graph would suggest, 23-26 is (for Slams at least) the age range where players will play their best, and winning majors has always been a huge predictor of who will actually compete. Other than outliers like Federer, Agassi (who reached the final as a 30+ year old twice, in 2000 and 2003), and Connors (who reached several semis after 30), what other 30+ year-olds actually or regularly competed?

Yep, seconded. How many older guys qualified, and what was the ratio of young to old in terms of just skipping the event (i.e, to shimmy down chimneys dressed as a sort of stringbean Santy Claus for one's young children (Novak 2015, pending) - maybe proselytize under moonlit street corners in the weeks leading up to Kwanzaa (Connors '85) or groggily chase a giggling Cheryl Tiegs around a Key West swimming pool after another night of champagne, 'ludes and fried chicken (Vilas '83).

 

[eldanger25]

I think the least manipulative way of handling the data was to include the entire history of the YEC (it's quite unusual for a new event created near the dawn of the open era to have endured to the present) and all the slams played in the same time frame. Note that by omitting 1969, I left out four slams won by a 30+ player, which would have further separated the percentages.

Understood - I appreciate the effort and am not trying to fight the data either. I will say that it could be interesting to choose the strongest of either Dallas/YEC through 1989, and one of YEC/GS Cup through the 90s, and see what that does. Most of the best players played Dallas rather than the YEC during the last sustained era when major champs skewed older (through '75 or so).

 

[timnz]

uhm no

it shows how unimportant the tournament (YEC, WTF, Master's Cup, Elite Exhibitionary Event, etc) relative to the slams overall. the WTF has been knee deep in politics since its inception, whenever you want to decide it actually started. resulting in a vast array of inconsistencies throughout the events history! the ATP had to offer huge prize money and points (and lavish circumstance) to try and ensure that the players would show up at the end of the year and not compete in other like-minded tourneys in the past.

If review journalist history on the WTF - since the beginning it has been rated at at least near Major status. I have posted threads here in the past quoting the articles that indicate as such. Currently the players also view it as near major status.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

uhm no

it shows how unimportant the tournament (YEC, WTF, Master's Cup, Elite Exhibitionary Event, etc) relative to the slams overall. the WTF has been knee deep in politics since its inception, whenever you want to decide it actually started. resulting in a vast array of inconsistencies throughout the events history! the ATP had to offer huge prize money and points (and lavish circumstance) to try and ensure that the players would show up at the end of the year and not compete in other like-minded tourneys in the past.

It must hurt you that the WTF is so important, because your man has never won it and never will.

 

[BringBackSV]

It must hurt you that the WTF is so important, because your man has never won it and never will.

As a Rafa fan I literally don't care at all. It's important but why should I be personally invested in whether or not he wins a WTF? I just skimmed but surely these things aren't particularly comparable no? If there are 4 opportunities to win a slam and one opportunity each season to win the WTF, how is this even an interesting discussion?

 

[tennisaddict]

As a Rafa fan I literally don't care at all. It's important but why should I be personally invested in whether or not he wins a WTF? I just skimmed but surely these things aren't particularly comparable no? If there are 4 opportunities to win a slam and one opportunity each season to win the WTF, how is this even an interesting discussion?

Yet Olympics which happen once in 4 years is of paramount importance to a particular fanbase.

 

[BringBackSV]

Yet Olympics which happen once in 4 years is of paramount importance to a particular fanbase.

That's a pretty gross exaggeration. I mean, I've certainly heard Roger on numerous occasions talk about his long term quest to win Olympic gold (singles) but other than that, I've just seen people acknowledge that it has value but is certainly no slam.

 

[tennisaddict]

That's a pretty gross exaggeration. I mean, I've certainly heard Roger on numerous occasions talk about his long term quest to win Olympic gold (singles) but other than that, I've just seen people acknowledge that it has value but is certainly no slam.

Forget what Roger feels. As far as Rafa fans, Olympics is several times more important than WTF. Wonder why.

 

[ultradr]

In 90's, WTF was often the deciding factor for year end #1 since top player
could dominate 1 or 2 surfaces only. Sampras often ended up as #1 with strong indoor season.

But for last 10+ years, it was never a decider (until now).
By the time WTF, #1 has been already decided.
Indoor season was much less of factor.

 

[coloskier]

As a Rafa fan I literally don't care at all. It's important but why should I be personally invested in whether or not he wins a WTF? I just skimmed but surely these things aren't particularly comparable no? If there are 4 opportunities to win a slam and one opportunity each season to win the WTF, how is this even an interesting discussion?

If you don't care about WTF, then obviously you shouldn't care about HTH either. Total slams is all that matters, followed by weeks at #1.

 

[BringBackSV]

Forget what Roger feels. As far as Rafa fans, Olympics is several times more important than WTF. Wonder why.

Why would we forget what Roger feels?

 

[BringBackSV]

If you don't care about WTF, then obviously you shouldn't care about HTH either. Total slams is all that matters, followed by weeks at #1.

1, that's a non sequitur.
2. refer to # 1.