Weeks at no.1 are nowhere near close slams

Marfrilau

Rookie
If they both have the same slams, then yes, the guy with a 20-10 lead in the H2H is greater. That difference is too big, we are talking about double the wins. Just think about how would you feel watching them play through the years. When they played you would always favour the guy winning 2 out of 3 times.
Read my post again. Why is the player who loses earlier in the slams he didn't win the greater player? Because that's what it must mean in this scenario. He's basically worse against the field compared to the other player.
 

demrle

Professional
Is it though? Imagine two players each winning 20 GS. They won them in the same time span. One leads in H2H 20-10. Who's greater? Now what if I told you that the player who has 10 wins against the other reached the final every time. Who's greater now? In this case it must mean that the guy with the inferior H2H always reached the final whereas the other player didn't. Should the player with the better H2H really be rewarded for that?
If I understand correctly, you are introducing the argument that not only tournament wins, but also overall success at a particular tournament should be considered, when comparing players. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

However, @Heliath, at least initially, only compared the H2H to weeks at #1.
 

Heliath

New User
nole on the other hand could have 19 slams if the ball did not hit the judge and if wimbl was not suspended due to corona.
If we hadnt had the Corona pandemic, then Rafa and all top players would have played in the US Open.

Why would have been a guaranteed victory for Novak when Nadal has won 2 of the last 3 times he has played in New York?

Corona had nothing to do with Novak hitting the ball to the judge, you could actually argue that he would have done the same thing without corona, meaning that he would have been disqualified anyway so actually corona has prevented Rafa from winning another US Open (as I dont think he would have had much problems with either Zverev nor Thiem).

If we are gonna play fantasy tennis then play it right.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
If I understand correctly, you are introducing the argument that not only tournament wins, but also overall success at a particular tournament should be considered, when comparing players. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

However, Heliath, at least initially, only compared the H2H to weeks at #1.
Yes and weeks at #1 is a much better indicator of how well you do against the field.
 

Heliath

New User
Read my post again. Why is the player who loses earlier in the slams he didn't win the greater player? Because that's what it must mean in this scenario. He's basically worse against the field compared to the other player.

You literally say they are tied at 20 slams, so how is one worse than the other against the field?

You didnt talk about overall titles, nor anything else. Your only data was:

1) tied at 20 slams
2) One has 20-10 lead on H2H.

So with that data, its pretty obvious that the one leading 20-10 in H2H is greater than the other .
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
You literally say they are tied at 20 slams, so how is one worse than the other against the field?

You didnt talk about overall titles, nor anything else. Your only data was:

1) tied at 20 slams
2) One has 20-10 lead on H2H.

So with that data, its pretty obvious that the one leading 20-10 in H2H is greater than the other .
3) The player with the inferior H2H reached the final every time and the other player didn't.

My entire point is that H2H is a very limited metric that should never be used alone as a tiebreaker.
 

demrle

Professional
Corona had nothing to do with Novak hitting the ball to the judge, you could actually argue that he would have done the same thing without corona, meaning that he would have been disqualified anyway so actually corona has prevented Rafa from winning another US Open (as I dont think he would have had much problems with either Zverev nor Thiem).
Are you really seing things in life this simplified, not to say - simplistic? If so, I really envy you...

If we are gonna play fantasy tennis then play it right.
That was hilarious! Well done.
 

Heliath

New User
If I understand correctly, you are introducing the argument that not only tournament wins, but also overall success at a particular tournament should be considered, when comparing players. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
That an interesting approach. But with that logic then we shouldnt only care about weeks at #1, but also overall success in the ranking taking into consideration maybe weeks at TOP 2, or weeks at TOP 5, TOP 8 or TOP 10.
 

demrle

Professional
Yes and weeks at #1 is a much better indicator of how well you do against the field.
Weeks at #1 can be NO tiebreaker.

It's EITHER weeks at #1 OR success at all tournaments (slams included!) that should be considered in the first place, as a main criterion.

Why?

Do better at tournaments => Get better rankings => Get easier draws at tournaments => Do better at tournaments => ...

Wash - rinse - repeat
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
Weeks at #1 can be NO tiebreaker.

It's EITHER weeks at #1 OR success at all tournaments (slams included!) that should be considered in the first place, as a main criterion.

Why?

Do better at tournaments => Get better rankings => Get easier draws at tournaments => Do better at tournaments => ...

Wash - rinse - repeat
Nothing can be a tiebreaker. It's a ridiculous concept that you can decide on a single metric to decide who is the GOAT (not that I believe one should or can crown someone GOAT). It's lazy and way too simplistic.
 

demrle

Professional
Nothing can be a tiebreaker. It's a ridiculous concept that you can decide on a single metric to decide who is the GOAT (not that I believe one should or can crown someone GOAT). It's lazy and way too simplistic.
I believe that you can, as tennis is an immanently numerical sport 15-30-40-game-set-match-tournament - GOAT (or not).

And if it doesn't come down to numbers, but to intangibles - I nominate the P O S Kyrgios for the debate.

Nothing can be a tiebreaker. It's a ridiculous concept that you can decide on a single metric to decide who is the GOAT (not that I believe one should or can crown someone GOAT). It's lazy and way too simplistic.
Could never put it better myself. It's the totality of successes at all tournaments. And H2H as a tiebreaker.

Though one could still argue that it's a single metric. What would be the others, in your mind?
 
We both know what I mean. Find me one article quoting Borg or anyone else talking about slam count as a sole measurment stick of tennis greatness, as you and some others are trying to imply now. Simply this is a recency bias created to hype certain players, but please be objective and just acknowledge it. Greatness of tennis players in the past were not measured ONLY by slam count and that is a fact. Borg or Laver or anyone else in 70s or 80s didnt care that Emerson had most slams, and surely he was not GOAT before Sampras by any means. That was my point which you conveniently simpflified in order to fit your narative.
both sports illustrated and ny times mentioned that borg was only one major away from tying
Emerson when he won 81 RG. And that he tied laver with his 11th major. I was a kid in the 80s, and I was well aware the majors record was 12. Yeah I knew Emerson wasn’t goat, but it was still an important number. Lendl talked often about how majors were the only events that mattered. If he got to 12, trust me it would have been considered a pretty big deal.
 

lucky13

Rookie
If we hadnt had the Corona pandemic, then Rafa and all top players would have played in the US Open.

Why would have been a guaranteed victory for Novak when Nadal has won 2 of the last 3 times he has played in New York?

Corona had nothing to do with Novak hitting the ball to the judge, you could actually argue that he would have done the same thing without corona, meaning that he would have been disqualified anyway so actually corona has prevented Rafa from winning another US Open (as I dont think he would have had much problems with either Zverev nor Thiem).

If we are gonna play fantasy tennis then play it right.
you took half a sentence out of context and missed the whole point of what I wrote!
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
I believe that you can, as tennis is an immanently numerical sport 15-30-40-game-set-match-tournament - GOAT (or not).

And if it doesn't come down to numbers, but to intangibles - I nominate the P O S Kyrgios for the debate.

Could never put it better myself. It's the totality of successes at all tournaments. And H2H as a tiebreaker.

Though one could still argue that it's a single metric. What would be the others, in your mind?
While the rule set (roughly) has been the same I find it rather difficult to consider the sport as it is today the same sport as it were when, let's say, Laver played it. The equipment for example has changed too much to consider it the same. Would anyone playing today be able to play the same way if they were born in the 40s? And vice versa.

Another problem is that tennis is a sport that is played in very different conditions. Given this, I find the concept of an overall GOAT (at least with the contesters we have currently) rather ridiculous. I can't with a straight face claim that Nadal is GOAT when another player is greater at 2/3 of the surfaces, 3/4 of the slams and 10/14 of the biggest tournaments. It would be like claiming a swimmer is the greatest swimmer if he's only greater at 1/4 of major swimming styles. I feel the same with Federer and Djokovic although to a lesser extent.

The point of my first post in this thread was that a metric like H2H does not necessarily tell the whole story. It's entirely possible that a superior H2H just means that the player with the superior H2H was better against the other player but worse against the field as whole. And does that mean he's the greater player? I really don't think so. Which means that any metric can't just be used as a tiebreaker without context.
 

KG1965

Legend
An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. H
Connors and Lendl were much higher of Borg in the rankings. There is no discussion on this point.
Let's not get confused.
 
Last edited:

Heliath

New User
you took half a sentence out of context and missed the whole point of what I wrote!
Your point was wrong since one injury can screw your ranking for months and months.

Nadal got injured in 2009, and you could argue that without that injury he would have won RG + Wimbledon (like he did in 2008 and 2010). That injury made Federer #1 again for 48 weeks. If Nadal hadnt gotten injured in 2009 he would have at least 48 more weeks at number one (around 150 consecutive weeks at #1) and another YE #1. Not to mention another RG and most likely another Wimbledon.

Nole can say a similar thing for 2017.
 

USO

Hall of Fame
This is, of course, just another spin. Same logic can be applied to all categories, slams included.

Example: Thiem and Delpo have won one slam each, moreover the same slam, USO. However, Thiem won the tournament in which the no.1 seed Djokovic exited early, world no.2 Nadal and no.4 Federer didn't even play and he played headcases Medvedev and Zverev in the semi-final and final, while Delpo beat 23-year-old 6-time-slam-winner Rafa and 28-year-old 15-time-slam-winner Roger (who, oh BTW, won 19 out of last 21 slams and all 3 previous slams that year).

You sure you want to enter the minefiled of achievement-relativization? As a Fed fan? Seriously?
Not really you are changing the subject. Tennis is about matches and titles. Being number one like I said in the earlier post is just about random points sometimes it could be 12000 points with 9 big titles and 70 matches won while other times it could be 8000 points with 5 smaller titles and 50 matches won. Those 2 scenarios do not translate into the same amount of matches and titles won, they are not equivalent. The ranking becomes arbitrary. But when it comes to slams it can’t be one time 10 matches won while other times 7 matches won. It’s always the same amount of matches won against the players playing the best level of tennis those two weeks, to lift the same trophy at the end.
 
Last edited:
While the rule set (roughly) has been the same I find it rather difficult to consider the sport as it is today the same sport as it were when, let's say, Laver played it. The equipment for example has changed too much to consider it the same. Would anyone playing today be able to play the same way if they were born in the 40s? And vice versa.

Another problem is that tennis is a sport that is played in very different conditions. Given this, I find the concept of an overall GOAT (at least with the contesters we have currently) rather ridiculous. I can't with a straight face claim that Nadal is GOAT when another player is greater at 2/3 of the surfaces, 3/4 of the slams and 10/14 of the biggest tournaments. It would be like claiming a swimmer is the greatest swimmer if he's only greater at 1/4 of major swimming styles. I feel the same with Federer and Djokovic although to a lesser extent.

The point of my first post in this thread was that a metric like H2H does not necessarily tell the whole story. It's entirely possible that a superior H2H just means that the player with the superior H2H was better against the other player but worse against the field as whole. And does that mean he's the greater player? I really don't think so. Which means that any metric can't just be used as a tiebreaker without context.
You said yourself. why would a player, Nadal, tied a player that according to you is better at 3/4 Slams at 20 Slams? He should have a HUGE lead by now because he has the BEST chance to win more Slams. But why are they tied/
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
You said yourself. why would a player, Nadal, tied a player that according to you is better at 3/4 Slams at 20 Slams? He should have a HUGE lead by now because he has the BEST chance to win more Slams. But why are they tied/
Because Nadal is reeeeeaaaaaaaally great at RG. But Federer is still greater at Wimbledon, USO and AO. That wont change no matter how great Nadal is at RG. I don't subscribe to the idea that a slam is a slam and total titles is all that matters. It's too simplistic and proclaiming someone overall GOAT in such circumstances only hides the details/context.
 
Because Nadal is reeeeeaaaaaaaally great at RG. But Federer is still greater at Wimbledon, USO and AO. That wont change no matter how great Nadal is at RG. I don't subscribe to the idea that a slam is a slam and total titles is all that matters. It's too simplistic and proclaiming someone overall GOAT in such circumstances only hides the details/context.
Analyze this to OPEN your mind:

Federer GREAT at 3/4 Slams = 20
Novak GREAT at 3/4 Slams = 17
Nadal GREAT at 1/4 Slams = 20

See the LOGIC?
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
This is, of course, just another spin. Same logic can be applied to all categories, slams included.

Example: Thiem and Delpo have won one slam each, moreover the same slam, USO. However, Thiem won the tournament in which the no.1 seed Djokovic exited early, world no.2 Nadal and no.4 Federer didn't even play and he played headcases Medvedev and Zverev in the semi-final and final, while Delpo beat 23-year-old 6-time-slam-winner Rafa and 28-year-old 15-time-slam-winner Roger (who, oh BTW, won 19 out of last 21 slams and all 3 previous slams that year).

You sure you want to enter the minefiled of achievement-relativization? As a Fed fan? Seriously?
No, that's not an accurate analogy, at all.

Of course strength of competition can be analysed as an important, but separate, factor.
However the point USO was making is that if Nadal gets 12,000 points and is world number 2, while Sampras gets 8,000 points and is world number 1, using the ranking as a comparator has no logic. This is because Nadal has actually done better than Sampras in matches he's played, but the distribution of points in matches neither player played in was different. So therefore it makes no logical sense to use this as a comparator.
That is distinct from judging competition in matches they did play in (your Thiem and Del Potro analysis), as for that you can take into account both performance of the relevant players and the competition. That's different from using a metric which gives importance to matches which neither player could influence at all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: USO
You
There is very little logic in what you are saying.
You are pretending not to know?? You are claiming that a player, Nadal, cannot be called the GOAT because he is only GREAT at 1/4 Slam compared to Federer and Novak who are GREAT at 3/4. But why is he tied with Federer and leading Novak? Understand now? What if 2 Slams are played on CLAY, what would Nadal's Slam count would be like? Plain logic.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
You


You are pretending not to know?? You are claiming that a player, Nadal, cannot be called the GOAT because he is only GREAT at 1/4 Slam compared to Federer and Novak who are GREAT at 3/4. But he is tied with Federer and leading Novak? Understand now? what if 2 Slams are played on CLAY, what would Nadal's Slam count would be? Plain logic.
You raise a good point there, @Nadal's Universe . As each surface should be regarded as equal, we should adjust the slam counts based on each surface having 1/3rd of the total slams. With that statistical calculation, Nadal is actually ahead of Federer.
 

demrle

Professional
While the rule set (roughly) has been the same I find it rather difficult to consider the sport as it is today the same sport as it were when, let's say, Laver played it. The equipment for example has changed too much to consider it the same. Would anyone playing today be able to play the same way if they were born in the 40s? And vice versa.
While all you said is true, I would argue that it has little relevance to the GOAT debate. There seems to exist a consensus on the Big3 era being the greatest ever, recency bias notwithstanding. Players from all eras seem to agree on that, Laver included. So we are not comparing across eras in this particular GOAT debate.

Another problem is that tennis is a sport that is played in very different conditions. Given this, I find the concept of an overall GOAT (at least with the contesters we have currently) rather ridiculous. I can't with a straight face claim that Nadal is GOAT when another player is greater at 2/3 of the surfaces, 3/4 of the slams and 10/14 of the biggest tournaments. It would be like claiming a swimmer is the greatest swimmer if he's only greater at 1/4 of major swimming styles. I feel the same with Federer and Djokovic although to a lesser extent.
The value of success in these different conditions has been normalized and all the participants are familiar with these norms, even before they become pros. GS (any) - 2000, Masters 1000... It is a matter of convention, but so is the GOAT issue. Or at least it should be.

When the ASP (Association of Swimming Professionals) :) comes up with a similar formula to normalize success in different disciplines, than we can compare the two. Until then, your comparison is not really suitable.

The point of my first post in this thread was that a metric like H2H does not necessarily tell the whole story. It's entirely possible that a superior H2H just means that the player with the superior H2H was better against the other player but worse against the field as whole. And does that mean he's the greater player? I really don't think so. Which means that any metric can't just be used as a tiebreaker without context.
H2H can be used as a first tiebreaker in and of itself, as the quality of play against the field ad whole is accounted for in the tournament results. And if that should not be detailed enough, you could look at H2H records of the GOAT candidates against other players individually.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
You are pretending not to know?? You are claiming that a player, Nadal, cannot be called the GOAT because he is only GREAT at 1/4 Slam compared to Federer and Novak who are GREAT at 3/4. But he is tied with Federer and leading Novak? Understand now? what if 2 Slams are played on CLAY, what would Nadal's Slam count would be? Plain logic.
Yes his slam count would be higher. But he would still be inferior on 2/3 surfaces. He could win 100 clay slams and he would still not be greater at grass or hardcourt.
 
Yes his slam count would be higher. But he would still be inferior on 2/3 surfaces. He could win 100 clay slams and he would still not be greater at grass or hardcourt.
That is the point. It just epitomizes his GREATNESS at Slams because he reached 20 and tied Federer being GREAT only in 1 Slam. Now for fair ASSUMPTION, if he is better at 3/4 Slam, what would be his Slam Count right now? He just did that with 1/4 Slam. He is at a DISADVANTAGE at 3/4 Slams. Now you got it? Rafa just strengthen his CASE for the GOAT debate because of this
 

demrle

Professional
You raise a good point there, @Nadal's Universe . As each surface should be regarded as equal, we should adjust the slam counts based on each surface having 1/3rd of the total slams. With that statistical calculation, Nadal is actually ahead of Federer.
What would be a logical reason do so? Nadal is a player who specialized in clay well knowing how many slams are played on which surface. He could have specialized in some other surface had he wanted to. And same goes for all of them.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
What would be a logical reason do so? Nadal is a player who specialized in clay well knowing how many slams are played on which surface. He could have specialized in some other surface had he wanted to. And same goes for all of them.
Alright. I wonder if there's a way of comparing slam counts, with it weight in such a way that hard courts have 2 slams, grass gets 1, and clay gets 1. Oh wait...
 

demrle

Professional
That is the point. It just epitomizes his GREATNESS at Slams because he reached 20 and tied Federer being GREAT only in 1 Slam. Now for fair ASSUMPTION, if he is better at 3/4 Slam, what would be his Slam Count right now? He just did that with 1/4 Slam. He is at a DISADVANTAGE at 3/4 Slams. Now you got it? Rafa just strengthen his CASE for the GOAT debate because of this
No it doesn't. Nor does it diminish it. If he had been able to become dominant at 3/4 slams, he would certainly have done it. You agree? He could have done so only while sacrificing some of his dominance on clay, hence winning less titles there.
 
No it doesn't. Nor does it diminish it. If he had been able to become dominant at 3/4 slams, he would certainly have done it. You agree? He could have done so only while sacrificing some of his dominance on clay, hence winning less titles there.
You too? You did not understand the point. Nadal reached 20 by being great at 1/4 Slam. While Federer and Novak both GREAT at 3/4 Slams, but why only 20 and 17 respectively? They both should have a HUGE lead at Nadal right now because they both have 3 out 4 HIGH CHANCES of winning a Slam than Nadal. Clear now.
 
Last edited:

Marfrilau

Rookie
While all you said is true, I would argue that it has little relevance to the GOAT debate. There seems to exist a consensus on the Big3 era being the greatest ever, recency bias notwithstanding. Players from all eras seem to agree on that, Laver included. So we are not comparing across eras in this particular GOAT debate.
And you don't think this is a problem? How can it not have relevance to the GOAT debate? If a sport has changed significantly over time it is per definition impossible to proclaim someone GOAT. A GOAT debate that does not compare across eras is an oxymoron. It's a GOTP (greatest of time period) debate then.
The value of success in these different conditions has been normalized and all the participants are familiar with these norms, even before they become pros. GS (any) - 2000, Masters 1000... It is a matter of convention, but so is the GOAT issue. Or at least it should be.

When the ASP (Association of Swimming Professionals) :) comes up with a similar formula to normalize success in different disciplines, than we can compare the two. Until then, your comparison is not really suitable.
I'm challenging whether the GOAT debate even makes sense in such circumstances. I consider the conditions the different slams are played in different enough to not consider a slam a slam. I feel I have enough evidence to claim that they are. You can disagree with that or not. And with that assumption I feel the overall GOAT title has little value.
Also the Association of Swimming Professionals have normalized success. If you win you get a medal. It doesn't matter which discipline it is. However, I still find it ridiculous to proclaim someone the swimming GOAT if someone else is greater at 3/4 disciplines (given they have won the same amount of medals). Especially if the swimmer who's greatest in only one discipline is greatest in breaststroke :-D

H2H can be used as a first tiebreaker in and of itself, as the quality of play against the field ad whole is accounted for in the tournament results. And if that should not be detailed enough, you could look at H2H records of the GOAT candidates against other players individually.
But the problem is that H2H is often used after only counting title wins. Which means all other results are ignored.
 

dahcovixx

Professional
First the masters with the modern wta 2 out of 3 format, now weeks number juan with the covid.

Mens tennis records dont really matter anymore, they just inflate the love doll til it pops, trying to make todays tennis something to be remembered with the record book.

Its not working, we are seeing reruns on tv of the same match being played on a different colored surface. No one is watching this crap as ratings show
 

demrle

Professional
You too? You did not understand the point. Nadal reached 20 by being great at 1/4 Slam. While Federer and Novak both GREAT at 3/4 Slams, but why only 20 and 17 respectively? They both should have a HUGE lead at Nadal right now.
Ego quoque, Caesar! :)

You didn't understand my point, not the other way round. Rafa is "more better" at his 1/4 Slams than Roger and Novak are better at theirs 3/4 Slams. So Rafa beat Novak and Roger at his slam almost every time they played (all but one actually), but managed more wins against them at their slams. Just in finals he beat them 8 times plus I don't know how meny times in semis.

And besides, you cannot just lump Roger and Novak together and say they have an advantage at 3/4 slams. They're two players, not one. So you can say they each have advantage at 1.5/4 slams each, or should I say 3/8 :)
 

JoshuaPim

Semi-Pro
Alright. I wonder if there's a way of comparing slam counts, with it weight in such a way that hard courts have 2 slams, grass gets 1, and clay gets 1. Oh wait...
So you don't actually understand that the reason there are more hard court Slams is because hard court tennis is by far the most commonly used surface, which means it is harder to win those Slams because of competition strength?? OK......
 

demrle

Professional
Not really you are changing the subject. Tennis is about matches and titles. Being number one like I said in the earlier post is just about random points...
I wasn't changing the subject, but you sure are with this one. Who the hell would ever think or say differently?
...
Being number one like I said in the earlier post is just about random points sometimes it could be 12000 points with 9 big titles and 70 matches won while other times it could be 8000 points with 5 smaller titles and 50 matches won. Those 2 scenarios do not translate into the same amount of matches and titles won, they are not equivalent. The ranking becomes arbitrary. But when it comes to slams it can’t be one time 10 matches won while other times 7 matches won. It’s always the same amount of matches won against the players playing the best level of tennis those two weeks, to lift the same trophy at the end.
You are arguing that all slams are created equal, while all "stints" at No #1 are not. But that is not true.

The last USO and especially the throat-gate are the best proof of that. You mean to tell me that Thiem's win at the USO was equally difficult to achieve, as if he would have played Djokovic in the final? Djokovic was one of the players playing the best level of tennis the first week. And than he lost his mind and gave Thiem the slam (and I'm banalizing here on purpose). That definitely takes away from Thiem's achievement.

Similarly, FOs that Roger and Novak won without having to face Rafa are worth less than they would be otherwise. Or all the slams that Rafa and Roger racked up while Novak was hugging Pepe.

And yet, in the end we just say 20-20-17 or whatever it is at that moment. You can only do the same with rankings, anything else means having double standards.
 

USO

Hall of Fame
I wasn't changing the subject, but you sure are with this one. Who the hell would ever think or say differently?

You are arguing that all slams are created equal, while all "stints" at No #1 are not. But that is not true.

The last USO and especially the throat-gate are the best proof of that. You mean to tell me that Thiem's win at the USO was equally difficult to achieve, as if he would have played Djokovic in the final? Djokovic was one of the players playing the best level of tennis the first week. And than he lost his mind and gave Thiem the slam (and I'm banalizing here on purpose). That definitely takes away from Thiem's achievement.

Similarly, FOs that Roger and Novak won without having to face Rafa are worth less than they would be otherwise. Or all the slams that Rafa and Roger racked up while Novak was hugging Pepe.

And yet, in the end we just say 20-20-17 or whatever it is at that moment. You can only do the same with rankings, anything else means having double standards.
So tell me this would you rather win 2 Masters 1000 or 1 slam? Because they are both worth 2000 points. There is not one person in the world who would pick the 2 masters 1000 over 1 the slam. Yet they are worth the same amount of points. That’s another proof that rankings are nowhere near close important as slams. I would even say that no player out there would choose 5 masters 1000 over 1 slam despite 5000 points being more than 2000 points. Stop talking about rankings and points they are just arbitrary what matters are the titles especially the slams.
 

demrle

Professional
So tell me this would you rather win 2 Masters 1000 or 1 slam? Because they are both worth 2000 points. There is not one person in the world who would pick the 2 masters 1000 over 1 the slam. Yes they are worth the same amount of points. That’s another proof that rankings are nowhere near close important as slams. I would even say that no player out there would choose 5 masters 1000 over 1 slam despite 5000 points being more than 2000 points. Stop talking about rankings and points they are just arbitrary what matters are the titles especially the slams.
What I would rather win is completely irrelevant for the GOAT debate. Or even what any player would rather win, for that matter. What matters is, which is more difficult to achieve. Apparently there is some sort of a consensus, that a slam is worth double the amount of points a Masters event is. That wasn't my call. At a slam you need to win seven matches (21 sets) as opposed to five-six matches (10-12 sets) at a Masters. So there you have it. If a slam is worth more than two Masters, than they should adjust the ratio of points awarded.
 

USO

Hall of Fame
What I would rather win is completely irrelevant for the GOAT debate. Or even what any player would rather win, for that matter. What matters is, which is more difficult to achieve. Apparently there is some sort of a consensus, that a slam is worth double the amount of points a Masters event is. At a slam you need to win seven matches (21 sets) as opposed to five-six matches (10-12 sets) at a Masters. That wasn't my call. So there you have it. If a slam is worth more than two Masters, than they should adjust the ratio of points awarded.
That’s just because they want to make top players enter other tournaments but the bottom line is the slams are by far the most important and you know it and all the players have said it. If someone makes it to number one but didn’t win a slam everyone looks at them as undeserving and a disappointment. Stop talking nonsense and move on.
 

Heliath

New User
So tell me this would you rather win 2 Masters 1000 or 1 slam? Because they are both worth 2000 points. There is not one person in the world who would pick the 2 masters 1000 over 1 the slam. Yet they are worth the same amount of points. That’s another proof that rankings are nowhere near close important as slams. I would even say that no player out there would choose 5 masters 1000 over 1 slam despite 5000 points being more than 2000 points. Stop talking about rankings and points they are just arbitrary what matters are the titles especially the slams.
Top players with a gazillion masters wont change a slam for 5 masters, but players that dont win many titles dont be so sure. 5 masters mean more money than winning 1 slam, and if you win several Masters in a row (like Ríos in 1998) it could mean world number 1. And getting to world number #1 with 0 slams is way better than winning 1 slam in your career but not getting to world #1.

Do you think Marcelo Ríos would like to change careers with Gaston Gaudio? I dont think so.
 
Top