What if 750 & 1250 tournament points???

BGod

Legend
Obviously couldn't have a Masters match WTF but with the growth of the tour what if this happened? How would it play out?

Indian Wells at least is above a typical Masters and Miami use to be as well. Both were 7 round draws.

Meanwhile while unlikely, tournaments have been downgraded before if Paris & Madrid went to 750 or a 500 like Halle or Rotterdam were upgraded.

With the current 9 tournaments I imagine 3 could be picked for upgrade, so aside from IW who would they be or would you have 5? Then upgrade a 500 to Masters so there's 4-5-5 drop of 2000-1250-1000 points on offer.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Maybe crown one M1000 in each buildup or lower one (perhaps both).

IW, Miami -> IW becomes 1250
MC, Madrid, Rome -> MC becomes 750, Rome becomes 1250
Canada, Cincinnati -> Cincy becomes 1250
Shanghai, Paris -> Paris becomes 750

I would also want Halle to be at least a 750, if not a 1000 for the grass season to be more than just some irrelevant tourneys, Halle/Queens, and Wimby.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Maybe crown one M1000 in each buildup or lower one (perhaps both).

IW, Miami -> IW becomes 1250
MC, Madrid, Rome -> MC becomes 750, Rome becomes 1250
Canada, Cincinnati -> Cincy becomes 1250
Shanghai, Paris -> Paris becomes 750

I would also want Halle to be at least a 750, if not a 1000 for the grass season to be more than just some irrelevant tourneys, Halle/Queens, and Wimby.
To go along with that, they also need to look at the points given for winning Majors! I've already kvetched about 2016 to anyone who'll listen/read and now this season! Back in '16 after Djokovic wrapped up his Nole-Slam you'd think he'd invariably end up as YE #1; esp. after getting to the finals of the USO and the YEC/WTF! It came down to the last match of the season where Murray stole it with 1 major and every 500 he could get to! He's been paying for it ever since; totally breaking down before his time! Now, with Djokovic owning 3 Majors, he's still not secure in taking the #1 YE ranking due to a ton of points Med needs to defend this Fall! Could lightning strike again? Doubtful since I believe Djokovic will get points from the Olympics and The USO along with a slow fade of Daniil! :unsure:
 
Last edited:
To go along with that, they also need to look at the points given for winning Majors! I've already kvetched about 2016 to anyone who'll listen/read and now this season! Back in '16 after Djokovic wrapped up his Nole-Slam you'd think he'd invariably end up as YE #1; esp. after getting to the finals of the USO and the YEC/WTF! It came down to the last match of the season where Murray stole it with 1 major and every 500 he could get to! He's been paying for it ever since; totally breaking down before his time! Now, with Djokovic owning 3 Majors, he's still not secure in taking the #1 YE ranking due to a ton of points Med needs to defend this Fall! Could lighting strike again? Doubtful since I believe Djokovic will get points from the Olympics and The USO along with a slow fade of Daniil! :unsure:
It's not just about winning majors but about the points on offer at all stages. It would be one thing if Djokovic had defeated Nadal in all three GS finals but Nadal won everything else going. But the points on offer at majors in general are too low. They should be worth at least 3x any MS event.

No points on offer at the Olympics, BTW.
 

ItalianFan

New User
I heard a proposal to adjust a tournament's status (and so points) in accordance to the field of that given year (more or less top-10 players in the main draw, etc.), so not a permanent thing.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
They have to adjust point for slam first , no way two masters is equal to one slam, it should be 3000 or 4000.
3 or 4 master winner cutoff is where people think, player should have won slam like Davy, Zverev or Med
 

fox

Semi-Pro
What is a point for WTA or ATP to decrease points in Masters in favour of Slams? It would mean players would care even less about anything outside Slams and they already hardly care. For example Osaka skips half of a season and still is number 2 so why would she play anything outside USO/AO and few hardcourt tourneys?
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
What is a point for WTA or ATP to decrease points in Masters in favour of Slams? It would mean players would care even less about anything outside Slams and they already hardly care. For example Osaka skips half of a season and still is number 2 so why would she play anything outside USO/AO and few hardcourt tourneys?
It's not about Osaka, it is about what is right, I am saying this for many years, even on this forum before my favorite won RG this year.
Slam is undervalued by atp.
In this point system 2 master is equivalent to one slam, no way
Other players will always play many events, as at max there can be 4 slam winner at a time
 
Last edited:

fox

Semi-Pro
It's not about Osaka, it is about what is right, I am saying this for many years, even on this forum before my favorite won RG this year.
Slam is undervalued by atp.
In this point system 2 master is equivalent to one slam, no way
Other players will always play many events, as at max there can be 4 slam winner at a time
But it is about being right for whom? For ATP/WTA it’s better like it is now. Because their events matter more meaning they can have better field.
It’s not about Osaka only. In your scenario, a player with 2 Slams will be almost granted no 1 and a player with 1 Slam will be TOP4 no matter what he or she does the rest of the year. Currently players are skipping tournaments like crazy and it will only lead to more and more skipping. And I really don’t want to watch current Isner or Goffin in Masters finals because it’s really embarassing. And considering there are more and more random players in Slams QF and up it would devastate the rankings even more than now. Hurkacz made it to Slam SF and won Miami (because everyone relevant skipped it) and is TOP10 already. So with even more points for Slams he could be TOP 6-7 with 2 results in the year.
Even if it would be more fair to give more points in Slams.
 

Tennisfan339

Semi-Pro
To go along with that, they also need to look at the points given for winning Majors! I've already kvetched about 2016 to anyone who'll listen/read and now this season! Back in '16 after Djokovic wrapped up his Nole-Slam you'd think he'd invariably end up as YE #1; esp. after getting to the finals of the USO and the YEC/WTF! It came down to the last match of the season where Murray stole it with 1 major and every 500 he could get to! He's been paying for it ever since; totally breaking down before his time! Now, with Djokovic owning 3 Majors, he's still not secure in taking the #1 YE ranking due to a ton of points Med needs to defend this Fall! Could lightning strike again? Doubtful since I believe Djokovic will get points from the Olympics and The USO along with a slow fade of Daniil! :unsure:
In 2016 Murray is in final of 3 slams, wins 1, wins the World Tour Finals, the Olympics. Add 3 Masters titles (Rome, Shanghaï, Bercy) and 3 finals (Miami, Madrid, Cincinnati). It's not like he robbed the YE-1, even if Djokovic won 2 slams that year.
Now if Djokovic isn't #1 at the end of this year, I agree it will be a joke.


To answer the OP, No I don't want new tournament categories. The tennis records will become a mess and the goat debates will be even more complicated if they start changing rules. Imagine they add a 5th slam and someone gets to 21 one day, there will be a huge asterisk because The big3 only had 4 chances per year.
If they start upgrading/downgrading Masters1000 to ATP750 or Masters1250, it will be a total shambles. The Masters1000 records will be irrelevant, then. If Djokodal end up with 40 Masters and some day a new guy wins 41 but some of them only give 750 points, there will be asterisks everywhere. And so on.

I am not opposed to a "ATP125" category on the other hand. Dump all the Challengers125. The biggest category of challengers should only give 100 points. ATP125 would be counted as an ATP title and the winner gets 125 points. Category between challengers and ATP250. They are already doing it with the WTA since 2012.
 

BGod

Legend
In 2016 Murray is in final of 3 slams, wins 1, wins the World Tour Finals, the Olympics. Add 3 Masters titles (Rome, Shanghaï, Bercy) and 3 finals (Miami, Madrid, Cincinnati). It's not like he robbed the YE-1, even if Djokovic won 2 slams that year.
Now if Djokovic isn't #1 at the end of this year, I agree it will be a joke.


To answer the OP, No I don't want new tournament categories. The tennis records will become a mess and the goat debates will be even more complicated if they start changing rules. Imagine they add a 5th slam and someone gets to 21 one day, there will be a huge asterisk because The big3 only had 4 chances per year.
If they start upgrading/downgrading Masters1000 to ATP750 or Masters1250, it will be a total shambles. The Masters1000 records will be irrelevant, then. If Djokodal end up with 40 Masters and some day a new guy wins 41 but some of them only give 750 points, there will be asterisks everywhere. And so on.

I am not opposed to a "ATP125" category on the other hand. Dump all the Challengers125. The biggest category of challengers should only give 100 points. ATP125 would be counted as an ATP title and the winner gets 125 points. Category between challengers and ATP250. They are already doing it with the WTA since 2012.
Dude it's already in shambles. Most players only did 3 Slams until 90s, Masters level titles were all over the map and often only half were chosen by top guys. Dont forget Bob finals outside Slams. As long as Slams stay at 4 it will finnnnnne lol.
 

augustobt

Legend
Dude it's already in shambles. Most players only did 3 Slams until 90s, Masters level titles were all over the map and often only half were chosen by top guys. Dont forget Bob finals outside Slams. As long as Slams stay at 4 it will finnnnnne lol.
I couldn't agree more.

Don't mess with the slams.
Don't **** with WTF (no stupid shenanigans like rotating surface and putting it outdoors, Houston was a mistake). In fact, bring back Bo5 finals to WTF.
Then leave the money of the organizers to dictate the Masters and lower tier tournaments.

I still hate the fact that Masters doesn't have BO5 finals anymore. Wikipedia brawlers are so stupid to realize that was what made the masters special. That's why Nadal's BO5 record on clay was so important back then. So much epic matches it has produced, now gone. I remember that we had Bo5 finals in some international/international gold series (250/500).

It's not long before the day tennis matches will become just a 50 point tie-break.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
But it is about being right for whom? For ATP/WTA it’s better like it is now. Because their events matter more meaning they can have better field.
It’s not about Osaka only. In your scenario, a player with 2 Slams will be almost granted no 1 and a player with 1 Slam will be TOP4 no matter what he or she does the rest of the year. Currently players are skipping tournaments like crazy and it will only lead to more and more skipping. And I really don’t want to watch current Isner or Goffin in Masters finals because it’s really embarassing. And considering there are more and more random players in Slams QF and up it would devastate the rankings even more than now. Hurkacz made it to Slam SF and won Miami (because everyone relevant skipped it) and is TOP10 already. So with even more points for Slams he could be TOP 6-7 with 2 results in the year.
Even if it would be more fair to give more points in Slams.
Right now top three are over 34, that is why they skip, most of other atp players take part.
Hubert win was impressive in Miami, you have to see the tournament.
In Wimbledon only Rafa skipped, unless you are sure Rafa was going to be in Hubert draw
 
Top