When did Masters 1000s become a staple of the "big titles" count

[Deon Sanders]

I always remember Masters 1000s (or equivalent in the past) being very important but they were never THE measuring stick of the ATP for career success

It appears that to capitalize on this race of the "Big 3" they have moved in the last couple years to over hyping this "big titles" talking point

Players would take higher appearance fee money than a winner prize at a 1000 to play at literally anything else for years

 

[Ann]

I always remember Masters 1000s (or equivalent in the past) being very important but they were never THE measuring stick of the ATP for career success

It appears that to capitalize on this race of the "Big 3" they have moved in the last couple years to over hyping this "big titles" talking point

Players would take higher appearance fee money than a winner prize at a 1000 to play at literally anything else for years

In a nutshell it's because the GOAT has so many more GS than "their" player does they need a different yardstick.

 

[duaneeo]

I don't think Masters are overhyped. Tennis consists of BO3 and BO5, and the Masters are the "big" BO3 tournaments. All one needs to do is view the threads during a Masters. Clearly the fans are interested in them and consider them big.

 

[Standaa]

I don’t know about Masters being overhyped when it’s on this very place where you will read that one hundred of them ain’t worth 1 GS...

Laughable.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I always remember Masters 1000s (or equivalent in the past) being very important but they were never THE measuring stick of the ATP for career success

It appears that to capitalize on this race of the "Big 3" they have moved in the last couple years to over hyping this "big titles" talking point

Players would take higher appearance fee money than a winner prize at a 1000 to play at literally anything else for years

didn't this 'masters overhyping marketing madness' (gently) start with the creation of the ATP tour in 1990 ?
but even then, lots of top players were regularly skipping some of them. only recently did it overhype take such proportions...
(maybe in conjonction with the scary lack of turnover at the top spots ?)

but well... after all, they're just trying to very proactively sell their stuff, as most people do in our current world

 

[Lleytonstation]

Well other than the four slams you have to have something to create a "buzz" about, and that's what the Masters do. Keeps us tennis fans involved and passionate about the sport.

As far as calling them "big titles," they obviously are, just not as big as slams.

 

[Deon Sanders]

didn't this 'masters overhyping marketing madness' (gently) start with the creation of the ATP tour in 1990 ?
but even then, lots of top players were regularly skipping some of them. only recently did it overhype take such proportions...
(maybe in conjonction with the scary lack of turnover at the top spots ?)

but well... after all, they're just trying to very proactively sell their stuff, as most people do in our current world

I mean everyone skipped them for many many many years

Federer passed on like 5 Paris titles for a better gig that paid better

Djokovic has played a full Masters 1000 schedule twice as much as Federer did at the same age

 

[Ann]

Well other than the four slams you have to have something to create a "buzz" about, and that's what the Masters do. Keeps us tennis fans involved and passionate about the sport.

As far as calling them "big titles," they obviously are, just not as big as slams.

I agree but I believe what Deon Sanders was asking is why on this board does it seem so many put more weight on Masters these days than GS?

 

[Lleytonstation]

I agree but I believe what Deon Sanders was asking is why on this board does it seem so many put more weight on Masters these days than GS?

I havent noticed that. Maybe a few oddballs spitting their usual junk, but other than that I think most people see the difference. Now, how much a difference varies.

However, as the race for slams gets closer, people start to focus in on the next level of titles so they can compare resumes, but that is a whole different argument that I do not have the energy for.

 

[r2473]

Nobody cares about clay Masters titles

 

[Jackuar]

It started when someone started caring for them. The GOAT appeared in everything, respected everything, played in them with meaning and sincerity, pulled business to the organisers and helped these events gained popularity; unlike yesteryears where the so called champions took these events for granted.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

I mean everyone skipped them for many many many years

Federer passed on like 5 Paris titles for a better gig that paid better

Djokovic has played a full Masters 1000 schedule twice as much as Federer did at the same age

Mainly because they weren't mandatory back in the day.

 

[Luka888]

Masters do matter. However, the big 3 are in a different category. They usually go deep even there. We just watched Djokovic winning Madrid and the final of Rome. Pretty good. Nadal won Rome. Fed did well too.

Younger players or 'the rest of the field' should be very focused on masters. Again, tennis is not all about the big 3. We need to understand that there are so many good players out there. I do agree that tennis needs to be promoted more. I'm not sure how. You have 3 stars who are still shining. Many books will be written about them.

The big 3 are trying their best and everyone wants to watch big 3 divas. The question is, what do you do? We can't watch Djokovic, Federer and Nadal 24 7.

When it started? It's tough to pin point and it doesn't really matter. If you are almost 38 yo, you have to prioritize . You can't be everywhere. Same with Novak and Rafa. Well, they are still playing masters. They will skip here and there.

 

[AceSalvo]

Well other than the four slams you have to have something to create a "buzz" about, and that's what the Masters do. Keeps us tennis fans involved and passionate about the sport.

As far as calling them "big titles," they obviously are, just not as big as slams.

Never was nowhere near the slams and never will be no matter how much "big" ATP promotes them.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Formally the foundations of it were laid in 1990, as vive mentioned.

The true reason for it is two-fold:

1) ATP found a way to wrestle some influence from the ITF by juxtaposing the M1000 as the highest ATP achievement vs the Majors as the highest ITF achievement and that fight is continuing with the recent decisions concerning "world championships", DC, the various year end awards etc. The "mandatory" aspect of the tournaments in question was the ATP's solution to deal with the virtual mandatory status of the Majors

2) the unprecedented longevity of the top players (the reasons are a separate matter) established the possibility to amass inordinate amount of M1000 titles, and the sheer numbers couldn't be completely ignored when talking about career results

 

[Mainad]

I always remember Masters 1000s (or equivalent in the past) being very important but they were never THE measuring stick of the ATP for career success

It appears that to capitalize on this race of the "Big 3" they have moved in the last couple years to over hyping this "big titles" talking point

Players would take higher appearance fee money than a winner prize at a 1000 to play at literally anything else for years

You could make a similar argument for some of the Slams. For years, many players ignored the Australian and French Opens and some even ignored Wimbledon for other "big" tournaments of the time that paid more. It's only in about the last 25 years or so that the Slam count has suddenly become so important.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You could make a similar argument for some of the Slams. For years, many players ignored the Australian and French Opens and some even ignored Wimbledon for other "big" tournaments of the time that paid more. It's only in about the last 25 years or so that the Slam count has suddenly become so important.

The reasons are completely different: as the tour became more and more professional the lagging behind Majors got their act together and started acting like Majors (prize money, facilities). Not the case with the mandatory status of the M1000s.

 

[Service Ace]

Shortly after the Olympics Gold became the crowning achievement in the sport (only in singles though of course)

 

[Mainad]

The reasons are completely different: as the tour became more and more professional the lagging behind Majors got their act together and started acting like Majors (prize money, facilities). Not the case with the mandatory status of the M1000s.

Whatever the reasons the fact remains that not all Slams always enjoyed their present prestige. Things change and that's the point I am trying to make and it makes me smile when some people, mainly Slam fanatics, like to point to the Masters events as if they are unique in this respect.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Whatever the reasons the fact remains that not all Slams always enjoyed their present prestige. Things change and that's the point I am trying to make.

Yes, the change is an integral part of the sport (or most things).

 

[Zardoz7/12]

Did the Australian Open transitioning to Hard Courts from Grass play a role for more players to participate?