Which Is More Historically Valued: ATP Masters 1000 Events or Grand Slam Events?

Which Is More Historically Valued: ATP Masters 1000 Events or Grand Slam Events


  • Total voters
    35

AngieB

Banned
ITF-Sanctioned Grand Slam tournaments (i.e. Wimbledon, US Open)

vs


ATP Masters 1000 Events (i.e. Monte Carlo, Indian Wells)


There has been a recent push by some irrationally exuberant fans of one or two ATP players who excel in ATP Masters1000's events, but can't seem to penetrate history in ITF-Sanctioned Grand Slam events, to diminish the historical significance of ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam events.

Let's face it. #Wimbledon (i.e. ITF-sanctioned grand slam events) will always be greater than #MonteCarlo, #Cincinnati or any other lesser-than #ATP Masters event. #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events. Accept no cheap historical substitutions.

#MajorInMajors #MastersRMinors


#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Definitely the ATP Masters 1000 events. It's not even close.

What would one rather be, a Grand Slam champion, or a MASTER?

#MasteringTheMasters
 

timnz

Legend
ITF-Sanctioned Grand Slam tournaments (i.e. Wimbledon, US Open)

vs


ATP Masters 1000 Events (i.e. Monte Carlo, Indian Wells)


#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

IMO nobody at all thinks that Masters 1000 events are worth as much as slams.. I see a few threads where there is a discussion as to what percentage a Masters 1000 is in proportion to a slam eg thE ATP says 50%, others say various figures down to zero. I am curious about the thread. Do you see a lot of people claiming they are equal to slams?
 

AngieB

Banned
Definitely the ATP Masters 1000 events. It's not even close.

What would one rather be, a Grand Slam champion, or a MASTER?

#MasteringTheMasters

I would rather #Major in #Majors than #Master a #Master anyday.

Master1000's are cheap, ATP substitutes for ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam events. Who would rather win in #MonteCarlo than at #Wimbledon?

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
I would just like to say that Indian wells is an amazing tournement that deserves to be on slam-level apreciation but for the sake of the topic. Its obviously slams, any slam but Wimbledon? Wimbledon > everything else.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I would rather #Major in #Majors than #Master a #Master anyday.

Master1000's are cheap, ATP substitutes for ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam events. Who would rather win in #MonteCarlo than at #Wimbledon?

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

You make sense and have talked me around. I now truly believe in the real value of the ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam events.

My vote is in.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Masters typically have matches on consecutive days, which makes it harder. The best of three also ensures that the most skilled player wins instead of the one with the highest resistance to boredom.

Due to these facts, most rational people value ATP-sanctioned Masters 1000 events.

Also, the ATP has only male players, whereas the ITF features both men and women. The standard of play is higher on the men's tour, so it follows that ATP>ITF.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL. What a question! Hope you are not serious. Anybody knows what is harder, and what is more prestigous.







Masters is my vote then.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It is easy to achieve career slam in majors . Several players like Meth Agassi, Lavu, *********, kneeda have all won it.

None of them ever won the career masters.

So, ITF sanctioned masters is better by a mile.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
#Wimbledon vs #MonteCarlo


#WimbledonAllDay

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

Are you quite serious with this, Angie?

Occasionally, I love me some MC on a Thursday. You never feel the same way?

Get back to me.
 

ZiggyStardust

Professional
I would rather #Major in #Majors than #Master a #Master anyday.

Master1000's are cheap, ATP substitutes for ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam events. Who would rather win in #MonteCarlo than at #Wimbledon?

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

Not many people, probably. But when it comes to #Cincinnati though..
Can anyone honestly say they'd rather win Wimbledon than the #slam_of_slams ?

#MajorInRealMajors
 

AngieB

Banned
It is easy to achieve career slam in majors . Several players like Meth Agassi, Lavu, *********, kneeda have all won it.

None of them ever won the career masters.

So, ITF sanctioned masters is better by a mile.

The ITF doesn't not sanction #minor ATP events, including their #Masters1000 events.

There is no such thing as a "Career Masters" in the history of tennis. It's a phrase made-up by the #WikipediaGeneration to lift the historical status of their favorite who couldn't excel in ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam tennis to become one of the greatest.

Meanwhile, #Wimbledon continue to amaze, while #MonteCarlo disappoints.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 

AngieB

Banned
Oprah_umad.gif

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 

ZiggyStardust

Professional
True enough.

I'd say they rank something like this:

1. Wimbledon
2. Cincy

3. ATP-sanctioned Masters 1000
4. ITF-sanctioned Slems
5. Monte Carlo.

Excellent list. I take issue with the first two, though. Would you not say that the undisputed goatness of the goat at Cincy, out shadows his goatness at Wimbledon, which while without equal, is questioned by fans of a certain retired slemmer. The #pretender, #bore has also never slemmed there, while he has knocked off a couple at Wimby. #0 real slems
 
ITF-Sanctioned Grand Slam tournaments (i.e. Wimbledon, US Open)

vs


ATP Masters 1000 Events (i.e. Monte Carlo, Indian Wells)


There has been a recent push by some irrationally exuberant fans of one or two ATP players who excel in ATP Masters1000's events, but can't seem to penetrate history in ITF-Sanctioned Grand Slam events, to diminish the historical significance of ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam events.

Let's face it. #Wimbledon (i.e. ITF-sanctioned grand slam events) will always be greater than #MonteCarlo, #Cincinnati or any other lesser-than #ATP Masters event. #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events. Accept no cheap historical substitutions.

#MajorInMajors #MastersRMinors


#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
giphy.gif
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
How is the troll OP not banned yet? Trolling, name calling and annoying usage of #Hashtags should be enough to give a timeout.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Excellent list. I take issue with the first two, though. Would you not say that the undisputed goatness of the goat at Cincy, out shadows his goatness at Wimbledon, which while without equal, is questioned by fans of a certain retired slemmer. The #pretender, #bore has also never slemmed there, while he has knocked off a couple at Wimby. #0 real slems

I think you make a very convincing case here. I might have to revise my stance on this.

Also, we must not forget that it was the great Suresh that put the slem in the real slem. That certainly raises its status.
 

AngieB

Banned
#USOpenGS > #12ShanghaiMasters
...accept no cheap substitutes

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
How is the troll OP not banned yet? Trolling, name calling and annoying usage of #Hashtags should be enough to give a timeout.
There is no trolling here by AngieB. She has a point, and she wanted to prove it, namely that most people think that slams are what we look at first. Aside from my disagreement with her about the 60s I mostly agree with her.

There aren't too many #hashtags. One person trolled back with all words with hashtags. Name calling? She's not even close to being at the top of the list of people insulting. ;)
 

AngieB

Banned
There is no trolling here by AngieB. She has a point, and she wanted to prove it, namely that most people think that slams are what we look at first. Aside from my disagreement with her about the 60s I mostly agree with her.

There aren't too many #hashtags. One person trolled back with all words with hashtags. Name calling? She's not even close to being at the top of the list of people insulting. ;)
#MrGARYDUANE,

Thank you, kind #sir for pinpointing it exactly.

The kids get upset when their little scheme's prove historically inaccurate. They result to ad hominem and throw temper tantrums. And in spite of their long ride down #MinorHighway on a short bus, I STILL pray for them. Lord willing and the creek don't rise!

P.S. Did you see the pornography they posted in the Caroline Wozniacki thread? The kids are out of control.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
#MrGARYDUANE,

Thank you, kind #sir for pinpointing it exactly.

The kids get upset when their little scheme's prove historically inaccurate. They result to ad hominem and throw temper tantrums. And in spite of their long ride down #MinorHighway on a short bus, I STILL pray for them. Lord willing and the creek don't rise!

P.S. Did you see the pornography they posted in the Caroline Wozniacki thread? The kids are out of control.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
No, I didn't see that.

By the way, anyone who knows me here knows that I am fair, and that I don't like attacking people. I don't like seeing people attacked. There are a lot of things I like about "now", but insane trolling in forums is a very ugly and rather new thing.

I believe in looking at all the facts, all angles. From 1969 on number of slams is a pretty good indication of who is best. I would say pretty good for all of women tennis players. My only problem with that, as I've stated, is that men were struggling to make a living playing tennis, and they couldn't do that. That's why they had to play pro tennis. I think over time the pros put a distance between themselves and the amateurs, not because they were innately better or more talented but because playing against the best day after day gave the amateurs a lack of top competition.

That's what happened in the 50s and 60s, and the result is so obvious when you look at the beginning of open tennis. The guys who dominated were older.

Even though the top 20 men now are averaging something like 29 years of age now, we still consider Novak getting a CYGS at the age of 27-28 as a long shot, yet we don't wonder how Laver did it at age 30-31.

Strangely there are parallels between that era (late 60s to early 70s) that parallel what we are seeing right now. Old dominance.

But I think there is something similar going on. For many years how we have seen Fed, Nadal and Novak sort of creating there own unique level. We can talk about why this (are they THAT talented, are the rest weaker?), but something very similar was going on when suddenly Laver and Rosewall were let loose into the amateur world.

And because Novak went through the incredible pressure-cooker of being beaten down by both Fed and Nadal, I think he has a legitimate chance of padding his slam resume. And I would say that while weeks at #1 comes after slams, and a bit number of Masters also comes behind slams, it's still possible that the combination of all those things may elevate him into the elite club of all time greats.

Even though I am not a fan (like a more aggressive game), I also enjoy watching an underdog win.

It's all about how the younger players develop now, and whether or not Novak can keep a high level of dominance as long as Laver.

Tune in about three years from now to find out! ;)
 

Camus

Rookie
Definitely the ATP Masters 1000 events. It's not even close.

What would one rather be, a Grand Slam champion, or a MASTER?

#MasteringTheMasters

I think ITFSanctioned Futures events are even more important than ATP Masters 1000 events, just because it's ITF, and not ATP.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Equally much "easier" for everyone, meaning the competition remains equally difficult to win. Masters simply measure tennis-skill better.
Nice troll.

There's a reason why the Masters are before the majors - to let players iron out out the kinks and dust off the cobwebs. That's why so many more players who've never won a major have managed to win them - the overall form is lower. Hell, they're so unremarkable by comparison to majors that Djokovic and Federer have pulled out of a couple this year already.
 

ZiggyStardust

Professional
Nice troll.

There's a reason why the Masters are before the majors - to let players iron out out the kinks and dust off the cobwebs. That's why so many more players who've never won a major have managed to win them - the overall form is lower. Hell, they're so unremarkable by comparison to majors that Djokovic and Federer have pulled out of a couple this year already.

How I wish. :(
Well its all good if he can slem when it matters. Them slems be drying up for a couple of years now.
 

AngieB

Banned
Is 4 500's as good as a Grand Slam?
Winning (4) Masters 500 tennis tournaments won't get you into the #ITHOF. Winning ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam tournaments #WILL. Praise be and hallelujah.

#Major in #Majors, not #Masters

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Nice troll.

There's a reason why the Masters are before the majors - to let players iron out out the kinks and dust off the cobwebs. That's why so many more players who've never won a major have managed to win them - the overall form is lower. Hell, they're so unremarkable by comparison to majors that Djokovic and Federer have pulled out of a couple this year already.

I didn't know that IW and Miami were before and not after the Australian Open. Oh, wait, clearly the AO is a nice warm-up for the spring HC-swing. Ditto with the USO and the ensuing fall-season.

A greater variety in winners suggest a stronger competition at the top in masters. The best-of-three format is more upset-friendly, rewarding the highest concentrated level of tennis over three sets, in contrast to the boredom-testing BO5 format.

Now, of course, majors are more popular and all that—I'm not denying that. But there is no doubt that winning ATP-sanctioned masters is the true test of skill in the game of tennis.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
I didn't know that IW and Miami were before and not after the Australian Open. Oh, wait, clearly the AO is a nice warm-up for the spring HC-swing. Ditto with the USO and the ensuing fall-season.
3 of the 4 majors occur right after a series of M1000 events (or another major in Wimbledon's case).

A greater variety in winners suggest a stronger competition at the top in masters.
OR, more lilely, the greats put less emphasis on them because they barely contribute to overall greatness of the top echelon of players at all.

The best-of-three format is more upset-friendly, rewarding the highest concentrated level of tennis over three sets...
Ergo, lesser great players are more likely to prosper at those events.

Seriously, you couldn't have argued against your own case better if you'd pointed a shotgun at your own face. Epic facepalm attempt at a troll.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Winning (4) Masters 500 tennis tournaments won't get you into the #ITHOF. Winning ITF-sanctioned Grand Slam tournaments #WILL. Praise be and hallelujah.

#Major in #Majors, not #Masters

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB


Has any player ever been admitted to the ITHOF who didn't win a Slam?
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Has any player ever been admitted to the ITHOF who didn't win a Slam?

Yes, there are plenty of them.

Besides there is no distinction between one-time Slam winners and 10-time Slam winners in the HOF. It's irrelevant at that point how many more Slams they win (as far as the HOF is concerned)
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
3 of the 4 majors occur right after a series of M1000 events (or another major in Wimbledon's case).


OR, more lilely, the greats put less emphasis on them because they barely contribute to overall greatness of the top echelon of players at all.


Ergo, lesser great players are more likely to prosper at those events.

Seriously, you couldn't have argued against your own case better if you'd pointed a shotgun at your own face. Epic facepalm attempt at a troll.

You didn't really rebute any of my points :confused: So 'twas perhaps rather an epic facepalm attempt at a refutation;-)

Only 2/4 of majors directly follow masters, and the same happens the other way around, so that's a completely useless argument.

And the point about a more difficult format to consistently dominate still stands. You didn't address it all. Winning the 100m sprint is more impressive than, say, the 1500m for the same reason—the shorter event makes any mistake more fatal, and upsets more likely to happen. One can still win the 1500m with a poor start, and one can still win a GS match after playing two lousy sets:shock:
 
Top