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

[Mainad]

Yes, there are plenty of them.

Interesting, thanks. Do you know if they were admitted just for their playing career or did they have to have done something else eg. coaching, captaining DC teams, significant admin roles etc.?

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)

Yes, I understand that all members are equal. There are no divisions or hierarchies.

 

[jm1980]

Interesting, thanks. Do you know if they were admitted just for their playing career or did they have to have done something else eg. coaching, captaining DC teams, significant admin roles etc.?

I believe most, if not all, Slamless players in the HOF have been in DC winning teams.

 

[AngieB]

Just a reminder to you kids, that #DavisCup competition is ITF-sanctioned. Praise be and hallelujah.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[Bobby Jr]

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

They were so moronic in their troll-like tone they didn't even need debunking.

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

Wrong. I included Wimbledon because it in-fact follows another major so closely. You can tell I included it by the fact I wrote "3 of the 4 majors occur right after a series of M1000 events (or another major in Wimbledon's case)."

Similarly, no masters events closely follow either the AO or Wimbledon which is the ham-fisted point you were attempting to make [troll]. Both have more than a month's gap to the next M1000 event.

And the point about a more difficult format to consistently dominate still stands. ...One can still win the 1500m with a poor start, and one can still win a GS match after playing two lousy sets:shock:

Correct, it makes it more difficult to dominate a major because each match gives the ability for any player to even out their slumps, and claw back from the peaks of an opponent. More often than not the better all-round player wins the match - making is harder for those (generally) worse players to strike it lucky.. At least often enough to win a tournament. This can be evidenced in the number of upsets of the very top players across the M1000 events compared to the majors across the last 15 years. M1000 events are easier to win matches at. Period.

 

[jm1980]

Logic is not your strong suit, is it?

Correct, it makes it more difficult to dominate a major because each match gives the ability for any player to even out their slumps, and claw back from the peaks of an opponent. More often than not the better all-round player wins the match - making is harder for those (generally) worse players to strike it lucky.. At least often enough to win a tournament. This can be evidenced in the number of upsets of the very top players across the M1000 events compared to the majors across the last 15 years. M1000 events are easier to win matches at. Period.

You realize tennis matches involve two players/teams, and one of them will come away with a win, right? Or is it easier to win for one guy, but harder to win for the other guy?

You just said it's harder for worse players to strike it lucky in Slams... But then in the very next setence you say there is a larger number of upsets in M1000 events :lol:. If there is a larger number of upsets, doesn't it follow that it's harder for top players to win the event, since they are more likely to be upset?

EDIT: Before the trolls come down on me for arguing it's easier to win Slams than M1000, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that if we follow Bobby Jr's "logic," then it follows Slams are easier to win than M1000s.

 

[Bobby Jr]

You realize tennis matches involve two players/teams, and one of them will come away with a win, right? Or is it easier to win for one guy, but harder to win for the other guy?

See below.

And if there is a larger number of upsets, doesn't it follow that it's harder for top players to win the event, since they are more likely to be upset?

No, you have the framing wrong - probably because you're stuck in some reverse logic mindset which doesn't make overall sense just for the sake of argument. It may appear that the 3-set format makes it harder for the top guys, but only because it's been made easier for the majority of players.

I.e. for the vast majority of players on tour the M1000 events are much easier to win than a major.

Contributing to this is also the fact that the top players concentrate more of their effort to prepare and peak for the majors. By default they are not as likely to peak during a M1000 event or whatever else is their lead-up event - adding to the likelihood for a non-top player to succeed (by "success" I mean to attain results higher than their current ranking indicates). An early loss in a M1000 is a non-event in a top player's year/career - they concentrate on majors.

 

[jm1980]

No, you have the framing wrong - probably because you're stuck in some reverse logic mindset which doesn't make overall sense just for the sake of argument. It may appear that the 3-set format makes it harder for the top guys, but only because it's been made easier for the majority of players.

I.e. for the vast majority of players on tour the M1000 events are much easier to win than a major.

So, bottom line here, is it harder or easier for top guys to win M1000s (compared to Slams)?

Not what "appears" to be. Which one is it, actually?

 

[RF-18]

Shanghai is bigger than USO.

I honestly can't think of a slam better than any of the masters.

 

[Bobby Jr]

So, bottom line here, is it harder or easier for top guys to win M1000s (compared to Slams)? Not what "appears" to be. Which one is it, actually?

Neither. It also depends what you mean by "top guys."

It's probably just less likely, regardless of the difficulty, for a variety of reason unrelated to the 3-set format including the fact they're peaking for something else, cobwebs from lack of prior play, a change of surfaces without minor lead-in tournaments like most of their lower ranked peers have played etc.

You can tell they try and win them - as evidenced by the utter domination at the M1000 events by the top players on tour (re: major winners) - but they similarly accept losses to red-lining lower ranked players much more readily than they ever would at the majors.

 

[AngieB]

Shanghai is bigger than USO.

I honestly can't think of a slam better than any of the masters.

Yes, #you and #one other comprise of the 2/30 who think #Masters > #GrandSlams.
shortbus

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[mavsman149]

This is a silly thread. Slams are obviously more important. However I really do think Masters are underrated, all the top players play these and as a top player you don't get the cupcake first round like you do in the slams to warm up. I think the ranking points have it about right, 2 or maybe 3 Masters is as impressive as a slam.

 

[AngieB]

This is a silly thread. Slams are obviously more important. However I really do think Masters are underrated, all the top players play these and as a top player you don't get the cupcake first round like you do in the slams to warm up. I think the ranking points have it about right, 2 or maybe 3 Masters is as impressive as a slam.

You don't get anymore "cupcake" than you do with a 1st round bye in a Masters Draw.

Historically-speaking, there will never be an equivalent in the sport of tennis to an ITF-sanctioned grand slam event. #Ever.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[GrandSlam24]

Masters >>>>>>>> Slams