But weren't the Masters 1000's still the top 9 events outside the slams and the two season finals, in the 1990's, appreciating that some other events were close, but still not as much?
They were, but it wasn't as clear as it has been since 2000. In the 21st century, there has been a orderly status to the main tennis tour with all the tournaments, which wasn't there before. The Super 9 had their status in the 1990s, but they weren't compulsory and other events offered similar ranking points.
They were, but it wasn't as clear as it has been since 2000. In the 21st century, there has been a orderly status to the main tennis tour with all the tournaments, which wasn't there before. The Super 9 had their status in the 1990s, but they weren't compulsory and other events offered similar ranking points.
Lol...21 Masters titles is underperforming?? :shock:
Fed and Rafa are the only 2 players in history to win 20+ Masters shields (with Djokovic not far behind).
They are also the only 2 active players in the Open Era to win double digit Slam titles.
They haven't exactly underperformed in anything (except for Rafa's inability to secure a WTF title)!
![]()
And Federer's inability to win an Olympic Singles Gold Medal - even though he's had 4 tries on his 2 best surfaces![]()
And Federer's inability to win an Olympic Singles Gold Medal - even though he's had 4 tries on his 2 best surfaces![]()
Read post #6- it explains pretty well why Fed hasn't won even more Masters titles. And the fact is that Roger would've won more over the years if there had ever been Masters tournaments on grass so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
In that light, certainly fanboy legions trying to claim that holding the most MS1000s is somehow "historic" is rather humourous. If post-2000 rules had applied, Connors or Lendl might have taken 40-something.
There are over twice as many masters 1000 tournies than Grand Slam tournaments.
It feels like if Federer was able to win 17 majors that he should have far more than 21 masters (although the numbers look better if you add his 6 WTF's... and I think we can agree that at a MINIMUM winning the WTF is at least as prestigious as a masters... although probably like a masters+)
Anyway... I didn't follow tennis as closely before 2006 so... why wasn't he winning more masters 1000 tournies?
I realize that one of the reasons is the inordinate numbers of masters on clay and the fact that there are no masters on grass... that hurts....
But overall is this a case where there is more randomness to 3 set tournaments? or are there other reasons?
Smasher08 said:In that light, certainly fanboy legions trying to claim that holding the most MS1000s is somehow "historic" is rather humourous. If post-2000 rules had applied, Connors or Lendl might have taken 40-something.
vernonbc said:Yeah, just as humorous as certain fanboy legions trying to claim that 17 slams is the holy grail while completely ignoring that the top stars didn't enter all the slams back in their day.
Correct. People forget that until 2000 it was all about appearance fees -- cash was king. That's why top players like Sampras and Agassi would go to places like San Jose, where they could get cupcake draws, decent points, and a huge cheque.
In that light, certainly fanboy legions trying to claim that holding the most MS1000s is somehow "historic" is rather humourous. If post-2000 rules had applied, Connors or Lendl might have taken 40-something.
I find it interesting though that when you view the top 9 events each year outside of Slams and Season end finals, from 1970 - you end up with similar order of magnitude of older players vs more recent players - as follows:
26 - Nadal
22- Lendl
19 - McEnroe
17 - Connors
17 - Agassi
etc etc
That suggests to me that it isn't too wrong looking at top 9 (outside of Slams and Season end finals) events every year as an historical comparison. It seems it is only Pete Sampras who runs foul of this. But when you think about it - Sampras made it clear in his career that he only cared above Slams, Season end finals and the year end number 1. So he wasn't chasing these other things.
all this talk of GOAT is just so much bs at the end of the day.
I'm pressed for time tonight so I won't be able to more fully develop this until tomorrow or the day after.
You're doing the straightforward comparison. That, imo, is misguided and mistaken. What you should really be looking at is the number of Super 9 / MS1000s each of these players skipped.
It doesn't look possible to do this easily for Connors, but Mac's wiki career stats page paints a better picture:
Mac skipped Indian Wells for 10 consecutive years, and Key Biscayne/Miami for 9. Hamburg and Rome he played a grand total of once each in his entire career. Probably would have won at least one in '84. He skipped Bercy 12x when it was on indoor carpet, and the only two he really played consistently were Canada and Cincy.
If non-appearances like that hold up across the other players you've cited, that's a very important contextualization.
I understand what you are saying, however I am not sure what alternative you are offering if one wants to do some kind of comparison across the Open era. They top 9 events outside of the Slams and Season end finals weren't compulsory as per post 2000 - but the players knew that these were the top point events nonetheless. Because a player like McEnroe didn't elect to go to it - doesn't invalidate the achievement of the players that did. Possibly we need to look at events of greater than today's equivalent of 750 points - but I don't have the information to make that calculation. What we do have is the top 9 events outside the slams and season end finals since 1970. I do think you have a valid point that players played other events on occassion....but again they knew what points were on offer for these top 9...it is there responsibility if they decided not to compete in them. Now if I am wrong about these being the top 9 point events, please let me know and I am happy to correct my thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
McEnroe won 19 on this list, so he obviously did compete in his fair share. He is one of the leaders (as high as 4th on the all time list)
Note: Miami only became an event in 1985 (and only regarded as a top event from 1986) and Mac retired in 1992 so not sure were you are getting your 9 years from.
There are over twice as many masters 1000 tournies than Grand Slam tournaments.
It feels like if Federer was able to win 17 majors that he should have far more than 21 masters (although the numbers look better if you add his 6 WTF's... and I think we can agree that at a MINIMUM winning the WTF is at least as prestigious as a masters... although probably like a masters+)
Anyway... I didn't follow tennis as closely before 2006 so... why wasn't he winning more masters 1000 tournies?
I realize that one of the reasons is the inordinate numbers of masters on clay and the fact that there are no masters on grass... that hurts....
But overall is this a case where there is more randomness to 3 set tournaments? or are there other reasons?
The main reason is simple--to a player of Federer's caliber, an M1000 is "just another tournament", just like an ATP250 or ATP500 (and I'm pretty sure Basel and Halle (coming just before Wimbledon) are more important to him than most, if not all, M1000's).
it's true that M1000's are pretty far down the list of important tennis achievements. Plus, they *can't* really be important, as there are too many of them. Having 14 major tournaments each year would simply devaluate the concept of 'majors'.
An M1000 is just another tournament to Fed??? Hahahahahaha. He's one very weird dude if he thinks that and I can almost guarantee you that he doesn't. The 1000's are considered extremely important by virtually every tennis player and they've often said that. Many have even said that they're harder to win than a slam because every single match is tough playing against basically the top 50 players from the getgo with no gimmes in the first two or three rounds like they get in the slams (or the 250's or 500's). Only the Fed lunatics...sorry, fanatics...would say that 1000's aren't important and that's because it's just one of many records Fed doesn't hold.
Also - don't forget - Fed has 5 Masters Cup finals (now known as the ATP Tour Championship or whatever). Each one of those should count for at least 1.5 if not 2 Masters titles. So inclusive of that you really can't say that Fed has underperformed at the Masters.
Actually, he's got six.
I don't agree that they should be counted as "über-M1000's", though. They're in a category of their kind and are already counted as majors, this is more than enough. No need to also add them to a player's M1000's tally, thus counting them twice, in a way.
Are you saying that the WTF is closer to a slam than a masters is? If so that's great as it means Novak has 9 majors!![]()
That's probably a matter of opinion in terms of points they're exactly half way. I'd prefer to round them up.
Rounding up sounds good to me. :wink:
Are you saying that the WTF is closer to a slam than a masters is? If so that's great as it means Novak has 9 majors!![]()
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:
Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:
Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:
Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:
Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
Well even if WTF isn't counted as a major it's definitely bigger than a Masters in which case 21 Masters+6WTF>26 Masters. And obviously 17>13. :wink:
Well even if WTF isn't counted as a major it's definitely bigger than a Masters in which case 21 Masters+6WTF>26 Masters. And obviously 17>13. :wink:
Don't be a tit. Like I said I count it as a major though not equal to the slams. Similar to how in pre-open era days there were amateur slams and pro slams then later Open Era majors. All with different values but still 'majors'.
It's the same thing.
Add Nadal's gold medal and call it a wash, and it all comes back to slams as always.
Add Nadal's gold medal and call it a wash, and it all comes back to slams as always.
Add Nadal's gold medal and call it a wash, and it all comes back to slams as always.
That's because people here think that slams and majors are the same thing. They're not--otherwise, you have to conveniently forget more than four decades of tennis history and all the past greats go down the drain (which leaves Federer as GOAT by a mile, but I won't go there, as all those greats from Tilden to Laver *deserve* to be in the conversation, and not just handily dismissed because a bundle of fan... atics try and rewrite history just to hype up their boy's resume (dismissing one of the biggest tournaments as a meaningless year-end exho, for example, which just shows their ignorance).
You mean 1 Gold > 1 Gold + 1 Silver?
:twisted:
The CLOSEST thing to a slam is WTF. Even Nole said it's equal to a slam but unlike biased Nadal fans, Federer fans don't agree with him.
Well even if WTF isn't counted as a major it's definitely bigger than a Masters in which case 21 Masters+6WTF>26 Masters. And obviously 17>13. :wink:
Dude who cares, Fed's the GOAT and that's all that counts.
How about NO!
If anything, WTF comes in the category of Masters & not Slams! Also, Slams & DC conducted by ITF; WTF, Masters & rest by ATP.
WTF is more like the Top most Masters title. Count it with them if you want.
And lol, you talk about cumulative "Federer fans", "Nadal fans", as if you're hosting some round table conferences of the groups.
All fans of one particular player don't have to have same views. They can have different opinions.
But you're the one who said "Federer fans have more credibility than Nadal fans". So I don't know what was I even expecting from you.
Hold it together, boy.
I never claimed that Nadal had more of those titles than Federer. I just meant that counting Slams & WTF together is a bit ridiculous.
Since you're interested in mathematics, here's a question for you.
What's bigger? 13+26 or 6+17+3? :twisted:
Kindly show me any official article/notice/list from ATP &/or ITF where Federer has been declared the GOAT.
Thank you!
WTF is right in between slam and master. Just because you say 'NO' doesn't change what other people's opinion. Good luck in trying to change Nole and Berdych's opinion about the WTF. lolHow about NO!
If anything, WTF comes in the category of Masters & not Slams! Also, Slams & DC conducted by ITF; WTF, Masters & rest by ATP.
WTF is more like the Top most Masters title. Count it with them if you want.
And lol, you talk about cumulative "Federer fans", "Nadal fans", as if you're hosting some round table conferences of the groups.
All fans of one particular player don't have to have same views. They can have different opinions.
But you're the one who said "Federer fans have more credibility than Nadal fans". So I don't know what was I even expecting from you.
Show us where Federer fans said WTF & slam have equal weight?Hold it together, boy.
I never claimed that Nadal had more of those titles than Federer. I just meant that counting Slams & WTF together is a bit ridiculous.
Since you're interested in mathematics, here's a question for you.
What's bigger? 13+26 or 6+17+3? :twisted:
He's not an undisputed goat, no athlete in any sport are. However, he's the goat by consensus. List of experts from the tennis channel have determined Federer as the #1 in the top 100 greatest of all time.Kindly show me any official article/notice/list from ATP &/or ITF where Federer has been declared the GOAT.
Thank you!
^ Inspired ^All fanbase are biased, but certain are biased to a certain extend...
WTF is right in between slam and master. Just because you say 'NO' doesn't change what other people's opinion. Good luck in trying to change Nole and Berdych's opinion about the WTF. lol
All fanbase are biased, but certain are biased to a certain extend. I think Nadal fans are more biased because they(including you) claim WTF is an exhibition while overhype Olympic achievements, and unfairly hold it against players from the previous generations when they clearly are aware that these events wasn't important(or available) during those time.
Show us where Federer fans said WTF & slam have equal weight?
Pretty much everyone agree that the next most important event after the 4 slams is the WTF(except some anti-Fed say it's an exhibition).
He's not an undisputed goat, no athlete in any sport are. However, he's the goat by consensus. List of experts from the tennis channel have determined Federer as the #1 in the top 100 greatest of all time.
It looks like you're selectively picking the posts you're responding too because you can't respond to the others. Not that I'm surprised.
I don't expect you to understand, just like I'm not surprised you're bundling everyone who doesn't hype up your boy as "Federer fans" (or whatever name you give them).
So you're probably one of those people who think that, with his puny two slams (amateur slams, too!), Pancho Gonzales is an inferior player to Andy Murray and Yevgeni Kafelnikov, right?
How about NO!
If anything, WTF comes in the category of Masters & not Slams! Also, Slams & DC conducted by ITF; WTF, Masters & rest by ATP.
WTF is more like the Top most Masters title. Count it with them if you want.
And lol, you talk about cumulative "Federer fans", "Nadal fans", as if you're hosting some round table conferences of the groups.
All fans of one particular player don't have to have same views. They can have different opinions.
But you're the one who said "Federer fans have more credibility than Nadal fans". So I don't know what was I even expecting from you.
Hold it together, boy.
I never claimed that Nadal had more of those titles than Federer. I just meant that counting Slams & WTF together is a bit ridiculous.
Since you're interested in mathematics, here's a question for you.
What's bigger? 13+26 or 6+17+3? :twisted:
Kindly show me any official article/notice/list from ATP &/or ITF where Federer has been declared the GOAT.
Thank you!
Look it up on google, Don't be lazy, lazyninja. :lol: