How many atp250/500/1000 is a slam worth?
This is kind of extending the TMC/slam comparing thread. Many people will say that a slam cant be compared in value to anything else, still I have seen most consider Muster's achievment on clay as greater than Courier despite winning a slam less than Courier, most consider Coria greater than Gaudio on clay and so it goes.
I would guess that any specific amount would be silly here, but an estimate could be given like somewhere between 15-25 "normal" titles surely makes a slam or 5-10 master series?
Muster won +40 titles on clay and 6 master series but only 1 RG, Courier won 2 RGs, 2 master series and a total of 5 titles on clay. Who had the greater career on clay?
You could also extend the question to how many runner ups makes up for a slam? Like Borg's 4 RUs in Usopen could be worth more than Del Potro's 1 Usopen title?
It surely all comes up to what is more difficult, win 25 smaller tournaments or 1 slam? Win 6 master series or 1 slam? 4 RUs or 1 slam?
Surely winning Grand slams cant be given absolute value over all other feats in tennis? No polls, I just wanted to start a discussion here.
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.