What is more of an achievement...Grand Slam Runner Up or AMS Winner? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What is more of an achievement...Grand Slam Runner Up or AMS Winner?

Sean.J.S.
01-24-2008, 06:58 AM
What's your choice?

tripb19
01-24-2008, 07:00 AM
It's obviously Grand Slam Runner Up - - - I remember all Slam runnerups, and I forgot who won the clown tournament of 2006 - was it Hrbarty or Stepanek that played off in a AMS?

Scotso
01-24-2008, 07:19 AM
AMS Winner.

Sure, it's nice to make it far in a slam... but you still lost. No one remembers the losers.

Mimi
01-24-2008, 07:20 AM
AMS winner for me, at least its a title, i hate to be runner-up, having to stand next to the champion, and wanting to grasph the champion's trophy :mad:

HeretiC
01-24-2008, 07:52 AM
Hm, tough choice, but if would have to choose for myself it would be a winner on any tournament than second best, even it is a slam.

MissMelly2U
01-24-2008, 07:57 AM
I agree that I would want the good feeling that comes with winning ANY tournament, especially one that is second to the slams.

However, being runner up in a Slam is better statistically because you get 700 points there versus 500 in the Masters

Mĺnu
01-24-2008, 08:00 AM
Runner up for me, though the new system is made to see the best players coming to the AMS which was not the case in the previous years...

VolandriFan
01-24-2008, 08:05 AM
Runner up. When you reflect on someone's career, you're more likely to note that, "He reached the final of Wimbledon," than, "he won Madrid AMS."

t0x
01-24-2008, 08:19 AM
Runner up at Slam.

The ranking points don't lie.

Exodus
01-24-2008, 08:21 AM
more money too as a runner up

supertommyhaas
01-24-2008, 08:29 AM
grand slam runner up. robredo has won a ams, he would never make the final of a slam, silly thread

Kolya
01-24-2008, 09:04 AM
AMS winner.

Stensland
01-24-2008, 09:06 AM
runner-up obviously. baghdatis will always be remembered, so will gonzalez. even robredo, berdych or canas were to able to take a masters.

supertommyhaas
01-24-2008, 09:12 AM
Hm, tough choice, but if would have to choose for myself it would be a winner on any tournament than second best, even it is a slam.

so u a saying that any tournamnt is better than the final of slam even like a normal atp tournament???
or wat???

leng jai
01-24-2008, 09:30 AM
Runner up by a country mile.

dijus
01-24-2008, 09:32 AM
GS runner-up imo

Andi-M
01-24-2008, 01:11 PM
GS runner up, but alot of players that become GS runners up are one tournament wonders. Whereas AMS winners tend to be more consistant, and therefore have better careers.

But 1 GS RU Vs 1 AMS
GS RU wins every time.

Denaon
01-24-2008, 01:15 PM
IMO runner up

Myrre
01-24-2008, 06:37 PM
GS runner up. Nobody cares about the Masters Series (there's bloody 9 of them a year).

Now if you said Masters Cup Final winner vs GS runner-up then we could talk...

rocketassist
01-24-2008, 06:40 PM
Tough choice- for a guy like Henman it would be the AMS because he'd still be remembered as a British loser if he made a slam final and didn't win it, so better to have some trophies than make a slam final and have none.

However for a guy like Boredo or Canas, they would easily pick the Slam final because they know they wouldn't ever get to one in a month of Sundays.

stebs
01-24-2008, 06:43 PM
I think they are usually of equal difficulty to acheive but that GS runner up is certainly the bigger acheivement historically and the point show this.

safinalium
01-24-2008, 06:54 PM
Of course GS runner up. Grand Slam tournaments are way more prestige than AMS, even if you're second best.

LeChuck
01-24-2008, 07:07 PM
In my opinion winning a masters series title is not as great an achievement as finishing as a grand slam runner-up, but a greater achievement than finishing as a grand slam semi-finalist.

NinaNina19
01-24-2008, 07:08 PM
AMS winner. You have to beat all of the good players.

silverarrows
01-24-2008, 07:22 PM
AMS winner without a doubt. It's a lot better to be the bride than always a bridesmaid. Second best is the first of the losers. ;)

JimmyV
01-24-2008, 09:48 PM
GS Runner Up without a doubt. Who would you rather be remembered as, the dude who won TMS Hamburg or the guy who made it all the way to the Wimbledon final with the whole world watching you?

Marek.
01-24-2008, 09:51 PM
Certainly winning an AMS would feel better than losing in a slam final but getting to a slam final is more difficult than winning an AMS. Also, like others have said, you remember slam runner ups more than AMS winners.

missvarsha
01-24-2008, 10:11 PM
Hell even reaching the semis of a grand slam is better. Strangely though, fluke GS semifinalists are more common that fluke masters winners.

Shabazza
01-24-2008, 10:27 PM
Hell even reaching the semis of a grand slam is better. Strangely though, fluke GS semifinalists are more common that fluke masters winners.

No way. Winning a Masters a certainly better than losing in the SF of a slam, period.

juninhOH
01-24-2008, 10:29 PM
runner up definitely

who can forget lendl was runner up at US Open for 5 times? rofl

JediFed
01-24-2008, 10:36 PM
It's close, but the GS runner up has more prestige.

There's only 8 men maximum in a given year that reach that position, whereas they are 9 men in the masters.

Burrow
01-24-2008, 10:38 PM
I would rather be the winner of a TMS title.

myrt
01-24-2008, 10:40 PM
Hey let's ask Nalby....for year's he's been talked about as a Wimbledon finalist...A guy not quit good enough to make it to the top...but his two back to back MS have made him look like a champ, especially when he beat the top players in the world...The MS pretty much has the same field of players plus no break in between days of play. I think you have to be fitter to win a MS.

Montego
01-24-2008, 10:42 PM
LOL. I will always remember Rainer Schuettler as the finalist.

And was it Hrbaty who won some Masters ?

Enough.

scarecrows
01-24-2008, 10:44 PM
runner up easily

Grand Slam, 5 sets, final, totally different story despite losing it

rocketassist
01-24-2008, 10:45 PM
LOL. I will always remember Rainer Schuettler as the finalist.

And was it Hrbaty who won some Masters ?

Enough.

He didn't win one, he got to the final of Paris in 2006, lost to Davydenko.

krystlel
01-24-2008, 10:49 PM
GS runner-up easily and this is appropriately reflected in the rankings points allocations.

I find it interesting that winning a AMS event is similarly weighted to reaching a GS semi-final though, 450 points for a GS SF and 500 points for a AMS title.

LeChuck
01-24-2008, 10:59 PM
Speaking of winning masters series titles, who can forget Roberto Carretero clinching the title at Hamburg in 1996. He was ranked at world no. 143 coming into the tournament, and he defeated Kafelnikov in the semis and Corretja in the final. Great stuff :worship:. He never reached another tour level final during his career, but boy was he in good form that week.

StevoTG
01-25-2008, 01:08 AM
AMS for me anyway

StevoTG
01-25-2008, 01:20 AM
runner up easily

Grand Slam, 5 sets, final, totally different story despite losing it

But why is it that because it's 5 sets it's automatically better? ... Some people say it is because anyone could play great tennis for a set and a half and steal a win over the top player - but surely all that tells us is that bo3 is totally different challenge than a bo5 and that neither match is easier to win. If you are a lower ranked or patchy player you may falter under the pressure of needing to win 3 sets, if you are a higher ranked, consistent and stamina based player you may falter under the pressure of needing to catch up an on form player before it's all over :shrug:

(yes, I am expecting to get roasted for this post but i think its a valid point)

Voo de Mar
01-25-2008, 01:23 AM
Runner Up.

It's tought to compare all AMS because in one you should win 5 matches in the other 6 matches. Besides in one tournament a final is "the best of three" in the other "the best of five". But I think a final in a Grand Slam tournament is a bigger achievemnt than a title from the toughest AMS tournament which is... I don't know. It's an issue to another thread :p

~*BGT*~
01-25-2008, 03:20 AM
Hey let's ask Nalby....for year's he's been talked about as a Wimbledon finalist...A guy not quit good enough to make it to the top...but his two back to back MS have made him look like a champ, especially when he beat the top players in the world...The MS pretty much has the same field of players plus no break in between days of play. I think you have to be fitter to win a MS.

I don't think he counts because what's best known about Nalbandian's run last fall was the fact that he beat the #3 player once and the #1 and #2 players twice during those 2 weeks.

But I pick GS RU. I will remember those 3 GS RU matches rather than the 4 TMS tournies Andy has won so far.

Dimonator133
01-25-2008, 03:24 AM
AMS Winner.

Sure, it's nice to make it far in a slam... but you still lost. No one remembers the losers.


:spit::retard:

couldn't be more wrong

everyone remembers the Grand Slam finalists. ZERO people remember the Masters Series winners - you would just have to guess Nadal or Federer, but in reality you'd have no idea (the exception being well-publicized SHOCKS such as the Fat Dave Back to Back Value Meal Special).

Robshots
01-25-2008, 03:51 AM
If it were me I think I'd go for Grand Slam runner up, however to win a ?Masters series means you have beat the best and is probably consistantly harder to do, for prestige I'd say a Grand Slam only because they are so time honoured. Winning a Masters series would do great things for ones confidence though!


Check out my 2008 Medibank International Photo Gallery - Tennis Photo Gallery (http://robshots.smugmug.com/Tennis/443168)

azza
01-25-2008, 03:57 AM
GS runner up like dont even try argue :rolleyes:

Most ppl no the French Open runner up to the Telecom Italia masteres series winner :rolleyes:

njnetswill
01-25-2008, 04:02 AM
For the history books, getting to a GS final is still remembered more than winning a AMS title.

silverarrows
01-25-2008, 04:09 AM
In my opinion, winning the 9 Masters Series Titles in one year(sweep) is better than being a bridesmaid at the four Grand Slams in one year.

Action Jackson
01-25-2008, 06:01 AM
This really shouldn't be close at all.

The answer is not a TMS winner.

Kristen
01-25-2008, 06:36 AM
For the fanboys and girls, it's the Slam. I think it has a lot to do with the pressure of such a tournament, and how you handle yourself.

But I'd like to think that the field, how you played and how they played, might have something to do with it[e.g. the year Mauresmo won the Aus Open after a couple of retirements against her]. Then again I would be delusional [and forgetting I am in MTF].

EDIT: Why did I even bother writing here, I really don't give a f*** about this kind of debate until one of my guys gets even close to a final. This is for the Fed/Rafatards to discuss how their player is so precious and elite, and not that getting to a final, win or lose, is a fantastic achievement. I'd like it if anyone I liked could get to the semi-final of the challenger down the road.

RickDaStick
01-25-2008, 06:52 AM
AMS winner. you get a harder draw at a AMS event. in the Grand Slam you can get away with 3 easy matches to start the tourament.

leng jai
01-25-2008, 09:03 AM
AMS winner. you get a harder draw at a AMS event. in the Grand Slam you can get away with 3 easy matches to start the tourament.

Are you saying that because of Ljubo's stellar slam record?

Eden
06-07-2008, 10:33 AM
Certainly winning an AMS would feel better than losing in a slam final but getting to a slam final is more difficult than winning an AMS. Also, like others have said, you remember slam runner ups more than AMS winners.

What he said :yeah:

Boris Franz Ecker
06-07-2008, 10:38 AM
Stupid question

Tsongas statistics says 0. That's the achievement.

1 would be better.
Especially if it would be a big title.

groundstroke
06-07-2008, 10:42 AM
Which one do you get more points for? (GS runner up is 500 and AMS is 650, right?)

scoobs
06-07-2008, 10:44 AM
AMS winner is 500, Slam runner up is 700

Guccionefan
06-07-2008, 10:57 AM
Grnad Slam runner-ups are more recognised then an AMS title holder. Martin Verkerk was recognised for his brilliant runner-up performance at the 2003 French Open against Juan Carlos Ferrero. That was his only title.

shotgun
06-07-2008, 02:37 PM
Interesting comparison, but I'd say GS runner up is slightly better for the following reasons:

1- You get more ranking points (700 as opposed to 500).
2- There are 8 annual spots for a Slam finalist, as opposed to 9 for a TMS winner.
3- You have to win 6 best-of-five matches to get there, as opposed to 6 or even 5 best-of-3 matches for a TMS winner.
4- A lot ot players don't put their best effort in TMS events, whereas you can't say the same for Grand Slams.

Being a TMS winner has only two advantages over being a Slam runner-up:

1- You added a big title to your record.
2- Big chance that you have played only top 50 players on the way to the title, whereas in a Slam you usually get a few gimps in the initial rounds.

rocketassist
06-07-2008, 02:47 PM
The TMS that Henman won in 2003 was a bigger achievement than the slam finals that Schuettler, Clement, Crapzalez reached.

Alonsofz
06-07-2008, 03:11 PM
The TMS that Henman won in 2003 was a bigger achievement than the slam finals that Schuettler, Clement, Crapzalez reached.
González defeated Hewitt, Blake, Nadal and Haas in a row, and all of them in 3 sets. :rolleyes:

GS final for me, because of shotgun's reasons too.

rocketassist
06-07-2008, 03:17 PM
González defeated Hewitt, Blake, Nadal and Haas in a row, and all of them in 3 sets. :rolleyes:

GS final for me, because of shotgun's reasons too.

There's a difference between one GS final and nothing else and a TMS winner who's reached the quarters and semis of slams.

GuiroNl
06-07-2008, 03:19 PM
AMS Winner.

Burrow
06-07-2008, 03:23 PM
Which one do you get more points for? (GS runner up is 500 and AMS is 650, right?)

:spit:

scarecrows
06-07-2008, 03:25 PM
There's a difference between one GS final and nothing else and a TMS winner who's reached the quarters and semis of slams.

but here we're talking about 1 certain result not a career

GS final is a bigger one, if you mention fluke runs like Schuettler or Clement dont forget the AMS titles of Carretero and Portas

GlennMirnyi
06-07-2008, 03:40 PM
GS RU. But TMS winner usually > other GS results, but it all depends on the draw.

All_Slam_Andre
06-07-2008, 03:54 PM
Finishing as a grand slam runner-up is a better achievement in my opinion.

Sunset of Age
06-07-2008, 03:56 PM
GS runner-up, no doubt about it, and it's fully correct that being a GS runner-up gets you more ranking points than an AMS winner.

Would I have remembered players like Chris Lewis and Malivai Washington, if they hadn't been Wimbly runner-ups? I'm sure I wouldn't.

Mechlan
06-07-2008, 04:06 PM
A slam is just more prestigious. Best way to answer this is to ask the players themselves, but I know which answer I'd expect.

cardio
06-07-2008, 04:13 PM
GS runner up . You have to win 6 best of 5 matches to reach into final , it is very , very hard to do. More points and money too in slam final . 700 points for GS runner-up and 500 for MS title.Money, for example Miami title $590 000, RG runner-up $830 000

Fedex
06-07-2008, 04:41 PM
Grand Slam runner up and it isn't even close.

leng jai
06-07-2008, 11:31 PM
I am surprised only 28 people have picked AMS winner, MTF polls are improving it seems.

ASP0315
06-07-2008, 11:42 PM
i would rather have an AMS title in the bag than being a runner up at slams.

Nathaliia
06-07-2008, 11:50 PM
GS is way more prestigeous... with all the best at the start. And these tournaments aren't like all others where only the winner counts. Names of runner-ups are also given.

spriwi
06-08-2008, 12:04 AM
runner up. by far.

6 straight best of five matches mean something.

Rumour
06-08-2008, 11:14 AM
I am surprised only 28 people have picked AMS winner, MTF polls are improving it seems.
Sometimes even MTF GM majority opinion gets it right ;) Then again, who (except maybe Clay Death) knows for sure what the final numbers will be when the poll closes 27 years from now :unsure: