Does 4 x 250 equal 1000 ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does 4 x 250 equal 1000 ?

Montego
08-29-2010, 07:14 PM
I started thinking about that after Stakhovsky's win yesterday. Imagine that he is finishing his career now with 4 "250" titles. Is it better in your opinion than f.e. Portas' achievement (Portas won just one tournament in his life, but it was Hamburg Masters ("1000"). Would Stakhovsky be remembered more than Portas or Portas' achievement is better ?

In my opinion it is quite better, cause at least shows some consistency, while in Portas' case we can say about a fluke run. But you can't deny on the other hand that Masters title is what most players dream about...

What do you think ?

fabolous
08-29-2010, 07:20 PM
is 2x1000 = 2000?

aloniv
08-29-2010, 07:20 PM
Don't forget Roberto Carretero, who won the Hamburg masters and still failed to make the top 50.

Montego
08-29-2010, 07:22 PM
is 2x1000 = 2000?

Obviously two Masters don't equal one Grand Slam, but on the lower level I think it could be comparable

TennisOnWood
08-29-2010, 07:38 PM
I don't think we can generalize this!!

There was some weaker Masters 1000 tournaments but on the other hand Ivanisevic needed to beat Becker,Edberg and Forget in Stockholm 1992. and Rafa played against Nalbandian,Del Potro,Roddick and Murray in IW 2009. And there is very big variety of 250 tournaments (Stakhovsky's wasn't strong),from strong Doha to small Belgrade and few others

IMO,some players would take 4 ATP 250 tournaments instead of Hamburg but they not worth like one title in Indian Wells,Miami or Rome

StevoTG
08-29-2010, 08:19 PM
I don't think we can generalize this!!

There was some weaker Masters 1000 tournaments but on the other hand Ivanisevic needed to beat Becker,Edberg and Forget in Stockholm 1992. and Rafa played against Nalbandian,Del Potro,Roddick and Murray in IW 2009. And there is very big variety of 250 tournaments (Stakhovsky's wasn't strong),from strong Doha to small Belgrade and few others

IMO,some players would take 4 ATP 250 tournaments instead of Hamburg but they not worth like one title in Indian Wells,Miami or Rome

I'll echo this.

Who did Portas beat in Hamburg? Personally I'd consider Hamburg to have been a somewhat important event, whereas Zagreb, St. Petersburg, S'Hertogenbosch and New Haven aren't that big. So I'd probably rather have the Hamburg title. If Sergiy had won, for example, Queens and/or Buenos Aires then I'd consider a trade. There's no question though that some Masters are more prestigious than others, and that the same can be said for 500 and 250 events.

EDIT: I see Portas beat Hewitt in the semi and JCF in the 2001 final. I definitely wouldn't trade that title for Sergiy's 4.

DartMarcus
08-30-2010, 12:31 AM
I don't know. I have not finished my Calculus class yet.

HKz
08-30-2010, 12:41 AM
I don't know. I have not finished my Calculus class yet.

o.O

FormerRafaFan
08-30-2010, 06:58 AM
No. I'd say the competition is MUCH harder in a 1000 than a 250. A 250 is like a challenger. Most of the time there's not even any high ranked players at all. But to win a 1000 you'd have to beat several top 20, if not probably even top 10 guys. So yeah, I'd say winning a 1000 is still tougher to do than winning four 250's.

jcempire
08-30-2010, 07:15 AM
abviously not

master is bigger than 4 X 250

HKz
08-30-2010, 08:36 AM
No. I'd say the competition is MUCH harder in a 1000 than a 250. A 250 is like a challenger. Most of the time there's not even any high ranked players at all. But to win a 1000 you'd have to beat several top 20, if not probably even top 10 guys. So yeah, I'd say winning a 1000 is still tougher to do than winning four 250's.

No. A 250 is a 250 and a challenger event is a challenger event.

Of course you aren't going to find a "high ranked player" in a challenger and many times in 250s as well because obviously they are meant for lower ranked players. But clearly 250s have guaranteed entry for higher ranked players than challengers for a reason.

Audacity
08-30-2010, 09:17 AM
I've always thought 1000 events give a little too many ranking points, but never really thought about it in terms of 'prestige'.

Dohers.
08-30-2010, 03:27 PM
I'd say over a 12 month or so period the 2 achievements are comparable, assuming you played enough ATP 250 to do it. In fact in 2009, the players who won 4 or more ATP tournaments where the same people who won master titles. But any longer, no. Players can pick up ATP 250 here and there easily enough over their career, where in general they do have to up their game a fair bit for a masters title if they aren't one of the top players.

emotion
08-30-2010, 03:55 PM
tbh, id rather win 4 250s... pretty sure im a minority, though

The Magician
08-31-2010, 06:10 AM
Depends on the situation. Querrey winning four 250s this year while he mugs out in every big event is definitely not equivalent to Murray winning Toronto, while Nadal getting 3000 points winning three clay masters 1000 while playing one top 10 player is definitely not equivalent to winning a GS and a half. Basically the rigid 1000/500/250 system is stupid because not all the tournaments are equal and so they all get undervalued or overvalued, and this inflates rankings all the way to the top of the game.

Julio
08-31-2010, 10:44 AM
Even Robredo won Hamburg... :lol: