Four Majors vs Nine Masters 1000 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Four Majors vs Nine Masters 1000

stewietennis
02-08-2012, 04:13 AM
Which is the more difficult feat:

1. Winning the four majors plus the World Tour Finals in a year?
2. Winning all the Masters 1000 titles in a year?

Both feats require nine weeks of high level play.

v-money
02-08-2012, 04:14 AM
Is this a legitimate question?

Mystique
02-08-2012, 04:30 AM
In today's conditions, the tougher one is probably the nine masters titles. Congrats ATP and ITF. You have done well. :yeah:

v-money
02-08-2012, 04:33 AM
Masters are still best of 3 sets, right?

leng jai
02-08-2012, 05:06 AM
How about winning 50 futures titles in a year?

Beforehand
02-08-2012, 06:44 AM
Winning all 11 ATP 500 tournaments.

Time Violation
02-08-2012, 07:18 AM
How about winning 50 futures titles in a year?

You forgot ajde

MaxPower
02-08-2012, 07:32 AM
Which is the more difficult feat:

1. Winning the four majors plus the World Tour Finals in a year?
2. Winning all the Masters 1000 titles in a year?

Both feats require nine weeks of high level play.

2 is still harder. 3 sets makes it easier to lose. Drop 1 set and you are on the ropes right away.

Imagine how many times the top4 dropped 2 sets in the slams over the past years. Nadal would have lost in R1 of RG if it was BO3 for example

BO5 allows a bad match and a major walkabout. Remember that Murray made all GS semis last year? Remember how many times he was 0-2 down? If it was masters he would be out, just like it happened for Murray in some HC masters and 500s.

Winning all 9 master 1000 in one year seems almost impossible. Even winning all 9 over a full career is quite crazy

leng jai
02-08-2012, 07:53 AM
You forgot ajde

I don't sign off my serious posts with ajde mate.

Ajde

TBkeeper
02-08-2012, 07:58 AM
hey guys really think of it 4 majors are more valuable but 9 of the masters is nearly impossible !

stanch
02-08-2012, 12:56 PM
Winning all nine 1000s in one year is almost impossible. Nobody has ever won them all in the whole career, nor reached all the finals in a single season. So, comparing these two feats is dumb.

NID
02-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Which is the more difficult feat:

1. Winning the four majors plus the World Tour Finals in a year?
2. Winning all the Masters 1000 titles in a year?

Both feats require nine weeks of high level play.

Both are equally easy. You do not need high level play, just stamina. Tennis has died and there is no more variety. All those surfaces are the same, so it is like winning the same tournament over and over again.

Ajde :sad:

bouncer7
02-08-2012, 02:14 PM
Masters are still best of 3 sets, right?

it might be less then 20 hours for recovery. Play one match 3 hours and you are on ropes next day unless you are Djodal. Even Nadal lost Madrid vs his favorit pigeon Federer after spartan 4 hours battle day before.

finishingmove
02-08-2012, 03:24 PM
The gooch slam.

v-money
02-08-2012, 03:31 PM
If players actually cared about the Masters and winning 2 Masters was equal in in prestige to winning a Slam, then it would be a fair argument. But for now the only thing equal between 2 Master wins and a slam win is the point value. Maybe winning the nine masters is harder after all, because player motivation for getting 9000 points in this manner must be way lower than winning 4 slams and the WTF in one year. That seals your place in history...winning 9 Masters would probably mean that you are a chocker in slams.

yesh222
02-08-2012, 03:35 PM
Which is harder? Probably the 9 Masters. Which is more valuable? The answer is obvious, and it has nothing to do with which is harder.

StevoTG
02-08-2012, 07:15 PM
Winning 9 masters is harder. To not get upset in 9 tournaments of best of 3 would be unreal.

MIMIC
02-08-2012, 07:20 PM
Winning all 9 Masters seems impossible.

BauerAlmeida
02-08-2012, 07:41 PM
Winning all 9 Masters 1000 is impossible, in fact, I don't remember anyone even playing the 9 tournamentes in the same year.

On the other hand, Federer almost wins the GS in 2006 and 2007, and Djokovic in 2011.

hipolymer
02-08-2012, 07:57 PM
Definitely the latter. The former has been done before, but I don't think anyone will ever get all 9 masters in one year.

Mountaindewslave
02-08-2012, 08:47 PM
the masters would be the harder feat I believe just given the fact that players can schedule and prepare precisely for the Grand SLams as they are nicely spread apart.

the masters are on many surfaces all over the year and would require such insane consistancy and great versatility given there are masters on very fast courts and very slow (at this point the same can't be said about Grand SLams).

I definitely think it's harder to win the 9 masters, that is utter domination and consistancy. both are so hard though as Grand Slams certainly players bring a little bit more heat to

ivankg
02-08-2012, 09:49 PM
9 masters havent been won by noone in a lifetime not in a single year.
The sole record holder is Novak with 5 MS titles won last year.
It was 5 out of first 6 (skiped Monte Carlo), played final in 7-th (retired to Muray due to injury), skipped 8-th, and lost by w/o to Tsonga in Paris QF (again due to injury).
Basically he didnt lost a single match at Masters last year (if you dont count loosing to Murray due to injury) and he still won only 5 of 9.

yuri27
02-08-2012, 10:11 PM
Murraytards : Nine Masters 1000
Everyone else : Four Majors

TennisGrandSlam
02-09-2012, 02:05 AM
of course 9 Masters in one years is more difficult

leng jai
02-09-2012, 02:19 AM
Murraytards : Nine Masters 1000
Everyone else : Four Majors

...no

Hensafmurrafter
02-09-2012, 03:10 AM
Neither would be a problem for Esther Vergeer.

Chirag
02-09-2012, 08:12 AM
9 masters is tougher but the 4 slams is legendary and more prestigious

leng jai
02-09-2012, 08:55 AM
I'm sure 9 Masters Series would be legendary as well except that no one has even come close enough to it to be a possibility.

Johnbert
02-09-2012, 09:10 AM
i think it's almost impossible to win all 9 masters in one year :shrug:

Foxy
02-09-2012, 09:46 AM
9 masters havent been won by noone in a lifetime not in a single year.
The sole record holder is Novak with 5 MS titles won last year.
It was 5 out of first 6 (skiped Monte Carlo), played final in 7-th (retired to Muray due to injury), skipped 8-th, and lost by w/o to Tsonga in Paris QF (again due to injury).
Basically he didnt lost a single match at Masters last year (if you dont count loosing to Murray due to injury) and he still won only 5 of 9.

So, basically Afraidovic only loses when injured. What a pathetic mindset!

ivankg
02-09-2012, 06:34 PM
That was not my point. He has amaising last year and was still far away of the 9 masters which is the topic of this tread.
He will lose this year much more, I think, injured or not.

stewietennis
02-09-2012, 08:33 PM
the masters would be the harder feat I believe just given the fact that players can schedule and prepare precisely for the Grand SLams as they are nicely spread apart.

the masters are on many surfaces all over the year and would require such insane consistancy and great versatility given there are masters on very fast courts and very slow (at this point the same can't be said about Grand SLams).

I definitely think it's harder to win the 9 masters, that is utter domination and consistancy. both are so hard though as Grand Slams certainly players bring a little bit more heat to

Shouldn't it be the other way around though? Shouldn't the Calendar Year Grand Slam or the Golden Grand Slam be the pinnacle in tennis achievement – thus should be the most difficult to accomplish?

Does this mean it's easier to win five set matches with a day's rest in between than it is to win three set matches with no rest? Or is it the scheduling that makes it difficult? Or is it the differences in surface? If someone does achieve this seemingly impossible feat in one year – would it catapult him into GOAT contention – or would the majors still be the primary measure?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-10-2012, 04:47 AM
2 men and a jazillion women have done the calender

no one had made every final let alone won every masters

if someone won 9 masters in a year i would consider that above all else

laver won nothing major wise in 1970 but won 5 masters and was arguably wn.1 for that year