How Important Are AMS1000 Titles [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How Important Are AMS1000 Titles

Busterovic
05-14-2012, 12:03 PM
I can't believe how rarely this is ever acknowledged. Whether it be during matches by commentators, on social networking sites, on players websites or twitters, or even on MTF. By far the second most important tournaments after Grand Slams (and in all fairness, including the olympics and Davis Cup), no one talks about just how important (and how hard) it is to win an AMS1000 event.

Some folks have mentioned how its almost harder than winning a GS (don't tell Andy Murray that) since theres been times a player has played the top 3 guys in the world on 3 consecutive days. Juan Martin Del Potro, one of only a handful of active players to own a GS title, has never won one of these events.

Furthermore, theres an intense rivalry brewing between Federer and Nadal as to who will win more as after Fed's win in Madrid yesterday they both have 20 a piece.

Time Violation
05-14-2012, 12:20 PM
Ask Murray :p

TigerTim
05-14-2012, 12:21 PM
to win a Masters crown is a great achievement no doubt. But nowhere close to a Grand Slam/Olympics/WTF

Chase Visa
05-14-2012, 12:26 PM
Not that important, but MTF too frequently discounts them too much.

Audacity
05-14-2012, 12:32 PM
Winning a TMS isn't something a kid dreams about. However, for a top pro they are very important tournaments to win or do well in if they're looking at breaking into the top 10 or becoming world number 1...

Important in a different way to slams.

Mystique
05-14-2012, 12:33 PM
Its important but not nearly as prestigious as winning slams or newsworthy as Olympics. Simply because there are like 9 MSs per year. In terms of history TBH, its not that significant

However, I do think we underestimate how hard it is to wins these events (some trolls here calling them MM all the time).

romismak
05-14-2012, 12:39 PM
Very important-maybe it wasn´t before - few years back, but now 8/9 are mandatory and mostly at least at 6 of those MAsters 1000 events you have really best players in the world, also best of 3 format is in some ways more difficult than best of 5, because on best of 3 you can loose by 1x loosingg serve and loose Tie-break and can be better player in that match. I think Masters are very important - no wonder nobody besides top 4 is winning them. 2010-Paris Soderling was last time somebody besides top 4 won- and it was very quick indoors, maybe under ,,slower,, conditions winner would be top 4 and than LJubicic-Roddick- IW-Miami 2010 - when Roger was holidayrer, Nole DF like WTA girls, Rafa on HC average and Murray post-AO slump, but when Top 4 are playing at least all average nobody else is winning Masters1000- that makes them prestigious i think, when only best players are winning them.

From last 20 Masters 1000 - 19 won big 4, only 1- Soderling exception. That´s make them i think very important when best players are winning them-playing them.

sexybeast
05-14-2012, 12:40 PM
Lets just say Murray would trade all of his to win a slam. That is how important they are.

Mystique
05-14-2012, 12:55 PM
Very important-maybe it wasn´t before - few years back, but now 8/9 are mandatory and mostly at least at 6 of those MAsters 1000 events you have really best players in the world, also best of 3 format is in some ways more difficult than best of 5, because on best of 3 you can loose by 1x loosingg serve and loose Tie-break and can be better player in that match. I think Masters are very important - no wonder nobody besides top 4 is winning them. 2010-Paris Soderling was last time somebody besides top 4 won- and it was very quick indoors, maybe under ,,slower,, conditions winner would be top 4 and than LJubicic-Roddick- IW-Miami 2010 - when Roger was holidayrer, Nole DF like WTA girls, Rafa on HC average and Murray post-AO slump, but when Top 4 are playing at least all average nobody else is winning Masters1000- that makes them prestigious i think, when only best players are winning them.

From last 20 Masters 1000 - 19 won big 4, only 1- Soderling exception. That´s make them i think very important when best players are winning them-playing them.

Epic Gloryhunting. :o

What is embarrassing is that this is the attitude of a lot of so called "tennis fans" nowadays.

romismak
05-14-2012, 01:09 PM
Epic Gloryhunting. :o

What is embarrassing is that this is the attitude of a lot of so called "tennis fans" nowadays.

and what problem do you have with that statement? am i not right or what? if all are healthy and playing not like crap tell me which MAsters 1000 are winning Tsonga, Berdych, Delpo or others?

BauerAlmeida
05-14-2012, 01:12 PM
I don't think they're more important than the Olympics. And the WTF is 10 times more important.

Sheitan
05-14-2012, 01:31 PM
Of course Masters events aren't nearly as prestigious or important as the Slams or even the WTF, but they are important overall. They offer a lot of points and money and since they are mandatory, the best players can be found in every draw (as long as they aren't injured of course). I enjoy watching those events, although it's annoying that there have been no big upsets lately, with just the top 4 winning them.

And the best reason: What would MTF members whine about between the Slams if there were no ATP1000 tournaments? ;)

Fumus
05-14-2012, 02:12 PM
Important for points and rankings.

Grand Slams are where history is made.

StoGas
05-14-2012, 02:14 PM
Thanks to them, Djokovic had the #1 position, and now Federer will have :)

Sri
05-14-2012, 02:15 PM
To me, as a fan, not that big a deal to be honest.

Slams, but obviously, and WTFs are more precious.

Paylu2007
05-14-2012, 02:23 PM
Ask Kafelnikov, he could tell how hard it is to win 1 of them D:

duarte_a
05-14-2012, 02:52 PM
I can't believe how rarely this is ever acknowledged. Whether it be during matches by commentators, on social networking sites, on players websites or twitters, or even on MTF. By far the second most important tournaments after Grand Slams (and in all fairness, including the olympics and Davis Cup), no one talks about just how important (and how hard) it is to win an AMS1000 event.


False. The most important tournament after the slams is the WTF.
Mandatory masters 1000 are the third most important tournaments after the slams. Federer has 20, nadal has 16.

abraxas21
05-14-2012, 02:56 PM
used to be more important

they have lost a lot of prestige in the past few years.

xdrewitdajx
05-14-2012, 03:08 PM
Thanks to them, Djokovic had the #1 position, and now Federer will have :)

winning 4 of the last 5 slams probably hasn't hurt, though

duchuy89
05-14-2012, 03:14 PM
Ask Kafelnikov, he could tell how hard it is to win 1 of them D:

:haha:

Pirata.
05-14-2012, 03:21 PM
False. The most important tournament after the slams is the WTF.
Mandatory masters 1000 are the third most important tournaments after the slams. Federer has 20, nadal has 16.

:lol:

reery
05-14-2012, 03:54 PM
They were more prestigious when they were BO5.

out_grinder
05-14-2012, 04:22 PM
I don't think they're more important than the Olympics. And the WTF is 10 times more important.

Yet 9/10 people here call the WTF a mug event where everyone is too tired and can't be bothered to play.

duarte_a
05-14-2012, 04:31 PM
Yet 9/10 people here call the WTF a mug event where everyone is too tired and can't be bothered to play.

Because 9/10 people here are nadal tards and/or fed haters.

stewietennis
05-15-2012, 03:05 AM
They're a great supplement when you've already achieved the primary goals in tennis – majors. They're not an end goal in and of themselves because they're pretty much pointless, or unimportant, if you don't have majors.

HKz
05-15-2012, 03:40 AM
Well, they are neither of the choices you have presented. They are actually pretty difficult in general to win as slams you arguably won't meet anyone good until the latter stages of the event where great players that aren't ranked as high as they should be for whatever reason (like maybe a Raonic or Karlovic) do end up getting seeded and placed further away from reaching the top players early.

I mean a perfect example is that we saw Raonic, who is ranked 21 in the world, draw Federer for Roger's first match in Madrid and nearly had the same scenario with Nadal. We can all agree that Raonic is a nightmarish opponent especially if he is your first opponent (not necessarily talking about Raonic/Nadal in Rome, but you get the point). However, to continue, in a slam, such highly ranked players like Federer or Nadal would meet the number 21 seed perhaps in the QF, where coincidentally Nadal met Roddick in last year's US Open as Roddick was seeded 21 at that particular event.

So potentially ATP 1000 events can be very difficult to win. Plus, the fact that it is best of 3, a match can be over in no time. Several players have made this notion that best of 3 matches can sometimes be more difficult than best of 5 because matches could be over with in a hurry allowing perhaps a different mentally for some players who aren't necessarily strong in best of 5 to win these ATP 1000 matches more easily (Nalbandian and Murray are both arguably fit this scenario). But of course, it could be wide open many times due to lack of a strong field. Best recent examples I can think of off the top of my head could be Hamburg 2006, where Federer and Nadal were absent, and Shanghai 2011, where Federer, Djokovic and several other top 10 players were absent.

However, of course in terms of actual title importance and prestige, there is no comparison. No one will really remember these like the slams or the Master's Cup. Everyone would give all their ATP 1000s success just to have one slam. However, ATP 1000s are certainly not meaningless and worthless.

Lestat
05-15-2012, 04:09 AM
well for murraytards MS are the biggest achievement in the whole known and unknown universe (if they play tennis there, they want to win MS instead GS). For the rest of normal ppl, nothing compared to GS.

used to be more important

they have lost a lot of prestige in the past few years... when mugray won so many

this.

abraxas21
05-15-2012, 04:19 AM
pro tour tournaments in order of importance:

1- GS
2- WTF
3- Olympics
4- mandatory ATP 1000
5- non-mandatory ATP 1000 (= Monte Carlo)
6- ATP 500
7- ATP 250

Kat_YYZ
05-15-2012, 05:33 AM
If you think 1000s are crap, then how little must you think of 500s or 250s?

A quick poll of the general public would show that the majority think the Grand Slams are the most important tournaments, way more important than ATP 1000 titles. But... would they still feel that way if there were no ATP tour? If it all collapsed tomorrow, what then? Where would the players play between Wimbledon and US Open, between US Open and Australian Open?

They would play at a bunch of unaffiliated rogue tournaments. Basically, whoever has the money to pay them the highest appearance fees. So Roger, Rafa and Novak would have no shortage of offers. Maybe entertainers like Monfils would get some calls, maybe Raonic for the novelty of the public seeing his big serve live. The Wawrinkas, Davydenkos, Volandris and Florian Mayers of the world would not be hearing their telephone ring. (Well, not right away. After a while, when their bank accounts get low, the new tournament directors can offer them a little to come and lose matches to the big name guys -- there's not going to be any trouble about match fixing anymore; it's all just a show for the public, right?)

Will the top guys choose to play tournaments where another top guy is playing..., or will they go where the field is weakest (and the appearance fee is highest) and pick up easy titles (and winners' cheques) against challenger-level opponents?

And then... they could all meet each other 4 times a year at the slams. But will it have the same merit when the rest of the "tennis season" is such a sham? For how many more years could the "big name" players coast on their reputation (a reputation built by the existence of an ATP tour and its ranking system, in conjunction with Grand Slams). What will happen to tennis when they retire?

This silly scenario might seem over the top, but I'm just trying to illustrate that the ATP and the slams need each other. This symbiotic relationship will never be an equal relationship (meaning the slams will always be more prestigious), but it's the reason why the ATP tournaments matter to the players and intelligent fans.

GSMnadal
05-15-2012, 05:34 AM
pro tour tournaments in order of importance:

1- GS
2- WTF
3- Olympics
4- mandatory ATP 1000
5- non-mandatory ATP 1000 (= Monte Carlo)
6- ATP 500
7- ATP 250

You're telling me Shanghai is more important than Monte-Carlo? :lol:

All the Asian tournaments should be stone dead last, nobody cares about them.

Ash86
05-15-2012, 05:57 AM
A tournament is important not due to the ranking points it offers but the prestige that it has in the eyes of players and the public. No way can you say Madrid or Shanghai are as prestigious as MC, Rome, Rogers Cup etc. It's quite clear that to players a tournament like MC has history and has a unique pull. Same for Rogers Cup which has been a longtime fixture and treated with respect. Shanghai and even Madrid just aren't - maybe that will change but for now they're not.

In the same way for me the WTF despite having more ranking points has been devalued in recent years due to the attitude of top players - if it was ANYTHING close to a slam then Davydenko winning it a few years ago would have been a big deal. But it wasn't really. Outside the tennis media no one cares. The WTF doesn't get much more media coverage than usual Masters and it's clear that players like Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray do not hold it in the same esteem that it was held back in the 80s.

The opposite has happened with the Olympics - before it wasn't that important but now players put it just below a slam, talk about it all year and as a goal for their career and schedule around it. No one seems to schedule to peak for the WTF.

So to me you need to consider the importance of an event at a moment in time - it's NOT static. For that reason for example the lack of Aus Open that many greats from the 70s and 80s have isn't a blemish to me -- in their time it wasn't seen as as important. They didn't even think of total slams as being the key "GOAT" criteria which changed the mindset too -- Sampras changed things there.

For me something like Queens, is WAY more prestigious and important than Memphis even though ones a 250 and the other a 500 - players care about Queens and want to win it - Memphis is forgotten soon enough.

yesh222
05-15-2012, 06:06 AM
Ash 86 said it perfectly. In fact, Queens is more prestigious than almost all 500s and is probably worth more than certain Masters to some players (although it looks like Halle is really starting to hurt Queens's importance).

GSMnadal
05-15-2012, 06:08 AM
A tournament is important not due to the ranking points it offers but the prestige that it has in the eyes of players and the public. No way can you say Madrid or Shanghai are as prestigious as MC, Rome, Rogers Cup etc. It's quite clear that to players a tournament like MC has history and has a unique pull. Same for Rogers Cup which has been a longtime fixture and treated with respect. Shanghai and even Madrid just aren't - maybe that will change but for now they're not.

In the same way for me the WTF despite having more ranking points has been devalued in recent years due to the attitude of top players - if it was ANYTHING close to a slam then Davydenko winning it a few years ago would have been a big deal. But it wasn't really. Outside the tennis media no one cares. The WTF doesn't get much more media coverage than usual Masters and it's clear that players like Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray do not hold it in the same esteem that it was held back in the 80s.

The opposite has happened with the Olympics - before it wasn't that important but now players put it just below a slam, talk about it all year and as a goal for their career and schedule around it. No one seems to schedule to peak for the WTF.

So to me you need to consider the importance of an event at a moment in time - it's NOT static. For that reason for example the lack of Aus Open that many greats from the 70s and 80s have isn't a blemish to me -- in their time it wasn't seen as as important. They didn't even think of total slams as being the key "GOAT" criteria which changed the mindset too -- Sampras changed things there.

For me something like Queens, is WAY more prestigious and important than Memphis even though ones a 250 and the other a 500 - players care about Queens and want to win it - Memphis is forgotten soon enough.

Amen. Great post, a 100% correct and agreed

MIMIC
05-15-2012, 06:17 AM
They're important but slams have stolen the spotlight from everything. I just think of Masters as the downtime between slams :) (and after the U.S. Open, I'm barely paying attention)

Kat_YYZ
05-15-2012, 06:23 AM
You're telling me Shanghai is more important than Monte-Carlo? :lol:

All the Asian tournaments should be stone dead last, nobody cares about them.

this is a terrible attitude. they are trying to put down roots in a new place; it takes time.

heya
05-15-2012, 06:24 AM
federer and the media did everything possible to convince the fans (of the sport which decreased in popularity)
that halle was better than queen's club, despite his easy halle draws.

fast_clay
05-15-2012, 06:41 AM
MS events rise in importance and prestige again when:

a) top four stops hoarding titles so much it appears normal and meaningless
b) they bring back 5 set finals to selected MS events
c) make top seeds play 1st rounds instead of byes

if both b) and c) return in this era, it will likely cause the condition of a) which would be great for the game... not likely however

HKz
05-15-2012, 07:15 AM
MS events rise in importance and prestige again when:

a) top four stops hoarding titles so much it appears normal and meaningless
b) they bring back 5 set finals to selected MS events
c) make top seeds play 1st rounds instead of byes

if both b) and c) return in this era, it will likely cause the condition of a) which would be great for the game... not likely however

Byes shouldn't be in them, however, I don't think 5 setters should be brought back. Maybe for the WTF final match, however, for ATP 1000 finals, might be a bit too much. Game is physical enough as it is. I mean I would rather have the top players stay fresh and continue on to the next tournament, rather than withdraw like Rome to Hamburg in 2006 when both Federer and Nadal withdrew.

Now only if they enforced the time between points..

asmazif
05-15-2012, 07:28 AM
i bloody love shanghai

Mystique
05-15-2012, 08:33 AM
A tournament is important not due to the ranking points it offers but the prestige that it has in the eyes of players and the public. No way can you say Madrid or Shanghai are as prestigious as MC, Rome, Rogers Cup etc. It's quite clear that to players a tournament like MC has history and has a unique pull. Same for Rogers Cup which has been a longtime fixture and treated with respect. Shanghai and even Madrid just aren't - maybe that will change but for now they're not.

In the same way for me the WTF despite having more ranking points has been devalued in recent years due to the attitude of top players - if it was ANYTHING close to a slam then Davydenko winning it a few years ago would have been a big deal. But it wasn't really. Outside the tennis media no one cares. The WTF doesn't get much more media coverage than usual Masters and it's clear that players like Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray do not hold it in the same esteem that it was held back in the 80s.

The opposite has happened with the Olympics - before it wasn't that important but now players put it just below a slam, talk about it all year and as a goal for their career and schedule around it. No one seems to schedule to peak for the WTF.


Haha, spoken like a true Nadal tard :worship:
surprise surprise Rafito has won MC and Rome a ton times, not so much Shanghai or Madrid. Fact is MS events are the third most important in the circuit as the points show clearly. Only tennis nerds know the actual number of these events and their names even. In fact they have lesser actual "prestige" than Olympics too.

And oh yes, the good old "no-one-cares-about-WTF" (non)argument. The guys keep saying from the beginning of every year basically how they want to QUALIFY for that event in the first place, how it is their main goal and tards keep saying they dont care when they actually do qualify.
Not having good enough game and endurance at the end of the year does not mean not wanting to win it.

GSMnadal
05-15-2012, 08:43 AM
this is a terrible attitude. they are trying to put down roots in a new place; it takes time.

That they are trying to become an important tournament says nothing about what it means right now. All these new (money driven) tournaments lack history and atmosphere.

The reaction of the winner is not more than a subtle fistpump, and maybe a little smile if we're lucky. Watch the excitement and passion on Nadal/Djokovic their faces after they win MC, Rome, IW or Miami.

They may become important in the future, but now they don't mean much. It doesn't help it doesn't lead up to a slam in the area

DJ Soup
05-15-2012, 09:35 AM
You're telling me Shanghai is more important than Monte-Carlo? :lol:

All the Asian tournaments should be stone dead last, nobody cares about them.

racist and xenophobe

delpiero7
05-15-2012, 09:41 AM
Should have kept them as a 64 man draw with a best of 5 final. Giving the top players byes in R1 and only best of 3 finals have weakened their prestige.

Sophocles
05-15-2012, 10:24 AM
This silly scenario might seem over the top, but I'm just trying to illustrate that the ATP and the slams need each other. This symbiotic relationship will never be an equal relationship (meaning the slams will always be more prestigious), but it's the reason why the ATP tournaments matter to the players and intelligent fans.

Not at all. It's arguably the scenario we had in the 1970s.

Sophocles
05-15-2012, 10:36 AM
A tournament is important not due to the ranking points it offers but the prestige that it has in the eyes of players and the public. No way can you say Madrid or Shanghai are as prestigious as MC, Rome, Rogers Cup etc. It's quite clear that to players a tournament like MC has history and has a unique pull. Same for Rogers Cup which has been a longtime fixture and treated with respect. Shanghai and even Madrid just aren't - maybe that will change but for now they're not.

In the same way for me the WTF despite having more ranking points has been devalued in recent years due to the attitude of top players - if it was ANYTHING close to a slam then Davydenko winning it a few years ago would have been a big deal. But it wasn't really. Outside the tennis media no one cares. The WTF doesn't get much more media coverage than usual Masters and it's clear that players like Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray do not hold it in the same esteem that it was held back in the 80s.

The opposite has happened with the Olympics - before it wasn't that important but now players put it just below a slam, talk about it all year and as a goal for their career and schedule around it. No one seems to schedule to peak for the WTF.

So to me you need to consider the importance of an event at a moment in time - it's NOT static. For that reason for example the lack of Aus Open that many greats from the 70s and 80s have isn't a blemish to me -- in their time it wasn't seen as as important. They didn't even think of total slams as being the key "GOAT" criteria which changed the mindset too -- Sampras changed things there.

For me something like Queens, is WAY more prestigious and important than Memphis even though ones a 250 and the other a 500 - players care about Queens and want to win it - Memphis is forgotten soon enough.

There is some truth in this, but unfortunately ATP decisions DO affect the attractiveness of tournaments in top players' eyes & in turn, their prestige. The best example of this is Hamburg, which for most of the 20th Century was known as the German Open and widely regarded as more prestigious than all tournaments apart from the slams, Rome, & (later) the year-end Masters. Now the ATP have demoted it to a 500 & moved it after the grass season, it can no longer attract the very top players & its prestige has been greatly diminished as a result, despite its historical cachet. By contrast, the contraction of the grass-court season has increased the prestige of Queen's, simply because it can attract a top-class field as one of the only grass-court tune-ups to Wimbledon (although Halle has beaten it this year), & its 250 status doesn't change this.

As for the year-end Masters, it's probably not as big as it was say in the early '80s, when it benefited from the weakness of the Australian Open played around the same time, but certainly here in Britain it gets FAR more coverage than any TMS, & top players still routinely state qualification for it as one of the principal goals of the season. It's clearly a lot more important than bloody Monte Carlo.

As for the Olympics, doesn't Massu's winning it say it all?