For you, what would be more impressive? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

For you, what would be more impressive?

Pfloyd
05-12-2007, 01:57 PM
Nadal winning the 3 Clay Master Series or winning his 3rd Roland Garros only (no master series)?

I'd say both Options would be about equal in value....

Burrow
05-12-2007, 02:03 PM
:lol:

Snowwy
05-12-2007, 02:39 PM
This is a joke right?

Mateya
05-12-2007, 02:58 PM
:smash:

A lot of :retard: nonsense threads has opened lately...

Pfloyd
05-12-2007, 03:08 PM
Damn people, no offense intended.

No one has ever won all 3 clay master in a year. I think winning them would be quite an accomplishment.....

Burrow
05-12-2007, 03:14 PM
as much as winning a slam? :haha:

guga2120
05-12-2007, 03:18 PM
The Masters are obviously important, but its all about Paris.

rafa_maniac
05-12-2007, 05:21 PM
I don't get why this is such a joke to some people? I think winning all three masters is a MUCH more impressive achievement. That's 18 matches to 7. A good RG draw and you can turn up in the QFs without really being tested. The three masters is three different weeks with three different forms of clay where you have to be completely at the top of your game. I suppose it's more 'prestigious' to win a third RG crown, but that was not the question...

ChinoRios4Ever
05-12-2007, 05:33 PM
RG by far

RickDaStick
05-12-2007, 05:36 PM
Neither

LeChuck
05-12-2007, 06:03 PM
Winning the French Open for sure. As great as masters series events are, I honestly don't think that they carry that much of a historical significance.

GlennMirnyi
05-12-2007, 06:04 PM
Nadal hitting a flat forehand winner.

jenanun
05-12-2007, 06:08 PM
Winning the French Open for sure. As great as masters series events are, I honestly don't that they carry that much of a historical significance.

exactly....


DO you remember...


sampras 14 GS (11 TMS)

or

agassi 17 TMS (8 GS)

?

LeChuck
05-12-2007, 06:11 PM
exactly....


DO you remember...


sampras 14 GS (11 TMS)

or

agassi 17 TMS (8 GS)

?

Pete definately. I don't even think that Agassi could give a damn about the fact that he has won more masters series events than anyone else. Would he have traded them all in for a 9th grand slam title? Most probably.

Burrow
05-12-2007, 07:20 PM
Pete definately. I don't even think that Agassi could give a damn about the fact that he has won more masters series events than anyone else. Would he have traded them all in for a 9th grand slam title? Most probably.

hold on here, your saying he would trade 17 prestigious titles in for a grand slam, sure a grand slam is more prestigious than a few masters series but 17? your talking so much crap your arse must be jealous. thats 8500 ranking points, to 1000. and so much more prize money.

Pfloyd
05-12-2007, 07:33 PM
exactly....


DO you remember...


sampras 14 GS (11 TMS)

or

agassi 17 TMS (8 GS)

?

True, but thyen again Tennis fans who watch the game routinely know that Master Series are also prestigous, though they do not count as much as GS's, this is true...

Pfloyd
05-12-2007, 07:34 PM
I don't get why this is such a joke to some people? I think winning all three masters is a MUCH more impressive achievement. That's 18 matches to 7. A good RG draw and you can turn up in the QFs without really being tested. The three masters is three different weeks with three different forms of clay where you have to be completely at the top of your game. I suppose it's more 'prestigious' to win a third RG crown, but that was not the question...

Good post, and I agree (though it isn't an easy decision by any means). :)

nisabula
05-12-2007, 09:44 PM
Definitely more impressive in pure tennis playing terms to win the 3 masters in one year, and I think more impressive overall, to do something that no one has done before.

LinkMage
05-12-2007, 09:45 PM
What is more impressive? Winning the 3 clay AMS in the same year.

What is more important? Winning Roland Garros.

jenanun
05-12-2007, 10:00 PM
no one has ever won 3 clay masters in the same year....

dont think its going to happen.... at least not this year even nadal wins rome

nadal will not play hamburg....

(if he plays, he is a big big idiot!)

merlin
05-12-2007, 11:26 PM
The question was which is more impressive, not which is more important or more prestigious or which would you rather have happen. And to me it is a more impressive feat to win the 3 TMS in a row than one grand slam.

Let me ask you this: is it more impressive for someone to beat a top 5 player in 5 brilliant sets in a TMS final (alas, this will happen no more) or for them to steamroll some hack who lucked his way into a slam final? Obviously the former is more impressive, even if not preferable or more historically significant.

Burrow
05-13-2007, 12:00 AM
yes, what is more impressive. winning french open.

Pfloyd
05-13-2007, 12:03 AM
yes, what is more impressive. winning french open.

Actually, the french open is the single GS that has produced the most 1 time slam champions.

Nobody has won the three clay Master Series in a year.....

Burrow
05-13-2007, 12:05 AM
3 masters series doesnt compare to a grand slam. I dont care if its never been done.

Burrow
05-13-2007, 12:06 AM
this is also talking about NADAL, which is not a one time champ, and is going for his 3rd in a row at french open which means he has NOT lost a match there, now that is impressive.

Beforehand
05-13-2007, 12:53 AM
More impressive is definitely the Masters Series trifecta, but the French Open matters more. But that's been covered.

Action Jackson
05-13-2007, 06:09 AM
Rios won all 3 Masters events on clay and never won RG. As for answering the thread question, well Safinator pretty much covered everything on this topic.

Burrow
05-13-2007, 12:00 PM
More impressive is definitely the Masters Series trifecta, but the French Open matters more. But that's been covered.

but dont you think staying undefeated at the french open for 3 consecutive years is more impressive, sure its not 3 tournaments in 3 weeks, but the draw is larger with more hungry players, its the big one.

DhammaTiger
05-13-2007, 01:17 PM
I don't get why this is such a joke to some people? I think winning all three masters is a MUCH more impressive achievement. That's 18 matches to 7. A good RG draw and you can turn up in the QFs without really being tested. The three masters is three different weeks with three different forms of clay where you have to be completely at the top of your game. I suppose it's more 'prestigious' to win a third RG crown, but that was not the question...

very well said :worship:

DhammaTiger
05-13-2007, 01:20 PM
The question was which is more impressive, not which is more important or more prestigious or which would you rather have happen. And to me it is a more impressive feat to win the 3 TMS in a row than one grand slam.

Let me ask you this: is it more impressive for someone to beat a top 5 player in 5 brilliant sets in a TMS final (alas, this will happen no more) or for them to steamroll some hack who lucked his way into a slam final? Obviously the former is more impressive, even if not preferable or more historically significant.

:yeah:

Beforehand
05-13-2007, 01:26 PM
but dont you think staying undefeated at the french open for 3 consecutive years is more impressive, sure its not 3 tournaments in 3 weeks, but the draw is larger with more hungry players, its the big one.
No, not more..impressive, I guess. Don't get me wrong, it's really damn impressive, but I think winning the three Masters is slightly better. The fields are "tougher", as in you get more quality more quickly. Sometimes in a slam you can get pretty far on nothing. **coughs. Ljubicic RG 2006. coughs.**

Plus, the three Masters Series events on clay are so comically different that they're almost different surfaces, from Monte Carlo's French Open-like clay, to Rome's clay that plays faster than a lot of hardcourt events, too Hamburg's quicksand. I think winning them all in a single year is extremely impressive, especially given their proximity to each other. (Which covers the fact that winning Indian Wells/Miami/Canada/Cincy would do slightly less for me.)

And whoever brought up the 14 slams versus 17 Masters titles argument is not getting the thread. Nobody is equating slams and Master Series events, especially at such a rate. It's a tough sell to equate the prestige of 2 Masters Events to a slam, let alone slightly more than 1.

Naide
05-13-2007, 01:28 PM
GlennMirnyi posting something clever.

Pfloyd
05-13-2007, 03:02 PM
GlennMirnyi posting something clever.

I don't think its possible.....

shotgun
05-13-2007, 03:45 PM
If Nadal really cared about winning Hamburg, he wouldn't play Barcelona every year.