How IMPORTANT is WTF? Is it = a grand slam? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How IMPORTANT is WTF? Is it = a grand slam?

DorianGray7
09-15-2010, 01:05 PM
To me personally, I love WTF more than some of the slams because its only the top 8 in a round-robin format which means they don't go out after losing just a single match. The only problem is that it is best of 3 sets.

It's a great mini-grand to wrap up the year at London, BUT why do players often ignore WTF? Andy Roddick last year didn't bother to show up (now he might never get the privilege again) and all the other players didn't step up their game or played seriously enough letting Davydenko win it.

How important is WTF to the players, it is 1500 ATP points after all.

To solve this problem of players not caring enough, would it be good for ATP to upgrade WTF into a Grand Slam, make it worth 2000 points, and give it the media coverage of a slam? It would be the indoor grand slam for the top players.

JolánGagó
09-15-2010, 01:07 PM
Shit thread, it's been established long ago that WTF is an irrelevant exho.

borracho
09-15-2010, 01:08 PM
I give a rat's ass about the WTF tbh. For the players I cannot judge, depends on their abilities to play indoors I reckon. Upgrading the tournament with more points won't help much either I think.

Topspindoctor
09-15-2010, 01:08 PM
WTF is nowhere near a slam, when mugs like Davydenko can win it. It's not even best of 5 sets :o

DorianGray7
09-15-2010, 01:12 PM
WTF is worth 1500 points, that pretty darn close to a grand slam points and is the biggest tournament outside a GS.

I think they should just upgrade it to a indoor Grand Slam worth 2000 points and make it best of 5. This would actually make the indoor season matter.

star
09-15-2010, 01:27 PM
By so late in the year, even the best players tend to be worn out and carrying injuries. I

Plus, it's INDOORS.

Indoor tennis just seems weird to me. Sorry, that's just my bias. I've never been able to get into it.

Sillyrabbit
09-15-2010, 01:49 PM
Irrelevant exhibition?? :lol: Come on now, it's waaay more important than that.

HarryMan
09-15-2010, 01:54 PM
I have noticed a sudden surge in the discussion about the importance of WTF. There are a few threads already. Curious, should Nadal win it this year or whenever, will we still be discussing it? :p

As for the question at hand, it is no where close to a slam title win (not even close). I would put the Olympics above it, because winning all slams and Olympics gets you the title of golden slam. I have never seen people talk about WTF and slam combination in that regard.

Sillyrabbit
09-15-2010, 02:02 PM
It was the same thing with the US Open, when Nadal hadn't won it, there were the will he/won't he polls. IF he does, maybe the attention will shift to Miami or Cincinnati.

rafa_maniac
09-15-2010, 02:07 PM
I have noticed a sudden surge in the discussion about the importance of WTF. There are a few threads already. Curious, should Nadal win it this year or whenever, will we still be discussing it? :p

As for the question at hand, it is no where close to a slam title win (not even close). I would put the Olympics above it, because winning all slams and Olympics gets you the title of golden slam. I have never seen people talk about WTF and slam combination in that regard.

^This. It's a nice season ender bonus but I barely consider it more worthwhile than a regular MS and not close to the level of a Slam nor even an Olympic Gold.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 02:14 PM
I have noticed a sudden surge in the discussion about the importance of WTF. There are a few threads already. Curious, should Nadal win it this year or whenever, will we still be discussing it? :p

As for the question at hand, it is no where close to a slam title win (not even close). I would put the Olympics above it, because winning all slams and Olympics gets you the title of golden slam. I have never seen people talk about WTF and slam combination in that regard.

nice one, next time they come up with Basel or probably Umag, really a lot of insecure fans

Snoo Foo
09-15-2010, 02:16 PM
kooyong>boodles>wtf>bundesliga>wtt

Crazy Girl
09-15-2010, 02:29 PM
To me personally, I love WTF more than some of the slams because its only the top 8 in a round-robin format which means they don't go out after losing just a single match. The only problem is that it is best of 3 sets.

It's a great mini-grand to wrap up the year at London, BUT why do players often ignore WTF? Andy Roddick last year didn't bother to show up (now he might never get the privilege again) and all the other players didn't step up their game:rolleyes::rolleyes: or played seriously enough letting Davydenko win it.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

How important is WTF to the players, it is 1500 ATP points after all.

To solve this problem of players not caring enough, would it be good for ATP to upgrade WTF into a Grand Slam, make it worth 2000 points,This could be a good idea and give it the media coverage of a slam? It would be the indoor grand slam for the top players.

Davydenko,....
.... MY DEAR dorian,
Won the last year just because he played better of each other.:worship::worship::worship: STOP!!
The prove is that in 2008 he done the final.
Final Tour is important for players.
Roger has won it several times.
And Rafa has said that this tournament is his next goal.
For Rafa it should be a dream to complete this beautiful year, in this way.

The cherry on the top of the cake.

Billups85
09-15-2010, 02:35 PM
WTF is worth 1500 points, that pretty darn close to a grand slam points and is the biggest tournament outside a GS.

I think they should just upgrade it to a indoor Grand Slam worth 2000 points and make it best of 5. This would actually make the indoor season matter.


Pretty close to a GS points? Yep, sure, the same close distance to a MS 1000.

Ouragan
09-15-2010, 02:36 PM
It's great for the players, plenty of points, ublicity and $$, but otherwise, it means nothing in the history of the game, the past editions are more forgettable even than masters. Maybe they should do a joint WTA/ATP event.

Apophis
09-15-2010, 02:44 PM
Not that important in the great scheme of things, but a nice addition. Most greats in the open era have won it. The best players never to have won it are Wilander and Courier. Nadal still has a lot of time. Olympics is way more important, especially because it is so significant in sports in general.

A_Skywalker
09-15-2010, 02:45 PM
WTF is like Masters series.

emotion
09-15-2010, 02:53 PM
I like it as much as a slam 2nd week... more, maybe. It is probably my favorite tournament

Crazy Girl
09-15-2010, 03:15 PM
It's great for the players, plenty of points, ublicity and $$, but otherwise, it means nothing in the history of the game, the past editions are more forgettable even than masters. Maybe they should do a joint WTA/ATP event.

Not that important in the great scheme of things, but a nice addition. Most greats in the open era have won it. The best players never to have won it are Wilander and Courier. Nadal still has a lot of time.:):) Olympics is way more important, especially because it is :worship:so significant in sports in general.:worship: Yes, that's true!!!
But I like very much the final Tour; for several motives.
It's indoor: always ready to play.
Many $$ sponsors. and many $$ for players.
Stunning atmosphere, with so many people. 02 Arena was plenty in any order of place.
But, above all, there is the cream-pick of the tennis.
The first 8 players of the World who plays to each other, and just only their, no one admitted.
I love this tournamente too much!! And sky Italy follow that with a total, beautiful coverage!!!

:wavey: :wavey:

MalwareDie
09-15-2010, 03:15 PM
Olympics is way more important, especially because it is so significant in sports in general.

The Olympics being significant in other sports does not mean that it is worth much in tennis. Players withdraw and tank their matches in the Olympics all the time because the US Open is much more important and they have to save themselves from fatigue.

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 03:18 PM
The Olympics being significant in other sports does not mean that it is worth much in tennis. Players withdraw and tank their matches in the Olympics all the time because the US Open is much more important and they have to save themselves from fatigue.

The Masters is way more important to tennis than the Olympics. Anybody who can't see that has no sense of history. When was the last time the 2 greatest players of the age duked it out for the No. 1 ranking at the sodding Olympics? That has happened at the Masters on several occasions.

Arakasi
09-15-2010, 03:39 PM
The Olympics is far too much down to chance to be worth as much as the WTF. It is only held once every 4 years so you have to hope it coincides with your peak/good form.
For example, if the Olympics were held one year later i.e. '05,'09,'13 it is highly unlikely Nadal would have ever won. 2005 he wasn't a force on hardcourts, 2009 he had injury problems during the summer, 2013 remains to be seen.

That doesn't mean he is any less worthy of winning, it just came down to what year it was played.

Same with Roger, summer '07 and summer '09 he was winning everything, unfortunately for him the Olympics were played in summer '08 when he was struggling to win matches.

If the Olympics were held every year then it would be far more prestigious in my mind. That might seem counter-intuitive because usually the less chances to win a title the more valuable it is. But in this case I think the limited number of chances makes it a whole lot more flukey.

Not to mention, the Olympics lacks any history, but I won't go into that.

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 03:41 PM
Same with Roger, summer '07 and summer '09 he was winning everything, unfortunately for him the Olympics were played in summer '08 when he was struggling to win matches.

He should have won it in 2004 though. Whatever he says, I bet he cared far more about the U.S. Open. He's certainly always played better there than at the Olympics.

Matt01
09-15-2010, 03:46 PM
It was the same thing with the US Open, when Nadal hadn't won it, there were the will he/won't he polls. IF he does, maybe the attention will shift to Miami or Cincinnati.


Yeah, trust me on this: When Nadal has won the WTF the other few tournaments he hasn't won yet (like Cincy) will suddenly become the most important ones on the tour. Afterall, those would be the only ones who are not played on any sort of clay (red clay, green clay, blue clay, whatever :lol:). :eek:

star
09-15-2010, 03:50 PM
The Masters is way more important to tennis than the Olympics. Anybody who can't see that has no sense of history. When was the last time the 2 greatest players of the age duked it out for the No. 1 ranking at the sodding Olympics? That has happened at the Masters on several occasions.

Well, of course, the Masters is part of the regular tennis season so it has its own importance. I think the Olympics has a certain prestige, but it's not a format that lends itself to a sorting out of the players because there is a limit of players from a country and even countries that don't have really good players send players that might not get into a 1000 draw.

It's interesting to me that players seem to take it so seriously.

I disagree with you that Federer didn't really want the gold medal. I think he wanted it very badly at Bejing -- even more because of Athens. And one of the reasons I think he wanted it badly is because of the way he kept saying that he had gotten the gold medal -- without really saying that it was in doubles. So, yeah, while you can say that he wasn't physically the best, I think you are kind of projecting when you say that he didn't want it.

star
09-15-2010, 03:50 PM
Yeah, trust me on this: When Nadal has won the WTF the other few tournaments he hasn't won yet (like Cincy) will suddenly become the most important ones on the tour. Afterall, those would be the only ones who are not played on any sort of clay (red clay, green clay, blue clay, whatever :lol:). :eek:

But won't it turn out to be indoor clay? :confused:

Topspindoctor
09-15-2010, 03:53 PM
The Masters is way more important to tennis than the Olympics. Anybody who can't see that has no sense of history. When was the last time the 2 greatest players of the age duked it out for the No. 1 ranking at the sodding Olympics? That has happened at the Masters on several occasions.

Do you honestly think Nadal would trade his Olympic gold for another masters 1000 title? :rolleyes:

kindling
09-15-2010, 04:11 PM
The Slams are like the playoffs, and the WTF are the World Series/Cup, Superbowl, ETC….. At least that's how it should be structured. Just like most sports, the best facing off at the end of the year for the main event. I find it interesting that's it's not made out to be a bigger deal.

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 04:17 PM
Do you honestly think Nadal would trade his Olympic gold for another masters 1000 title? :rolleyes:

No, nor for a TMC (which is what I was talking about). As I've said before, the Olympics has an importance beyond tennis, but relatively little importance to tennis.

Sapeod
09-15-2010, 04:19 PM
Grand Slams
WTF
Masters
500s
250s
Challengers
Futures

That's the 6 tiers of men's tennis.

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 04:19 PM
I disagree with you that Federer didn't really want the gold medal. I think he wanted it very badly at Bejing -- even more because of Athens. And one of the reasons I think he wanted it badly is because of the way he kept saying that he had gotten the gold medal -- without really saying that it was in doubles. So, yeah, while you can say that he wasn't physically the best, I think you are kind of projecting when you say that he didn't want it.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced he'd trade any of his U.S. Open titles for the Olympic gold in singles.

That's the point about the Olympics, anyway. A gold medal is a gold medal, whatever the discipline.

Everko
09-15-2010, 04:20 PM
Not a slam but its big. Not as big as some of the clay masters though because its on a generic surface

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 04:21 PM
Not a slam but its big. Not as big as some of the clay masters though because its on a generic surface

Pure tardery. You've left several people off your sig, by the way.

Everko
09-15-2010, 04:24 PM
Pure tardery. You've left several people off your sig, by the way.

Pure tardery? It would be more impressive for Rafa to win the WTF than win another Monte Carlo.

Arakasi
09-15-2010, 05:15 PM
He should have won it in 2004 though. Whatever he says, I bet he cared far more about the U.S. Open. He's certainly always played better there than at the Olympics.

Yes Roger doesn't have any excuses for not winning the Olympics. He is probably going to have had 3 realistic chances at the gold which is more than most.

He most certainly cared more for the US Open. Even the people who harp on about how important a gold medal is wouldn't suggest it is in the same league as a slam title.

My post was aimed more at the field at large. Roger is quite unusual in that he had a few opportunities. I think my Nadal example in my first post is the more pertinent one and highlights the issues with the Olympics in tennis. There is a lot of luck involved.

star
09-15-2010, 05:42 PM
I think my Nadal example in my first post is the more pertinent one and highlights the issues with the Olympics in tennis. There is a lot of luck involved.

I've always had problems with tennis in the Olympics precicely because for me, the Olympics should be the pinnacle of the sport. That's not true of many of the sports in the Olympics and not just tennis. I can't beleive any player would trade a GS title for an Olympic medal. But, I don't think that the "luck" factor is the reason for disliking tennis in the Olympics. There's some luck in winning any title. Many GS titles have been pretty much decided by a net cord or a bad call (thankfully, not any more.)

I don't believe any country is going to think a gold medal in Soccer is more important than the World Cup. Nobody in the US will think that the Olympic gold medal is more important than the professional championship. No road cyclist is going to hold the Olympics in more esteem than the Tour de France. So, for me, these aren't sports that should be in the Olympics.

Sapeod
09-15-2010, 05:46 PM
Not a slam but its big. Not as big as some of the clay masters though because its on a generic surface
You really believe that the clay masters are bigger than the others and WTF?

BS, if any masters are the biggest, it's Miami and Indian Wells.

peribsen
09-15-2010, 05:47 PM
The Olympics is far too much down to chance to be worth as much as the WTF. It is only held once every 4 years so you have to hope it coincides with your peak/good form.
For example, if the Olympics were held one year later i.e. '05,'09,'13 it is highly unlikely Nadal would have ever won. 2005 he wasn't a force on hardcourts, 2009 he had injury problems during the summer, 2013 remains to be seen.

That doesn't mean he is any less worthy of winning, it just came down to what year it was played.

Same with Roger, summer '07 and summer '09 he was winning everything, unfortunately for him the Olympics were played in summer '08 when he was struggling to win matches.

If the Olympics were held every year then it would be far more prestigious in my mind. That might seem counter-intuitive because usually the less chances to win a title the more valuable it is. But in this case I think the limited number of chances makes it a whole lot more flukey.

Not to mention, the Olympics lacks any history, but I won't go into that.

I think the Olympics is hugely prestigious, and rightly so, but shouldn't be included in the ranking system, because of all the reasons you give. I think Olympics and DC should be like medals for soldiers, they give you prestige but don't raise your rank.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 05:48 PM
Grand Slams
WTF
Masters
500s
250s
Challengers
Futures

That's the 6 tiers of men's tennis.

I guess if Murray won gold in London it will be important:o

Grandslam
Olympics
WTF
Masters 1000

I rate Olympics higher than WTF since olympics is an event that happened every 4 yrs but if WTF is done while top 8 players are not tired say pre-season before AO it will be bigger than Olympics, thats my opinion

peribsen
09-15-2010, 05:49 PM
if any masters are the biggest, it's Miami and Indian Wells.

I'd say Miami, Rome and Canada are over the rest.

Clay Death
09-15-2010, 05:49 PM
wtf is worthless. it has lost all its luster. that is why they have been trying to save this event.

moving it to london was an attempt to save it. it is still worthless and means nothing in the long run scheme of things.

its all about the slams for the all time greats.

Clay Death
09-15-2010, 05:52 PM
miami masters is also not what it used to be.

as for indian wells, it had to be saved by the oracle chief larry allison. it is near useless as well.

now the clay masters events in europe have very rich traditions, prestige, and character. and they are twice as hard to win as those shit masters events on quicker hard courts where just about any buffoon can get a hot hand in serving and ride that serve all the way to the finals.

JolánGagó
09-15-2010, 05:57 PM
Miami, Madrid, Toronto... is all shit. Rome and Montecarlo matter ten times more, even Barcelona does.

Fed Fan
09-15-2010, 06:34 PM
Tennis players are at the peak of their powers for a maximum of two to three years. If you take Federer, although he was an extremely good player in 2004 and in 2007, his best years were generally 2005 and 2006. As Arakasi has said, if the Athens and Beijing Olympics were either a year earlier or a year later, Federer could probably have won them.

As others have hinted at, where the Olympics fall in the calendar year is also important. If the Olympics were earlier in the season, fewer players would be fatigued or worried about becoming so. If the Olympics were not so close to the US Open, more players would put in more an effort to do well in the Olympics or have had a better run in the US Open.

This raises questions about the validity of a player's victory at the Olympics or US Open. Sampras hardly gave the Olympics his all when he did partake early in his career and made little effort to even appear at the games later on. It's no surprise Sampras looked one of the freshest players going into the closing stages of the season. While players like Agassi were concentrating on winning the Olympics, Sampras had his eyes on what really mattered: the US Open, World Championships and securing the year-end number one ranking. Because of this situation, you could argue that those who did well at the Olympics did so because certain top players weren't worried and that those who did well at the US Open did so because other players were tired after the Olympics. It's an absurd situation.

The surface the Olympics use is also an important factor. By choosing decoturf, many top players have effectively no chance of winning the tournament. Are some people seriously arguing that the greatness of players such Kuerten is diminished because they did not do particularly well at event which was held on their worst surface? Come on.

Now, let's say Federer did win an Olympic gold medal for singles in Athens, Beijing of both. I bet Nadal's fans would still use it as stick with which to beat Federer. They would argue that the Spaniard did not have the chance to be successful at the Olympics because the events were held on decoturf.

Clearly, the Olympics and tennis do not go together. The only reason sports such as tennis are part of the Olympics is because because IOC is trying to boost television viewing figures and ticket sales because most proper Olympic sports are dull. One event held every four years on one surface says nothing about the abilities of tennis players, especially not with other players tanking matches or not making much of an effort to show up. Regular ATP events, on the other hand, do provide a fairly accurate indication as to how good players are. As tournaments are held regularly, fans can track their form. And, As tournaments are held on different surfaces, most types of players can show their mettle and at least have some chance of glory.

The idea that the Olympics has serious currency in determining a player's greatness is tennis has been promulgated largely by fans of Agassi who just can't accept the fact that Sampras was, overall, a greater player. And now the Olympic games is wrongly and childishly being used in the feud between Federer and Nadal fans.

The Magician
09-15-2010, 06:43 PM
Tennis players are at the peak of their powers for a maximum of two to three years. If you take Federer, although he was an extremely good player in 2004 and in 2007, his best years were generally 2005 and 2006. As Arakasi has said, if the Athens and Beijing Olympics were either a year earlier or a year later, Federer could probably have won them.

As others have hinted at, where the Olympics fall in the calendar year is also important. If the Olympics were earlier in the season, fewer players would be fatigued or worried about becoming so. If the Olympics were not so close to the US Open, more players would put in more an effort to do well in the Olympics or have had a better run in the US Open.

This raises questions about the validity of a player's victory at the Olympics or US Open. Sampras hardly gave the Olympics his all when he did partake early in his career and made little effort to even appear at the games later on. It's no surprise Sampras looked one of the freshest players going into the closing stages of the season. While players like Agassi were concentrating on winning the Olympics, Sampras had his eyes on what really mattered: the US Open, World Championships and securing the year-end number one ranking. Because of this situation, you could argue that those who did well at the Olympics did so because certain top players weren't worried and that those who did well at the US Open did so because other players were tired after the Olympics. It's an absurd situation.

The surface the Olympics use is also an important factor. By choosing decoturf, many top players have effectively no chance of winning the tournament. Are some people seriously arguing that the greatness of players such Kuerten is diminished because they did not do particularly well at event which was held on their worst surface? Come on.

Now, let's say Federer did win an Olympic gold medal for singles in Athens, Beijing of both. I bet Nadal's fans would still use it as stick with which to beat Federer. They would argue that the Spaniard did not have the chance to be successful at the Olympics because the events were held on decoturf.

Clearly, the Olympics and tennis do not go together. The only reason sports such as tennis are part of the Olympics is because because IOC is trying to boost television viewing figures and ticket sales because most proper Olympic sports are dull. One event held every four years on one surface says nothing about the abilities of tennis players, especially not with other players tanking matches or not making much of an effort to show up. Regular ATP events, on the other hand, do provide a fairly accurate indication as to how good players are. As tournaments are held regularly, fans can track their form. And, As tournaments are held on different surfaces, most types of players can show their mettle and at least have some chance of glory.

The idea that the Olympics has serious currency in determining a player's greatness is tennis has been promulgated largely by fans of Agassi who just can't accept the fact that Sampras was, overall, a greater player. And now the Olympic games is wrongly and childishly being used in the feud between Federer and Nadal fans.

Good post, all you didn't cover is the Olympics has no historical importance anyway. What's important and what isn't seems to be determined by how well Nadull does at the event. Funny that :o

r2473
09-15-2010, 06:49 PM
It is really important.

It is slightly less important than UMAG, but perhaps a shade more important than "The Joker Open".

Probably right on par with Estoril.

CCBH
09-15-2010, 07:10 PM
In theory, the WTF should be the pinnacle of the season, but more often that not, it is a damp squib. Some players arrive better rested than others because they were injured for some early part of the season, or underperformed in the late part of the season. It happens just before the players go on vacation, so you can bet their minds are elsewhere.

It is great for the confidence of the winner going into the next season, but otherwise it is nowhere close to a Slam. The round robin format has its share of flaws too. Although you see more matches, you also have scenarios like a player losing 2 matches but still advancing :help:

BodyServe
09-15-2010, 07:21 PM
WTF is nowhere near a slam, when mugs like Davydenko can win it. It's not even best of 5 sets :o

So? the level of play is better in best of 5??

ATP should get rid of them, so technical skills are favored over physical skills.

And yeah TMC is *almost* a slam.

r2473
09-15-2010, 07:29 PM
So? the level of play is better in best of 5??

ATP should get rid of them, so technical skills are favored over physical skills.

And yeah TMC is *almost* a slam.

Men should play everything best of 3 and women should play everything best of 5.......to earn their equal prize money.

It's funny how just a few years ago, everybody was bitching about the men moving to best of 3 in everything but the slams. Now people want the slams to be best of 3 as well. Go figure.

BodyServe
09-15-2010, 07:34 PM
Men should play everything best of 3 and women should play everything best of 5.......to earn their equal prize money.



Yes but no TV for women matches.

Sapeod
09-15-2010, 07:37 PM
Miami, Madrid, Toronto... is all shit. Rome and Montecarlo matter ten times more, even Barcelona does.
Utter drivel.
All masters series matter the same.
All 500s matter the same.
All 250s matter the same, except for Queen's, which is obviously above the rest.

Sapeod
09-15-2010, 07:39 PM
wtf is worthless. it has lost all its luster. that is why they have been trying to save this event.

moving it to london was an attempt to save it. it is still worthless and means nothing in the long run scheme of things.

its all about the slams for the all time greats.
If you win it you get 1500 points.
How worthless can it be, when it gives only 500 points less than slams?

guga2120
09-15-2010, 07:43 PM
It's very important, but does not equal a slam. It just that so often at this point in the tennis year, so many players are not 100%.

Utter drivel.
All masters series matter the same.


Not really, Monte Carlo is the most important one on clay.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 07:45 PM
WTF is important until Nadal win this after that it is worthless

That is according to some people who posted here

Matt01
09-15-2010, 07:48 PM
Not really, Monte Carlo is the most important one on clay.


Monte Carlo got downgraded and is now the least important.

Arakasi
09-15-2010, 07:49 PM
I think the Olympics is hugely prestigious, and rightly so, but shouldn't be included in the ranking system, because of all the reasons you give. I think Olympics and DC should be like medals for soldiers, they give you prestige but don't raise your rank.

The Olympics is hugely prestigious in and of itself but in tennis it doesn't carry the same weight. It doesn't have a proper place in the sport. I would agree that it cannot be included in the ranking system in the same way slams and tour titles are.

You're right in saying that the same is true of DC because your success largely depends on the country you play for. But the Olympics and the DC are very different in that the DC has an enormous history in the sport which the Olympics doesn't.

Sapeod
09-15-2010, 07:50 PM
Not really, Monte Carlo is the most important one on clay.
The biggest ones are Indian Wells and Miami, since they have 7 rounds, but they still give out the same amount of points as the others.
Monte Carlo the most important on clay? Top players don't even need to play it, so it isn't any more important than the other two.

All masters are equal, the exceptions being Indian Wells and Miami which have more rounds, therefore are bigger, therefore are more important imo.

icara
09-15-2010, 08:00 PM
Sorry about my ignorance but why post 1968 is called open era? I was under the impression that is because the matches are played in ... well open courts. That is one of the reasons opposers do not want roofs, opens would not be open if there are roofs. Again because of my ignorance, I always thought that the reason there are indoor tournaments is because the weather is too cold and unpredictable to play in open at those times. Well obviously I am wrong, so could somebody, anybody show me the light.





To solve this problem of players not caring enough, would it be good for ATP to upgrade WTF into a Grand Slam, make it worth 2000 points, and give it the media coverage of a slam? It would be the indoor grand slam for the top players.

And you would call it "Indoor Open" since its location tends to change.

How will you justify not giving every player a equal chance to be a GS champion?

How will RR fit in GS format? How about the length of the tournament 1 or 2 weeks?

Again we do they have to care? It should be there lost if they skip or play badly. No need to force them in my opinion.

CCBH
09-15-2010, 08:03 PM
The 'true' Grand Slams : Miami, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris, WTF.

'True' Masters 1000 events : Rotterdam, Memphis, DC, Beijing, Tokyo, Basel, Valencia.

Sometime in the future (after the migration of the above to clay) :

True Grand Slams : Rotterdam, Memphis, DC, Beijing, Tokyo, Basel, Valencia.

True Masters events : Atlanta, Auckland, Bangkok, Belgrade, Brisbane, Bucharest, Buenos Aires, Casablanca, Chennai, Delray Beach, Doha, Eastbourne, Estoril, Gstaad, Halle, Houston, Johannesburg, Kuala Lumpur, Los Angeles, Marseille, Metz, Montpellier, Moscow, Munich, New Haven, Newport, Nice, San Jose, Santiago, 's-Hertogenbosch, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Sydney, Umag, Vienna, Zagreb.

Everko
09-15-2010, 08:06 PM
The 'true' Grand Slams : Miami, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris, WTF.

'True' Masters 1000 events : Rotterdam, Memphis, DC, Beijing, Tokyo, Basel, Valencia.

Sometime in the future (after the migration of the above to clay) :

True Grand Slams : Rotterdam, Memphis, DC, Beijing, Tokyo, Basel, Valencia.

True Masters events : Atlanta, Auckland, Bangkok, Belgrade, Brisbane, Bucharest, Buenos Aires, Casablanca, Chennai, Delray Beach, Doha, Eastbourne, Estoril, Gstaad, Halle, Houston, Johannesburg, Kuala Lumpur, Los Angeles, Marseille, Metz, Montpellier, Moscow, Munich, New Haven, Newport, Nice, San Jose, Santiago, 's-Hertogenbosch, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Sydney, Umag, Vienna, Zagreb.

what the hell is this?

CCBH
09-15-2010, 08:07 PM
what the hell is this?

List of events Rafa has not yet won ;)

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 08:09 PM
Sorry about my ignorance but why post 1968 is called open era? I was under the impression that is because the matches are played in ... well open courts. That is one of the reasons opposers do not want roofs, opens would not be open if there are roofs. Again because of my ignorance, I always thought that the reason there are indoor tournaments is because the weather is too cold and unpredictable to play in open at those times. Well obviously I am wrong, so could somebody, anybody show me the light.

It is called open era because it was opened to professional players, before only amateur players compete in these championships now famously known as slams

guga2120
09-15-2010, 08:10 PM
Monte Carlo got downgraded and is now the least important.

From the players that value clay, Monte Carlo has always been the most prestigious tournament other than Roland Garros. It has always been the best indicator for the French, the conditions are the closest, and the list of champions is who's who of the best clay courters in the last 25 years.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 08:15 PM
From the players that value clay, Monte Carlo has always been the most prestigious tournament other than Roland Garros. It has always been the best indicator for the French, the conditions are the closest, and the list of champions is who's who of the best clay courters in the last 25 years.

well for some they dont care because his/her hated player is not dominant in this tournament, I guess they are thinking Madrid is better than MC coz player A beat player B here, but hey they are just ignorant/or in denial of tennis history they are blinded due to their irrationality.

icara
09-15-2010, 08:17 PM
It is called open era because it was opened to professional players, before only amateur players compete in these championships now famously known as slams

thank you

straitup
09-15-2010, 08:20 PM
What an original thread :rolleyes:

peribsen
09-15-2010, 08:26 PM
Good post, all you didn't cover is the Olympics has no historical importance anyway. What's important and what isn't seems to be determined by how well Nadull does at the event. Funny that :o

Sorry but the term 'golden career slam' wasn't coined for Rafa, but for Agassi.

Whatever you make of it is completely another matter, but how like you to try to place everything you dislike under Rafa's doormat.

Lopez
09-15-2010, 10:23 PM
People having no idea as usual about tennis history.

The Masters as the WTF was called before, is one of the most prestigious tournaments in tennis. In the 80s it was more important than the Australian Open easily. The event has lost some of its prestige, IMO partly because of the location changes (Shanghai was a big NoNo, would be awesome if it were still played in Madison Square Garden).

Masters series all grant the same amount of points but going by the historical prestige Miami would have to be one of the most important, if not the most important. There's a reason it was called the 5th Slam and players always wanted to do well there.

And no, my answers are in no way related to whether Nadal did well there or not and will remain the same should he win these tournaments :wavey:

thrust
09-15-2010, 11:26 PM
It's great for the players, plenty of points, ublicity and $$, but otherwise, it means nothing in the history of the game, the past editions are more forgettable even than masters. Maybe they should do a joint WTA/ATP event.

NONSENSE! The year ending championship has always been a very important event.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-15-2010, 11:29 PM
It's a good tournament with a great importance. US-driven ATP is afraid of making it too important because they know that windy and rainy US Open would suffer.
Therefore the name changes, the ranking points, etc for World Tour final, Masters, etc. ATP tri

if someone like roddick refuses to play, it's because he has no chance to do something. he has 10 times more chances to play Wimbledon or US Open final.
But injuries happen. Nadal missed Wimbledon, del Potro missed US Open.
And these players had chances to win something.

last years tournament was relatively the biggest tennis event of all times.
not only on paper like us open, having record attendance and empty seats.

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 01:00 AM
People having no idea as usual about tennis history.

The Masters as the WTF was called before, is one of the most prestigious tournaments in tennis. In the 80s it was more important than the Australian Open easily. The event has lost some of its prestige, IMO partly because of the location changes (Shanghai was a big NoNo, would be awesome if it were still played in Madison Square Garden).

Masters series all grant the same amount of pointsbut going by the historical prestige Miami would have to be one of the most important, if not the most important. There's a reason it was called the 5th Slam and players always wanted to do well there.

And no, my answers are in no way related to whether Nadal did well there or not and will remain the same should he win these tournaments :wavey:

That bolded part is pure shit and used as a marketing pitch. It was only cause initially it was a 128 draw.

The TMC is the 5th biggest event.

MalwareDie
09-16-2010, 01:05 AM
That bolded part is pure shit and used as a marketing pitch. It was only cause initially it was a 128 draw.

The TMC is the 5th biggest event.

+1.

alfonsojose
09-16-2010, 01:53 AM
The name says it all .. WTF :p

Mjau!
09-16-2010, 01:58 AM
It's worth exactly 0.5 slams.

2003
09-16-2010, 02:25 AM
Funny how when I made a thread about who history would remember most out of Late On Hugh Witt and Andy Roddick, people said Hugh Witt by miles, primarily because, even though he had only one more slam and far less total time in the top 10, the two TMC cups he won elevated him :o

So I guess how important the TMC is depends on which player we are talking about.

I gurantee, if Rafa and Federer both end their careers with say 18 slams, a gold medal each, but Rafa never wins the WTF, I guarntee people will bring all of Federers TMC/WTF titles into the equation. As the Jackoff said in the US Open fight video I guarantee it :devil:

The Magician
09-16-2010, 03:23 AM
By nature it's impossible to get an easy draw at the WTF, funny how Nadull has never won it or even made the final :o

The Magician
09-16-2010, 03:24 AM
WTF is important until Nadal win this after that it is worthless

That is according to some people who posted here

Enjoy your ban :wavey:

rafa_maniac
09-16-2010, 02:53 PM
I've always had problems with tennis in the Olympics precicely because for me, the Olympics should be the pinnacle of the sport. That's not true of many of the sports in the Olympics and not just tennis. I can't beleive any player would trade a GS title for an Olympic medal.

At the same time, do you think Nadal would trade his Olympic Gold for another Slam? I don't, and neither would I if I were him. It's not a great deal in the context of tennis but it's a very great deal in the context of sport in general and for your nation and I think that more than anything means a lot to Rafa. It really depends on your perspective. Even before her Olympic win Dementieva stated she'd rather win a Gold Medal than a Slam, probably because for Russia the Olympics is the be all and end all of sports.

CCBH
09-16-2010, 03:37 PM
I gurantee, if Rafa and Federer both end their careers with say 18 slams, a gold medal each, but Rafa never wins the WTF, I guarntee people will bring all of Federers TMC/WTF titles into the equation.

Frankly (and I am respectful towards both players), if such a scenario does arise, I feel the H2H would be a better tiebreak than WTF. But at that point, it will seem so childish to separate 2 legends by petty numbers...

Lopez
09-16-2010, 03:49 PM
That bolded part is pure shit and used as a marketing pitch. It was only cause initially it was a 128 draw.

The TMC is the 5th biggest event.

My mistake then, I'm going by what I've read in autobiographies etc. What is the biggest TMS in your opinion then?

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 03:52 PM
My mistake then, I'm going by what I've read in autobiographies etc. What is the biggest TMS in your opinion then?

Don't have one. Monte Carlo, Hamburg and Cinci are the eldest, no one would say the last 2.

peribsen
09-17-2010, 12:09 AM
By nature it's impossible to get an easy draw at the WTF, funny how Nadull has never won it or even made the final :o

Now that's about as stupid as it gets: of three entries, he has made 2 SF, hardly a failure for anyone. You now very well the end of the season is Nadal's worst time of the year, has been so since he entered the tour.

Yetr another failed try of presenting your prejudice as objective evidence of something relevant.

The more you post, the harder it is to see you as a serious poster and the greater the temptation to see you as just another fanboy.

Pity, but only you can change that.