How many WTF/TMC titles is a slam worth? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How many WTF/TMC titles is a slam worth?

2003
11-28-2011, 02:18 AM
Players A and B end their careers with 13 and 12 slams respectively, but player B managed to win 3 WTF crowns, player A zero, have they had equal careers?

In other words, how many slams is the 5th slam worth?

Would you trade a slam if you had 15 of them, for 3 WTF crowns?

If say 2 GOATS finished on the same slam total, or one had one less, and all other crowns were pretty even, similar weeks at no 1 etc, but the one with one less slam has won 5 WTF crowns and the other none, has he by default had the better career?

Discuss.

We know the WTF is worth less than a slam, but more than any others masters title.

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 02:21 AM
I think a slam is worth about 2 TMCs. It is the reason I have Lendl ahead of Nadal in all time lists, it could be called the indoor tennis slam and not aknowledging this one is like saying the 2 months of indoor tennis we have in the end of the season is worthless, which it is not.

Tennis is about adapting to different conditions, indoor tennis is one important condition players need to be able to adapt.

Yeah and around 3 RUs, 7 master series or 25 "normal" titles should be worth a slam aswell. I think people put too much value on slam counts.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-28-2011, 02:23 AM
masters are never as good as winning slams

WTF is lower than a slam, but a calender GS will lose its shine if you dont also win the WTF

a MS is not comparable to a slam
the WTF is like a 1/2 slam imo

Topspindoctor
11-28-2011, 02:25 AM
1 slam = 2 wtf > 4 masters 1000

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 02:26 AM
Problem with master 1000s is that it gets difficult to compare with the old champions before master 1000s existed. TMC however existed since the beginning of open era.

Saberq
11-28-2011, 02:31 AM
nothing ....that is why Slam is Slam

guga2120
11-28-2011, 02:34 AM
You can not compare. They are obviously not easy to win. It's like comparing winning 5 or 10 master series titles to a slam.

rickcastle
11-28-2011, 02:36 AM
It's never going to have the equal value. You'll never hear people say Federer has as good as 19 slams because he has 6 TMC's. But achievement wise, it's pretty up there to win a TMC considering you're meeting the best 8 players of the year, and you're not going to be meeting unseeded qualifiers or players ranked outside the top 10 as it often is before slams before the QF/SF. You can even win a slam without meeting a top 10 player once but with TMC, that won't cut it. It's a shame that TMC seemingly is not given as much weight as a slam considering it's probably a lot harder to win.

I think achievement wise, I'd give it 2 TMCs = 1 slam... but in the real world, no amount of TMCs could equal a slam win sadly.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-28-2011, 02:42 AM
1970 laver won 5 master shields

or the super 9 equivilent

he didnt win a slam that year- but was considered world number 1 by some people

tests
11-28-2011, 02:51 AM
IMO, 2 WTF/TMC titles = 1 slam.

The only reason WTF/TMC is not as prestigious/valuable as a slam because it is played as best of 3 instead of best of 5.

In my opinion, however, i do believe that a WTF/TMC is just as valuable as a slam is. Although it is best of 3... you have to play the top players of the world in order to win it.

tests
11-28-2011, 02:53 AM
On another note... the reaction from federer today after he beat tsonga says it ALL IMO.

guga2120
11-28-2011, 02:55 AM
1970 laver won 5 master shields

or the super 9 equivilent



Very different than winning a master series, even in the 80's when Lendl won so many. They were not mandatory, all the top players did not play like they do now.

Nixer
11-28-2011, 03:09 AM
Problem with master 1000s is that it gets difficult to compare with the old champions before master 1000s existed. TMC however existed since the beginning of open era.

another reason not to do it at all :rolleyes:

Slice Winner
11-28-2011, 03:35 AM
OP sounds like a Fedtard getting the excuses ready in case Nadal finishes with 16 slams xD

I feel like 2 WTFs = 1 slam, BUT, winning the WTF undefeated is almost as good as a slam.
The main reason (besides 3 sets) that I think WTF is valued less than a slam is that you can lose a match and still win the tourney. So those who win undefeated are showing they can consistently beat the top 8 players.
Most WTF draws for the winner are much tougher than a few GS draws in the last couple of years that could be mentioned....

Chase Visa
11-28-2011, 03:40 AM
Problem with master 1000s is that it gets difficult to compare with the old champions before master 1000s existed. TMC however existed since the beginning of open era.

Used to be the Grand Prix Tennis Championship Series which is like the Masters to some degree.

LinkMage
11-28-2011, 03:48 AM
1 Slam = 2.638204 TMC/WTF

True fact. Ask Mediter for the scientific proof.

Mountaindewslave
11-28-2011, 04:19 AM
maybe 3 is worth a slam? I mean the truth is as far as value is concerned, the World Tour Finals should only realistically be worth a LITTLE bit less than a slam because it takes just about as much effort to win...

however just by the the history of the sport and the nature that Grand Slams are best of 5, the WTF's will never even come close. If we are going to guage them in comparison in what has become the tennis world, it would take many world tour finals to equate to 1 grand slam. maybe 3 or 4?? the fact is all the players are mainly concerned with is Grand Slam play. not masters or the YEC. just look at Nadal / Djokovic (maybe a bit Murray?), they all crash out by the YEC because it means so much less to them.

YEC itself just is not considered an incredibly important statistic (the # you've won_) and I think this is mainly due to the best of 3 nature. they should change it to best of 5 and the prestige would grow and maybe the distance between them and Grand Slams would lessen

MuzzahLovah
11-28-2011, 04:29 AM
worthless.

ossie
11-28-2011, 09:47 AM
no amount of ANY tournament is worth even a fraction of a slam.

Diprosalic
11-28-2011, 10:19 AM
no amount of ANY tournament is worth even a fraction of a slam.

if player A has 11 Slams and 0 Masters
and Player B has 10 Slams and 30 Masterss


you would rate A>B?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-28-2011, 10:37 AM
between 1970- and the sampras generation

there were long periods of time where the AO was less than a masters shield

borg and evert both skipped RG during their primes

the WCT was considered as big as a slam way back when

the AO and RG was always considered lesser slams untill relatively recently- with the sampras smash and grab- slam count to greatness

its BS- you cannot compare eras- you simply cannot

borg is considered king of clay- but he never fell to his knees when he won RG- like he did at wimbledon and he even cried (!) when he lost a WCT final

the dallas WCT was held on carpet- so nadal would struggle on that surface

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-28-2011, 10:48 AM
You know, we used to have a big tournament that was played in Dallas. It was maybe the biggest event other than the French and Wimbledon and the US Open and the Masters, and this was even considered as big or bigger than the Australian Open at the time. That went into the early part of May and that was indoors. So you only have like a turnaround of like three weeks. All these other tournaments were either after the US Open or just before the French. Like Rome used to be the week before the French. Some people probably weren't even born that are, you know -- a few people are here that know that the French Open has done a great job of becoming a bigger and bigger event. But when I first started playing, it was, you know -- the biggest priorities were Wimbledon and the US Open for me."

Until the mid '80s, I was offered guarantees to go to Australia. It wasn't in the same league.


Mac

dodo
11-28-2011, 10:52 AM
Closest thing to an indoor slam and probably as difficult to win, considering the level of opposition.
Still, a slam is a slam.
As far as listing players in order of awesomeness, its completely subjective anyway, no point assigning any meaningless fractional value conversions to it.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-28-2011, 10:54 AM
the french open was called the Vanoas open in 1972

the australian open was called the Ford open and even (shockingly) malboro open- yes, like the cigerette

if it wasnt for the WCT 1972 rosewall laver (televised) match- tennis would probably not be half as popular

so dont think of slams as the be all and end all

they certainly arent

buzz
11-28-2011, 10:54 AM
Winning a GS trophy is the highest thing you can achieve in this sport. If you wan't to be at the top of the game, winning slams is what you need. Winning 1000 other tournies still won't get you at the top.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-28-2011, 11:12 AM
although its true that the slams are now the highest and most prized tournies out there

it wasn't always this way

and depending on the decade they have had differing value

wimbledon is probably the constant in all this- however-

1973 wimbledon is considered a non-slam- no one showed so its a meaningless win in the history books

the us open has usually been regarded as the no.2 event in the world- however

when the aussies dominated the sport in the 60s- there is a good argument for putting the AUS above the US open in prestige

after connors and mac came along- the AUS became worthless for a number of years

rome and hamburg were considered above roland garros as the premier clay tournament for a good many years- or at least as important to win

in the 70s RG had really low spectator turnouts and was definatley not on the same level as wimbledon and the us open
partly the reason for this was the WCT- and its huge money payouts

untill the modern age of tennis- there was no big 4 slams- there was the big 1- wimbledon (mostly) and then depending on who turned up, a bunch of other events that were highly regarded

atennisfan
11-28-2011, 11:20 AM
WTF is very unique. There's no other tournament where it pits the top 8 players, and that they play each other from the get go. There is not mug player to practice warm up.

This year, to win WTF, Federer had to play Fish, Ferrer, Nadal, and Tsonga TWICE. Even GS do not normally draw as tough as any WTF.

I think 2 WTF should at least equal to a slam.

henke007
11-28-2011, 11:32 AM
Def 4-5 top 10 players to win a WTF is in someways bigger then winning a slam. I would say they are pretty equal with a slight edge to Slams. But AO being the Slam that players rank as nr 4 in most cases would prob be equal.

Sophocles
11-28-2011, 11:33 AM
In terms of ranking points an undefeated run at the WTF is worth 75% of a slam, but nobody imagines that's a true reflection of their relative prestige. If I had to quantify it I'd say a slam was worth 2.5 WTFs, but in many ways they're qualitatively different, & if you did, for example, put Lendl above Nadal, that would have more to do with his sheer number of titles & weeks as Number One than with the WTF per se, although obviously it contributes. All you can say is that it is the most important tournament after the slams, & the most important indoor tournament.

Mac & Borg I'd take with a pinch of salt. Borg sank to his knees only once on winning Wimbledon - against Mac in 1980 - & that was in relief at finally managing to put Mac away, after blowing multiple championship points in the 4th set. Roland Garros mattered almost as much then as it does now; if Mac prioritized Wimbledon & the U.S. Open, it probably had something to do with the fact that as an out-&-out serve-volleyer those were tournaments he had a realistic chance of winning. But it's certainly true that the Masters and the WCT were more important in the late '70s & early '80s than the A.O.

MatchFederer
11-28-2011, 11:55 AM
I would say 2 - 3 TMC is worth a Slam but maybe only if a player has a Slam already. By the time you have one or two then I'd rather have 3 TMC than another Slam.

paseo
11-28-2011, 12:07 PM
2.

timafi
11-28-2011, 12:13 PM
Nadal would be rolling on the court like a pig in fresh mud if he were to win a WTF

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 12:28 PM
People who only count slams dont know the history of the sport, it has never been only about slams and often some slams are worth less than other important tournaments. Master cup was worth more than AO until the 90s and arguably atleast the same as RG in the 70s-80s. Tennis legends have fought hard to win this trophy and Nadal and Djokovic beeing illprepared to win this tournament wont change the fact that this is a legendary event and one of the most difficult to win. Fact that none other slam is played indoors also elevates the status of the event, Nadal winning the career grand slam without winning TMC is almost as bad as Sampras not winning RG. Lets get real, surfaces have changed and many of the slams are slower than they used to be, this indoor tournament is the last tournament that still seems to reward very aggressive tennis as we watched in the final.

About 15-20% of tournaments are also played indoors which makes indoor one major division of tennis that deserves something similar to a slam. 2 TMCs should not count as no less than a slam.

I personally count Davydenko's impressive TMC beating all the best of the world as worth more than Kafelnikov's easy run in Australian open without playing a top 10. I am not interested in the static world of numbers but deeper truths can be found when you know all the details.

Luinir
11-28-2011, 04:30 PM
are you kidding me? wtf or tmc titles is NOT a slam worth. never...

samanosuke
11-28-2011, 04:33 PM
are you kidding me? wtf or tmc titles is NOT a slam worth. never...

no worry. we all know why you think like that

Luinir
11-28-2011, 04:35 PM
no worry. we all know why you think like that

because i am nadal tard? nadal has the most tmc titles. :wavey:

samanosuke
11-28-2011, 04:49 PM
because i am nadal tard? nadal has the most tmc titles. :wavey:

TennisMastersCup :wavey:

Luinir
11-28-2011, 04:52 PM
sry, i meant masters titles. but masters and wtf titles are not very different. you can discuss about how many masters title equals with wtf titles but you can not discuss about comparing slams to masters/wtf. NEVER.

Vida
11-28-2011, 04:54 PM
nowdays, I think it would be hard to find a player who would rather choose to have any number of TMC's over a single slam. well, if its some ridiculous number, take the cash into consideration or whatever, than ok... :shrug: but its basically the prestige of a slam (nowdays), its not to be compared with wtf.

samanosuke
11-28-2011, 04:55 PM
sry, i meant masters titles. but masters and wtf titles are not very different. you can discuss about how many masters title equals with wtf titles but you can not discuss about comparing slams to masters/wtf. NEVER.

why ? you can win a slam without beating top 10 opponent, nadal almost showed that few times and TMC you can't . difference isn't so huge like it looks on first hand

Luinir
11-28-2011, 04:57 PM
even this round robin shit is enough reason. plus, this is 3 setter and indoors. real tennis is outdoors.

ossie
11-28-2011, 05:03 PM
if player A has 11 Slams and 0 Masters
and Player B has 10 Slams and 30 Masterss


you would rate A>B?yup

Luinir
11-28-2011, 05:06 PM
30 masters titles? if you can get 30 masters titles, don't play tennis, declare your prophecy.

Vilnietė
11-28-2011, 05:07 PM
I would say that this is the same discusion as how many silver medals equals to one gold medal in olypmics?..
Everyone will always know that this palyer had more slams and this had more TMC/WTF and there will be no objective answer which one is a better player.

Luinir
11-28-2011, 05:11 PM
well said vilniete. nadal is better than federer for me in everyway.

helvet empire
11-28-2011, 05:14 PM
well said vilniete. nadal is better than federer for me in everyway.

only relevant part of your sentence

Luinir
11-28-2011, 05:16 PM
yes i know. this is not logical as i said, just for me. you can say federer is better than nadal.

MaxPower
11-28-2011, 05:19 PM
So lets see. Every season has 9 Masters 1000, 4 slams, 1 WTF. All the points collected in said masters and slams are used to even qualify for WTF.

*Inserts logic*

WTF should be worth more than a slam.

*Inserts tradition and fan thinking*

WTF is worthless

*compromising*

1 slam is worth about 2 WTF

HKz
11-28-2011, 05:24 PM
They can't be compared at all. Slams and World Tour Finals to a lesser extent are the only comparable aspect between eras. Generations ahead of us will only look at the slams just like we do with the generations before us.

AncicCilic
11-28-2011, 07:51 PM
Hm in my mind 3 WTF's are like 2 slams so let's call it 1,5 WTF = 1 GS. Reason is that first of all you have to play good enough through all year to actually participate in such an event, and second you need to go through 5 matches (win atleast 4, ok in theory 3) against top 10 opponents.

I actually think points gained for winning say it all, GS 2000 pts, WTF 1500 and Masters 1000. Realistic if you ask me.

2003
09-10-2013, 05:21 AM
Winning the WTF/TMC is definately harder to do than winning a slam, we have seen undisputable proof of that now.

Kiedis
09-10-2013, 05:26 AM
WTF is a glorified exho.

You can't put this name to a serious tournament.

QuitYerWhining
09-10-2013, 05:30 AM
Since 2000: 1 Slam = 2 WTF = 4 Masters 1000
Also, 1 Olympic Gold Medal = 0.75 Slams since about 2008

Pratik
09-10-2013, 05:37 AM
WTF is a glorified exho.

You can't put this name to a serious tournament.

..

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.13376049.2725/sticker,375x360.u1.png

BAMJ6
09-10-2013, 05:44 AM
To me a ATP Finals win = Slam Final taking the David Nalbadian/Alex Corretjia approach. These are the 2 crowning achievements of the said players.

Also no ATP Finals winner has failed to reach a slam final.

Baseline86
09-10-2013, 05:50 AM
To me a ATP Finals win = Slam Final taking the David Nalbadian/Alex Corretjia approach. These are the 2 crowning achievements of the said players.

Also no ATP Finals winner has failed to reach a slam final.

None, A slam is a Slam, the slam count doesnt include WTF, gold medals or M1000, once they are tied in you can bring those non-slam trophies to discussion. Imo Olympic Medal nowadays is the most valuable (since about 2008), followed by WTF and then M1000.


It also depends on what tournaments.

Winning the double "montreal and cincinnati" on a row is as valuable as winning USO, the same could be said for winning Montecarlo-madrid-rome, is about as prestigious as winning RG.

Johnny Groove
09-10-2013, 06:00 AM
The Year End Masters is the 5th biggest event in modern tennis. You cannot compare to a slam, really, nor can you compare it to even Masters 1000 events. Maybe 3 1000's = 1 WTF? It is too murky of waters.

I do believe that it would look bad on a resume if one did not have at least 1 title of his worst big event.

Baseline86
09-10-2013, 06:08 AM
The Year End Masters is the 5th biggest event in modern tennis. You cannot compare to a slam, really, nor can you compare it to even Masters 1000 events. Maybe 3 1000's = 1 WTF? It is too murky of waters.

I do believe that it would look bad on a resume if one did not have at least 1 title of his worst big event.

Depends, I think winning cinci and montreal on a row is as big achievement as winning USo, now winning cinci, montreal and USO means completly dominating a period of seasson which is pretty much like winning 2 slams or even more (done by rafa 2013). The same winning "montecarlo, madrid, rome" on a row is like winning RG, now winning montecarlo, madrid, rome and then RG is like dominating a big part of the seasson too, a sick achievement (done by rafa 2010).

AT the end of the day we only can give presumptions.

It's like the gold medal list for me.

15 gold (aka slams)/0 silver/0 bronze > 14 gold /10 silver/0 bronze > 14 gold / 9 silver/ 10 bronze

JoWilly
09-10-2013, 03:54 PM
Who the hell voted they are worth more than a slam? Is there ever any end to the delusion on MTF! They are a good achievement, but the 5th biggest event by a long shot.

Rychu
09-10-2013, 03:58 PM
3rd option

End da Game
09-10-2013, 04:10 PM
1 grand slam > 48374123928139724732837248284821734821 mickey mouse titles

BAMJ6
09-11-2013, 01:29 AM
WTF win = Slam final loss. The Nalby-Corretja rule

Jimnik
09-11-2013, 01:37 AM
Infinity

deebyeah
09-11-2013, 01:43 AM
Slam is Slam

Thierry Champion
09-11-2013, 01:53 AM
WTF is overrated. The players start already thinking about golfing and xmas.