How many atp250/500/1000 is a slam worth? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How many atp250/500/1000 is a slam worth?

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 06:53 PM
This is kind of extending the TMC/slam comparing thread. Many people will say that a slam cant be compared in value to anything else, still I have seen most consider Muster's achievment on clay as greater than Courier despite winning a slam less than Courier, most consider Coria greater than Gaudio on clay and so it goes.

I would guess that any specific amount would be silly here, but an estimate could be given like somewhere between 15-25 "normal" titles surely makes a slam or 5-10 master series?

Muster won +40 titles on clay and 6 master series but only 1 RG, Courier won 2 RGs, 2 master series and a total of 5 titles on clay. Who had the greater career on clay?

You could also extend the question to how many runner ups makes up for a slam? Like Borg's 4 RUs in Usopen could be worth more than Del Potro's 1 Usopen title?

It surely all comes up to what is more difficult, win 25 smaller tournaments or 1 slam? Win 6 master series or 1 slam? 4 RUs or 1 slam?

Surely winning Grand slams cant be given absolute value over all other feats in tennis? No polls, I just wanted to start a discussion here.

helvet empire
11-28-2011, 06:55 PM
slam is worth about 5 M 1000, 12 M 500, 25 M 250 I'd say

Mateya
11-28-2011, 06:57 PM
How many slams is Umag worth? :confused:

r2473
11-28-2011, 06:58 PM
It's really quite simple if you apply a little logic and work it out

http://topnews.in/law/files/math-problem.jpg

....thus showing slams don't mean shit. It's all about UMAG.

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 06:58 PM
I will tell you one thing, you can win a slam by having a good 2 weeks or a lucky draw but to win 25 titles you have to be pretty good over an extended period of time. At the same time you can win 25 titles beating alot of bad players in obscure parts of the world while to win a slam most often you need to be able to beat the best or at least you have to play someone in a really hot streak in the finals.

helvet empire
11-28-2011, 07:12 PM
I will tell you one thing, you can win a slam by having a good 2 weeks or a lucky draw but to win 25 titles you have to be pretty good over an extended period of time. At the same time you can win 25 titles beating alot of bad players in obscure parts of the world while to win a slam most often you need to be able to beat the best or at least you have to play someone in a really hot streak in the finals.

LOL what a nihilist you are!:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEmvf_6k0pM

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 07:25 PM
LOL what a nihilist you are!:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEmvf_6k0pM

You are right there, I tried with Nietzche and with Kierkegaard but my condition seems not to be curable. I identified my disease reading The Stranger when I was 14.

Certinfy
11-28-2011, 07:30 PM
9 ATP 250s > A Slam.

Mathematical proof too.

Time Violation
11-28-2011, 08:28 PM
Btw, now that it's a talk about points, how many points would you award (if it were possible) for winning a GS in doubles? And winning a GS in mixed doubles? :)

Mountaindewslave
11-28-2011, 08:36 PM
this is getting rather dumb because Grand SLams are what people remember through history, they are what players care most about, they are what fans care most about.

when 4 huge tournaments have garnered this much respect and prestige comparing becomes useless because even if you had 40 ATP 250's (despite the effort to achieve the number being so much harder than ONE GS) it still would not mean as much through time as one Gran Slam.

Grand SLams are unique and there is no set amount of other tournaments that equal them. sure we could divise a way with how many points they are worth, but how do you calculate the number of extra thousands of points all of the prestige and historical value that Grand Slam victories have?

Grand SLAM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else. it is what is it. useless trying to gauge

hiperborejac
11-28-2011, 08:42 PM
It's not comparable!

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 08:50 PM
Btw, now that it's a talk about points, how many points would you award (if it were possible) for winning a GS in doubles? And winning a GS in mixed doubles? :)

Problem with doubles is that it is a team effort, but it should be taken into consideration for greats to have accomplished both in doubles and singles. Mcenroe gets elevated a little bit by his many doubles slams, maybe 1 slam. Mixed doubles not so much, to me it seems to me like a gimmick.

Time Violation
11-28-2011, 09:05 PM
Problem with doubles is that it is a team effort, but it should be taken into consideration for greats to have accomplished both in doubles and singles. Mcenroe gets elevated a little bit by his many doubles slams, maybe 1 slam. Mixed doubles not so much, to me it seems to me like a gimmick.

Yeah, I know, but if you had to give some points, how many?

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 09:20 PM
Yeah, I know, but if you had to give some points, how many?

I dont think I would put a quantity, if you had a succesfull doubles career it counts for +1 slam at most.

Roddickominator
11-29-2011, 12:34 AM
You could make arguments about the points these lesser tourneys give or how difficult they are to win in comparison to Slams....but at the end of the day the Slams are by far the most prestigious events and the winners will be remembered forever for winning them. Some guy might win Miami 5 years in a row and make himself the answer of a nice trivia question, but nobody is really thinking that is comparable to a Slam.

Topspindoctor
11-29-2011, 12:37 AM
None.

sexybeast
11-29-2011, 12:54 AM
You could make arguments about the points these lesser tourneys give or how difficult they are to win in comparison to Slams....but at the end of the day the Slams are by far the most prestigious events and the winners will be remembered forever for winning them. Some guy might win Miami 5 years in a row and make himself the answer of a nice trivia question, but nobody is really thinking that is comparable to a Slam.

That is all true, but remember that everyone knows Courier won 2 RGs and Muster 1 RG and no one really remembers what clay titles Muster won but still everybody have in the back of their mind that Muster was a greater clay legend than Courier.

I will tell you one more thing, guys like Connors and Lendl with 100 titles wont be remembered just for their 8 slams, there is a reason why most people have them up there with or above Nadal in terms of greatness.

MuzzahLovah
11-29-2011, 03:41 AM
2 masters= 1 slam
4 ATP 500's=1 slam
8 ATP 250's=1 slam

The ATP already did the math for you :wavey:

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-29-2011, 04:08 AM
slams have only mattered since 68

otherwise emmerson> laver

/thread

edit*- of course there have been years before 68 where slams have mattered- and they have always had prestige no matter what- but on the whole- i feel that the professional game didnt really treat slams like we do- and so they werent considered in the same sort of way as they are now-

p.s- of course there is also the fact that there wasn't ever really a big 4 slams- like there is now

Topspindoctor
11-29-2011, 04:27 AM
2 masters= 1 slam
4 ATP 500's=1 slam
8 ATP 250's=1 slam

The ATP already did the math for you :wavey:

Lol? You are an idiot.

Mountaindewslave
11-29-2011, 07:48 AM
2 masters= 1 slam
4 ATP 500's=1 slam
8 ATP 250's=1 slam

The ATP already did the math for you :wavey:

yeah that is really dumb jeez!!!! although I imagine you are being funny or something or other :) ;)

Time Violation
11-29-2011, 07:48 AM
Lol? You are an idiot.

It does make one wonder why players bother playing outside slams at all, since according to some, everything else is worthless/meaningless. :)

Mountaindewslave
11-29-2011, 07:51 AM
slams have only mattered since 68

otherwise emmerson> laver

/thread

edit*- of course there have been years before 68 where slams have mattered- and they have always had prestige no matter what- but on the whole- i feel that the professional game didnt really treat slams like we do- and so they werent considered in the same sort of way as they are now-

p.s- of course there is also the fact that there wasn't ever really a big 4 slams- like there is now

before 68' or so it is very hard to gauge the great players with each other and even harder to compare them to players in the OPEN era. you're right when you mention that players back then did not treat the Grand Slams at all like players treat them today. totally different.

but of course in terms of today, Grand SLams have went up exponentially in value. If a college kid writes a paper on the most significant players in the history of tennis, he's going to mention the ones who had the most success in Grand Slams. and why not? that's the big stage. like every other sport out there, there are the creme' of the cake, the most important and more desired title to covet.

no one cares how many games a team lost in the NFL if they win the Superbowl. the same applies in the NBA, and the MLB with the World Series. and Soccer too with the World Cup. all other 'games' or tournaments are a bit irrelevent in comparison to the big kahuna at least as far as history is concerned and what people highlight in the record books

Mountaindewslave
11-29-2011, 07:54 AM
It does make one wonder why players bother playing outside slams at all, since according to some, everything else is worthless/meaningless. :)

rankings do matter so that would be a reason. overall title count is an interesting statistic when comparing players. of course competing in other tournaments is a must so that pros are not rusty and find their groove. but the most logical reason is that a sport is looking to make revenue and that the ATP makes a number of tournaments outside of the Grand Slams mandatory. Do remember, if many great players refused to play anything but GRand SLams (despite the ATP rules) they still would risk not being able to qualify or they might not get a wild card.

just a few reasons why players play the smaller tournaments and why at the same time they mean so little compared to the Grand Slams

Time Violation
11-29-2011, 08:12 AM
Yeah I know, there's money to be had if nothing else, but I still think it's ridiculous how everything below slam level is almost despised by some, not worthy or whatever. However much I like Nole won 3 slams this year, it was often more fun to watch his matches at Masters (before Cinci at least :p)

Shinoj
11-29-2011, 09:36 AM
None.. A Slam is a Slam after all.. No getting away from the Truth de Eternale.

siffleanimaux
11-29-2011, 09:45 AM
You can conquer a local hill a billion times, but it'll never equal to conquering Mount Everest once.

Just as a Grand Slam is the pinnacle of tennis. Winning any other titles in large quantities will never equal a slam.

Sophocles
11-29-2011, 11:36 AM
That is all true, but remember that everyone knows Courier won 2 RGs and Muster 1 RG and no one really remembers what clay titles Muster won but still everybody have in the back of their mind that Muster was a greater clay legend than Courier.

I will tell you one more thing, guys like Connors and Lendl with 100 titles wont be remembered just for their 8 slams, there is a reason why most people have them up there with or above Nadal in terms of greatness.

Absolutely right, but on the other hand, if Muster hadn't won R.G., that would rightly be seen as a massive blot on his clay-court resume.

Shinoj
11-29-2011, 11:59 AM
You can conquer a local hill a billion times, but it'll never equal to conquering Mount Everest once.

Just as a Grand Slam is the pinnacle of tennis. Winning any other titles in large quantities will never equal a slam.

:worship:....................:p

Shinoj
11-29-2011, 12:01 PM
That is all true, but remember that everyone knows Courier won 2 RGs and Muster 1 RG and no one really remembers what clay titles Muster won but still everybody have in the back of their mind that Muster was a greater clay legend than Courier.

I will tell you one more thing, guys like Connors and Lendl with 100 titles wont be remembered just for their 8 slams, there is a reason why most people have them up there with or above Nadal in terms of greatness.

Thats because Courier was an Court Player and Muster was a Clay Court Specialist. People wont have trouble remembering Courier but would for Muster thats why this Label/Stereotype.

sexybeast
11-29-2011, 01:17 PM
Absolutely right, but on the other hand, if Muster hadn't won R.G., that would rightly be seen as a massive blot on his clay-court resume.

Yes, ofcourse. I am just saying obviously players are not only remembered for their results in slams. Muster was mediocre in Roland Garros, even Chang has better results in that tournament but legends are created also outside slams. We remember Vilas and Muster for their outstanding number of titles on clay and not as one RG wonders like Gaudio. That is because it is damn difficult to win 40 clay titles, it takes a lifetime of dedication to get there and that is obviously worth something, sometimes more than a slam.

People remember Connors for his 109 tournaments aswell, he is more than just a 8-slam legend and it might be silly to give an absolute quantity to how many tournaments a slam is worth. But if we compare Connors with his 8 slams Nadal with 10 slams and we start to count in other factors, like Connor's huge numbers of slam semifinals, YECs and tournaments that vastly outnumbers Nadal's.

In the back of people's mind there obviously is a quantity that might stretch from 10 to 40 tournaments that could be counted as much as a slam in players' resume. I say that because of course people create legends from results outside slams (like with Muster). Also we all know players like Gaudio, Korda and Johansson would never be able to win 40 tournaments in their lifetime but many players can have a good/lucky 2 weeks.

Sophocles
11-29-2011, 01:34 PM
Yes, ofcourse. I am just saying obviously players are not only remembered for their results in slams. Muster was mediocre in Roland Garros, even Chang has better results in that tournament but legends are created also outside slams. We remember Vilas and Muster for their outstanding number of titles on clay and not as one RG wonders like Gaudio. That is because it is damn difficult to win 40 clay titles, it takes a lifetime of dedication to get there and that is obviously worth something, sometimes more than a slam.

People remember Connors for his 109 tournaments aswell, he is more than just a 8-slam legend and it might be silly to give an absolute quantity to how many tournaments a slam is worth. But if we compare Connors with his 8 slams Nadal with 10 slams and we start to count in other factors, like Connor's huge numbers of slam semifinals, YECs and tournaments that vastly outnumbers Nadal's.

In the back of people's mind there obviously is a quantity that might stretch from 10 to 40 tournaments that could be counted as much as a slam in players' resume. I say that because of course people create legends from results outside slams (like with Muster). Also we all know players like Gaudio, Korda and Johansson would never be able to win 40 tournaments in their lifetime but many players can have a good/lucky 2 weeks.

Don't disagree at all. I just think it's important to acknowledge that Muster & Vilas (& Nastase for that matter) wouldn't be in the discussion of clay-court greats had they failed to win their single R.G.s. They need that R.G. to get a place at the table. Once they're AT the table, they can bring whatever else they've got, which clearly outweighs anything Courier has, but poor old Coria, for example, who was probably a superior clay-courter to Courier, doesn't get a place at the table.

As far as Nadal goes, I would agree that as yet, he is not clearly greater than Connors or Lendl or McEnroe despite his higher number of slams AND career slam. It's not all about slams, even in the Open Era. At the same time, Nadal is in a different league from Nastase's, despite the fact that outside slams, Nastase has a comparably good record.

merryploughbhoy
11-29-2011, 01:55 PM
Lol? You are an idiot.

No, those values are about right. you are one of the biggest idiots on here, you are a sad loser. get a life !

sexybeast
11-29-2011, 05:38 PM
Don't disagree at all. I just think it's important to acknowledge that Muster & Vilas (& Nastase for that matter) wouldn't be in the discussion of clay-court greats had they failed to win their single R.G.s. They need that R.G. to get a place at the table. Once they're AT the table, they can bring whatever else they've got, which clearly outweighs anything Courier has, but poor old Coria, for example, who was probably a superior clay-courter to Courier, doesn't get a place at the table.

As far as Nadal goes, I would agree that as yet, he is not clearly greater than Connors or Lendl or McEnroe despite his higher number of slams AND career slam. It's not all about slams, even in the Open Era. At the same time, Nadal is in a different league from Nastase's, despite the fact that outside slams, Nastase has a comparably good record.

Yes, it is important you show you can atleast win one slam, but even if you dont win one like in the case of Coria people still remember him as a greater claycourter than Gaudio.

Comparing Nadal to Nastase obviously is stretching things too far, they are too far from each other in the slam count department. Anyway, most people rank Nastase ahead of Courier despite only collecting 2 slams in his career. His 4 YECs and almost 60 titles obviously count for something.

MuzzahLovah
11-29-2011, 07:59 PM
yeah that is really dumb jeez!!!! although I imagine you are being funny or something or other :) ;)

Wow. You are this close to going on the list.