Scale of achievements [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Scale of achievements

ys
06-08-2006, 02:57 AM
Note, all combined achievements are not considered here.. ( there might be a separate thread about that )
Here is my scale of achievements in one tournament:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open, Roland Garros
3. AO
4. Olympic gold
5. GS Final
6. Davis Cup
7. Masters Cup
8. Olympic medal
9. GS Semifinal
10. TMS
11. Any other mickey mouse tournament

Discuss.

bad gambler
06-08-2006, 02:59 AM
Can't agree with the Olympics being so high up on your list, is a token sport at the games and not all the top players bother turning up

ufokart
06-08-2006, 02:59 AM
Why aren't all grand slams the first achievement. Wimbledon is more difficult to win than the rest of the tournaments?
Or are you talking about prestige? (which i also don't agree with :lol:)

tripb19
06-08-2006, 03:02 AM
I think AO is at least as hard to win as the US Open.

Tennis Masters Cup is definately harder to win then the Olympics.

And yes; Wimbledon is the hardest to win because Federer was born to win it.

El Legenda
06-08-2006, 03:05 AM
Note, all combined achievements are not considered here.. ( there might be a separate thread about that )
Here is my scale of achievements in one tournament:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open, Roland Garros
3. AO
4. Olympic gold
5. GS Final
6. Davis Cup
7. Masters Cup
8. Olympic medal
9. GS Semifinal
10. TMS
11. Any other mickey mouse tournament

Discuss.
sounds about right but i would put TMS final 11 and MM 12 :)

for Ljubicic so far
#6 check, # 7 check(if it means making it to MC) #8 check, #9 check, My #11 check, my #12 check
#5 will happen in next year or so. and #10 Paris or Madrid

Scotso
06-08-2006, 03:08 AM
Usually the professionals say that Roland Garros is the most difficult to win.

I would put most of the slams on the same level. I don't think you can even put Davis Cup here because it's not an individual acheivement.

Bibberz
06-08-2006, 03:16 AM
I'm sure any player would take a TMS title over a GS SF appearance. It's especially rare considering Roger/Rafa win just about all of 'em.

disturb3d
06-08-2006, 03:22 AM
In terms of winning a tournament.

1. GS
2. TMC
3. AMS
4. Olympic
5. Other

ys
06-08-2006, 03:38 AM
Usually the professionals say that Roland Garros is the most difficult to win.


It is not about what is the most difficult to win.. It's what is the most prestigious to win.. A majority of players would prefer winning Wimbledon to winning anything else. That is beyond any doubts..

I would put most of the slams on the same level. I don't think you can even put Davis Cup here because it's not an individual acheivement.

Winning Davis Cup helps to get into The Hall of Fame, which is a very individual recognition.

Tennis Fool
06-08-2006, 03:38 AM
Note, all combined achievements are not considered here.. ( there might be a separate thread about that )
Here is my scale of achievements in one tournament:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open, Roland Garros
3. AO
4. Olympic gold
5. GS Final
6. Davis Cup
7. Masters Cup
8. Olympic medal
9. GS Semifinal
10. TMS
11. Any other mickey mouse tournament

Discuss.

US Open has always had the best champions. I would put that ahead of RG.

ys
06-08-2006, 03:40 AM
US Open has always had the best champions. I would put that ahead of RG.

Me too. But I would concede that I might not be objective in that.. That's why I put them on the same level.

Tennis Fool
06-08-2006, 03:41 AM
I'm sure any player would take a TMS title over a GS SF appearance. It's especially rare considering Roger/Rafa win just about all of 'em.
I'm not so sure of that.
I can imagine a conversation with a former pro where he boasts:
"I made it to the Semis of XX Slam."

However, not:
"I won the very major tournament that is no longer in existence" (since the Masters have often changed in form, ie the Super 9).

Deboogle!.
06-08-2006, 03:41 AM
Interesting, this would be mine :) Some of them I'm not sure though. I think a TMS title and a GS final are similar. Same for DC and TMC

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open, Roland Garros, AO
3. TMS Title
4. GS Final
5. Davis Cup
6. Masters Cup
7. GS Semi
8. Olympic gold
9. Any other tourney
10. Olympic medal

ys
06-08-2006, 03:43 AM
In terms of winning a tournament.

1. GS
2. TMC
3. AMS
4. Olympic
5. Other

I remember every Olympic champion since 1988. Do you remember TMC/AMS champions from that time? That's what it is all about. Staying in memory. Staying in records. They call it "legacy".. The status of Olympic gold is undoubtedly higher than that of TMS or even TMC..

ys
06-08-2006, 03:45 AM
Interesting, this would be mine :) Some of them I'm not sure though. I think a TMS title and a GS final are similar. Same for DC and TMC

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open, Roland Garros, AO
3. TMS Title
4. GS Final
5. Davis Cup
6. Masters Cup
7. GS Semi
8. Olympic gold
9. Any other tourney
10. Olympic medal

Robredo has never been in GS final, but has a TMS title. Nalbandian has never won TMS title, but was a GS finalist. Who achieved more?

Tennis Fool
06-08-2006, 03:45 AM
Me too. But I would concede that I might not be objective in that.. That's why I put them on the same level.
Can you display this way?

Wimbledon (heck, it's the epitome of what people imagine tennis to be, made Sharapova a star and became a movie!)

[major gap]

US Open (everyone wants to win it)
(minor gap)
Roland Garros (different and unique and makes you the epitome of the "iron man" on tour)

[major gap]

That other Slam that only makes the Aussies famous

Tennis Fool
06-08-2006, 03:49 AM
I remember every Olympic champion since 1988. Do you remember TMC/AMS champions from that time? That's what it is all about. Staying in memory. Staying in records. They call it "legacy".. The status of Olympic gold is undoubtedly higher than that of TMS or even TMC..
Unfortunately, the Olympics made Massu famous :(

disturb3d
06-08-2006, 03:53 AM
Robredo has never been in GS final, but has a TMS title. Nalbandian has never won TMS title, but was a GS finalist. Who achieved more?Thomas Johannson was 2004 AO champion, Nalbandian 2002 Wimbledon finalist.
Is Johansson the bigger achiever? Nah, consistent achievements overpower a lone result.

ys
06-08-2006, 03:56 AM
Thomas Johannson was 2004 AO champion, Nalbandian 2002 Wimbledon finalist.
Is Johansson the bigger achiever? Nah, consistent achievements overpower a lone result.

lmao.. Ask Nalbandian about it. He'd trade in a heartbeat..

disturb3d
06-08-2006, 04:03 AM
Are you saying that Nalbandian would trade:
- Countless semi final GS showings
- World no.3 ranking
- The title of South American sporting icon
- A 6-5 head-to-head over Federer

for

- Flat feet
- A broken eye
- AO title?

Bibberz
06-08-2006, 04:12 AM
I'm not so sure of that.
I can imagine a conversation with a former pro where he boasts:
"I made it to the Semis of XX Slam."

However, not:
"I won the very major tournament that is no longer in existence" (since the Masters have often changed in form, ie the Super 9).
I'd imagine that, if a player was really going to boast, he'd boast about actually winning a very respectable tournament rather than finishing two matches shy of a slam. I still think it's a close call, though, which is reflected by the ATP Race points distribution: 100 pts. for a TMS title and 90 pts. for a GS SF.

Bibberz
06-08-2006, 04:14 AM
Are you saying that Nalbandian would trade:
- Countless semi final GS showings
- World no.3 ranking
- The title of South American sporting icon
- A 6-5 head-to-head over Federer

for

- Flat feet
- A broken eye
- AO title?
Plus Nalbandian has already earned $300,000+ more than ToJo despite being over six years younger.

Deboogle!.
06-08-2006, 04:18 AM
Robredo has never been in GS final, but has a TMS title. Nalbandian has never won TMS title, but was a GS finalist. Who achieved more?That's exactly my problem. I don't know. Good arguments for both. I'd be tempted to call it a draw. That's complicated by the fact that Nalby also has a TMC title though, that would push him above Robredo for me. But if you were to create two fictional characters who had those characteristics you described and nothing else, I'd call it a tie.

robrulz5
06-08-2006, 04:22 AM
All the Grand Slams would be difficult to win. They all have different things making them hard.

Australia has the heat.
France has the clay.
Wimbledon has Roger.
The US has umm!?! haha, maybe only three of them are as hard as eachother.

Deboogle!.
06-08-2006, 04:24 AM
The US has umm!?! haha, maybe only three of them are as hard as eachother.Pretty bad weather conditions in its own right (hot and humid) and also, back to back semis and finals make it pretty difficult at the end. I think all the slams are just as difficult as the others, just for different reasons. Some physical, some mental, etc.

robrulz5
06-08-2006, 04:27 AM
Pretty bad weather conditions in its own right (hot and humid) and also, back to back semis and finals make it pretty difficult at the end. I think all the slams are just as difficult as the others, just for different reasons. Some physical, some mental, etc.

Very good point!

zicofirol
06-08-2006, 04:33 AM
All the Grand Slams would be difficult to win. They all have different things making them hard.

Australia has the heat.
France has the clay.
Wimbledon has Roger.
The US has umm!?! haha, maybe only three of them are as hard as eachother.
Yeah, and we all know Roger has been playing for 100 years, we are talking about historical context here, dont bring up stupid arguments like that.

For me its:
1. Wimbledon
2. Us Open (Are we more likely to remember a one time US open champion or an Andres Gomez?)
3. Roland Garros
4. Australian Open
5. 1 Ranking
6. Davis Cup
7. Olympic Gold (everyone understimates a medal, but alot of players have "national" pride and would really like to win a medal, Federer for one wanted badly to win in Athens)
8. Masters CUp
9. TMS

hitchhiker
06-08-2006, 05:22 AM
The status of Olympic gold is undoubtedly higher than that of TMS or even TMC..

Then why didnt the top player bother to show up in 2000? Sampras won almost everything else, why wasnt he there?

megadeth
06-08-2006, 06:00 AM
guess who won 'em all?

that's right andre!!! (except for MC and Hamburg though)

Neely
06-08-2006, 12:21 PM
Prestige, difficulty to win, whatever. In any way I agree about position of the Olympic Gold in ys's ranking. Any lost Grand Slam final is a lost one and despite the biggest achievement on the route reaching this final, you are still a loser in this match and will be remembered most likely for this loss and not for the 6 preceding (as great as they may have been) wins, IF at all! An Olympic Gold has quite a value though because you return as a winner, some countries are paying huge attention for such events to grab a medal for your country and the chance to win this Olympic Gold is only once every four years. (Deb, I can't believe my eyes you are rating a GS semi higher than an Olympic Gold in tennis ;) :lol: )

Scotso
06-08-2006, 12:29 PM
I thought we were talking about acheivement here, not prestige. Sure, Wimbledon may be more prestigious, but that doesn't mean winning it is a better acheivement than winning the other slams.

ezekiel
06-08-2006, 12:43 PM
Achievements are based on slams, masters and then the rest.

I don't understand the olympic stuff though. Tennis is a pro sport played year around and olympics are simply for amateurs. The fact that tennis is played in olympics is just pure commercialism to make it bigger. Does anyone remember if tennis is televised during olympics because for the life of me I can't remember ever seeing tennis there. So how is that an achievement ?

Scotso
06-08-2006, 12:53 PM
Yes it's televised and where did you hear that it's just for amateurs? I can't think of many sports included in the Olympics that don't have full-time professionals.

Hendu
06-08-2006, 02:47 PM
This is how I see it...

1. End of the year #1
2. Grand Slams
3. Masters Cup
4. GS Final
5. TMS
6. Davis Cup
7. GS Semifinal
8. TMS final
9. Big tournaments that are not TMS (as f.e. Barcelona)
10. Olympic gold medal
11. Other tournaments

NYCtennisfan
06-08-2006, 03:20 PM
The tennis event in the Olympics suffers from the same problems that the AO does with respect to past history: there isn't as much. How many Olympic games have there been where the pros play? 5? That's what relegates the AO to 4th place amongst slam prestige--a serious lack of history. They have done a great job with that slam to somewhat equal things out, but there is only so far you can go when you have serious gaps in history i.e. Borg only playing once when he was a kid, JMAC once, almost a 10 year span when none of the top players were there, fields of 64, not best of 5 all the way through many, many times, two Australian Opens in one year, etc. It's hard to overcome that.

ys
06-08-2006, 03:50 PM
Then why didnt the top player bother to show up in 2000? Sampras won almost everything else, why wasnt he there?

Because he was busy winning Slams.. And the timing and venue of 2000 Olympics practically ruled out doing well at both Sydney and US Open. And mind, he did win an Olympic medal and was quite proud of it..

ys
06-08-2006, 03:51 PM
olympics are simply for amateurs.

Tell it to NHL hockey players.. Are you .. even Canadian? :lol:

hitchhiker
06-08-2006, 04:01 PM
Because he was busy winning Slams.. And the timing and venue of 2000 Olympics practically ruled out doing well at both Sydney and US Open.

he also skipped atlanta 96

ys
06-08-2006, 04:38 PM
he also skipped atlanta 96

If you are winning Slams in numbers, you don't really need Olympics to boost your resume.. But those kind of players are born once a decade.

hitchhiker
06-08-2006, 04:45 PM
If you are winning Slams in numbers, you don't really need Olympics to boost your resume.. But those kind of players are born once a decade.

yet he never skipped the year end championship and usually played his best there
sampras is only one example that olympic gold doesnt mean much

ys
06-08-2006, 04:47 PM
yet he never skipped the year end championship and usually played his best there

Money.

hitchhiker
06-08-2006, 04:53 PM
Money.

sampras was chasing history not money. obviously he didnt feel olympic gold would boost his legacy in any way.

look at the players who go deep in olympic tournaments. in 1996 agassi played laendar paes in the semis :o

ys
06-08-2006, 05:35 PM
sampras was chasing history not money. obviously he didnt feel olympic gold would boost his legacy in any way.

It was his personal judgement. Look at the list of Olympic champs, both men and women, and most of them are elite, GS winners. As to Sampras always playing best at YEC, I still remember a blatant tanking to Corretja in 1998, when he assured YE #1 record a match before, and absolutely fightless play against Kuerten in 2000. From some point of his career, when money were no longer an issue, the tournament simply no longer had any value, any motivation in it..


look at the players who go deep in olympic tournaments. in 1996 agassi played laendar paes in the semis :o

Better than playing Voltchkov in semis of Wimbledon.

Hendu
06-08-2006, 05:39 PM
Olympic medallists

Seoul 1988

GOLD: Miloslav Mecir (TCH)
SILVER: Timothy Mayotte (USA)
BRONZE: Stefan Edberg (SWE), Bradley Gilbert (USA)

Barcelona1992
GOLD: Marc Rosset (SUI)
SILVER: Jordi Arrese (ESP)
BRONZE: Andrei Cherkasov (EUN), Goran Ivanisevic (CRO)

Atlanta 1996

GOLD: Andre Agassi (USA)
SILVER: Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
BRONZE: Leander Paes (IND)

Sydney 2000

GOLD: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
SILVER: Tommy Haas (GER)
BRONZE: Arnaud Di Pasquale (FRA)

Athens 2004

GOLD: Nicolas Massu (CHI)
SILVER: Mardy Fish (USA)
BRONZE: Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)

Chloe le Bopper
06-08-2006, 05:52 PM
lmao.. Ask Nalbandian about it. He'd trade in a heartbeat..
Agreed.

Jimnik
06-08-2006, 06:10 PM
1. Wimbledon
=2. Australian Opem
=2. Roland Garros
=2. US Open
5. Olympic Gold
6. Tennis Masters Cup
7. Davis Cup
8. Wimbledon runner-up
=9. AMS Miami
=9. AMS Indian Wells
=9. AMS Monte-Carlo
=9. Australian Open runner-up
=9. Roland Garros runner-up
=9. US Open runner-up

I think you need to break down the Masters Series in the same way as the Grand Slams. Some are more prestigous than others.

ys
06-08-2006, 06:36 PM
1
=9. AMS Miami
=9. AMS Indian Wells
=9. AMS Monte-Carlo
=9. Australian Open runner-up
=9. Roland Garros runner-up
=9. US Open runner-up


Ridiculous. Can you tell me without looking it up who was Monte-Carlo champion of 1992? Most of people who watched tennis back then not only would remember who was US Open runner up in 1992, they would actually even remember detail of that match.

Making it to a GS final is the smallest possible contribution that actually makes you a part of a tennis history. Every ATP Media guide will have you name ever since.. Every Grand Slam related tennis book will have your name. Only tennis freaks ( like us :lol: ) would remember by now who was Chris Woodruff or, say, Roberto Caretero.. What will Rusedski be known for? Making US Open final, or winning Stuttgart TMS or whatever he won.. What is Bruguera known for? Two RG championships and 1 RG final.. But his TMSs? Apart from a freaky Miami win, I don't remember others..

JMG
06-08-2006, 06:42 PM
I agree that Olympic gold is even bigger than a GS final. I'm quite sure that Kiefer's silver medal in doubles is at least as big for him as his GS semifinal.

Julio1974
06-08-2006, 09:35 PM
That's exactly my problem. I don't know. Good arguments for both. I'd be tempted to call it a draw. That's complicated by the fact that Nalby also has a TMC title though, that would push him above Robredo for me. But if you were to create two fictional characters who had those characteristics you described and nothing else, I'd call it a tie.

I really don't understand how Nalbandian could be compared to Robredo. The difference s so abysmal that I don't get it.

Hendu
06-09-2006, 03:23 AM
I agree that Olympic gold is even bigger than a GS final. I'm quite sure that Kiefer's silver medal in doubles is at least as big for him as his GS semifinal.

The Olympics bigger than a GS final? :eek:

I think it would be more of an achievement to win any of the TMS.

Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought players didn't care that much about the Olympics.

Action Jackson
06-09-2006, 04:42 AM
The Olympics is a different thing in a way, I can see why tennis doesn't belong there as it is not the biggest event in their calendar, it's the same as football winning a football World Cup is more important than Olympic gold and that's the same winning a GS is more important to most than Olympic gold.

This being said the 92, 00 and 04 Olympic Gold medal matches were among some of the most dramatic and enjoyable matches I have seen. I am not sure about Massu, but I know Rosset has said many times "as much as I enjoyed my Olympic gold, I'd rather have won a Slam."

CmonAussie
06-09-2006, 05:08 AM
Yeah, and we all know Roger has been playing for 100 years, we are talking about historical context here, dont bring up stupid arguments like that.

For me its:
1. Wimbledon
2. Us Open (Are we more likely to remember a one time US open champion or an Andres Gomez?)
3. Roland Garros
4. Australian Open
5. 1 Ranking
6. Davis Cup
7. Olympic Gold (everyone understimates a medal, but alot of players have "national" pride and would really like to win a medal, Federer for one wanted badly to win in Athens)
8. Masters CUp
9. TMS

:wavey: :cool:
You got me thinking about my man Rocky Llegs Hewitt with that list :) .
1. Wimbledon 2002 check :worship:
2. USO 2001 check :worship:
3. Pass :mad: (twice to QF)
4. Pass :sad: (but 2005 finalist aint`t bad ;) )
5. 1 Ranking (2001,2002)check :worship:
6. Davis Cup Champions with AUS 1999 & 2003 check :worship:
7. No comment :devil:
8. TMC 2001 & 2002 check :worship:
9. TMS Indian Wells 2002 & 2003 check :worship:

--> To summarize Lleyton Hewitt has achieved almost everything a tennis player can, what remains to be seen is whether he can have a successful 2nd half to his career :confused: !

BTW my two bob on the SCALE OF ACHIEVEMENTS would be:

1. Wimbledon, Roland Garros
2. Aussie Open, US Open
3. TMC
4. No.1 Ranking
4. Davis Cup
5. TMS
6. Grand Slam finalist
7. Int`l Series tournies

:angel: Wimbledon & Roland Garros stand out because their back-to-back & their on the extreme surfaces (fastest & slowest). To win both of them in the same year is awesome^ it goes without saying. The Aussie Open & US Open are still SLAMS so anyone would be happy to get their hands on those trophies of course, but they`re a minor notch behind the European Slams.

PS. At this stage in their careers I would take Thomas Johannson`s 2002 AO trophy over all of Nalbandian`s achievements. Of course the chunky Argentinian is knocking on the door of a Slam win, & if he pulls it off then the balance tips in his favor.

CmonAussie
06-09-2006, 05:12 AM
Sorry for all the talk about the Olympics I somehow forgot about it. Honestly I don`t think tennis should be in the Olympics or maybe it should be restricted to an age bracket~ ie. Under 18s??!!

CmonAussie
06-09-2006, 05:22 AM
The tennis event in the Olympics suffers from the same problems that the AO does with respect to past history: there isn't as much. How many Olympic games have there been where the pros play? 5? That's what relegates the AO to 4th place amongst slam prestige--a serious lack of history. They have done a great job with that slam to somewhat equal things out, but there is only so far you can go when you have serious gaps in history i.e. Borg only playing once when he was a kid, JMAC once, almost a 10 year span when none of the top players were there, fields of 64, not best of 5 all the way through many, many times, two Australian Opens in one year, etc. It's hard to overcome that.
:o
Actually JMAC played 5-times & I`m sure he regrets not playing more :confused: as he could have moved up the list of all time greats & he had a great chance to when it was on grass.
Granted Borg`s lack of interest in coming to AUS certainly didn`t help the event during that era :sad: .

AO`s history is not so bad..
From the 1950`s to the early 1970`s the World`s best players were mostly Australian ;) , so we didn`t have to look far in terms of depth then & foreign greats like Ashe & Connors snuck in the occasional win.

From the mid-1970`s to the mid-1980`s is when AO really went down, though their were still classy winners like Newcombe, Vilas & Wilander.

Since the late 1980`s to the present the AO has consistently had fields as strong as the other majors & apart from Johannson there`s been no other fluke winners.

The AO began in 1905, so it`s been going over 100-years already- it`s history is relative to the French!!

oz_boz
06-09-2006, 07:36 AM
I remember every Olympic champion since 1988. Do you remember TMC/AMS champions from that time? That's what it is all about. Staying in memory. Staying in records. They call it "legacy".. The status of Olympic gold is undoubtedly higher than that of TMS or even TMC..

So you remember Olympic champions but not TMS winners? How many Olympics have there been? A mere 36 times fewer than TMS tournies. Still, I think if you ask the players, I guess they would rate TMS higher than the Olympic.

dkw
06-09-2006, 09:15 AM
1. Wimbledon
2. US Open, Roland Garros
3. AO

So Goran is better than Andy and Moya, both of whom are better than Tojo :confused:

A grand slam is a grand slam, no one ever say x player won a slam but it was only the AO or only the US Open...

Argenbrit
06-15-2006, 06:49 PM
I think the TMC is a bigger achievement than a GS final, but several articles about Nalbandian don't make it feel that way. Instead of saying "2005 TMC champion" they say "2002 Wimbledon runner-up". Maybe it's because Wimbledon's coming. :shrug:

For me it'd be:

1.Wimbledon
1.2. US Open
1.3. Roland Garros
1.4. Australian Open
2. #1 ranking
3. Tennis Masters Cup
4. Olympic Gold
5. Wimbledon runner-up
5.2. US Open runner-up
5.3. Roland Garros runner-up
5.4. Australian Open runner-up
6. AMS
7. Davis Cup (I love the DC but since it's a group achievement I'm not sure if it should be that high on the list)
8. Any other tourney

alfonsojose
06-15-2006, 06:59 PM
Mine :

1. Any slam
2. Any slam final
3. Any AMS
4. TMC
5. Olympic Gold
5. Any slam SF
6. Any title
7. Olympic Bronze/Silver
8. Any slam QF

BlueSwan
06-15-2006, 07:03 PM
This really says all you need to know about the olympics:

Athens 2004
GOLD: Nicolas Massu (CHI)
SILVER: Mardy Fish (USA)
BRONZE: Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)

alfonsojose
06-15-2006, 07:06 PM
Andre has it all :yeah:

alfonsojose
06-15-2006, 07:06 PM
This really says all you need to know about the olympics:

Athens 2004
GOLD: Nicolas Massu (CHI)
SILVER: Mardy Fish (USA)
BRONZE: Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)
:haha: :haha:

BlueSwan
06-15-2006, 07:07 PM
How would you rank the Master series events in terms of prestige?

It has always seemed to me that Miami, formerly Key Biscayne, was the most prestigious of them.

Certainly people have tended to focus more on the spring TMS' than the autumn TMS's - particularly the late year indoor TMS's suffers from a lack of top players, along with Hamburg, of course.

How about a ranking somewhat like this:

1. Miami (hard)
2. Indian Wells (hard)
3. Monte Carlo (clay)
4. Rome (clay)
5. Cincinnatti (hard)
6. Toronto (hard)
7. Paris (indoor)
8. Madrid (indoor)
9. Hamburg (clay)

BlueSwan
06-15-2006, 07:13 PM
How would you rank the Master series events in terms of prestige?

It has always seemed to me that Miami, formerly Key Biscayne, was the most prestigious of them.

Certainly people have tended to focus more on the spring TMS' than the autumn TMS's - particularly the late year indoor TMS's suffers from a lack of top players, along with Hamburg, of course.

How about a ranking somewhat like this:

1. Miami (hard)
2. Indian Wells (hard)
3. Monte Carlo (clay)
4. Rome (clay)
5. Cincinnatti (hard)
6. Toronto (hard)
7. Paris (indoor)
8. Madrid (indoor)
9. Hamburg (clay)
Actually, Madrid is probably at the bottom, due to the lack of history.

lucashg
06-15-2006, 07:45 PM
1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros / US Open
3. Australian Open
4. Year End #1
5. #1
6. Tennis Masters Cup
7. Olympics Gold Medal
8. ATP Masters Series
9. GS Final
10. Davis Cup
11. TMC/TMS Final
12. GS Semifinals, Silver and Bronze Olympic Medals
13. International Series Gold
14. International Series


How would you rank the Master series events in terms of prestige?

It has always seemed to me that Miami, formerly Key Biscayne, was the most prestigious of them.

Certainly people have tended to focus more on the spring TMS' than the autumn TMS's - particularly the late year indoor TMS's suffers from a lack of top players, along with Hamburg, of course.

How about a ranking somewhat like this:

1. Miami (hard)
2. Indian Wells (hard)
3. Monte Carlo (clay)
4. Rome (clay)
5. Cincinnatti (hard)
6. Toronto (hard)
7. Paris (indoor)
8. Madrid (indoor)
9. Hamburg (clay)

I don't think there's a big difference in the men's events of Miami and Indian Wells like there's among the women's, but I'd still rank it slightly above IW.

1. Miami
2. Indian Wells
3. Monte-Carlo
4. Rome
5. Montreal/Toronto
6. Cincinnati
7. Hamburg
8. Paris
9. Madrid

The difference is minimal after IW/Miami, and practically non-existent between Paris and Madrid because their fields are smaller and usually pretty weak.

CmonAussie
10-12-2006, 01:04 PM
Note, all combined achievements are not considered here.. ( there might be a separate thread about that )
Here is my scale of achievements in one tournament:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open, Roland Garros
3. AO
4. Olympic gold
5. GS Final
6. Davis Cup
7. Masters Cup
8. Olympic medal
9. GS Semifinal
10. TMS
11. Any other mickey mouse tournament

Discuss.
:wavey:
I changed my way of thinking slightly;)

1. AO, FO, Wimby, USO
2. TMC
3. Davis Cup [not individual yet still has to be high on the list]
4. #1
5. Olympic Gold
6. TMS/AMS ~ esp the good ones like Miami, Monte Carlo & Rome:cool:
7. MM tourney with history [Sydney, Rotterdam, Barcelona, Queens, LA, Tokyo,..etc].
8. MM with no history [Las Vages etc...]
9. Slam final
10. Beating Federer once [a la Gasquet & Murray]:p

Hendu
10-12-2006, 01:40 PM
:wavey:
I changed my way of thinking slightly;)

1. AO, FO, Wimby, USO
2. TMC
3. Davis Cup [not individual yet still has to be high on the list]
4. #1
5. Olympic Gold
6. TMS/AMS ~ esp the good ones like Miami, Monte Carlo & Rome:cool:
7. MM tourney with history [Sydney, Rotterdam, Barcelona, Queens, LA, Tokyo,..etc].
8. MM with no history [Las Vages etc...]
9. Slam final
10. Beating Federer once [a la Gasquet & Murray]:p

As I see it, being #1 is more important than winning the DC, winning an AMS event is more important than winning the Olympic gold, and reaching a Grand Slam final is more important than winning the tournaments you wrongly called MM.