[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Alex999

right, and you are very objective worshiping Fed any way you can, lol. May I remind you that Nadal owns your beloved Fed? gee ...

Also, everyone with a brain cell would agree that Federer is a better player than Nadal. One h2h doesn't make you worse than another player. If one argues like that then Davydenko is better than Nadal too. Dulltards will forever be on the losing end and they know it.

[Arakasi]

Wow, has anyone actually responded to the question properly? This thread turned into a tard war quicker and more comprehensively than any I've seen in a while.

I think it's difficult to compare slams to WTF. But I also think the value of the WTF has changed a lot over time. For a long period of time WTF > Australian Open but no one seems to acknowledge that in GOAT debates.

For example I would consider Borg to have as good as 13 slams (11 slams + 2 YECs). No one cared about AO but the WTF was a HUGE event. Also, the fact that historically the tournament has been played on fast indoor courts means it adds a lot to your resume in terms of all court ability. People always criticise Sampras for his shit record at the French but what about Nadal's at the WTF?

The whole top 8 players thing also makes it a bit of a "who's the daddy" contest. That's one reason why I think Sampras and Federer did so well there. They love showing their dominance over their closest competitiors.

I'd be interested to see a "realiability index" for the WTF i.e. how often was the winner of the WTF the best player of the year? I suspect it's higher than for any individual slam.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Arakasi

Wow, has anyone actually responded to the question properly? This thread turned into a tard war quicker and more comprehensively than any I've seen in a while.

I think it's difficult to compare slams to WTF. But I also think the value of the WTF has changed a lot over time. For a long period of time WTF > Australian Open but no one seems to acknowledge that in GOAT debates.

For example I would consider Borg to have as good as 13 slams (11 slams + 2 YECs). No one cared about AO but the WTF was a HUGE event. Also, the fact that historically the tournament has been played on fast indoor courts means it adds a lot to your resume in terms of all court ability. People always criticise Sampras for his shit record at the French but what about Nadal's at the WTF?

The whole top 8 players thing also makes it a bit of a "who's the daddy" contest. That's one reason why I think Sampras and Federer did so well there. They love showing their dominance over their closest competitiors.

I'd be interested to see a "realiability index" for the WTF i.e. how often was the winner of the WTF the best player of the year? I suspect it's higher than for any individual slam.

Good post. Nadal isn't any more an all round player than Sampras was. The fact that Nadal won the calendar slam in probably the slowest era in history is no more impressive than what Sampras did, who played on slower clay at RG. The fact that Nadal never won the WTF is exactly as bad as Sampras never winning RG, if not worse since even the WTF has been slowed down so much these days. Sampras is still clearly the better player at this point. Nadal needs 3 more slams then we can talk again.

[Mountaindewslave]

this is so dumb. the amount of pressure and build up that slams have is unrivaled and it's not even close. the WTF consists of many less matches and there is no room for surprise opponents or not knowing what to expect across the net.

beyond just the value of grand slams for their historical perspective, they are much more complicated and hard to win. they can INDEED be compared and it's just dumb that so many voted that they can't.

grand slam is extremely more valuable than WTF, in the multiples. I mean don't be fools, do you really think David Nalbandian would keep his WTF and all of his titles instead of taking a slam? even if he had 4 WTFS he would probably trade them in for a slam

Slams = WAYYY more valuable

[MuzzahLovah]

Originally Posted by guga2120

Olympic gold is more important today that wtf win, by a big margin.

Yep.

[manadrainer]

Nadaltards out in full force to disrupt the thread, NID.

I remember last year a journalist said he considers WTF as high as a slam and asked Fed how proud he was of having both slams and WTF record.

I personally don't rate it as high as a slam but it's definitely the fifth most important tournament of the season for the following reasons (please don't bring the Olympics argument since it's played every four years. in an Olympic year, I rate them the same):

1) it's hard to qualify: you need to be a top 8 (top 10 if you are a replacement) to participate.

2) you have to be at the top since the very first match (unlike slams where you can win 4 matches against much lower ranked opponents)

3) winning it means you are an indoor master, and it's good for measuring one's all-roundness as the OP suggested (unlike the Olympics, where the surface is the same used in other slams, which are a better measure of the player result on a that surface)

4) it has a great tradition and almost all legends of the game won it at least once.

[Benny_Maths]

The question has different levels to it. I mean if you were to compare today's game to the dinosaur age, the WTF is clearly of significant value. It reflects the 2-player draws* of past grand slams much more than current slams.

* Exaggeration obviously.

[Featherer]

Originally Posted by Arakasi

Wow, has anyone actually responded to the question properly? This thread turned into a tard war quicker and more comprehensively than any I've seen in a while.
I think it's difficult to compare slams to WTF. But I also think the value of the WTF has changed a lot over time. For a long period of time WTF > Australian Open but no one seems to acknowledge that in GOAT debates.
For example I would consider Borg to have as good as 13 slams (11 slams + 2 YECs). No one cared about AO but the WTF was a HUGE event. Also, the fact that historically the tournament has been played on fast indoor courts means it adds a lot to your resume in terms of all court ability. People always criticise Sampras for his shit record at the French but what about Nadal's at the WTF?
The whole top 8 players thing also makes it a bit of a "who's the daddy" contest. That's one reason why I think Sampras and Federer did so well there. They love showing their dominance over their closest competitiors.
I'd be interested to see a "realiability index" for the WTF i.e. how often was the winner of the WTF the best player of the year? I suspect it's higher than for any individual slam.

Maybe your post and the following even saved this thread from getting merged or deleted.

Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave

this is so dumb. the amount of pressure and build up that slams have is unrivaled and it's not even close. the WTF consists of many less matches and there is no room for surprise opponents or not knowing what to expect across the net.
beyond just the value of grand slams for their historical perspective, they are much more complicated and hard to win.
they can INDEED be compared and it's just dumb that so many voted that they can't.
grand slam is extremely more valuable than WTF, in the multiples. I mean don't be fools, do you really think David Nalbandian would keep his WTF and all of his titles instead of taking a slam? even if he had 4 WTFS he would probably trade them in for a slam
Slams = WAYYY more valuable

My first guess was Corretja, Nalbandian or Davydenko would trade between 2 and 3 WTF's for one Slam.

Just for my defence of the poll design/structure:
It's not meant to be persuasive/suggestive.
50% (accurately 52,25%) or 1/2 is the average of the evaluations of the 20 MTF members in this nice thread (cut September 2012).
I used it for the first start. 20 isn't a significant quantity though.

[finishingmove]

Originally Posted by EliSter

Im not Nadaltard And WTF is glorified MS.

lol no way

WTF is basically a 4 man draw.

You need to win a semifinal + final (+one more match to qualify for the semi)

Not only that it's not close to being a Masters Series, it's not even close to being a Mickey Mouse event.

It's the equivalent of a 250 event that Murray wins after receiving one (or more) wins by retirement.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by Arakasi

I'd be interested to see a "realiability index" for the WTF i.e. how often was the winner of the WTF the best player of the year? I suspect it's higher than for any individual slam.

Well, it is not as often as you think. The last time someone made both was in 2007. It has only happened 18 times in the last 39 years (since rankings started).

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by finishingmove

lol no way

WTF is basically a 4 man draw.

You need to win a semifinal + final (+one more match to qualify for the semi)

Not only that it's not close to being a Masters Series, it's not even close to being a Mickey Mouse event.

It's the equivalent of a 250 event that Murray wins after receiving one (or more) wins by retirement.

Has anyone told the organisers? Djokovic won two RR matches in 2009 and was eliminated anyway. Same thing happened to Murray.

[Federer&Hingis]

Slams >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF >>>> Master Series >>>>>>>> Olympics >> ATP500 >>> Davis Cup >>> ATP250

[Punky]

Originally Posted by Federer&Hingis

Slams >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF >>>> Master Series >>>>>>>> Olympics >> ATP500 >>> Davis Cup >>> ATP250

[Aenea]

Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave

they can INDEED be compared and it's just dumb that so many voted that they can't.

BS. Of course they cannot be compared as they are not in the same league.

TMC in my opinion is just a money grabbing exho. It has no value otherwise would have been included into the so called Golden Slam. For me Olympics gold medal is of no importance either but is in the Golden Slam so ...
Davis Cup is not important but it has great atmosphere and is fun so I like it.

[August]

What's the value of WTF title compared to a slam title?

I'd say player with 3 WTFs and 0 slams is as great as a player with 1 slam and 0 WTFs. But once you have slam titles, then a slam is equivalent to two WTFs.