[Riccati]

In my quest to come up with a good formula for figuring out who the GOAT is, I have already made 2 polls where most of us agreed that:

1. Only titles matter, no finals, semi-finals, etc.
2. Only big tournaments are important; not ATP500 or ATP250.

Next, I ask you the following: How many big titles (OG/WEC/MS) is one major worth?

I understand that some will argue that a WEC or an OG title should be worth more than a Masters title, but I believe the difference between them is not that large, especially in comparison with the value of a Grand Slam. Having won at least one WEC and OG may boost the resume of a tennis player, but 2 WEC + 10 Masters is not that different from 3 WEC + 9 Masters, for example.

 

[doubletrollt]

Taking the whole resume into consideration the formula should be the standard GS= 2 points, Masters=1 point, YEC=1.5 point, ATP500=0.5 points.

If we want to take just the big titles into consideration putting more weight on the slams then one slam could be worth 3 masters, i.e. GS=3 points, Masters=1, YEC=1.5 or 2, also 52 Weeks = 1 slams and 1 Y.E.no.1 =1 slam.

Taking just Slams+YEC into account we could use 1 GS = 2 YEC measure, also 52 weeks = 1 slam, 1 y.e.no.1 = 1 slam.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

In terms of points 2 masters = 1 slam.

In terms of prestige, 5 Master's = 1 slam.

 

[swissmaestro92]

i'd say a slam is worth 4 masters, but that doesn't mean anyone who wins 4 masters is worthy of a slam necessarily. The YEC worth 2 masters or thereabouts, but again it has its own place historically. Olympics is comparable to YEC.

 

[TheBigThree]

The value of OG is debatable, but YECs are objectively worth more than M1000s.

 

[Lukasgigler]

Masters get overvalued nowadays. They matter for tennis statistics freaks but casuals and normal fans only care about slams in the end. Sampras or connors e.g. didn’t give a damn about masters. Even Murray has more than them. Yet no one cares in the slightest. I’ve seen people belittle Sampras and connors for all kinds of reasons but not for not winning enough masters.

 

[Ronman]

5

 

[Riccati]

Taking the whole resume into consideration the formula should be the standard GS= 2 points, Masters=1 point, YEC=1.5 point, ATP500=0.5 points.

If we want to take just the big titles into consideration putting more weight on the slams then one slam could be worth 3 masters, i.e. GS=3 points, Masters=1, YEC=1.5 or 2, also 52 Weeks = 1 slams and 1 Y.E.no.1 =1 slam.

Taking just Slams+YEC into account we could use 1 GS = 2 YEC measure, also 52 weeks = 1 slam, 1 y.e.no.1 = 1 slam.

Mate you keep repeating that, but nobody here agrees with 2 Masters = 1 GS. I don't know for how long you have been following tennis, but that's nonsensical.

 

[NadalwillneverbeGoat]

I have food in my pantry that is older than the "Big Titles" concept

 

[Hangaroo]

Best of 3 vs. Best of 5 is a huge difference

No ATP tournaments are comparable to the grand slams regardless of how many points ATP decides to award them vs. their own tournaments. You need to check out a recent recent interview between Nadal and Gaudenzi (ATP chairman) on their OneVision initiative. Nadal directly says to Gaudenzi that none of the current ATP tournaments are perceived to even remotely comparable to the grand slams by the players and Gaudenzi himself acknowledges it and says he would work hard to fix that. I highly doubt ATP's OneVision initiative is the solution to that, but we will see.

In summary, these relative points/worth and GOAT lists are ok to keep the tennis forum discussions humming (we are on one such forum after all ), but the top players care only about the grand slams

 

[TheBigThree]

In my quest to come up with a good formula for figuring out who the GOAT is, I have already made 2 polls where most of us agreed that:

1. Only titles matter, no finals, semi-finals, etc.
2. Only big tournaments are important; not ATP500 or ATP250.

Next, I ask you the following: How many big titles (OG/WEC/MS) is one major worth?

I understand that some will argue that a WEC or an OG title should be worth more than a Masters title, but I believe the difference between them is not that large, especially in comparison with the value of a Grand Slam. Having won at least one WEC and OG may boost the resume of a tennis player, but 2 WEC + 10 Masters is not that different from 3 WEC + 9 Masters, for example.

I appreciate your work and have a suggestion for improvement:

Have options for 2, 3, 4, etc. all the way to 10 (or 15 or 20). That way, you can compute the average as opposed to just declaring the most frequently selected option the winner.

E.g., hypothetically, if 60% say "10", and 40% say "3", it wouldn't be accurate to say that 10 is the best approximation - the best approximation would be ~7.

 

[NadalwillneverbeGoat]

Masters are cool to a point.. It's situational really. It depends what's going on at the time in the world of tennis. Some are true classics and fun watches. Some have been very meaningful. It's like anything else (including slams to an extent) , it's all about the context. There's no real way to determine GOAT solely on numbers.

 

[doubletrollt]

Masters get overvalued nowadays. They matter for tennis statistics freaks but casuals and normal fans only care about slams in the end. Sampras or connors e.g. didn’t give a damn about masters. Even Murray has more than them. Yet no one cares in the slightest. I’ve seen people belittle Sampras and connors for all kinds of reasons but not for not winning enough masters.

Connors has played and won quite a few "masters" (top grand prix tournaments), at the same time he skipped a lot of slams, chiefly AO and RG.

 

[Hangaroo]

A better question for discussion would be "What would the ATP need to do to improve their tournaments and eventually bring (a few of) them closer to the level of grand slams?".

I presume best of 5 matches and 128 player draws would be at the top of the list. Nine masters is a bit too much - but they could try this out with Indian Wells, Rome, Halle (promoted to a grass masters), and Canada.

 

[Cdm995]

The majors are the pinnacle of mens tennis. In terms of measuring greatness it should be something like 10 for a slam, 5 for a gold medal, 2.5 for the YEC and 1 for a masters.

 

[MuzzahLovah]

In my quest to come up with a good formula for figuring out who the GOAT is, I have already made 2 polls where most of us agreed that:

1. Only titles matter, no finals, semi-finals, etc.
2. Only big tournaments are important; not ATP500 or ATP250.

Next, I ask you the following: How many big titles (OG/WEC/MS) is one major worth?

I understand that some will argue that a WEC or an OG title should be worth more than a Masters title, but I believe the difference between them is not that large, especially in comparison with the value of a Grand Slam. Having won at least one WEC and OG may boost the resume of a tennis player, but 2 WEC + 10 Masters is not that different from 3 WEC + 9 Masters, for example.

I disagree with the premise.

in terms of prestige, 2 masters equal 1 YEC. 2YEC = 1 major. 4 majors = 1OG

 

[nadalvamos]

One slam is equal to at least 5 masters.

 

[doubletrollt]

Mate you keep repeating that, but nobody here agrees with 2 Masters = 1 GS. I don't know for how long you have been following tennis, but that's nonsensical.

Since the current goat race is between Djokovic and Nadal and their Masters/OG points resume is almost identical this ratio is currently irrelevant though.

As for GS:YEC it should IMO be 1:2 or 1:2.5 i.e. 1 YEC = 0.5 or 0.4 slams, when we are just taking slams+yec+weeks+y.e.no1 into account.

 

[sidechain]

Winning a masters used to be a big deal until big 3 decided to skip most of them

 

[AlwaysTennis]

In my quest to come up with a good formula for figuring out who the GOAT is, I have already made 2 polls where most of us agreed that:

1. Only titles matter, no finals, semi-finals, etc.
2. Only big tournaments are important; not ATP500 or ATP250.

Next, I ask you the following: How many big titles (OG/WEC/MS) is one major worth?

I understand that some will argue that a WEC or an OG title should be worth more than a Masters title, but I believe the difference between them is not that large, especially in comparison with the value of a Grand Slam. Having won at least one WEC and OG may boost the resume of a tennis player, but 2 WEC + 10 Masters is not that different from 3 WEC + 9 Masters, for example.

Some people still don't understand how huge a 2 slams lead is in the GOAT debate...

Nadal has more slams than Djokovic, Tsitsipas, Alcaraz, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Tsonga, Rublev, FAA, Dimitrov, Berdych, Rios, Berrettini, Monfils, Zverev, Davydenko, Nishikori, Nalbandian, Raonic, Haas, etc. COMBINED. If you want I can also throw in there Thiem or Medvedev or Djokovic's coach Ivanisevic and Nadal would still lead.

You can also replace Djokovic by Federer and it would still be valid. Nadal is the GOAT by far! Stop trying to come up with "formulas" and just bow down to him instead. Try it, you might enjoy it! Bow down!