Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There is a guy on another board claiming that Lendl won 9 out of 9 masters (well, masters were called this and that at that time).

Although I've been watching tennis for over 30 years I don't remember anyone posting these kinda stats which is astonishing if it's true.

I remember very vividly matches back in 80/90s but I never paid attention about stats. Nobody really even talked about stats at that time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
894 Posts
I saw that stat on Wikipedia. There is a table of winners per every tournament since the beginning and from what I've seen Lendl really won all 9. It also says Connors and Laver had won 5 Masters in a single season which would tie them with Djokovic and Nadal.

Anyway, not sure whether these tournaments were of similar format (number of players participating, points won) so it would be cool if anyone with better knowledge of the past would clarify as to why they are valued the same when measuring historic achievements.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,032 Posts
Slasher needs to summoned.

Vilas, true #1 of 70's!
Lendl, #1 of Masters?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
Not really. Which were the 9 Masters tournaments back then? Hard to determine. Should tournaments like Forrest Hills, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Stockholm, Tokyo count here?

Lendl never won Indian Wells nor Bercy, so I would say no.
 

·
ツ
Joined
·
7,561 Posts
There's a 'W' in every row except Wimbledon and Paris. Record seems legit as Paris wasn't in the '9 league' until 1989. Not sure how the others match up but it looks good enough to me.



It looks as though he was undefeated at the 9 league level in 1988-1989!
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
^^^^ That Wikipedia table does not have 9 tournaments for most of the years.

For example following years have only 7 or 8 tournaments listed in "Gran Prix/Super 9 tournaments":

1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990

So something is missing and is deceiving.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,869 Posts
For anything before 1990 claiming masters titles, I have only this to say:

Bullshit. :lol:

Why? Because, officially, there was no such thing back then. Most of those Masters were "upgraded" after 1990 so that a quasi-continuity be created for the Masters Series (or Super 9, or Championship Series).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
For anything before 1990 claiming masters titles, I have only this to say:

Bullshit. :lol:

Why? Because, officially, there was no such thing back then. Most of those Masters were "upgraded" after 1990 so that a quasi-continuity be created for the Masters Series (or Super 9, or Championship Series).
Well, that's what I thought too. It's just that I really didn't pay that much attention at that time. As I said, I was focused on matches.

Tournaments kept changing. The ATP kept changing what was what. It was like a complete mess. I just hoped that someone could clarify it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
For anything before 1990 claiming masters titles, I have only this to say:

Bullshit. :lol:

Why? Because, officially, there was no such thing back then. Most of those Masters were "upgraded" after 1990 so that a quasi-continuity be created for the Masters Series (or Super 9, or Championship Series).
That's bullshit.

There were 9 tournaments in 1989 called Super Nine, and the exact same 9 tournaments in 1990. No difference whatsoever, only the name of the series changed.

You must be one of those people who think USO and AO record is 5. Duh. I hate that.

Clearly Lendl deserves the honour of winning all 9 masters.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,869 Posts
That's bullshit.

There were 9 tournaments in 1989 called Super Nine, and the exact same 9 tournaments in 1990. No difference whatsoever, only the name of the series changed.

You must be one of those people who think USO and AO record is 5. Duh. I hate that.

Clearly Lendl deserves the honour of winning all 9 masters.
The 1989 tournaments were actually called the Grand Prix Super Series. Why aren't they the same as the Super 9? Because the Grand Prix is not the ATP. The ATP World Tour did not exist just yet. Sure, they're the same tournaments, and you can basically count the late 80s' Super Series as Masters, because the Grand Prix had already exterminated the competition, but before that, the WCT, and the ATP had separate circuits of their own.

For instance, take 1979 and 1980. These are the tournaments played in those year, in ATP reverse-star order, which was the tournament ranking of that time:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=29EC224593D363F0!44422&app=Excel
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=29EC224593D363F0!46434&app=Excel

Do you see Monte Carlo up there? No, because it was a regular WCT event. Why would it be more important than Houston or New Orleans with the same draw difficulty or draw size? How about the 1980 one? More important than Fountain Valley or Boston tournaments with more players in the draw? Toronto???? What a joke... The Grand Prix Super Series were not the most difficult or highly-prized tournaments. Considering them Masters with quasi-continuity order is historically inaccurate and is only based on how the tournaments evolved post-1990.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Do you see Monte Carlo up there? No, because it was a regular WCT event. Why would it be more important than Houston or New Orleans with the same draw difficulty or draw size? How about the 1980 one?
Importance of a tournament is not based on draw size or prize money... Or are you going to claim that Indian Wells is currently more important than Rome? Hell no.

Why would 1980 MC be more important than Houston/New Orleans you ask...
1980 MC: Borg d. Vilas
1980 Houston: Clerc d. Purcell
1980 New Orleans: Fibak d. Teltscher
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
Importance of a tournament is not based on draw size or prize money... Or are you going to claim that Indian Wells is currently more important than Rome? Hell no.

Why would 1980 MC be more important than Houston/New Orleans you ask...
1980 MC: Borg d. Vilas
1980 Houston: Clerc d. Purcell
1980 New Orleans: Fibak d. Teltscher
Everything else aside, but Indian Wells is currently indeed more important than Rome.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,869 Posts
Importance of a tournament is not based on draw size or prize money... Or are you going to claim that Indian Wells is currently more important than Rome? Hell no.
It is how it was done BACK THEN. Prize money, draw size, draw difficulty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,941 Posts
Not really. Which were the 9 Masters tournaments back then? Hard to determine. Should tournaments like Forrest Hills, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Stockholm, Tokyo count here?

Lendl never won Indian Wells nor Bercy, so I would say no.
Till 1986 Philadelphia was GPSS and Lendl won it that last year, then since 1987 Indian Wells became GPSS, which Lendl skipped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wells_Masters

Similar with Tokyo and Paris indoors.
Lendl winning Tokyo '83 & '85, then since 1989 Tokyo was no more GPSS but Paris, which Lendl has not won.

Here are those 9 tournaments through the years according to their order through the part of the year (spring to winter) I guess.

Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

Here are those 9 in Lendl's carrer statistic, but since 1987 there should've been inserted Indian Wells too, with many A A A A for Lendl's absence, as well as London(Wembley Arena, Carpet indoors) 1976-83, which Lendl won in 1984 and '85 but it was not GPSS anymore but Stockholm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Benson_&_Hedges_Championships

So, with IW & London inserted, the sum is always nine :



So, it seems like Lendl won all the nine, but Djokovic (although it's not as important as winning the all nine) has the chance (by winning Cinci) to be the first to also win the nine current venues, because e.g. when Lendl won Stockholm'89 he missed IW and Paris for the current venues.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,869 Posts
So in 1980 according to prize money RG was more important than Wimbledon, Tokyo more important than Rome. I have to disagree with that...
Disagree all you want, but the official ATP Rankings were done according to that criteria (winner of RG would get 30-40 more pts than the winner of Wimbledon, US Open of Aus Open for instance), therefore, statistics should also take them into account.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Ranking points convinces me even less. The way I see it they are just artificial way of trying to improve prestige for the tournament... even Federer knows that DC final > WTF final etc..

But if I ever happen to be in trolling mood then that's a nice argument for claiming that RG 1980 > Wimbledon 1980...
I know at least one guy who will get a heart attack from that argument. ;)
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,869 Posts
Just as a curiosity, how do you measure prestige? It's clear that you do not include prize money, draw size or draw difficulty in your assessment.

But here is my proposition. I'm in general an open minded fellow. When I finish my research of the 80s, I'm gonna compile a list of the best non-Slam 9 events for each year, using the criteria of the time. I think that after I make it, Lendl may show up winning all 9 top events/slot. It's not gonna be the wikipedia list, that's for sure, but who knows, we may see things in an interesting way.;)
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top