Can You Say 2011??

[Ricardo]

You're labouring it, brother, we get that. But would any player take a year where they set a record of MS titles in one season? I think that's also quite unique (until Rafa equalled it, of course).

I agree with them both being a hairs breath season in terms of prestigious events won, but Nole owned 2011, and against great players too, including Nadal coming off a career season, in a way I haven't personally seen done since Mac in 1984...

Fed didn't own 2006? too bad you always go hay-wire when it comes to you know who....

Too bad you can't read.

Your posts are getting mixed reviews lately, you've toned down the women-hatred to a dull roar. What's happened to you? Did mammy read some of your posts again?

women hatred? you need to grow a brain. Mixed reviews? i say what i think, unlike you i have no agenda to live for. I don't get all worked up just because someone i dislike broke my hero's record, i have no desire to patronize with feminists to feel updated and fashionable, and i certainly don't need to post something delusional and attention-seeking to feel self-important. In case you can't see, you do all the above.... i can easily prove all these with examples and facts.

Too bad you are just a wannabe.

 

[Kieran]

Good man. :clap

Now go on with ye...

 

[Ricardo]

Good man. :clap

Now go on with ye...

now don't be like that, didn't mean to hurt ya....

 

[Kieran]

Good man. :clap

Now go on with ye...

now don't be like that, didn't mean to hurt ya....

Don't worry about it, brother, you wouldn't hurt a fly. It isn't in your nature...

 

[Moxie]

^ I know it's worth more points. The debate is that it's the outlier in terms of format, and personally, I never had it much on my radar until sometime in the last decade, when it got more hyped, (and I got more interested in tennis, tbh.) But they used to play it in NYC where I live and I didn't know about it.

Yes but the format of the Olympics makes it practically a weaker MS event and we all know which one the players would prefer to win (and that despite less points and money at the Olympics). Same logic for YEC, I highly doubt there is a player on tour that would rather win 1 of the 9 MS events vs. the YEC. You may not have had it on your radar but pretty sure it's been a big deal to the players for quite some time now, a lot longer than MS events have even been in existence (they only started in 1990).

Not everything is meant to be debated. If we can debate which is the more important tournament between YEC and an MS event then we have a little too much debating to do in this world.

I don't stand on the idea that the YEC is not more important than a MS, only that it's debatable, because in fact we have debated the relative value of the YEC a few times on other forums…certainly the core group here has.

I agree about the Olympics also being an outlier format, because of how players are seeded, (i.e., not purely by ranking, but ranking relative to national affiliation.) But you say it is a desirable goal for players, which belies your argument for the WTF being clearly more prestigious, as it garners more points and money. Not true of the Olympics. Seriously, I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just pointing out that there are events, as you say, that have different formats: Olympics, WTF, and DC, I would add.

I didn't have the YEC on my radar, which I admit, but the format has changed over the years. And until 1990, it was just an exhibition, with no points, which is the same year as the consolidation of the Masters Series. However, ATP and ITF ran competing year-end tournaments until 1999, when they joined it into the Masters Cup. In 2009, it became the ATP World Finals, so I don't consider myself that late to the party if I've only been cognizant of it for the last 8 years or so. The tournament itself has only recently figured out what it wants to be, in relative terms to some long-standing tourneys which are now called Masters: Monte Carlo, Rome, of course, but even Miami, Paris and Indian Wells have longer histories as Grand Prix Masters.

^ I know it's worth more points. The debate is that it's the outlier in terms of format, and personally, I never had it much on my radar until sometime in the last decade, when it got more hyped, (and I got more interested in tennis, tbh.) But they used to play it in NYC where I live and I didn't know about it.

That's more of a personal ignorance kind of thing (I don't mean that negatively, just to be clear). It doesn't change history/prestige/etc...

I admitted personal ignorance, but see history notes above.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I know it's worth more points. The debate is that it's the outlier in terms of format, and personally, I never had it much on my radar until sometime in the last decade, when it got more hyped, (and I got more interested in tennis, tbh.) But they used to play it in NYC where I live and I didn't know about it.

Yes but the format of the Olympics makes it practically a weaker MS event and we all know which one the players would prefer to win (and that despite less points and money at the Olympics). Same logic for YEC, I highly doubt there is a player on tour that would rather win 1 of the 9 MS events vs. the YEC. You may not have had it on your radar but pretty sure it's been a big deal to the players for quite some time now, a lot longer than MS events have even been in existence (they only started in 1990).

Not everything is meant to be debated. If we can debate which is the more important tournament between YEC and an MS event then we have a little too much debating to do in this world.

I don't stand on the idea that the YEC is not more important than a MS, only that it's debatable, because in fact we have debated the relative value of the YEC a few times on other forums…certainly the core group here has.

I agree about the Olympics also being an outlier format, because of how players are seeded, (i.e., not purely by ranking, but ranking relative to national affiliation.) But you say it is a desirable goal for players, which belies your argument for the WTF being clearly more prestigious, as it garners more points and money. Not true of the Olympics. Seriously, I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just pointing out that there are events, as you say, that have different formats: Olympics, WTF, and DC, I would add.

I didn't have the YEC on my radar, which I admit, but the format has changed over the years. And until 1990, it was just an exhibition, with no points, which is the same year as the consolidation of the Masters Series. However, ATP and ITF ran competing year-end tournaments until 1999, when they joined it into the Masters Cup. In 2009, it became the ATP World Finals, so I don't consider myself that late to the party if I've only been cognizant of it for the last 8 years or so. The tournament itself has only recently figured out what it wants to be, in relative terms to some long-standing tourneys which are now called Masters: Monte Carlo, Rome, of course, but even Miami, Paris and Indian Wells have longer histories as Grand Prix Masters.

^ I know it's worth more points. The debate is that it's the outlier in terms of format, and personally, I never had it much on my radar until sometime in the last decade, when it got more hyped, (and I got more interested in tennis, tbh.) But they used to play it in NYC where I live and I didn't know about it.

That's more of a personal ignorance kind of thing (I don't mean that negatively, just to be clear). It doesn't change history/prestige/etc...

I admitted personal ignorance, but see history notes above.

Moxie, I think the bottom line is that there isn't a single player on tour that would rather win an MS event vs. the YEC. Olympics is the true exception since they award less points and money than MS and YEC. Nadal isn't truly sweating over not winning the MS events in Miami and Paris but he has targeted the YEC for a long time. And the reason is obvious, it is a bigger deal than MS events and is the one last gap on the resume.

 

[Moxie]

^ Darth, I get the point of 1:1 in today's game…yes, they would rather win the YEC, if they had one option in a year. It has more points, and it has recently come to more prestige. And I would say "recently." However, I suspect you're comparing the Fedal relative resumes, too, with the Olympics and the YEC. (Nadal has a gold medal; Federer has many YECs, whereas Rafa has none.) Some folks might not believe it, but I'm really trying to compare the tournaments that are of relatively the same structure, with the ones that aren't the same. And with no especial agenda. 250-1000s respect the same ranking privilege and draw format. The only difference in the Slams is that there are no byes, and (on the men's side,) it's best of 5.

YEC, DC and Olympics work from a different structure. If I haven't made it clear before, I will say it now: I think DC championships and Olympic Gold medals (for example, for Nadal,) are resume buffers, but I don't consider them "deal-breakers" in any comparison, if you know what I mean. They are structured in a way that a player has less control over the outcome. Nice to have, but it doesn't make you the better player. It sort of makes you the more fortunate, as to timing, and place of birth. The YEC is different from that but it is structured differently from every other tournament of the year. Clearly, it's nice to have, but it is one big apple compared to the oranges of the rest of the year. IMO, it's still a bit of an exhibition/money-maker that they turned into a points event.

 

[Moxie]

Here, let me settle the WTF vs. Masters 1000 debate.

If any player is given the choice between winning the WTF or one masters title in a given year, which would they choose? You're fooling yourself if you think this is actually a contest.

I'm doing what you do, Broken, and multiple posting, but I'm trying to be a bit responsible to the conversation I started. As you say, as to a one or the other, in 2014, a player would choose the YEC, and I get that.

You're labouring it, brother, we get that. But would any player take a year where they set a record of MS titles in one season? I think that's also quite unique (until Rafa equalled it, of course).

I agree with them both being a hairs breath season in terms of prestigious events won, but Nole owned 2011, and against great players too, including Nadal coming off a career season, in a way I haven't personally seen done since Mac in 1984...

But to Kieran's point, when it's multiple wins, the conversation is more complicated. A record 5 MS vs. 4 MS and a YEC. Can't we at least say that's debate-worthy?

Cheers, Mox.

 

[Federberg]

^ Darth, I get the point of 1:1 in today's game…yes, they would rather win the YEC, if they had one option in a year. It has more points, and it has recently come to more prestige. And I would say "recently." However, I suspect you're comparing the Fedal relative resumes, too, with the Olympics and the YEC. (Nadal has a gold medal; Federer has many YECs, whereas Rafa has none.) Some folks might not believe it, but I'm really trying to compare the tournaments that are of relatively the same structure, with the ones that aren't the same. And with no especial agenda. 250-1000s respect the same ranking privilege and draw format. The only difference in the Slams is that there are no byes, and (on the men's side,) it's best of 5.

YEC, DC and Olympics work from a different structure. If I haven't made it clear before, I will say it now: I think DC championships and Olympic Gold medals (for example, for Nadal,) are resume buffers, but I don't consider them "deal-breakers" in any comparison, if you know what I mean. They are structured in a way that a player has less control over the outcome. Nice to have, but it doesn't make you the better player. It sort of makes you the more fortunate, as to timing, and place of birth. The YEC is different from that but it is structured differently from every other tournament of the year. Clearly, it's nice to have, but it is one big apple compared to the oranges of the rest of the year. IMO, it's still a bit of an exhibition/money-maker that they turned into a points event.

YEC is a bigger deal than that. It's been around for a very long time, and there've been amazing matches to crown it. If you look at the list of players who've won it and it's history, it's strange to me that knowledgeable tennis fans might try to downgrade it. I'm not saying you're doing that by the way (although I do detect hidden agendas from certain people on these boards), and on a sidenote I sort of agree with you about DC and Olympics. Winning DC doesn't say much about your ability per se.. but I would say that your win percentage is worthy of study. As for the Olympics? I don't even think tennis should be in the Olympics.. I mean.. what's next formula 1? Uggh...

 

[Ricardo]

^ Darth, I get the point of 1:1 in today's game…yes, they would rather win the YEC, if they had one option in a year. It has more points, and it has recently come to more prestige. And I would say "recently." However, I suspect you're comparing the Fedal relative resumes, too, with the Olympics and the YEC. (Nadal has a gold medal; Federer has many YECs, whereas Rafa has none.) Some folks might not believe it, but I'm really trying to compare the tournaments that are of relatively the same structure, with the ones that aren't the same. And with no especial agenda. 250-1000s respect the same ranking privilege and draw format. The only difference in the Slams is that there are no byes, and (on the men's side,) it's best of 5.

YEC, DC and Olympics work from a different structure. If I haven't made it clear before, I will say it now: I think DC championships and Olympic Gold medals (for example, for Nadal,) are resume buffers, but I don't consider them "deal-breakers" in any comparison, if you know what I mean. They are structured in a way that a player has less control over the outcome. Nice to have, but it doesn't make you the better player. It sort of makes you the more fortunate, as to timing, and place of birth. The YEC is different from that but it is structured differently from every other tournament of the year. Clearly, it's nice to have, but it is one big apple compared to the oranges of the rest of the year. IMO, it's still a bit of an exhibition/money-maker that they turned into a points event.

With that kind of perception, you've been watching the wrong sport......

and how ridiculous is this? "it has recently come to more prestige" clearly you know nothing about the sport, oh but we all know you are first and foremost a player's fan, not tennis fan.

if you are so under-informed, make a bit of effort and do some reading. Just find out how big it has been since Fed was still in his nappies.

Geez, you keep posting about something you have completely no idea of.......

 

[Ricardo]

so what's the debate? YEC is valued more in ranking, players in general value it more, than a MS1000 so what are we really debating about?

only those with agendas and refuse to acknowledge facts still want to argue about this. Moxie and Kieran have no case so they just keep acting like they have a 'point'....

 

[Kieran]

so what's the debate? YEC is valued more in ranking, players in general value it more, than a MS1000 so what are we really debating about?

only those with agendas and refuse to acknowledge facts still want to argue about this. Moxie and Kieran have no case so they just keep acting like they have a 'point'....

You're still bloody incapable of reading. :lolz:

The discussion is cordial and it's kinda like arguing the toss between a Guinness and a Guinness. Both are still good for you...

 

[Ricardo]

so what's the debate? YEC is valued more in ranking, players in general value it more, than a MS1000 so what are we really debating about?

only those with agendas and refuse to acknowledge facts still want to argue about this. Moxie and Kieran have no case so they just keep acting like they have a 'point'....

You're still bloody incapable of reading. :lolz:

The discussion is cordial and it's kinda like arguing the toss between a Guinness and a Guinness. Both are still good for you...

now that you are trying to divert the focus, i know how badly you got exposed. You and Moxie tried to downplay the importance of WTF (less important than a MS1000, really?) until we had to lay out the facts, Moxie thinks her personal ignorance was a good evidence (oh that must be the worst defense ever....) and of course we know about you (Fed won it so many times, that can't be good).

Back to square 1, 3 majors + 1 final + 4 MS1000 + WTF >> 3 majors + 1 semi + 5 MS1000, how successful a season is not decided by your 'opinion' but hard cold results, and that's not to belittle you.... :snigger

 

[Kieran]

Show me where I "tried to downplay the importance of the WTF..."

 

[Ricardo]

Show me where I "tried to downplay the importance of the WTF..."

"But would any player take a year where they set a record of MS titles in one season? I think that's also quite unique (until Rafa equalled it, of course)."

number of MS was never considered even 'important', prior to Novak11 do people even mention that Fed and Rafa won 4 MS1000 in one year (a record then) also? if you state that a player would take a year for 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF obviously you've valued it less than a MS1000 - on the face value it was a record for MS wins (which nobody even cared to count or made a big deal of previously).

 

[Kieran]

Show me where I "tried to downplay the importance of the WTF..."

"But would any player take a year where they set a record of MS titles in one season? I think that's also quite unique (until Rafa equalled it, of course)."

number of MS was never considered even 'important', prior to Novak11 do people even mention that Fed and Rafa won 4 MS1000 in one year (a record then) also? if you state that a player would take a year for 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF obviously you've valued it less than a MS1000 - on the face value it was a record for MS wins (which nobody even cared to count or made a big deal of previously).

To quote your good self: "now you're trying to divert the focus."

So, again, show me where I "tried to downplay the importance of the WTF..."

Don't make me ask you three times. It looks like you're evading the answer if I do.

And while you're at it, show me where I said "that a player would take a year for 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF..."

 

[DarthFed]

^ Darth, I get the point of 1:1 in today's game…yes, they would rather win the YEC, if they had one option in a year. It has more points, and it has recently come to more prestige. And I would say "recently." However, I suspect you're comparing the Fedal relative resumes, too, with the Olympics and the YEC. (Nadal has a gold medal; Federer has many YECs, whereas Rafa has none.) Some folks might not believe it, but I'm really trying to compare the tournaments that are of relatively the same structure, with the ones that aren't the same. And with no especial agenda. 250-1000s respect the same ranking privilege and draw format. The only difference in the Slams is that there are no byes, and (on the men's side,) it's best of 5.

YEC, DC and Olympics work from a different structure. If I haven't made it clear before, I will say it now: I think DC championships and Olympic Gold medals (for example, for Nadal,) are resume buffers, but I don't consider them "deal-breakers" in any comparison, if you know what I mean. They are structured in a way that a player has less control over the outcome. Nice to have, but it doesn't make you the better player. It sort of makes you the more fortunate, as to timing, and place of birth. The YEC is different from that but it is structured differently from every other tournament of the year. Clearly, it's nice to have, but it is one big apple compared to the oranges of the rest of the year. IMO, it's still a bit of an exhibition/money-maker that they turned into a points event.

Fair enough, but I just disagree with the last part. Since I started watching in the early 90's it was always considered a big deal. It is a tournament between the world's best with a lot of points, money, bragging rights on the line not to mention whoever wins it "finishes the year right" and might get momentum going into the following year. I know Ricardo is insulting everyone as usual yet I have to agree that under no circumstances is 5 MS better than 4 MS and a YEC even with 5 being the shared record.

 

[Front242]

A tournament that features only the top 8 best players of the year with a total of 1500 ranking points for the winner and a good deal of prize money is most definitely a big deal. Most important tennis event after the slams and the 1500 ranking points says it all. Slam winners get 2000, YEC/WTF winner gets 1500, Masters winners get 1000. Enough said.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, the prestige of the WTF isn't at stake, and nor is it the issue...

 

[DarthFed]

In fairness, the prestige of the WTF isn't at stake, and nor is it the issue...

Yes, the issue is whether or not 5 MS events is magically better than 4 MS events and the YEC. I don't see how it is debatable. Bottom line is that the YEC is a much bigger deal than an MS event and that is pretty much all that needs to be said.