"How Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic changed tennis' history"

[DarthFed]

^ What do you mean, I said there that the Olympics are important. A big resume booster IMO. It's Davis Cup to me that is completely meaningless when evaluating their careers.

 

[Federberg]

It seems that we're coming to the idea that the following three factors are not necessarily synonymous:
1) Difficulty of a title
2) Desirability of a title (to a player)
3) Historical legacy of a title (towards a player's "greatness legacy")

A Grand Slam is the highest in all three, with Wimbledon ranking highest followed by the US Open and Roland Garros shortly behind, and then the Australian Open. After Grand Slams you have the WTF as a clear second fiddle, but also above the rest of tournaments. Where it gets tricky is Masters vs. Olympics. I'd say the Masters is more difficult but perhaps a tad less desirable and with similar historical weight. After that there's a big drop to ATP 500 and 250. Davis Cup seems almost in the category of doubles - entirely irrelevant to a player's resume.

So maybe, in terms of relative value of historical greatness, it is something like this, with all numbers being a precentage of a Grand Slam:

100 Grand Slam
40 WTF
20 Masters, Olympics
5 ATP 500
3 ATP 250

Or something like that. If we want to break it down further with Slams, we'd have to talk about years - and then it becomes really messy.

I would give the WTF a bit more, and to be honest I would give Masters more than Olympics. We're talking history here... I don't really see what it has to do with a comparison across eras

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ What do you mean, I said there that the Olympics are important. A big resume booster IMO. It's Davis Cup to me that is completely meaningless when evaluating their careers.

I think to give up of yourself for at least 3-4 weeks a year for DC in a team concept is still an important achievement. Same thing, if Fed had a DC championship then it wouldn't be as meaningless

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It seems that we're coming to the idea that the following three factors are not necessarily synonymous:
1) Difficulty of a title
2) Desirability of a title (to a player)
3) Historical legacy of a title (towards a player's "greatness legacy")

A Grand Slam is the highest in all three, with Wimbledon ranking highest followed by the US Open and Roland Garros shortly behind, and then the Australian Open. After Grand Slams you have the WTF as a clear second fiddle, but also above the rest of tournaments. Where it gets tricky is Masters vs. Olympics. I'd say the Masters is more difficult but perhaps a tad less desirable and with similar historical weight. After that there's a big drop to ATP 500 and 250. Davis Cup seems almost in the category of doubles - entirely irrelevant to a player's resume.

So maybe, in terms of relative value of historical greatness, it is something like this, with all numbers being a precentage of a Grand Slam:

100 Grand Slam
40 WTF
20 Masters, Olympics
5 ATP 500
3 ATP 250

Or something like that. If we want to break it down further with Slams, we'd have to talk about years - and then it becomes really messy.

I would give the WTF a bit more, and to be honest I would give Masters more than Olympics. We're talking history here... I don't really see what it has to do with a comparison across eras

I would not venture into this operation at all. All that we need to agree upon is the
pecking order of different tournaments.

I don't think there is any conversion scale to equate one tournament with another.
For example, no amount of ATP 250 wins can equal a GS win.

So, I think we put an end to this pointless exercise.

 

[El Dude]

What kind of fun is that? Anyhow, following sports is kind of pointless - and that's the point, methinks! Play = fun = pointless other than for its own sake.

But I agree - no amount of ATP 250s could equal a Grand Slam - that is a good point. I think to make this accurate, the six or seven categories I mentioned before would have to be calculated separately, then weighed in total value, then added up.

On the other hand, the further back you go in time, the trickier it is to compute. Once you get to the pre-Open Era it is an entirely different schedule (e.g. Rosewall and Laver played each other 46 times in 1963!).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But I agree - no amount of ATP 250s could equal a Grand Slam - that is a good point. I think to make this accurate, the six or seven categories I mentioned before would have to be calculated separately, then weighed in total value, then added up.

There is no need to come up with a single number by weighting the numbers in
different cateogries, just to compare players. Once you can agree upon the relative
importance of the tournaments, then you can use lexicographic ordering to compare
players. For example, if there are only two categories, define

(a,b) < (c,d) if a<c or if a=c and b < d.

 

[DarthFed]

^ What do you mean, I said there that the Olympics are important. A big resume booster IMO. It's Davis Cup to me that is completely meaningless when evaluating their careers.

I think to give up of yourself for at least 3-4 weeks a year for DC in a team concept is still an important achievement. Same thing, if Fed had a DC championship then it wouldn't be as meaningless

He might get one this year and it will still be absolutely 1,000% meaningless my friend. That's basically the same as doubles competition, you are somewhat reliant on other players, bottom line.

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ What do you mean, I said there that the Olympics are important. A big resume booster IMO. It's Davis Cup to me that is completely meaningless when evaluating their careers.

I think to give up of yourself for at least 3-4 weeks a year for DC in a team concept is still an important achievement. Same thing, if Fed had a DC championship then it wouldn't be as meaningless

He might get one this year and it will still be absolutely 1,000% meaningless my friend. That's basically the same as doubles competition, you are somewhat reliant on other players, bottom line.

He may get it this year paired with Stan for the doubles

 

[markus1]

The Magnificent 3 of the modern tennis