"Big titles"

[mightyjeditribble]

The ATP seems to be pushing this new idea of the "big title" count, adding together the number of GS and Masters tournaments. This was never a thing before, with there being separately the count of GS and the count of MS, with the latter being very much considered a less important stat than the first.

I can see a number of political reasons why they want to do this.

1) The ATP doesn't run the Grand Slams, but does run the MS, so they have an interest in promoting these as an important stat, and encourage players (even beyond the ranking system) to make every effort not to skip these events.

2) Pushing up the importance of MS may improve audience numbers, particularly for events that are currently perhaps seen as less prestigious (see 1).

3) The slam count is currently not looking competitive, so a story about the battle for "most big titles" can generate more interest.

But I wonder what people think about this. I can see a lot of issues with it (and hopefully not just because I'm a Roger fan, who despite his current lead is likely to be overtaken soon in this stat). For one, the surface balance isn't right - the game's original surface, and that of arguably the most prestigious tournament of all, is not represented by any MS events. Moreover, the tournaments are so diverse in importance and prestige, not just between the slams and the MS events, but also between different MS events. In contrast, the GS are now seen as much more equal in stature. (I realise that this has not always been so, however.) I'm not saying that the stat can't be useful, when combined with others, but the ATP is giving it much more prominence than that.

I guess I wonder whether people think that

a) the "big titles" stat will eventually replace or at least equal the GS count in the eyes of fans, as the ATP seems to be aiming for, and

b) is there any reason (beyond ATP politics) why that could be seen as sensible?

 

[El Dude]

a) No
b) No



"Big titles" has some meaning, but the problem is that the further back you go, the less meaningful it becomes. Even getting to about ten years ago, when Masters were actually more difficult to win, when they were best-of-fives, but also going back to the 90s - you end up penalizing players like Pete Sampras, who won only 11 Masters equivalents - less than Andy Murray.

There's also the problem that you point to, that Masters - unlike Slams - are adequately balanced between court types. Slams have a nice balance now of two hards, one clay, and one grass. To me that well-represents historical trends, with an emphasis on the Open Era. But Masters are six hards and three clay. I'd at least like to see one of those hard courts turned into a grass tournament.

But the basic problem is this: you can't put too much historical value on something based upon contemporary value. This can be illustrated by comparing Pete Sampras and Novak Djokovic. Pete only played all nine Grand Prix/Masters tournaments once in his career, and missed at least two in all but two years, and three or more in more than half his seasons. Novak has played in all nine five times, and from late 2006 to the present has only missed seven Masters tournaments total! During that time he only missed two in a year once. Add in current court homogenization then comparing their Masters counts becomes utterly meaningless.

I think a more nuanced, but not that more difficult, approach is to weight the different tournaments, perhaps according to current point values, like I do with my "skyscraper" system. It isn't perfect, and if anything undervalues Slams in terms of symbolic and emotional value, but it does give a far more accurate depiction of overall accomplishments.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Yeah, I like the visual form of your "skyscrapers". The advantage of including MS is that there is more data, so you can show certain trends - but it needs to be taken in context IMO. Total number of "big titles" just doesn't seem to be such a useful number.

 

[Kieran]

Well, just briefly cos I'm out, this is a great OP.

A) slam count wasn't a factor until Sampras chased Emerson. The number of slams won was never a factor in determining who was great to Borg, Lendl, Mac, etc. It just was never discussed. It's recent.

B) it's hard to measure sensible but when we look at what fans look at, in this era of instant media access, I don't think MS titles measure up to slams, but they s certainly gained in importance in the last 15 years.

Put these two together and the game is evolving, and the measure of greatness is changing, but MS titles will always be the lesser relative in the mix. And should be always the lesser...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Answering the OP,

a) No, the big title count would never replace the GS count in prestige.

b) Unlike you, I don't think it is political. The big title count has its own significance.
If you look at someone like Connors, he has about 109 titles. But, dig into details,
you will find that most of them are junk tournaments, some not even comparable
to current ATP 250 events. Only 29 of Jimmy's titles are significant (8GS + 1 Grand Prix
year end championship + 3 WCT year end championship + 17 Grand Prix super series
tourneys). The percentage of his significant titles is 26.06%. On the other hand, if
you consider Federer, he has won 91 titles, but of them 50 are significant ones (18 GS
+ 6 WTF + 26 Masters). So, Fed's percentage of significant titles is 54.94%. Many
people, who don't delve into details, actually think Connor's achievement is great.
But, if you look behind the numbers and focus on the significance, one realizes
it is not the case. I thought ATP was trying to use the "big titles" to sort of point
out this. It is not in the interest of ATP to belittle the small tourneys, as small tourneys
are also being run under the auspices of ATP.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Well, just briefly cos I'm out, this is a great OP.

A) slam count wasn't a factor until Sampras chased Emerson. The number of slams won was never a factor in determining who was great to Borg, Lendl, Mac, etc. It just was never discussed. It's recent.

B) it's hard to measure sensible but when we look at what fans look at, in this era of instant media access, I don't think MS titles measure up to slams, but they s certainly gained in importance in the last 15 years.

Put these two together and the game is evolving, and the measure of greatness is changing, but MS titles will always be the lesser relative in the mix. And should be always the lesser...

It's a good point that these things evolve. But at least the four GS have been accepted as the major titles in tennis for a very long time (more than 90 years), although the AO did suffer from less prestige well into the Open Era. The structure and details of the Masters Series have changed a lot, even over the past ten years.

It's true though that MS has increased in importance recently, partly also because the tour sorted some things out at least. When Paris was played right before the WTF, top players would routinely skip the tournament, for example. Part of the reason may also be the Big-4 dominance in MS titles; it seems harder than ever for someone to win one who isn't Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or Murray!

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, the evolution of these things is important to note. Borg skipped Oz annually during his peak years, and so did everyone else worth talking about in that era. His thinking was, he'd only play there in a season where he'd already bagged RG, Wimbo and the USO. Oz was held in December then. Best thing they ever did was move it to January. If it had been moved to January in 1972, then they all would have played there, because their goal was the Calendar Year Slam, not slam totals, and not career slams. Had slam totals become the big issue, obviously Borg et al would have gone to Oz every Christmas and tried to add to their totals.

When the surfaces shifted around and became too different to each other to be really viable, then priorities changed. Pete was okay on clay and did well early on, but his best was a semi-final spot in 1996. After this, he more or less concentrated his efforts on more friendly surfaces, since he was also beginning to feel the strain and physical effects of being the best player in the world. The usual stuff that hits players when they leave their mid-20's and head towards thirty, especially ultra aggressive players like Pete.

The rest of his career was dedicated to creating records he could control: 6 successive year end #1's, and the GS total that Emerson held. He skipped Oz in 1999, citing fatigue from the previous season where he struggled but successfully claimed the 6th year-end #1. He chose his battles well for the rest of his career, managing his resources and claiming enough slams to overtake Emerson.

The point of course being, this was all so newsworthy that slam totals became big news, and has stayed big news ever since. At the same time, Agassi surprised everyone by nabbing the career slam, which was an unknown phrase at the time. The terminology being acceptable, the game then showed itself to have evolved, criteria changed and the old achievements have been largely forgotten, or downgraded ever since.

MS titles existed in Pete's time, but they weren't the Big Deal they are now. I think they were codefied around 1990, but I don't remember players chasing records related to them, as evidence of the players greatness...

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah, the evolution of these things is important to note. Borg skipped Oz annually during his peak years, and so did everyone else worth talking about in that era. His thinking was, he'd only play there in a season where he'd already bagged RG, Wimbo and the USO. Oz was held in December then. Best thing they ever did was move it to January. If it had been moved to January in 1972, then they all would have played there, because their goal was the Calendar Year Slam, not slam totals, and not career slams. Had slam totals become the big issue, obviously Borg et al would have gone to Oz every Christmas and tried to add to their totals.

When the surfaces shifted around and became too different to each other to be really viable, then priorities changed. Pete was okay on clay and did well early on, but his best was a semi-final spot in 1996. After this, he more or less concentrated his efforts on more friendly surfaces, since he was also beginning to feel the strain and physical effects of being the best player in the world. The usual stuff that hits players when they leave their mid-20's and head towards thirty, especially ultra aggressive players like Pete.

The rest of his career was dedicated to creating records he could control: 6 successive year end #1's, and the GS total that Emerson held. He skipped Oz in 1999, citing fatigue from the previous season where he struggled but successfully claimed the 6th year-end #1. He chose his battles well for the rest of his career, managing his resources and claiming enough slams to overtake Emerson.

The point of course being, this was all so newsworthy that slam totals became big news, and has stayed big news ever since. At the same time, Agassi surprised everyone by nabbing the career slam, which was an unknown phrase at the time. The terminology being acceptable, the game then showed itself to have evolved, criteria changed and the old achievements have been largely forgotten, or downgraded ever since.

MS titles existed in Pete's time, but they weren't the Big Deal they are now. I think they were codified around 1990, but I don't remember players chasing records related to them, as evidence of the players greatness...

OZ was a dying Slam "back in the day" regardless of when they held it; just too far away! I've related some history; esp. during Amateur days where a US player could be sponsored to play "down under," but they were required to stay a few weeks to a couple months to make it worthwhile! A lot of that time I found players working jobs & teaching to earn enough to get outta there sooner! That's one of the reasons Margaret Court's (11) slam record is quite inflated; lack of comp., not to mention being an ICON who psychologically was superior to her closest rival in OZ, Evonne Goolagong!

When they moved the tourney to Dec., it helped with the idea of Borg coming down eventually since he was winning the Channel-Slam so routinely from '78-80! It also signed it "death warrant" IMO because no one at the time was even close to achieving a CYGS; McEnroe the best chance in '84 dropping FO final just a couple games away in "straights!" I thought it smart to move it back to Jan. & players you wouldn't think would bother went to AO, including Wilander (3), Lendl (2), & Edberg (2)! They were back, but it wasn't worth the trip to veterans like Navratilova (3) and Evert (2) who last played it in '89! - - https://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2017/02/whats-up-topic-22-entries-317-on.html?showComment=1493314495578#c5803294025123605594 - -

To some, The Event is still a "redheaded" stepchild of the ITF; not helped when Nole's run there being undermined since he had 6! It didn't matter he's had some of the toughest comp. in the history of the sport save the Aussies "in the day" from HOAD, Laver, & Rosewall to Stolle, Roche, & Newcombe!

As to the Masters with their elevated status; funny I started think the exact opposite when they became common place for the Big 4 to take them! Back "in the day" it was required to play BO5 finals! I understood why the ATP went to BO3, but IMO it devalued them; more of an accomplishment winning BO5 over the best in the world! It wasn't elevated to GS status, but it meant more 10 years ago! BY these few players owning all the Masters 1000 records, I can't see anyone being able to muster the skill, concentration, and longevity to break any of them! :angel: - Nole Blog -