Ep 32 - Why Are ATP Masters 1000 Perceived As Having So Much Less Value Than They Actually Have?

In men's tennis, an ATP Masters 1000 is worth 1000 points in rankings. There are 9 of those as opposed to 4 Grand Slams. By all means, they have overall half the value of Grand Slams, at least. Considering they account for a total of 9000 points, whereas the Slams are at 8000, these tournaments hold a very important place in the calendar, as they can define who becomes number 1 at the end of the season. And our Big 4 cares about them: only 43 titles went to non Big 4 players since 2003. And Djokovic just tied Nadal's record of 35 total, and broke his own by completing the Double Career Golden Masters, a truly novel and unique feat that is unlikely to be reproduced in many years. Why then, so many disregard this category in relation to the Grand Slams? Why do we place so much more importance to the majors while almost not caring about any other thing when comparing records? Why do so few people outside the tennis fan base recognize those tournaments, but most likely know about Wimbledon or the US Open? Vansh and I are not exactly looking for an answer, but we try and discuss some of the reasons as to why the Masters 1000 category has not been able so far to live up to the 2nd most important in the tennis world. Follow Vansh on Twitter @vanshv2k Follow Tennis and Bagels: Twitter @tennis_bagels (managed by Andre) Instagram @tennisandbagels Facebook/tennisandbagels Thank you for listening to this podcast! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tennis-and-bagels/message Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/tennis-and-bagels . Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.