Talk:ATP Masters 1000 singles records and statistics/Archive 2

Different Masters Titles

Consensus was reached to not change the table's Strike rate column. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As you all know, ATP Masters Series evolved since 1990. Over the years, there have been significant changes/differences in these events in terms of organization (sets played, schedule, draw size, duration, tournament, location, surfaces, indoor/outdoor). Eight events are mandatory. These are stabilized from 2009 only. I agree that Different Masters titles are unique/particular to the ATP Masters Series History is concerned. All the data is verifiable and relevant as how these are organized and player stats are core to the article. These are raised by more than one editor in the last few weeks and the topic was also discussed in the talk page and lasted several weeks under USA Hard triple. There are many trivia details at the end in "Statistics" which may not be relevant (like seeds, QFs). Tennis is mostly about titles and this article truly deserve different Masters titles, as they tell about how the Masters organized in nine slots unlike Grand Slams or other tournaments like 250, 500 series. One has to respect how ATP organizes Masters in a unique way unlike Majors. It was all different when we talk about titles in terms of nine slots, events and tournaments. These kind of verifiable data which has significance to the article must be kept. There is a news that 5 Masters will be changed to 12-day events in future. So changes are part and parcel of ATP Masters Series. My submission is that one has to accept it and capture them in the history of stats and player records. Explains Federer case, he won as far as different masters concerned - 7 titles (two slot masters away from winning Career Golden Masters - Monte Carlo (3rd) and Rome (5th)) - 8 titles (+ including Hamburg (4th Masters) tournament) - 9 titles (++ including Madrid Indoors Hard event in the Masters Series (8th Masters)) Looking forward to the opinion of editors in this regard..122.162.198.233 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC) This has been discussed before. Just because one tournament was played on different surfaces, in different venues or even in different cities, doesn't make it different tournaments/events/masters or whatever. You need to stop making up stats, really. ForzaUV (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC) I have to agree with @ForzaUV here. This topic has been tackled before and a consensus was reached to list the different titles in the miscellaneous section for the top 2 players with most different titles based on the criteria to exclude the same Masters tournament, played on different surfaces OR at different venues to avoid clutter. What you are suggesting be added, would make a mess. As much as I admire your tenacity to add this stats, I just don't think they are suitable for this article. That is my opinion on the matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC) @Qwerty284651, @ForzaUV ....My stance on the situation is that I completely agree with @ CharisTra and other editors. This topic has been discussed before (especially by me) and I do not think there is any consensus if anyone goes through the talk page. The concept of ATP Masters Series organization is fairly dealt in the recent edits and clearly understood. There are multiple reasons to keep this in the article in my opinion. This page is about the stats and records from 1990, not from 2009. Otherwise, these should have been ATP Masters 1000. So, it is relevant. Masters, as such certainly not about locations, cities, countries, venues, schedules. Otherwise Cincinnati Masters in Cincinnati and New York (2020) or Stuttgart Masters in Essen and Stuttgart, Canada Masters in Toronto and Montreal, Indian Wells played before Paris etc should be different. But it is not the case It is about how Masters organized and positioned in nine slots. If there is any change in the Masters by introducing new tournament, changing the combination (Indoor/Outdoor and surface), Upgrading the 500 to 1000 by ATP etc, those Masters are certainly and should be treated as different. Not talking about one Madrid tournament. From 1990, there are Stockholm, Stuttgart, Madrid, Hamburg, Shanghai etc changed the series in particular slots. Federer 7/9 (in relation to Career Golden Masters) and 9/12 (different Masters titles) are different when ATP Masters Series is concerned. If one gets to the Champions List table, this stat can be easily understood/counted. So, the data is verifiable from this page itself. Whether it is title/event/tournament, the stats and records by the purpose are different. Even in the Grand Slams, you have the stats Grand Slam-wise as well as surface-wise in the wikipedia. These stats are very important to the History and this is not a clutter. We have lot of unnecessary trivia at the end of the article (this is making the article long but no much significance and relevance to the history like seeds). In a nutshell, Different Masters records are relevant and this needs to be on the top of the article as it signifies how ATP Masters Series has been since 1990 and how the players fared over their career in terms of Series are also worth adding with a simple table. I do not know what is preventing to add this simple table (just by sticking to one tournament Madrid)..... It is a long text and hope by now, everyone understands the explanation. Thanks for your reading. @Qwerty284651, @ForzaUV ..It is up to you how to improve and bring the best to this page. Cheers...Krmohan (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC) I am totally in sync with the views about keeping different masters titles of players. Any thoughts from @CharisTra and the other editors..122.162.198.233 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC) @Krmohan, we already know that you want to count Madrid Open as two different Masters events, the clay Madrid and the hard Madrid but that's just absurd and unheard of. Madrid Open is one Masters event. Canadian Open is played in two different cities but it's still one event. I've already told you once that if you could wikilink the 9th event Fed won or the 8th event Murray and Nadal won then I'm with you. Nadal won the following events: Indian Wells Masters Monte Carlo Masters Madrid Open (tennis) Hamburg Masters Italian Open (tennis) Canadian Open (tennis) Cincinnati Masters Wikilink #8 and you'd have a point. Regarding what you describe as trivia at the end of the article, I wouldn't mind removing some of those sections, like successful defenses, all countrymen stats and youngest/oldest finalists (not the winners though). ForzaUV (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Actually Nadal won the Hamburg Masters, not the Hamburg European Open... that has never been a Masters level tournament only a 500/250 level tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Yes of course, it's just the article we have on wikipedia. A redirect page to Hamburg Masters. ForzaUV (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Comment The whole conversation, encompassing multiple threads, is a bit too convoluted for me to thoroughly read through. One thing that seems to stand out is that there is a big difference between the terms "tournament" and "Masters." They are not the same. There are 9 Masters and only 9 Masters no matter what tournaments they encompass. Just as the U.S. National Indoor Championships or U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships played at different tournaments in their respective histories, there was only one event slotted. You wouldn't total up two different U.S. National Indoor Championships just because one year it was called the Memphis Open and another it was called the Maryland Championships. Different tournaments, different organizers, but one in the same U.S. National Indoor Championships. Masters events work similarly even though a couple have moved around. Tournaments are just placeholders for the 9 Masters level events. As long as there are footnotes that explain the varying changes all should be good imho. And if they ever add 12 Masters events, then this article will need to be renamed and finished with a new 12 Masters article created with its own records. Those are my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Thank you @Fyunck and other editors for corroborating my views. My stance is also the same, there is a big difference between the terms "tournament" and "Masters." They are not the same. Whenever discussions are coming up by me and other editors, obviously @ForzaUV assumed that we are treating Madrid as two tournaments. But I never meant this obviously. These are two different Masters titles. I would give few examples to convince @ForzaUV and @Qwerty284651 for explanation. Request both of them to think afresh and do not relate/connect to the previous discussions. First example, when Hamburg was organized as Masters Series event and ATP 500 event separately. Obviously, these two titles are different. One Masters and other ATP 500 event, even though you consider them one tournament "Hamburg" from organization point of view. So two different titles won by the player and the tournament is only one. Second hypothetical example, you have indicated for Nadal Masters (slot) strike rate as 7 / 9. Tomorrow, if he wins Miami and Paris, he would be 9 / 9 and one can say that he won career golden masters. But he will be still missing the Shanghai tournament but not 8th Masters Slot title. Third example, you have indicated for Federer Masters (slot) strike rate as 7 / 9. Tomorrow, Montecarlo is downgraded to ATP 500 event and if he wins that Montecarlo title, his Masters (slot) strike rate would be 7 / 9 only, not 8 / 9. Fourth example, Djokovic's Masters (slot) strike rate is 9 / 9. But he did not win Hamburg Masters title when it was positioned as 4th Masters even though he played in his career few times. ATP Masters Series is unique and the different Masters titles won by each player during one's career are good stats and records. Winning Masters Series events in particular slots are different Masters titles as other editors opined. That is why the table reverted (notes are also very clear) by you is very meaningful to the ATP Masters history. Hope you got the purpose of these stats and records...Cheers....Krmohan (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Hi everyone, Simply we are not counting tournaments but different Masters titles won by player in the ATP Masters Series. e.g. Federer played for 12 different Masters titles in his career so far and won 9 different Masters titles but missing Monte-Carlo, Rome and Stuttgart Masters titles. Wikilink is for the tournaments by the way. In the stats of any player, the Madrid Indoor (Hard) Masters title appears and counted as Indoor title and Surface-wise Hard court title for any player career stats, if he won when it was played as 8th Masters event. BRD cycle is followed not once but multiple times on the same subject. That's all from my side.......122.162.198.233 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC) No, Federer played for 12 different tournaments but only for 9 Masters titles. The Masters spot is interchangeable, but there are only nine of them. Every season there are nine Masters events, and even if they are not always the same, they correlate to one another's spots on the calendar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Hi @Fyunck, It is infructuous whether these are events or tournaments or championships. These are appearing as "Masters" titles in the player's stats and records and specific to "ATP Masters Series" history. I can not be more precise than these two simple tables, as far as stats and records are concerned from the data verifiability point of view (X = Played but title not won by player). This is already produced in this article from Wikipedia point of view. Titles Player 1st Masters 2nd Masters 3rd Masters 4th Masters 5th Masters 6th Masters 7th Masters 8th Masters 9th Masters Years Different Masters Titles Won / Played Indian Wells Miami Monte Carlo MAD HAM Rome Canada Cincinnati SHA MAD GER STH Paris 37 Novak Djokovic 5 6 2 3 × 5 4 2 4 × N/A 6 2007–2021 9/11 36 Rafael Nadal 3 × 11 4 1 10 5 1 × 1 N/A × 2005–2021 8/11 28 Roger Federer 5 4 × 2 4 × 2 7 2 1 × N/A 1 2002–2019 9/12 17 Andre Agassi 1 6 × N/A × 1 3 3 N/A 1 × 2 1990–2004 7/11 14 Andy Murray × 2 × 1 × 1 3 2 3 1 N/A 1 2008–2016 8/11 If you look at the stats from the above table, the simple stats for "different Masters titles" would be Titles Player Played Winning Span Years 9 Roger Federer 12 2002–2011 9 9 Novak Djokovic 11 2007–2018 12 8 Rafael Nadal 11 2005–2010 6 8 Andy Murray 11 2008–2016 9 7 Andre Agassi 11 1990–2002 13 So, the above data is very clear and verifiable regarding different Masters titles in relation to the "ATP Masters Series" history. As per wikipedia, I do not think any consensus view is required. WP:BRD is also not mandatory in these cases. Hope, this would be sufficient and simple to answer your query and close the discussion thread. Thank you in advance for your understanding.122.162.198.233 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC) The last column you modified is misleading and bloated, for it contains all the Masters top 5 winningest players have won, yet Nadal's and Murray's 2-different surface Madrid titles count as one and other events were played before Shanghai. The current column we have at the moment is sufficient, because it reflects the current 9-Masters count and that is all the average reader/visitor of this page needs. Nothing more. Adding said column, which you are proposing, albeit useful for the avid tennis fans, would just add more clutter to the List of champions table. As for the Diff titles chart beneath it: I would rather see that table be located in the miscellaneous or tournament section, than in its own section, although I am still against it, because there already is one in the Miscellaneous section in the first table, row "Different titles" with a footnote. That is more than enough. Any further discussion on this matter is, frankly, futile. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Hi @Qwerty284651, As we are bogged down with tournaments, events etc, I have modified the last column of first table for your understanding and my explanation only. As of now, the way last column is there in the article, it is perfect. No changes proposed. Only changes I published in the article is second table without years. As you know the "Different Masters titles" is not fan-cruft or trivial details. It has its own significance in the ATP Masters Series history. As other editors opined, there is a lot of fan-cruft and trivial details at the end in Miscellaneous and statistics section. By the way, Miscellaneous records are about "only" tournaments. Since this second table stats are important and few other editors are also aligned, I will keep the data as it was kept earlier. It is up to you how to improve the article with the second table, "unless there are further comments from other editors". Thank you for your understanding and support as well...122.162.198.233 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC) As Fyunck mentioned in his comment, there are those 9 Masters events (slots) and the tournaments themselves, both of the "Masters" and the "tournaments" main stats are covered in the article but you keep on insisting that there is a third distinction which in reality doesn't even exist. Leave everything as it is. ForzaUV (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC) @ Qwerty284651 @ForzaUV @Fyunck(click)You guys have reverted again. This data is about different Masters titles. The reasons you gave for reverting as "redundant (even though players and titles not redundant)", "it is about career golden masters (even though it is separately dealt as 9/9), "already covered in miscellaneous tournaments (even though agreeing Masters and tournament not the same)", "no consensus view (even though few editors aligned in the talk page)", "third distinction (even though it has significance to ATP Masters history)" are all absurd and ridiculous after giving explanation to all of you. I have explained to all editors and responded in the talk page decently. Without looking into the details, you have reverted and finally, you have understood at last what I have published. There are other editors who have also published similar data. Without this table, the article is bloated and a pile of fan-cruft and trivial details. You must have got confused with the distorted information in this article. The records are elaborated as if Masters was introduced from 2009. Then all these records should have been in "ATP Tour Masters 1000". This is really against the Wikipedia policy. Please revert on your own...122.162.198.233 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Policy has nothing to do with it. This is a content dispute where you have to convince editors of your content's worth. So far you haven't so please do not add it back again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Hi all, I am aligned with @CharisTra and other editors, who have uploaded different masters titles data several times. There are no solid reasons and grounds shown by other editors not to keep this data/stats, except unknown reservations even after understanding significance. As per Wikipedia, the data is verifiable, also with footnotes. Anyways, before 2009, there were two indoor Masters and now only one. These are different Masters titles for any player as far as stats and records. This table deserves its place in the Masters history in my view...This thread can be closed after improvisation of the article, not by leaving as it is. Those are my thoughts...Cheers.... Krmohan (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Actually, it's the other way around, there are no solid reasons and grounds shown by you to add such a made up stat. There are the 9 "Masters" (slots) and the "tournaments", the third distinction only exists in your mind. ForzaUV (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Once upon a time in the other thread, I have only made u understand the slot concept. Today, talking about tournament concept. If somebody wins Hamburg tournament today, u will make it equal to the Hamburg Masters as tournament. This may exist in your mind and ridiculous. Slowly, I am sure u will be into different Masters title concept. One can clean up the article just by coloring the content but core of the content is completely missed. I can not subscribe to your views. Actually, demeaning the players who won the title when Hamburg was positioned as 4th Masters... How u can demean the players due to changes introduced by ATP in Masters Series. History says, how many different Masters titles won by player in his career and how many Masters tournament s. Anyways, I have suggestions to improve the article. Timebeing, let other editors absorb what we are discussing.. Krmohan (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC) New comments Hi, Following changes are proposed in the article, definitely for the improvements only. I would be doing but may be reverted without discussions. Hence, proposed. In the section 8) Miscellaneous records - "In all Masters tournaments" records" stats table to go to section 7) Tournament records. (Reason being "All about tournaments") "Different Masters titles" table in the above thread to be subset of section 4) Career totals. (Reason being "Different Masters titles won in the entire career of players") In the section 8) Miscellaneous records - "Youngest & Oldest" table to be merged with section 11) Statistics - Age Statistics (Duplicate data of winners/finalists) In the section 8) Miscellaneous records, most finals with no title and surface sweeps may be shifted section 11) Statistics as Miscellaneous This way, one can move Miscellaneous records to relevant sections and can be done away with in my opinion...Cheers Krmohan (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC) 1. The tournament records is actually about records in one tournament not all tournaments. 2. I mean there is a whole column about different masters which is the one that matters the most since it shows how close a player is to achieving the Golden Masters, why we add another table about something similar, not as significant and mostly redundant? Strong oppose. 3. Maybe, but I prefer to remove the youngest/oldest finalists lists and leave everything else as they are. Youngest/oldest finalists are mostly the same lists as the youngest/oldest winners so I feel it's redundant and we already have the very youngest/oldest finalist player in the miscellaneous section. 4. So you want to put the miscellaneous section under the statistics section? I'm not sure about that. ForzaUV (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Thx. You got my inputs right. We may need few more comments/inputs from other editors, who have already contributed to this.... Krmohan (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Regarding the changes you don't want to discuss 1. I think I can agree with Qwerty's removal of "Masters slot" you added to the "Strike Rate", it's just unnecessary bit. It's clear from the table headers what the ST is all about . Don't add it back. 2. The GM definition is sufficient as it is. The whole concept is about winning all of the active masters tournaments in the ATP tour, the whole set basically whether they're nine, eight or ten. For now they're nine but in the future they could become 8 or 10 and therefore I'm not sure adding the bit of "in the nine slots of ATP Masters Series" is an improvement. 3. The note you keep adding is also irrelevant in that section, it is already under the main table of the article where it belongs. ForzaUV (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Hi Qwerty & ForzaUV, Sorry for the late response. I did not discuss those points as I thought it was infructuous as it was done previously several times. Anyways, let me explain the things in the order of ease once again. 2. The GM definition is not sufficient at all as it is, as far as "Verifiable Data" is concerned. Djokovic had played "11" active Masters during his career until now (Do not forget to add Hamburg Masters and Madrid Indoor Masters). He did not win "all of the active Masters", he played in his career (Both were missing in his career). So, as per your definition, he did not win GM. But, he had won only active Masters in the nine slots of ATP Masters Series. But, he won GM. If Nadal wins Miami and Paris, he will be treated as winner of GM (as he won in nine slots even though need not won Shanghai Masters). Would you consider it as GM or not? If not considered, he already won more than 9 different active Masters in his career. So, where do you draw the line for GM. Wikipedia is about verifiable data content not about assumptions. More so, if it is official (not semi-official or trivia as you know). From 1990, it has been only 9 active Masters slot titles. If it changes in future, history will change on its own. Most underlying aspect is one can not credit or discredit players performance in their career due to changes introduced by ATP in the Masters Series. So, how can we do with such an inadequate definition ??? That is why I have already mentioned along with other editors in this thread "how many different Master titles are played and won by a player in his career" is paramount in the ATP Masters Series article, starting from 1990. It definitely needs addition of "Different Masters Titles" table in the article. 1. Masters Slot strike rate: It was agreed and explained. Strike Rate for Masters slot is different from Different Masters. Otherwise also, both stats are different even as per the "Champions List" table itself (Start counting "X" and "won" against each player for different Masters titles). I do not know why after so long, Qwerty removed it without any views. It will be reverted as it was agreed by other editors in the past. Anyway, from ATP calendar, Grand Slams, Masters, ATP 500, ATP 250 titles etc. are different. 3. The note I keep on adding in this article and ATP No. 1 ranked players article is very much relevant. The difference in both the notes is "pandemic-impacted season". The season was played only for few months with non-mandatory participation from players by ATP tour. So, can not discredit / discount due to pandemic. Unbiased fact remains same and deserves addition. If ATP had gone for 12-month ranking, it would be Djokovic. If ITF announced its champion, it would be Thiem as per their criteria. But official bodies chosen "24 month ranking" and "Silent" on its Champion. Why ?? It has impacted everybody and the system has to be fair to players. So, do not draw information from semi-official/trivia sources like "12-month ranking" etc. One can not assume that if Nadal had played Cincinnati and US Open in 2020, what would have been the results. In order to be fair or not demeaning to the other players who have not participated / participated during the pandemic season of only few months, we can not discount / discredit any players' performance. ATP and WTA announced officially "Reduced 2020 season" and "pandemic-shortened season" respectively, while ITF was silent by citing pandemic-disrupted season. Adding the notes will not undermine any players achievement or non-achievement. It is officially verifiable content with citation while assumptions/opinions may be different from individuals and trivia sources. Unfortunately, the new editors are contributing but they are reluctant to participate in the discussions. After all this explanation also, if it is beyond your understanding, I hope it would be limited thinking but not biased thinking. I have seen the edits from other editors but not in these articles. But it would be fair to all the players as far as official sources considered. ATP and WTA mentioned officially "Reduced 2020 season" and "pandemic-shortened season". Let us not mention semi-official or trivia sources. There is no contribution / comments for my proposal (4 points) except from ForzaUV. Seems like contribution, thereby improvement in the article is stagnant. Hope this would be my last explanation. Otherwise also, cheers and bye....Krmohan (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 1. I don't get why you LOVE to make things more complicated than they need to be. I'm sure everyone understands what the "Strike rate" refers to without the need to the unnecessary "Masters slot" in front of it.We have the main header with 1st Masters, 2nd Masters.. 9th Masters and then we have "/9" in the strike rate column to make it even more clear what the strike rate is all about. 9 main columns and "/9" in the strike rate cells to link them together, nothing else is needed unless you believe readers are very dumb to put two and two together. 2. I don't think you understand what active means, there are only nine active masters in a given year not 11. Players who win those active tournaments complete the GM. Maybe we can change the definition a bit by adding "nine" before "active" or simply replace "active" with "nine" but I still prefer to keep it open the way it is because as I said before, the number of the masters tournaments could change in the future. The concept stays the same, who wins them all regardless of their number complete the sweep. 3. Unfortunately, I can see you still think Djokovic is a disputable #1 for 2020 even when a couple of editors already told you a couple months ago it was not actually the case. You need to understand that Djokovic was the most successful player in 2020 by accumulating the most points during the season, and the YE #1 trophy he received from the ATP in 2020 is no different than his 2011 or 2021 tropies, at least in the eyes of the ATP. No matter how you look at it, 24-month or 12-month ranking Djokovic was the #1 and nobody really cares if Nadal chose to skip Cincy and USO, that's on him. ITF chose to be silent but the article is about the ATP. I guess editors are reluctant to participate because they don't see the improvements or maybe they don't care one way or the other. ForzaUV (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Hi, Now, I guess and fully understand complete biased thinking towards one player now. Even if someone do changes affecting players like Federer, Nadal, Thiem, Medvedev, there are immediate reverts from you in these articles. They do care, but one sitting on the engine continuously reverts the edits, they don't care one way or the other after some time. Unfortunately, in the absence of other matured editors like tennisedu, tennishistoiry, sod25, the text of yours is not subjected to changes, even though it is demeaning to other players by not mentioning the verifiable official data content. All the fan-cruft opinion you made in the above three points are beyond the verifiable data. Lot of assumptions in your reply but did not provide any unbiased answers to the official facts based on the history. I do understand what Active Masters means for a player's career and at the same time, I understand one's biased thinking towards making this article for Djokovic's GM since 2009, not from 1990 for ATP Masters Series. By the way, Djokovic is undisputed No. 1 by ATP for the pandemic-shortened season 2020 and won Career Golden Masters after 2009 officially. My opinion (or your opinion or in fact anyone's opinion) does not matter here. Now, I am cocksure that at least, these articles improvement is not taken care. That's it. Cheers and Bye for now...Krmohan (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) I have no idea what you're talking about and don't make it personal. It's not only me who don't see the improvements. Qwerty and Fyunck have told you as much but they don't have time or the energy to keep responding to you over and over again. ForzaUV (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) If you do not have any idea, why are u reverting again and again. Leave it to other editors. If they have to contribute with their views, welcome. I know how it works for you guys..I hop u have idea about their inputs... Krmohan (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @Krmohan: Just stop adding redundant tables and notes to the article, that add clutter and no value really. This has been discussed for a long time on the talk page. And, frankly, noone has the time nor will to deal with this different titles table. Drop that idea already. Many have opposed it and, please, learn to accept that. Many editors have ideas and proposals which they put in fruition with bold edits. Some get accepted, other overturned and reverted and even denied on the talk pages. I have been on the wrong end of a discussion. And so have ForzaUV and Fyunck, and many others. Many ideas are great, but not all are accepted by the Wiki tennis community. And please learn to accept that. For the sake and the respect of others. I know it's not easy, but that is the way things are in life sometimes. You win some, you lose some. So, with this comment in good faith I bid you farewell in hopes, that this is the last discussion on this topic that we will have. Take care and all the best. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Hi all, I am aware of this. There is no point of winning/losing in these discussions. On a lighter note, these are your opinions. My intention was all those opinions are not reasonable and did not answer my queries. There is no contribution from @Fyunck; except that Masters and Tournament are different. @ForzaUV opinion is that any dumb fellow can understand Masters slot and Different Masters; while it took me lot of time to make you understand this. @Qwerty does not have independent opinion except that the the data is redundant and add clutter, as if the history/stats/records are redundant and want more space for wikipedia. Yet, all of you call these opinions as so called "Consensus". I can read what is going on and where from I am coming. No worries. I would have accepted, if you say "Just do not include" and keep it as it is. But your opinions, comments and against the history is not at all reasonable. Anyways, I am fine and it is clearly visible to other editors (@CharisTra, ....) in this domain. So, no worries and please learn to accept the facts whether you accept ideas or not..This is my last line on this topic. Cheers Krmohan (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Strike rate dilemma

This discussion is turning into an IP soapbox forum where we have had to protect the main article. It's the same wandering IP from topics in the past. If there are new facts to bring out, we can start new topic, but otherwise this is now closed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@103.148.39.184, it has been discussed at length about this Strike Rate column before. See previous discussions above. Furthermore, Nadal did technically win 7/9 tournaments if we are going by overall different events. You would probably say it's more like 6/9 or if we include all Masters he's played, it's 7/10. So for simplicity, I am going to say it's 6/9, per your latest summary. You added an already existing link to Djokovic's Golden Masters section. Archived links linking to Djokovic's first and second Golden Masters are in the table next to his name. So, I removed the excess one and moved your first link to the column, I restored.. Also, when you are citing sources, make sure to use full citations with title name and source date, not just a bare link. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Before removing the article of ATP, please go through the complete article where Nadal is missing active tournaments of Miami, Shanghai and Paris as far as Career Golden Masters is concerned. Then it is 6/9 but you are indicating SR as 7/9 which is not correct. So, please elaborate "SR". It is Masters Series Slot Strike Rate (7/9) which is completely different from CGM Strike rate (6/9). But aganist Djokovic 9/9, the link is leading to "CGM" in the page. Djokovic did not win Hamburg and Madrid Indoor Masters but he still won CGM. One can not demean other players who won those Masters. The data is not correct and not fair to other players, who won Hamburg and Madrid Indoor Masters. So at the end, Strike Rate is multidimensional in the table and hence, it is better removed. Otherwise, elaborate SR with citations and correct the data... 103.148.39.184 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC) How about "Masters Series Strike Rate"? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC) In my opinion, SR to be removed. It would be confusing as Strike Rate for example Nadal, out of 10 different Masters tournaments he played in his career, 6/9 - Career Golden Masters Strike Rate 7/9 - Masters Series Strike Rate 7/10 - Different Masters Strike Rate So, it may affect other players too. Hope you got it now. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC) I renamed the strike rate column To Masters strike rate. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Not correct as I already replied. We better remove SR altogether. It may work well only in the case of doubles. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC) It is not correct (grammatically as well as technically). Without proper citation, it is aganist the facts and contradicting the table itself. Please remove SR column. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC) I will go with your option on "7/9 - Masters Series Strike Rate". Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC) I explained you the data but every option has got different meaning to the same table. Why anyone wants to create confusion ?? Why to fix up the screw when it is not required. Let us leave the table as it is and simple when CGM is explained separately. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC) CGM is not the same with the strike rate column. Don't mix the two. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC) I have not mixed. You are confused. Djokovic 9/9 leading to CGM in the same SR column. Look at things carefully. Both SRs are different.. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 9/9 Masters won is a Career Golden Masters, as he won 9 of the currently 9 active tournaments, which is 9/9, therefore are the same strike rates. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC) As no more comments from your side, going ahead without SR in the table eventually...Thx.. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC) That's your assumption. I am still against the removal of the SR column. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC) What you want. You want to confuse the data. May I know the reason, having given u the enough explanation. The fact that it is there from the beginning does not mean that you can not correct it now. If this is the only reason coming out of the discussuions. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC) I am running out of time as it is half past midnight here. But request you to keep without SR unless there is enough conclusion from these discussions. The current version of yours is not fitting to the article (grammatically and technically). There is only one SR for any player, which is related to CGM as of now. This can not be directly shown in the table for all players (as different Masters titles are different from Masters tournament titles in the Masters Series events played by players in their careers). So, Masters Series strike rate alone does not have any relevance to the table in my opinion. Hope u get to know this.. Cheers and bye for now... 103.148.39.184 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Sorry. But I don't disagree with you. Strike rate literally means how many of a total number of tournaments were won for such and such player. Your claim grammatically and technically does make any sense. Strike rate does have relevance. Masters titles and Masters tournament titles, to me is one and the same, just different wording. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC) No, as per ATP, Madrid Clay and Madrid Indoors are one tournament. But two different masters (series) titles. I fail to make u understand things I guess. But in all good faith, all SRs have relevance. Either u indicate all or none. In this case, none is a better option having given weightage to CGM separately. This is my input and opinion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.148.39.184 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Without any consensus about SR you can't just go around changing things. The SR column is correct and this has been discussed with you on multiple occasions. And I am tired going through the same pointless discussions with you again. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC) As you know, the factual data do not require any consensus. I am not changing anything and only removing the one-dimensional data from data verifiability point of view with proper understanding of the table stats. My submission is not to discuss without a point again and again by reverting the SR column and do not impose confusing data in the Wikipedia article. ATP Masters history from 1990 to 2022 and beyond (there would be 10th Masters on grass as foreseen in near future by ATP, which will be addition to the same table) needs worth recognition from the beginning to the end. Thx in advance for your understanding. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC) @Qwerty284651: As far as CGM definition is concerned, these are basically ATP Masters Series (1000) tournaments since 2009 only as per ATP citation. Actually, active word is also misleading. Hamburg Masters was played by all big four during their careers when it was active but only two players won. So, let us not change the original definition as per ATP, which is exactly "Winning nine titles from nine different Masters 1000 tournaments". You may like to change entirely now in the page with citation of ATP....Cheers.... 103.148.39.184 (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC) ATP Masters 1000 tournaments is more than enough. Series can be omitted. The scope of this article encompasses Masters events from 1990, not just since 2009. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC) As per ATP source, CGM is all about current Masters 1000 tournaments. Fortunately, CGM came into existence, as it happened only after 2009. All those tournaments before 2009 were forgotten (5 sets masters). It is demeaning to the ATP Masters history as a tennis fan. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC) HOw is it demeaning to the ATP Masters history as a tennis fan. What are you talking about? And what do you mean forgotten 5-set Masters...dude, come on. ATP covers all Masters tournaments from 1990 onwards. Career Golden Slam is the term ATP came up for players who won all Masters dating back to 1990. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC) I am aware of all the stuff. Let us not take this to another level. The data is about from 1990 and it happened and streamlined only after 2009 by the virtue of Masters events organization, changes in the tournaments etc etc..That's all.. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC) The current version is also fine for CGM (ATP Masters 1000 tournaments)..Cheers... 103.148.39.184 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC) One more suggestion. One may expand "Canada" with two active Masters (Toronto and Montreal columns, by City name as for other Masters like Rome, Miami, Paris). It is interesting that Federer did not win Montreal title but Nadal and Djokovic won both titles even though it is one tournament in their careers. Of course, SR to be removed in the table anyhow... 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC) No need to further expand the list for Canada's two cities. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Ok. But in my opinion, it is better added. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC) This has been discussed a million times with this guy in the past year. He was reverted many many times by multiple editors but I see he never intends to change, he seems to believe he's the only one on the globe who understands how the tour operates and how to count. No point in discussing further. The article stays in its current state unless the consensus changes. ForzaUV (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC) @Qwerty284651, @ForzaUV - Only both of you restored the version several times without application of mind. There are other editors who have edited but both of you reverted without giving them any satisfactory answers to the facts. Whatever both of you do is just consensus to each other only in this matter. Now, you are defying ATP citations as well. If you know the ATP tour and how to count the tournaments, just give the answers to these questions and then look at the table. a) Do you count Madrid (Clay) and Madrid (Indoors) as one tournament or two tournaments b) Do you count current Shanghai Masters 1000 tournament as a part of 9 Masters series (in the Career Golden Masters) c) Do you count "Hamburg Masters" as one of the Masters Series tournaments or not As per Qwerty' s reply in the above thread of SR dilemma, Nadal's counting of SR 6/9 = 7/9 = 7/10 in the table. Hence, from data verifiability point of view, SR indicated as 7/9 is wrong (even as per ATP citation) in the Champions list table. The counting is messy and already lost. If u apply it to one player, it is not the same as for another player as SR in the table has different dimensions. Do not impose wrong data in the article again and again by reverting using your authority (both of you do not name it as consensus). Go through entire discussions. No other editor / reader (except both of you) has reverted without giving satisfactory explanation. The article you reverted as you remember is not correct and wrong as far as ATP citation and data verifiability of view. You deserve to revert only after giving suitable response and reaching consensus. Thanks in advance for your understanding on the tour and masters tournaments counting. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC) The Masters events are handled like always, more as a slot rather than an individual event. The two Madrid events are separate however the current Madrid Open and Hamburg are identical Masters events because they are in the same slot. You can only win nine max different Masters events. Shanghai and the older Madrid Open (indoors) are the same Masters event. The old Madrid indoors was a completely different event... different venue, different owners, etc. But as I said, winning a masters is actually like winning a particular Masters slot in the calendar. And since Shanghai won't be played this year, there is only eight Masters this season. Certainly it's a little confusing but that's the best way to look at it. I'm not a big fan of strike rate in any table as it's a rarely used term in tennis, but the column is accurate... Djokovic has won each slot, while Nadal and Federer are each missing two. Remember also that all of this events in 1990 were around a lot longer than that and were just as important (except Miami which started in 1985). They just weren't designated as Masters back in the 60s/70s/80s. So other players won a lot of them too just not in this list because they were not called Masters at the time. Players like Lendl won seven and Becker won five. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Yes, you are correct. Then, SR is about Nine Masters Slot Strike Rate. But SR column is also referring to the Career Golden Masters (CGM). For example, Nadal Master Slot Strike Rate is 7/9 (missing only 2nd and 9th slot masters). As per ATP, it is all about current Masters 1000 tournaments for CGM. For CGM, Nadal is missing Miami, Shanghai and Paris tournaments. I have referred ATP and other citations and as per that Nadal is 6/9. Nadal also played and won Hamburg Masters tournament in his career before 2009, which makes him 7/10 out of total masters tournaments played in his entire career. If you look at the Champions List table, SR is multidimensional unless you are specific. Hence, it is requested to add Slot Strike Rate. Then, you are not looking at the story right from the beginning (1990) and also not player's entire career. Moreover, CGM is separately mentioned down below and how the big four stands in terms of current Masters 1000 tournaments in CGM. Please go through the citation about ATP's CGM where Nadal missing Miami, Shanghai and Paris tournaments. Since SR is multidimensional, I urged them to be specific or remove SR column (so that we can see Masters events played and won by each player rather than particular titles related to "slots/events/tournaments"). I also mentioned there may be some more changes in the future in Masters organization. Table is fine but SR is multidimensional from data verifiability point of view. You are the one first time indicated that there is a difference between "Event" and "Tournament" as far as player's titles are concerned. Hence, I suggested to remove SR column and keep on explaining the same point several times. Hope you got it. 103.148.39.184 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC) @Fyunck; Some more comments from my side, as your contribution is well appreciated. I am also not big fan of strike rate, particularly tournaments are moved to different slots and you can interpret different strike rates in terms of Masters organization in the tour. Hence, removal of SR column is best suited to the table as Slot strike rate in terms of Masters series and Career Golden Masters in terms of Masters tournaments are different from the same table. Further before 1990, Ivan Lendl won all Grand Prix Super series / Super 9 tournaments (Total 11 tournaments before 1990). There is no Career Golden Series for Ivan Lendl. Since 2009, ATP defined Career Golden Masters with the current Masters 1000 tournaments, which is also an outstanding achievement by Nole, who won twice even though he did not win Hamburg Masters and Madrid Indoor events he played in his entire career. CGM is separately indicated in the article, which aptly summarizes without contradicting Slot strike rate in my opinion. Cheers... 103.148.39.184 (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC) I will report you, if you don't stop with this nonsense. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) You cannot have 7 out of 10 Masters played when there are only 9 Masters. And while I am not a fan of a strike rate column, this column is accurate and has longstanding consensus. You will need many editors to agree with you before changing that fact or you will find yourself unable to edit here at Wikipedia. I suggest you move on from this wall of words. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The consensus

@Krmohan: the consensus have been always to keep the champions list table at it is now, always, and you've been the only one who doesn't want to leave it as it is. Man, it's been more than a year and you still refuse to move on, what's wrong with you? The article was locked due to the persistent disruptive editing done by you and now you come back with the same nonsense again! Jesus Christ, man. ForzaUV (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Who dumped Madrid 1 out of the eigth masters slot against consensus? Those Madrid Masters events are two entirely different Masters. They switched owners, times, surfaces, locations, etc. and Nadal has won 7 of 9. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I had merged the 2 Madrid columns into the first 1, but since your reversion removed all the intermediate edits made to the chart, I re-added the changes: scope, links, footnotes, N/A templates. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah... that's cool. Sorry. Thanks for re-adding the stuff. To be honest I wish the years and strike rate columns were gone from the chart as they caouse more problems then they are worth...especially the strike rate. And the colors used for outdoor hardcourt, indoor hardcourt, and clay need another marker for those who are colorblind (both in the key and chart).Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed when Qwerty merged the columns before but I didn't object it because I understood what he was trying to do and I didn't mind it either way. The years and the strike rate are helpful to determine how close each player to achieving the golden masters, that was the whole point since ever. It caused a problem only for one person for more than a year and due to his heavy disruptive editing from multiple IPs the page was locked by an admin but then he came back now with an his account to repeat the same process. He needs to learn how to accept it.

I'm not sure adding markers to the colors is that important here. Cells would only get bigger for not much added value. ForzaUV (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Per wikipedia accessibility requirements, what we think is important doesn't matter a whole lot. I like the chart's coloring just as it is but colorblind readers have difficulty. Color cannot be the only means of communicating information. We can dump the color and info, but if it stays we must use another designation for those less fortunate with their eyesight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Just throwing ideas here. Maybe add symbols to the shortened version below:

Shortened version

I replaced the names of the currently active tournaments with abbreviations.   Outdoor hardcourt   Clay   Indoor hardcourt   Defunct Titles Player 1st event 2nd event 3rd event 4th event 5th event 6th event 7th event 8th event 9th event Years Strike Rate IW MI MC MA HA RO CA CI SH MA GE ST PA 38 Novak Djokovic 5 6 2 3 × 6 4 2 4 × N/A 6 2007–2022 9/9 36 Rafael Nadal 3 × 11 4 1 10 5 1 × 1 N/A × 2005–2021 7/9 28 Roger Federer 5 4 × 2 4 × 2 7 2 1 × N/A 1 2002–2019 17 Andre Agassi 1 6 × N/A × 1 3 3 N/A 1 × 2 1990–2004 14 Andy Murray × 2 × 1 × 1 3 2 3 1 N/A 1 2008–2016 11 Pete Sampras 2 3 × N/A × 1 × 3 N/A × 2 1992–2000 5/9 8 Thomas Muster × 1 3 N/A × 3 × × N/A 1 × × 1990–1997 4/9 7 Michael Chang 3 1 × N/A × × 1 2 N/A × × 1990–1997 5 Marcelo Ríos 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 × × N/A × N/A × 1997–1999 5/9 Gustavo Kuerten × × 2 N/A 1 1 × 1 N/A × N/A × 1999–2001 4/9 Boris Becker × × × N/A × × × × N/A 1 3 1 1990–1996 2/9 Jim Courier 2 1 × N/A × 2 × × N/A × × 1991–1993 3/9 Marat Safin × × × × × 1 × × 1 × N/A 3 2000–2004 Andy Roddick × 2 × × × 1 2 × N/A × 2003–2010 Alexander Zverev × × × 2 N/A 1 1 1 × N/A × 2017–2021 4/9 4 Stefan Edberg 1 × × N/A 1 × × 1 N/A × 1 1990–1992 Andriy Medvedev × × 1 N/A 3 × × × N/A × × 1994–1997 2/9 Juan Carlos Ferrero × × 2 × 1 × × × 1 × N/A × 2001–2003 3/9 Daniil Medvedev × × × × N/A × 1 1 1 N/A 1 2019–2021 4/9 3 Thomas Enqvist × × × N/A × × × 1 × 1 N/A 1 1996–2000 3/9 Carlos Moyá × × 1 × 1 1 × N/A × N/A × 1998–2004 Nikolay Davydenko × 1 × × × × × 1 × N/A 1 2006–2009 77 champions in 289 events as of the 2022 Paris Masters. References

Or you can add footnotes or something, I don't know. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV and all, Nadal's 6/9 SR for CGM (missing MI,Shanghai, Paris tournaments) is different from 7/9 SR (missing 2nd and 9th slot events). Data should be perfect from the verifiability point of view. Do not mix up the two SRs. Removing Indoor Madrid Masters and changing from 6/9 to 7/9 without appropriate footnotes is not correct. Right from the beginning, I have supported and corrected the data. There exists ultimate tennis stats regarding Different Masters titles won and Different Masters Slot titles won by players in their careers since 1990. I am not discrediting that aspect. It is not correct to attribute every SR to one dimension. Clarified and revised for the consensus once for all. Otherwise, it is better to remove SR column in the table as CGM explained just below the table. I am for one of the options from data verifiablity.Cheers...

I completely agree with @Fyunck for removal of years and SR column. It is making lot of confusion. In spite of several edits by Fyunck, Qwerty and other editors, fail to understand why ForzaUV is tampering the data and notes again and again. Ofcourse, There are nine different Masters tournaments for several decades. Krmohan (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is refusing to accept consensus and keep changing things here, it's all you since 2021. Fyunck told you just a month ago You will need many editors to agree with you before changing that fact or you will find yourself unable to edit here at Wikipedia. I suggest you move on from this wall of words., Qwerty and me have been telling you the same the whole year. You refused to listen and you found yourself unable to edit for you disruptive editing exactly like Fyunck warned you. You got the article locked and now you probably think editing with your account protects you from the consequences but you'd surprised. For the last time, stop editing without consensus when your edits get challenged or reverted. Anything you add without consensus can be removed without consensus. The point of the strike rate is to show how close each player to complete the golden masters, it serves as a simple alternative for a whole section some editors were trying to add, so do not change the note nor remove the link since I and Qwerty find it informative as it is. Move on. ForzaUV (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV...These are just your views and opinions about strike rate. The other guys also changed your 6/9 to 7/9 and removal of Madrid Indoor Masters etc..By this time, all of you know that the data is not correct and not corresponding to footnotes. Wikipedia is not about one's views and what one thinks. In the entire talk page and discussions, there is no consensus. If the consensus is to show wrong data and create confusion due to one person like you. No one wants to go by anyone's emotional words when logic and data speak different things in the article. No one can convince for the wrong data and arrive at consensus. This is just like that. Keep your count and stuff to yourself...One can impose the authority but both SRs are quite different. You only think that this SR is how close to CGM. You are discrediting the players who won Masters tournaments before 2009 (Hamburg, Madrid Indoors, Stuttgart Masters). No one has the right to do that. CGM as per ATP definition is "Winning nine titles from current nine ATP Masters 1000 tournaments"..Let us not create confusing definitions in Wikipedia. I just leave it to other editors who know counting and organization of Masters before 1990 and after 1990..Bye for now..Thx.. Krmohan (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Golden Masters was removed first by Qwerty and subsequently by me today. You only changed to 6/9 and Fyunck changed to 7/9. I have changed only footnotes as per the edits of Qwerty and Fyunck. You have some ill feelings towards me without going through who has done what...Sorry, I am cocksure that you are not correct in the Strike Rate dilemma and consensus... Krmohan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)