Would anyone rather have a career where they won 10 masters,

[JoeClark]

Hello,

I guess basically be a one slam wonder, or be the guy that couldnt win the big ones. Random thought that popped into my head.

This is a scenerio where the slam winner has nothing else better than a slam quarterfinals or 1 Masters final, whereas the 10x masters winner has a single slam final (but again no better than QF outside that). Im not sure which I would pick. They both have their arguments. Slams carry such prestige, they're the biggest price in tennis. But with Masters, financially they just comes with way more money, and you're still pretty damn good for beating top players along the way, while the slam winner could be seen as getting very lucky.

What are your thoughts?






Also you can check this advertisement examples

[Corbon]

Lendl once said that no one really cares how many smaller tournaments you have won in your career, the one thing you will remembered for is your performance at the Grand Slams. And looking at the points and prize money distribution, reaching a Grand Slam final is worth a good bit more than winning a Masters on either Tour. Not to mention the prestige associated with Grand Slam silverware.

PS: By the time he captured his first Slam title (RG 1984) he had already won 40 lesser titles.