Masters 1000 events not as prestigious nowadays??

Back in the days when the then Masters Series were all pretty much best of 64/96 draws and best of 5 set finals, they felt like really big tournaments. The bigger draws and best of 5 set finals set them apart from the regular tournaments on tour and they really felt like being just a step below the Grand Slams.

Nowadays due the demands of the calendar, all the Masters 1000 and World Tour Finals are best of 3 set finals and the top players recieve first round byes at the 1000 events. So I ask, does this take away some of the prestige of these tournaments?

If like me you think yes, what would you do to improve it? Do you re-structure the calendar so that there are no back to back Masters 1000's events (Madrid/Rome, Toronto/Cincinnati). Do you give top players first round byes at 500's and 250's so that at 1000's they don't have byes? Do we bring bring best of 5 set finals for the Masters 1000's and World Tour Finals? Do we even get rid of any of the 1000's?

Thoughts?

It was better when finals was BO5.

Nadal and Federer wouldn't want that when you see how much the slams mean to them, and these 2 are the biggest slices in the ATP Cake. I am surprised the Tour Finals are not even bo5 in a final as I remember the great final of 2005 or 2006 with Federer/Nalbandian. Probably the most epic final outside of the slam events.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nadal and Federer wouldn't want that when you see how much the slams mean to them, and these 2 are the biggest slices in the ATP Cake. I am surprised the Tour Finals are not even bo5 in a final as I remember the great final of 2005 or 2006 with Federer/Nalbandian. Probably the most epic final outside of the slam events.

That's a good point about Nadal and Federer, but Sampras and Agassi played best of 5 set finals in these events if I recall?

The World Tour Final should DEFINATELY be best of 5 sets though.