PDA

View Full Version : Miami Masters 1987-1989 = 5th Major


Nadal_2008
09-17-2012, 01:17 AM
Ive noticed that the 1987, 1988 & 1989 Lipton International Players Championships (Miami Masters) was best of 5 sets every round and a 128 draw. Also the ranking points for winning were very close to the amount you got for winning the Australian open in those years.

The winners of the Miami tournament in those 3 years were Miloslav Mečř in 1987, Mats Wilander in 1988, Ivan Lendl in 1989.

Considering the Miami masters in those 3 years was basically the same format as a grand slam, do those 3 players deserve to consider and count winning in Miami the same as winning a major?? Which would move Lendl on to a total of 9 majors, Wilander 8 majors.

Any thoughts??

merlinpinpin
09-17-2012, 01:52 AM
Well, first of all, this tournament was called Key Biscayne at the time, not Miami. ;)

Then, it *was* definitely considered as the 5th slam at the time ("The Players' Slam", they called it), but this fad (and format) didn't last long enough to make it official. Imho, they tried to go for it, but it didn't take, for a variety of reasons (second major in the US, adding a 5th to the four existing ones, etc.).

The Bawss
09-17-2012, 02:05 AM
Now it's cincy.

fuzzyball
09-17-2012, 02:43 AM
Considering the Miami masters in those 3 years was basically the same format as a grand slam, do those 3 players deserve to consider and count winning in Miami the same as winning a major?? Which would move Lendl on to a total of 9 majors, Wilander 8 majors.

Simply no.

tacou
09-17-2012, 04:21 AM
Obviously no, but that's very interesting. The history books won't acknowledge it but for how difficult it was to win that tournament in those years, in therefore how much pride should the champion take in their victory? More so than the AO in those days I'd say.

Way to go Mecir.

Sabratha
09-17-2012, 06:25 AM
I'm going to say no.

TennisLovaLova
09-17-2012, 07:26 AM
Now it's cincy.

And RF is the GOAT.
Proven many times in a famous tt thread

Towser83
09-17-2012, 10:22 AM
Not quite, but almost. I mean when something is called a slam then it does have a bit more riding on it, so I don't think any tornament can be as good as a slam unless you officially call it one. But you know, I would definately rate that incarnation of Miami as up there with the year end titles, higher even.

Note. I think it was lendl in 1989, had a walkover in the final, so I know that's not his fault but I have to mark his win down.

kiki
09-17-2012, 10:52 AM
Not at all since Masters and Dallas were bigger. but when Dallas stopped Miami was the natural replacement at number 6

bluetrain4
09-17-2012, 11:02 AM
This was during the time when it was The Lipton Championships, correct?

Anyway, a big prestigious tournament surely, but no, not a major.

I can't understand why people can't accept a tournament - The WTC, the Lipton Championships, the Olympics - as an incredible, prestigious accomplishment, without trying to equate it with a major.

I think part of the answer lies in the fact that when we debate GOAT and all-time greats and compare players' careers, no matter how much some people give lip service to the importance of other accomplishments beyond the 4 majors(which they certainly should), the fact is that the debate often devolves into a "count the majors" exercise in the end, since it's the one criteria that has been relatively consistent and something that nearly everyone recognizes (as compared to say certain WTC events). So, I think sometimes that's why people want to bestow major status on other tournaments.

JMR
09-17-2012, 11:08 AM
I can't understand why people can't accept a tournament - The WTC, the Lipton Championships, the Olympics - as an incredible, prestigious accomplishment, without trying to equate it with a major.

I think part of the answer lies in the fact that when we debate GOAT and all-time greats and compare players' careers, no matter how much some people give lip service to the importance of other accomplishments beyond the 4 majors(which they certainly should), the fact is that the debate often devolves into a "count the majors" exercise in the end, since it's the one criteria that has been relatively consistent and something that nearly everyone recognizes (as compared to say certain WTC events). So, I think sometimes that's why people want to bestow major status on other tournaments.

Good point, but it's "WCT" -- World Championship Tennis.

glazkovss
09-17-2012, 10:18 PM
Nowhere near. Miami Open doesn't have history. Miami isn't even a nation. It is a beach.

underground
09-18-2012, 08:53 AM
Never ever. The only real major is Cincinnati. And we all know that Roger Federer a.k.a. the GOAT has won it 5 times.

merlinpinpin
09-18-2012, 11:41 AM
Note. I think it was lendl in 1989, had a walkover in the final, so I know that's not his fault but I have to mark his win down.

You can NOT be serious!

Sure, Lendl won when Muster defaulted in the final in '89. On the other hand, the same Lendl had a stress fracture in his foot when Mecir won in '87 (basically the only time when Lendl didn't trounce him, and I guess the only reason Lendl played was that he owned Mecir body and soul... just like he owned Muster, so the result of the '89 final was never really in doubt) and Wilander, who was having the season of his life, won against a 36-year old Connors in '88. Do these really feel like they're much more significant than a w/o? (Besides, Lendl had to play an exhibition match against Hlasek on that day--which he lost 6/3, 6/4, if memory serves :D).