1977 Evidence that WCT ranked over Masters and Australian Open in 1977

In these forums it has often been discussed that the Australian Open wasn't considered a Major from about 1972 to 1982 (and perhaps not until 1988). In this link discussing the Pepsi Grand Slam event, it says what the accepted most prestigous tournaments were in regarded in Janary of 1977:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1091998/index.htm

Interesting that the WCT finals were rated over the Masters season end finals (which was ranked as the 5th event)

"Yet this particular event had some legitimacy. To begin with, the Grand Slam had the winners of the four most prestigious tournaments in the world—Borg ( Wimbledon and WCT), Connors ( Forest Hills) and Adriano Panatta (the French Open). Since Borg had won two of the big four, the fourth player was Manuel Orantes, the 1975 Forest Hills winner who last year won the Grand Prix Masters championship"

Some of said that the French Open wasn't rated in the mid-70's - but it sounds like in 1976 (the year they refer to) that it was rated over the Masters season end finals.

Scott_Tennis had a post some months ago about how the French Open was the top-rated event of 1978, followed by W and USO, with the AO outside the top 10. It was a rating done by the WCT organization itself, I think, based on various factors. I'll try to find it.

WCT Finals

I wonder if the WCT finals was rated so highly because of the great prestige given to the Rosewall - Laver clashes in 1971 & 1972 (particularly the latter one)?

Wct

WCT was particularly important; more than the AO, no question; as some will remember, the WCT had its own rankings alongside those of the ATP.....forgotten in the sands of time...

This was the post:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4781827#post4781827


The 1980 WCT Media Guide (Rod Humphries editor) included a listing of what WCT rated as the highest-rated events from the entire 1978-1979 tour (not limited to WCT events). The tournament rankings were based on the following categories:
- Total men's prize money
- First place singles prize money
- Strength of overall field
- Average ranking top 5 players

Based on these criteria the top ten events were:
1. French Open
2. Wimbledon
T3 US Open
T3 Masters
5. US Pro Indoors - Philadelphia
T6 WCT Finals - Dallas
T6 Alan King - Las Vegas
8. US Indoors - Memphis
9. WCT Challenge Cup - Jamaica
10. WCT Tournament of Champions - Forest Hills
Note: The Australian Open was T12 on this list

By this ranking, Philadelphia was slightly ahead of Dallas

It is also interesting to note how few of these events still exist.

The WCT analysis appears to have been used for a bonus pool at the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions. The rankings for these events appear to based on the time period of May 1978 through May 1979. Therefore the French Open and Wimbledon "rankings" are based on the 1978 events and not 1979 or 1980.

Total Prize Money: French #2 (24 pts) and Wimb. T#4 (22 pts)
First Place Prize Money: French #6 (20 pts) and Wimb. T#7 (19 pts)
Strength of Overall Field: French #1 (25 pts) and Wimb. #3 (23 pts)
Average Ranking of Top 5 Players: French T#4 (22 pts) and Wimb. T#1 (25 pts)
Total "points": French #1 (91 points) and Wimbledon #2 (89 points)

krosero said:

This was the post:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4781827#post4781827


The 1980 WCT Media Guide (Rod Humphries editor) included a listing of what WCT rated as the highest-rated events from the entire 1978-1979 tour (not limited to WCT events). The tournament rankings were based on the following categories:
- Total men's prize money
- First place singles prize money
- Strength of overall field
- Average ranking top 5 players

Based on these criteria the top ten events were:
1. French Open
2. Wimbledon
T3 US Open
T3 Masters
5. US Pro Indoors - Philadelphia
T6 WCT Finals - Dallas
T6 Alan King - Las Vegas
8. US Indoors - Memphis
9. WCT Challenge Cup - Jamaica
10. WCT Tournament of Champions - Forest Hills
Note: The Australian Open was T12 on this list

By this ranking, Philadelphia was slightly ahead of Dallas

It is also interesting to note how few of these events still exist.

The WCT analysis appears to have been used for a bonus pool at the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions. The rankings for these events appear to based on the time period of May 1978 through May 1979. Therefore the French Open and Wimbledon "rankings" are based on the 1978 events and not 1979 or 1980.

Total Prize Money: French #2 (24 pts) and Wimb. T#4 (22 pts)
First Place Prize Money: French #6 (20 pts) and Wimb. T#7 (19 pts)
Strength of Overall Field: French #1 (25 pts) and Wimb. #3 (23 pts)
Average Ranking of Top 5 Players: French T#4 (22 pts) and Wimb. T#1 (25 pts)
Total "points": French #1 (91 points) and Wimbledon #2 (89 points)

Click to expand...

Interesting but I wonder if the rating system is a bit flawed. Is monetary value such a major factor in prestige? Perhaps I suppose but shouldn't tradition be a factor also?

It's really hard to rank the prestige of tournaments. I am pretty much certain that WCT and the Masters were essentially majors for a while and I would think in this way the careers of a Lendl, Connors and McEnroe would even be more respected if you take that into account.

McEnroe / Lendl - Majors

Yes PC1 - If you factor in their Masters and WCT Finals wins - you have Lendl at 15 Majors (8 Grand Slam Tournaments + 2 WCT + 5 Masters) and McEnroe at 15 Majors also (7 Grand Slam Tournaments + 5 WCT + 3 Masters).

Kind of puts their careers in more perspective.

pc1 said:

Interesting but I wonder if the rating system is a bit flawed. Is monetary value such a major factor in prestige? Perhaps I suppose but shouldn't tradition be a factor also?

It's really hard to rank the prestige of tournaments. I am pretty much certain that WCT and the Masters were essentially majors for a while and I would think in this way the careers of a Lendl, Connors and McEnroe would even be more respected if you take that into account.

Click to expand...

If the monetary factor were taken out of this particular system, the rankings of the tournaments might change somewhat. The French and Wimbledon would still be essentially in a dead heat at the top, with the overall field slightly stronger at the French and the attendance of the Top 5 players slightly stronger at Wimbledon (no doubt Connors' absence from the French in '78 made a big difference). Other tournaments might switch places. I wonder if the weight given to first-place prize money was what lifted the Masters up to a tie with the USO.

I think prize money should have SOME importance, it's just people will probably disagree on how much. And that's how it is with any stats: which is why IMO stats can't be the final word on anything.

So yeah, I agree, tradition has a place too. But how is that defined? Does that mean people's opinions? Okay, but whose opinions? And people tend to disagree anyway. So you could say traditions contradict one another. The only tradition that seems universally agreed upon is Wimbledon's place at the top; everything else always seems to be disputed.

Or does tradition mean a long history behind a given tournament? Okay, that's fine. But the Dallas WCT Finals was an absolutely huge event -- and it seems to have been biggest in its early years, right upon being born! With age it actually died out.

And the Slams are another story. We refer to "the traditional Slams", and that signifies something. But it doesn't mean that the four Slams were always the four biggest events in tennis. For some years that's just not true. So tradition(s), besides conflicting, also change over time.

I'm not saying that tradition/opinion has no place. I just think it's difficult to measure; and has to be measured flexibly.

Which I'm sure you agree with. I guess it all comes down to specifics. Was there a particular tradition you were thinking of?

Player Depth and Prestige more important than Money

pc1 said:

Interesting but I wonder if the rating system is a bit flawed. Is monetary value such a major factor in prestige? Perhaps I suppose but shouldn't tradition be a factor also?

It's really hard to rank the prestige of tournaments. I am pretty much certain that WCT and the Masters were essentially majors for a while and I would think in this way the careers of a Lendl, Connors and McEnroe would even be more respected if you take that into account.

Click to expand...

I agree that prestige and Player depth should be the main criteria not money - in accessing how important an event should be viewed. How many people would still value Wimbledon if they reduced the prize money to $1000 and the competion remained the same. The answer if you had the same player depth it would still be as valued.

WCT Finals

Yes the WCT Finals faded with age..... but I don't think it faded too much. A list of the finalists shows the quality of the event (only 1 year did they have a final without someone who was number 1 ranked in their career):

1971 Ken Rosewall Rod Laver 6–4, 1–6, 7–6, 7–6
1972 Ken Rosewall Rod Laver 4–6, 6–0, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6
1973 Stan Smith Arthur Ashe 6–3, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4
1974 John Newcombe Björn Borg 4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–2
1975 Arthur Ashe Björn Borg 3–6, 6–4, 6–4, 6–0
1976 Björn Borg Guillermo Vilas 1–6, 6–1, 7–5, 6–1
1977 Jimmy Connors Dick Stockton 6–7, 6–1, 6–4, 6–3
1978 Vitas Gerulaitis Eddie Dibbs 6–3, 6–2, 6–1
1979 John McEnroe Björn Borg 7–5, 4–6, 6–2, 7–6
1980 Jimmy Connors John McEnroe 2–6, 7–6, 6–1, 6–2
1981 John McEnroe Johan Kriek 6–1, 6–2, 6–4
1982 Ivan Lendl John McEnroe 6–2, 3–6, 6–3, 6–3
1983 John McEnroe Ivan Lendl 6–2, 4–6, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6
1984 John McEnroe Jimmy Connors 6–1, 6–2, 6–3
1985 Ivan Lendl Tim Mayotte 7–6, 6–4, 6–1
1986 Anders Järryd Boris Becker 6–7, 6–1, 6–1, 6–4
1987 Miloslav Mečíř John McEnroe 6–0, 3–6, 6–2, 6–2
1988 Boris Becker Stefan Edberg 6–4, 1–6, 7–5, 6–2
1989 John McEnroe Brad Gilbert 6–3, 6–3, 7–6

Very few, if any, 'weak' finals.

timnz said:

Yes PC1 - If you factor in their Masters and WCT Finals wins - you have Lendl at 15 Majors (8 Grand Slam Tournaments + 2 WCT + 5 Masters) and McEnroe at 15 Majors also (7 Grand Slam Tournaments + 5 WCT + 3 Masters).

Kind of puts their careers in more perspective.

Click to expand...

But the thing is, not all of the Dallas and Masters tournaments can be added as majors. In '82, for instance, Lendl won Dallas and the Masters (Jan. '83). The big three Slams were undoubtedly RG, W, USO. The AO had terrible attendance that year; not even one player from the Top 10 showed up. So what will go in its place? Possibly the Masters. I'm not saying that it should -- but let's go with it for purpose of argument: that means that Dallas can't be added as a fifth major.

I think it can work, and it's at least interesting, to add either the Masters or Dallas as the fourth most important tournament of the year (if one is needed). For long stretches of time both Dallas and the Masters were bigger events than the current YEC. But counting both is not possible.

krosero said:

. Was there a particular tradition you were thinking of?

Click to expand...

Nothing in particular. I was justing considering for example that Wimbledon over the years had generally been thought of as the premier tournament in the world.

krosero said:

But the thing is, not all of the Dallas and Masters tournaments can be added as majors. In '82, for instance, Lendl won Dallas and the Masters (Jan. '83). The big three Slams were undoubtedly RG, W, USO. The AO had terrible attendance that year; not even one player from the Top 10 showed up. So what will go in its place? Possibly the Masters. I'm not saying that it should -- but let's go with it for purpose of argument: that means that Dallas can't be added as a fifth major.

I think it can work, and it's at least interesting, to add either the Masters or Dallas as the fourth most important tournament of the year (if one is needed). For long stretches of time both Dallas and the Masters were bigger events than the current YEC. But counting both is not possible.

Click to expand...

I agree. That's the problem, how do you or should you rate the prestige of a tournament each year? I had that discussion with another person in the Former Players Forum. It's tough. I believe the Australian wasn't as important as the WCT champion at one time but when did it swing back the other way. Should you change it from year to year? Perhaps it shouldn't be done.

timnz said:

I wonder if the WCT finals was rated so highly because of the great prestige given to the Rosewall - Laver clashes in 1971 & 1972 (particularly the latter one)?

Click to expand...

It wasn't just that. It was much more than just that one tournament. WCT was a complete tour. It basically was the pro tour for many years. At one point, the Australian Open was part of the WCT tour. It paid a lot of money in that era. There were three separate touring groups of the top players in the world. At the end of the WTC season, the 8 players with the best records from the 3 groups qualified to play in the WCT Finals in Dallas. All of that combined to give the WCT Finals a lot of prestige.

Australian open has always been less important than the 3 others Grand Slams, and especially in the 70's. But it's absurd to say that Philadelphie, or Memphis or others tournaments were more important than Australian Open. Today, nobody can remember who won Philadelphie during these years ! And everyon who knows a little bit tennis can say who won the Australian Open.

pc1 said:

That's the problem, how do you or should you rate the prestige of a tournament each year? I had that discussion with another person in the Former Players Forum. It's tough. I believe the Australian wasn't as important as the WCT champion at one time but when did it swing back the other way. Should you change it from year to year? Perhaps it shouldn't be done.

Click to expand...

Well assessing the prestige of a tournament stirs debate, but not more so than anything in history, I think. Every historian I've ever met or read -- every good one -- has left me with the impression that history is messy. It's not one of the physical sciences, after all. So it's not as if we're going to find the perfect model. All models will probably have some problems with them. Choose the top 4 tournaments of every year (or the top 10, or whatever), and naturally people will debate it vigorously. There's no way to avoid it, since we're discussing a subject (tennis greatness) that necessarily includes a lot of subjective variables. I may say that this draw looks strong for such-and-such reasons, and another may disagree for other reasons. But that's how it is whenever history is discussed. It's not a physical science.

And it's worth repeating, no solution is perfect. We know from the start that simply sticking to the traditional four Slams won't work. That will only impose today's standards onto the past. I mean, the whole point of studying history is to find out if and how things may have been different in the past (and the safest bet is that probably many things we take for granted today were in fact different back then). In this example, we're trying to recover what the prestige of a tournament was in its own time, in the eyes of the people back then. Of course, if you do that, you risk injecting your own bias into the process. But we inject modern bias already when we stick to the traditional four Slams. So there's no choice but to make the attempt, and then debate it.

It seems there's a tension right now in tennis. Ever since Sampras had his run at Emerson, the criteria for judging tennis greatness shifted to a simple Slam count. That's where most fans went, to that criteria. Meanwhile, practically in that same span of time, historians like Joe McCauley were uncovering entire decades of tennis history that had nothing to do with the traditional Slams and had been nearly forgotten ever since the Open Era began: things like the pro tours that Laver and Rosewall engaged in. There's no way the traditional model (the 4 Slams) can do any justice to that; under that model, countless victories in tennis remain invisible and uncredited. Even unknown.

I'm not really a baseball fan, but I think you are. Is it different in baseball? I mean I find kind of a sad situation that so few tennis fans are aware of what a tennis great like Laver did during his prime. I've seen some fans actually say that Laver did not play for 5 years. And most fans simply compare his 11 traditional Slams to the Slams of the newer players -- without even taking a glance at his 200 tournament victories. That's an astounding record of achievement to simply overlook.

Is there such a parallel in baseball? It seems to me that what the past greats in baseball did is not only assiduously recorded, but easily accessible to fans, and consistently respected.

Today what's easily accessible to fans is the list of champions and runner-ups at the four Slams, which is why it's easy to know who won the 1977 Australian Open but not so well known what happened during the rest of the year. The Pepsi Grand Slam -- huge event that everyone was watching back then; but if the Tennis Channel hadn't shown it, it would still be obscure to us. And some other events that were big back then are probably going to remain obscure.

Another example: it's easy to find a list of winners at the French championships going back before 1925, when the French went international. But it was a closed championship before 1925; you can find a record of the true international clay-court championship (the WHCC), but you kind of have to know what you're looking for.

So basic answer to your question: we know already that we can't impose modern standards on the past; so of course we have to recover how tournaments were viewed in their own time. We're going to run into all sorts of problems, but that's unavoidable, and we have problems already with the traditional four-Slam model.

Can they? Can the average tennis fan tell you who won the 77 Australian? The 79, 80, 82? Right off the top of my head, I'm not sure I can. I know Vilas won it a couple times, that Gerulaitis won it, I think Mark Edmondson. I can't necessarily match the years up, though.
I probably could tell you Philadelphia and Memphis at least as well. Dallas and the Masters definitely easier.

I think Philadelphia gets lumped in there because they usually had such a great field. I don't see how the Australian can be argued as elite back then. I mean other than the Grand Slam status. Just look at the fields.
Forget top 5, how many top 10 players were in the field in any given year?

Even the French was not what it became. Chris Evert skipped that tournament multiple times to play team tennis. Borg did it once. That would be unimaginable today.

But it's not like it's completely one sided for Dallas or the Masters either.
They weren't Wimbledon or the US Open. Connors didn't play Dallas until 1977. Then he didn't play it in 78 or 81.
Borg didn't play Dallas in 77, 80 or 81.
Connors skipped the Masters about 3 straight years. Borg missed it several other years.

My impression back then was that Dallas and the Masters were considered as majors, very, very important titles. The Australian was understood to be a slam, but sort of the slam that wasn't that big a deal.

Plus, making it the last slam of the year instead of the first. Someone like Borg could now wait to decide to go there after the other 3. If it's 1980, and it was first, maybe Borg goes there. He knows he can't win the grand slam without playing there.

WCT said:

Can they? Can the average tennis fan tell you who won the 77 Australian? The 79, 80, 82? Right off the top of my head, I'm not sure I can. I know Vilas won it a couple times, that Gerulaitis won it, I think Mark Edmondson. I can't necessarily match the years up, though.

Click to expand...

What I meant was that it was easy to look up. Off the top of one's head, no, that's not necessarily known by most fans. It's just easy to look up because the four Slams have their lists of champions and runner-ups, and you can easily find the lists at Wikipedia, or in record books. Looking up other things, outside of the Slams, takes a few more steps, just a little more effort. My favorite example being, the French championships. The tournament currently traces its roots back to the championships that were closed to anyone who didn't belong to a French tennis club. So those closed championships appear in lists of French Open champions; you can easily find them. Meanwhile there was an international clay-court championship, the WHCC, and its records do not appear in any lists of French Open champions. Its records are available online, and there's a Wikipedia page for that event: but you kind of have to know already what you're looking for. It's not as easy as simply looking up the lists of champions and runner-ups at the four Slams.

pc1 said:

Interesting but I wonder if the rating system is a bit flawed. Is monetary value such a major factor in prestige? Perhaps I suppose but shouldn't tradition be a factor also?

It's really hard to rank the prestige of tournaments. I am pretty much certain that WCT and the Masters were essentially majors for a while and I would think in this way the careers of a Lendl, Connors and McEnroe would even be more respected if you take that into account.

Click to expand...

Have to agree w/that as well....as WCT is gone now (and has been for some time), few realize the prestige it had back in the day. The events were big money and considered significant...much more than the AO. Which is why the "big guys" Borg, Jimmy, Mac and Lendl were there rather than on a boat/plane to Aussie-land.

The US circuit has taken a lot of hits over the years, as the popularity of the sport has diminished. Philly and Memphis Indoors, once upon a time, were pretty big deals to win.

Here are some details, notes and comments regarding the 1977 WCT Finals in Dallas and the (January) 1977 Australian Open

Australian
The 1977 Australian Open was held in Melbourne from January 3 to 9. This was the first of two Australian Opens held in 1977. Prior to 1977 the Grand Prix was contained within May through December, however in 1977 the Grand Prix calendar was expanded to 12 months and the Masters was shifted to the following January. As a result the Australian Open was moved from January to December in 1977.
January Men’s Final: Tanner d Vilas
The January event was part of the Grand Prix, and no other GP events were held during the same week. There was a minor pro event in Portland OR, where Cahill beat Manson in the finals.
The Australian quarterfinalists were as follows (with 1977 ATP year-end ranking):
- Vilas (2)
- Case (55)
- Ashe (not in top 150)
- Alexander (18)
- Edmondson (99)
- Rosewall (12)
- Dent (22)
- Tanner (15)
Five of the eight quarterfinalists were Australians. Note that no Australians were ranked in either the ATP top 10 or Tingay top 10 list for year end 1977.
Per World of Tennis 1978, the Australian Open “…has been snubbed by many of the leading players in recent years…” and “…there is no doubt the Australian event had lost much of its traditional status…”
However the April 1977 issue of World Tennis noted “….the arrival of a strong American contingent, including Ashe, Riessen, Stockton, Gorman, Pfister, Pasarell and Stewart, the Australian Open boasted its strongest field in years”

WCT Dallas
The 1977 WCT Finals were held in Dallas from May 10 to 15
Final: Connors d Stockton
There was a competing Grand Prix event held during the same week in Hamburg, where Bertolucci beat Orantes in the finals; also various WTT matches were played at various US cities that week.
WCT Dallas had a draw of 8 players based on the point standings of the 23 players who participated in the 12-event WCT World Series of Tennis. The circuit was conducted between January and May, and most of those 23 players appeared in 7, 8 or 9 of the 12 events.
The WCT Dallas quarterfinalists were:
- Connors (1)
- Panatta (23)
- Dibbs (6)
- Nastase (9)
- Gerulaitis (4)
- Fibak (13)
- Stockton (10)
- Drysdale (27)
Note from World of Tennis 1978 regarding Dallas:
“…any first round match could easily have been a final in any other event…”

Based on overall quality of the field, it would appear that WCT Dallas was a stronger event in 1977 than the Australian Open.

1977 WCT and Australian events

One interesting note regarding Connors winning the WCT Finals/Dallas in May 1977: He later won the Grand Prix Masters held in New York in January 1978 (playoff for the 1977 Grand Prix).

That made him the first player to win the WCT Finals and the Masters for the same "season".

The subsequent respective title holders until these events ceased in 1989 were:

Season WCT/Masters
1978 Gerulaitis/McEnroe
1979 McEnroe/Borg
1980 Connors/Borg
1981 McEnroe/Lendl
1982 Lendl/Lendl
1983 McEnroe/McEnroe
1984 McEnroe/McEnroe
1985 Lendl/Lendl
1986 Jarryd/Lendl
1987 Mecir/Lendl
1988 Becker/Becker
1989 McEnroe/Edberg

Lendl

Scott_tennis said:

One interesting note regarding Connors winning the WCT Finals/Dallas in May 1977: He later won the Grand Prix Masters held in New York in January 1978 (playoff for the 1977 Grand Prix).

That made him the first player to win the WCT Finals and the Masters for the same "season".

The subsequent respective title holders until these events ceased in 1989 were:

Season WCT/Masters
1978 Gerulaitis/McEnroe
1979 McEnroe/Borg
1980 Connors/Borg
1981 McEnroe/Lendl
1982 Lendl/Lendl
1983 McEnroe/McEnroe
1984 McEnroe/McEnroe
1985 Lendl/Lendl
1986 Jarryd/Lendl
1987 Mecir/Lendl
1988 Becker/Becker
1989 McEnroe/Edberg

Click to expand...

Interesting, Lendl the only man to do the double twice (WCT and Masters in the same season he did it twice - 1982 and 1985).

Scott_tennis said:

Here are some details, notes and comments regarding the 1977 WCT Finals in Dallas and the (January) 1977 Australian Open

Australian
The 1977 Australian Open was held in Melbourne from January 3 to 9. This was the first of two Australian Opens held in 1977. Prior to 1977 the Grand Prix was contained within May through December, however in 1977 the Grand Prix calendar was expanded to 12 months and the Masters was shifted to the following January. As a result the Australian Open was moved from January to December in 1977.
January Men’s Final: Tanner d Vilas
The January event was part of the Grand Prix, and no other GP events were held during the same week. There was a minor pro event in Portland OR, where Cahill beat Manson in the finals.
The Australian quarterfinalists were as follows (with 1977 ATP year-end ranking):
- Vilas (2)
- Case (55)
- Ashe (not in top 150)
- Alexander (18)
- Edmondson (99)
- Rosewall (12)
- Dent (22)
- Tanner (15)
Five of the eight quarterfinalists were Australians. Note that no Australians were ranked in either the ATP top 10 or Tingay top 10 list for year end 1977.
Per World of Tennis 1978, the Australian Open “…has been snubbed by many of the leading players in recent years…” and “…there is no doubt the Australian event had lost much of its traditional status…”
However the April 1977 issue of World Tennis noted “….the arrival of a strong American contingent, including Ashe, Riessen, Stockton, Gorman, Pfister, Pasarell and Stewart, the Australian Open boasted its strongest field in years”

WCT Dallas
The 1977 WCT Finals were held in Dallas from May 10 to 15
Final: Connors d Stockton
There was a competing Grand Prix event held during the same week in Hamburg, where Bertolucci beat Orantes in the finals; also various WTT matches were played at various US cities that week.
WCT Dallas had a draw of 8 players based on the point standings of the 23 players who participated in the 12-event WCT World Series of Tennis. The circuit was conducted between January and May, and most of those 23 players appeared in 7, 8 or 9 of the 12 events.
The WCT Dallas quarterfinalists were:
- Connors (1)
- Panatta (23)
- Dibbs (6)
- Nastase (9)
- Gerulaitis (4)
- Fibak (13)
- Stockton (10)
- Drysdale (27)
Note from World of Tennis 1978 regarding Dallas:
“…any first round match could easily have been a final in any other event…”

Based on overall quality of the field, it would appear that WCT Dallas was a stronger event in 1977 than the Australian Open.

Click to expand...

ATP ranking is not so important. In the 70's and 80's, there was some players who were grass specialists : on grass, they would be on the top ten : Ashe (won Wimbledon), Tanner (finalist Wimbledon), Edmondson (won Australian, 1/2 finalist Wimbledon), Alexander.

timnz said:

Yes PC1 - If you factor in their Masters and WCT Finals wins - you have Lendl at 15 Majors (8 Grand Slam Tournaments + 2 WCT + 5 Masters) and McEnroe at 15 Majors also (7 Grand Slam Tournaments + 5 WCT + 3 Masters).

Kind of puts their careers in more perspective.

Click to expand...

Agreed.WCT and Masters were much more important events in the 70´s and 80´s than any TMS today.They generated a very special atmosphere and, from Laver and Rosewa,, to Newcombe and Nastase, to Connors,Borg,Lendl,Mc,Becker or Edberg wanted badly to win it as if they played a Gran Slam.

And, more important is the fact they were played on a dissapeared turf, indoor supreme, that has been able to produce some of the best tennis ever.Just remember:

1972-Laver and Rosewall at Dallas
1975-.Borg and Laver at Dallas
1977-.Borg and Connors at Madison
1979-.Borg and Connors/Mc at the Madison
1980-.Mc vs Connors at Dallas
1982-.Lendl vs Gerulaitis at Madison
1983-.Mc and Lendl at Dallas
1988-.Lendl vs Becker at Madison
1989-.Becker and Edberg at Madison
1993-1996-.Becker vs Sampras at Madison

and some other matches in the semis or round robin almost as good.

those that enjoyed the quality and vivacity of tennis displayed on supreme really miss it.Tough, today´s players probably would not be fun to watch there, except Federer

The 77 WCT tour was just as good as any tour that has been played.The only top guys who didn´t sign a contract were Borg and Vilas.Still, both played the final at the WCT event at Montecarlo.

The rest were regular tour players.Connors, Stockton,Orantes,Dibbs,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Laver,Rosewall,Dibbs,Alexander,Fibak,Solomon,Kodes,Nastase,Okker,Drysdale,Barazutti,Amritraj,Roche and the promising Bill Scanlon.

Plus it had 16 men draws, and seeing that list, one just amazes at the quality of the first round encounters...

Who remembers today WCT winners ? Nobody. Anyone who knows a little bit tennis remember AO winners, even ine the 70's. Because AO is a Grand Slam.

jean pierre said:

Who remembers today WCT winners ? Nobody. Anyone who knows a little bit tennis remember AO winners, even ine the 70's. Because AO is a Grand Slam.

Click to expand...

I doubt it, mon cher ami.

BTW, Vilas played only once there and reached the final, not bad at all.

jean pierre said:

Who remembers today WCT winners ? Nobody. Anyone who knows a little bit tennis remember AO winners, even ine the 70's. Because AO is a Grand Slam.

Click to expand...

jean pierre, Anyone who knows a little bit tennis realizes that you know only a little bit tennis...

BobbyOne said:

jean pierre, Anyone who knows a little bit tennis realizes that you know only a little bit tennis...

Click to expand...

Funny. Not true but funny.

Good thread.

What I would like to know is, why did the WCT die out? Was it on the cards for a while or was it sudden? What were the reasons? Looking at the list of past finals, it was certainly a who is who of tennis during that period? It's a bit of a shame it died out. Does anyone think it could ever make a comeback?

Blocker said:

Good thread.

What I would like to know is, why did the WCT die out? Was it on the cards for a while or was it sudden? What were the reasons? Looking at the list of past finals, it was certainly a who is who of tennis during that period? It's a bit of a shame it died out. Does anyone think it could ever make a comeback?

Click to expand...

This is a pretty good question, isn´t it?

it´s been a long while but from what I recall, Mr Hunt tried to financially succeed at developing a separate tour from 1982.He spent lots of money until 84 or 85 then let it go and just kept Dallas and Forest Hills along Richmond and Houston because those were the mainstream WCT events, those clearly most linked to the glorious story of this organization in the 70´s ( along Philadelphia, which I don´t know why but abandoned the WCT tour as soon as 1982).he didn´t make it so he cut it off.A real pitty.However, I doubt he had a place to run such a gruelling tour outside the ATP rigid structure in the 90´s.

John Mc Enroe, the man with the most number of titles at the WCT won, fittingly, the last finals in 1989.

jean pierre said:

Funny. Not true but funny.

Click to expand...

jean pierre, You are just a Semi-Pro regarding tennis history. That's not funny. People remember Rosewall's 1972 WCT win over Laver as maybe his greatest achievement. Not many remember his AO win against Anderson...

Blocker said:

Good thread.

What I would like to know is, why did the WCT die out? Was it on the cards for a while or was it sudden? What were the reasons? Looking at the list of past finals, it was certainly a who is who of tennis during that period? It's a bit of a shame it died out. Does anyone think it could ever make a comeback?

Click to expand...

Blocker, The WCT tournaments had rather poor fields in the 1980s. Therefore WCT lost much of its importance.

BobbyOne said:

Blocker, The WCT tournaments had rather poor fields in the 1980s. Therefore WCT lost much of its importance.

Click to expand...

Well that leads me back to my original question. What led to the WCT having poor fields in the 80s?

Blocker said:

Well that leads me back to my original question. What led to the WCT having poor fields in the 80s?

Click to expand...

Not till 82 because of their split with the GP.However, the Dallas showcase contiuned to be one of the best tourneys around the world.In 1983, Lendl and Mc Enroe played what I consider the best match of the decade in terms of mere tennis.Most WCT finals in the 80´s were excellent although the tour had more gal in the 70´s.

kiki said:

Agreed.WCT and Masters were much more important events in the 70´s and 80´s than any TMS today.They generated a very special atmosphere and, from Laver and Rosewa,, to Newcombe and Nastase, to Connors,Borg,Lendl,Mc,Becker or Edberg wanted badly to win it as if they played a Gran Slam.

And, more important is the fact they were played on a dissapeared turf, indoor supreme, that has been able to produce some of the best tennis ever.Just remember:

1972-Laver and Rosewall at Dallas
1975-.Borg and Laver at Dallas
1977-.Borg and Connors at Madison
1979-.Borg and Connors/Mc at the Madison
1980-.Mc vs Connors at Dallas
1982-.Lendl vs Gerulaitis at Madison
1983-.Mc and Lendl at Dallas
1988-.Lendl vs Becker at Madison
1989-.Becker and Edberg at Madison
1993-1996-.Becker vs Sampras at Madison

and some other matches in the semis or round robin almost as good.

those that enjoyed the quality and vivacity of tennis displayed on supreme really miss it.Tough, today´s players probably would not be fun to watch there, except Federer

Click to expand...

very interesting thread here. nice that well informed posters brought it back.
as much as i adore your knowledge kiki, but i have to correct
the sampras/becker matches were held @Festhalle Frankfurt and Hannover
but you are absolutely right that the atpfinals, yec however the tournament was called, produced epic matches. my favourites 1996 final sampras vs becker (becker winning more points, but sampras winning the match) and 1992 sf becker vs ivanisevic. high-suspense thrillers with unblievable shotmaking. yes you could count dozens of aces but the action had much more variety than today.

fezer said:

very interesting thread here. nice that well informed posters brought it back.
as much as i adore your knowledge kiki, but i have to correct
the sampras/becker matches were held @Festhalle Frankfurt and Hannover
but you are absolutely right that the atpfinals, yec however the tournament was called, produced epic matches. my favourites 1996 final sampras vs becker (becker winning more points, but sampras winning the match) and 1992 sf becker vs ivanisevic. high-suspense thrillers with unblievable shotmaking. yes you could count dozens of aces but the action had much more variety than today.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction and your kind words.Yes, it was Frankfurt.Boris was a big name back then specially at home, so Sampras win there is such a big achievement.

The late 70´s and early 80´s Masters were also huge.I talked a lot about WCT but the GP Masters had so many moments of brilliance.The way Borg won back to back in 79 and 80 was just uncredible, isn´t it?

jean pierre said:

Who remembers today WCT winners ? Nobody. Anyone who knows a little bit tennis remember AO winners, even ine the 70's. Because AO is a Grand Slam.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize history is merely a projection of contemporary opinions onto the past.

kiki said:

Thanks for the correction and your kind words.Yes, it was Frankfurt.Boris was a big name back then specially at home, so Sampras win there is such a big achievement.

The late 70´s and early 80´s Masters were also huge.I talked a lot about WCT but the GP Masters had so many moments of brilliance.The way Borg won back to back in 79 and 80 was just uncredible, isn´t it?

Click to expand...

i dont remeber those matches, because over here in germany we didnt have much tennis on tv. but borg of course was the certainly greatest at that time. he was on the same superstar level as ali, pele or merckx.
thread here made me look up somethings about masters/atpfinals/yec: the frankfurt event was also held on green set which was the other popular indoor surface opposed to supreme court.

Supreme reigned supreme until the midle 90´s replaced then by green set or taraflex.But, in my mind, that old blue carpet will always be the true indoor carpet, other than wood, which was very popular in the 50´6 and 60´s, replaced in the early 70´s by Supreme.

timnz said:

In these forums it has often been discussed that the Australian Open wasn't considered a Major from about 1972 to 1982 (and perhaps not until 1988). In this link discussing the Pepsi Grand Slam event, it says what the accepted most prestigous tournaments were in regarded in Janary of 1977:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1091998/index.htm

Interesting that the WCT finals were rated over the Masters season end finals (which was ranked as the 5th event)

"Yet this particular event had some legitimacy. To begin with, the Grand Slam had the winners of the four most prestigious tournaments in the world—Borg ( Wimbledon and WCT), Connors ( Forest Hills) and Adriano Panatta (the French Open). Since Borg had won two of the big four, the fourth player was Manuel Orantes, the 1975 Forest Hills winner who last year won the Grand Prix Masters championship"

Some of said that the French Open wasn't rated in the mid-70's - but it sounds like in 1976 (the year they refer to) that it was rated over the Masters season end finals.

Click to expand...

The French Open in the 70s was definitely far more important than the Australian Open. It just wasn't as big as Wimbledon and the US Open. That changed by the 80s.

Scott_tennis said:

Here are some details, notes and comments regarding the 1977 WCT Finals in Dallas and the (January) 1977 Australian Open

Australian
The 1977 Australian Open was held in Melbourne from January 3 to 9. This was the first of two Australian Opens held in 1977. Prior to 1977 the Grand Prix was contained within May through December, however in 1977 the Grand Prix calendar was expanded to 12 months and the Masters was shifted to the following January. As a result the Australian Open was moved from January to December in 1977.
January Men’s Final: Tanner d Vilas
The January event was part of the Grand Prix, and no other GP events were held during the same week. There was a minor pro event in Portland OR, where Cahill beat Manson in the finals.
The Australian quarterfinalists were as follows (with 1977 ATP year-end ranking):
- Vilas (2)
- Case (55)
- Ashe (not in top 150)
- Alexander (18)
- Edmondson (99)
- Rosewall (12)
- Dent (22)
- Tanner (15)
Five of the eight quarterfinalists were Australians. Note that no Australians were ranked in either the ATP top 10 or Tingay top 10 list for year end 1977.
Per World of Tennis 1978, the Australian Open “…has been snubbed by many of the leading players in recent years…” and “…there is no doubt the Australian event had lost much of its traditional status…”
However the April 1977 issue of World Tennis noted “….the arrival of a strong American contingent, including Ashe, Riessen, Stockton, Gorman, Pfister, Pasarell and Stewart, the Australian Open boasted its strongest field in years”

WCT Dallas
The 1977 WCT Finals were held in Dallas from May 10 to 15
Final: Connors d Stockton
There was a competing Grand Prix event held during the same week in Hamburg, where Bertolucci beat Orantes in the finals; also various WTT matches were played at various US cities that week.
WCT Dallas had a draw of 8 players based on the point standings of the 23 players who participated in the 12-event WCT World Series of Tennis. The circuit was conducted between January and May, and most of those 23 players appeared in 7, 8 or 9 of the 12 events.
The WCT Dallas quarterfinalists were:
- Connors (1)
- Panatta (23)
- Dibbs (6)
- Nastase (9)
- Gerulaitis (4)
- Fibak (13)
- Stockton (10)
- Drysdale (27)
Note from World of Tennis 1978 regarding Dallas:
“…any first round match could easily have been a final in any other event…”

Based on overall quality of the field, it would appear that WCT Dallas was a stronger event in 1977 than the Australian Open.

Click to expand...

So Rosewall ended 77 ranked at #12, at age 43?

thrust said:

So Rosewall ended 77 ranked at #12, at age 43?

Click to expand...

Interesting observation.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics confirms a No. 12 ranking for Rosewall.


His birthday is in November I believe - he and Hoad are three weeks apart or so, don't remember which is which

Drob said:

Interesting observation.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics confirms a No. 12 ranking for Rosewall.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Rankings Table

Weekly ATP and Elo rankings

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

His birthday is in November I believe - he and Hoad are three weeks apart or so, don't remember which is which

Click to expand...

Ken was ranked #31 the following year at 44 years old. His first year in the top 20 was probably in 1952, the last in 1977.

timnz said:

WCT Finals

I wonder if the WCT finals was rated so highly because of the great prestige given to the Rosewall - Laver clashes in 1971 & 1972 (particularly the latter one)?

Click to expand...

A combination, don't you think. Primarily, it was because the WCT was the superior circuit in the early 1970s - best players, best money. For example, Laver never played RG after 1969 and played AO only once. Rosewall never played RG after 1969.

Here is UTS 1971 year-end rankings

ATP Rankings Table 27-12-1971​

Nos. 1,2, 3, 4,6,9, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 19 were WCT full-timers. That is eight of the top 11 players dedicated to the WCT circuit.

Year-end 1974

ATP Rankings Table 23-12-1974​

The WCT in 1974 remains the superior circuit by a large margin. Newcombe says in his autobiography that winning the WCT Finals was his one major goal for 1974.

All but five of these top-20 were WCT full-timers - approx. 12 tournaments in the year. Exceptions were Connors, Vilas, Orantes, Solomon and Jauffret.

Only a few WCTers played the AO that year (Borg, Newcombe, Alexander only, I believe).


I think it is this elitism that establishes the WCT Finals as a Major, with a big boost from the Rosewall-Laver matches, yes.


By 1977, the year in question, WCT has probably lost its actual superiority but probably maintains it reputation of superiority. See these articles for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1978/01/01/whos-no-1/285edba0-aef0-4920-861d-59f5dcc5edb9/;

https://vault.si.com/vault/1977/05/23/hes-a-firstclass-tourist/


However, prior to 1978, the WCT "merges" (folds) into the Grand Prix, and starting in 1978 the WCT Finals loses its Major cachet IMO. I think the information above in the post from Krosero shows WCT Finals as the No. 6 tournament in 1980.

Interesting stats for 1971 from UTS. Seems that they have 223 weeks for Laver as Nr. 1 in early open era, the 1971 ranking corresponds largely with that of Tennis Base. Slasher has since spring 1968 187 weeks for Laver, according to the early ATP computer system , which didn't count year end or invitational finals. Another complementary aspect from UTS is, that Laver has the highest number of top ten wins there, 35 in 1969, 28 in 1968, 24 both in 1970 and 1971. Could be even higher, if one counts more matches than UTS. For comparison, Djokovic has 31 in 2015, McEnroe 26 in 1984.

Those UTS numbers bring to light an often underrated aspect of the situation in the early 1970s. The WCT circuit was extremely tough since 1970, with a whole series of 20 excellent tournaments, especially in 1971 and 1972, when all WCT players participated in them. Since 1973, it was a bit watered down, when two or three separate groups of WCT operated. Only Philly had a full 96 field. We tend today to look only at slam results, but as Arthur Ashe has written in his fine book Portrait in Motion, the focus of the WCT players laid on the whole series of tournaments. For the first time in tennis pro history, Lamar Hunt put real money into the sport, and the pros played a heavy schedule to get a lion share of it. Non-WCT players like Nastase, Kodes, Smith and later Connors took advantage of this situation, they played lighter circuits and came to the slams fresh and eager, while the WCT players often were tired and overplayed and skipped many events. In his great year 1974, Connors played the light Riordan circuit, skipped the WCT tour, and won say around 8-10 matches over top ten players over the year.

According to UTS the record for most top ten wins over top ten players in open era looks in the following order:

1. Laver 35 1969,
2. Djokovic 31 in 2015,
3. Laver 28 in 1968,
4. McEnroe 26 in 1984,
5. Laver 24 in 1970 and 71, Djokovic 24 in 2012 and 2013, Nadal 24 in 2013,
10. Lendl 22 in 1985,
11. Connors 21 in 1976, Djokovic 2011 and 2016,
14. Roche 20 in 1969, Borg 20 in 1978 and 1979,
17. Federer 19 in 2006 and Djokovic 19 in 2014,
19. Gimeno 18 in 1968, Borg 18 1980.

Seems that Laver and Djokovic stand out in this department, they have by far the best numbers in their respective eras.

Wow - interesting re. 1971 No. 1 discussion.


Top 10 Records:

Laver 24-6
Newcombe 15-9
Rosewall 13-11
Ashe 17-15
Smith 8-7

To me there is no 1970 discussion, but, any way:

1970 Top 10 Records

Laver 24-6
Rosewall 17-12
Newcombe 11-15 !!!!
Ashe 7-8
Richey 7-11
Roche 13-8 (1 ret.)
Smith 7-12

I just counted up Newcombe and Ashe career Open era top-10 records


Newcombe 76-91

Ashe 74-83 (approx. 3-21 v Rocket)

1975:

Ashe 13-11
Borg 11-11
Connors 6-3 (not counting the big exhibition matches)
Vilas 4-9
Orantes 10-6