Originally Posted by LttlElvis
If you were a big tennis fanatic in the the 70s to early 80s, the Dallas WCT finals was an impressive tournament for the time. Personally, I would rank it higher than the Australian Open, just a notch below the French Open and Masters Finals in MSG, and lower than Wimbledon and USOpen.
You had the top players gunning it out in a round robin format.
To me, McEnroe winning it multiple times was close to as impressive as winning a slam event. Like Moose Malloy said, the timing of this tourney was terrible, but it was supposed to be somewhat of a maverick tour competing against the regular tour.
I remember seeing McEnroe, just dominate everyone in Dallas in '84. It was like he was toying with them. I still can't believe he lost the French Open that year.
If anyone ever saw McEnroe play live in '84, you would consider him the G.O.A.T. I have seen Federer, Sampras, Agassi play live, and I am still most impressed by McEnroe. Never saw Laver play in person.
Am glad you posted the format, it just made my decision ten times easier. Since it was a round robin format, then no, sorry but it doesn't go above the slams. Was already leaning this way anyways, because people had the choice to play any of the slams if they chose to. Round Robin is a horrible way to decide who moves on. One of the major problems being is say he needs to play 4 matches, and he's lost his first 3, which means no matter what happens in the 4th match he is not moving on. His opponent in the 4th match is someone who needs a win to move on. What guarantee is there that the person who lost the first 3 would give it his all?