Originally Posted by CyBorg
Would this be any different than the contemporary "speeding up" of surfaces?
If clay events, for the most part, carried no (or little) prestige at the time (some would know better about this than me), then it's quite hard to account for slower surfaces.
The best we can do then is acknowledge that tennis was a fast-surface game at the time, because of the way the tour was organized. The business aspects of sports always control everything.
Exactly. If 95% of events were on fast hardcourt, then the fact of being a good claycourt player was not considered a very valuable thing by the tennis community in the discussed year, and should not be rewarded by the list.
Thanks urban about 1962, it's now corrected in my file.
Right point by Cyborg too about the way we use the list. It's not intended to solve the GOAT 'issue' or any other. It's just a tool to be used in discussing these questions, precisely.