John123 raises some excellent points but I just wanted to write that size of draw doesn't necessary equal prestige and strength of draw. We could have an eight man tournament today with Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Tsonga, Ferrer and some others and it would considered terrific. We could have a 128 man tournament without the aboved mentioned and it would be awful. Is the 1973 Wimbledon that Jan Kodes won really that impressive? It's a great accomplishment but with the player boycott it really wasn't as great as in the past years.
John Newcombe in 1974 was considered number one by perhaps most for the first half of the year. Why? The reason was that he won the WCT Championship and dominated the WCT tour. Jimmy Connors won the Australian and yet was not considered at that point to have as good a year as Newcombe. That changed later of course as Connors won Wimbledon and the US Open.
So is it so unreasonable that the old Pro Tour majors may be considered very strong and prestigious? Can we so casually say these tournaments aren't considered even close to majors?
Last edited by pc1; 07-12-2011 at 07:48 PM.