Originally Posted by timnz
I guess I would have the WCT finals being a higher prestige event than the masters for at least from 1971 through to 1980 and maybe longer.
But that is merely my opinion. What is clear is the downgraded status of the australian open during that period.
My main point is that careers Borg, McEnroe and Connors tend to be judged by today's standards of primarily measuring wins in the 4 current majors. But is that really fair when 1 of those 4 wasn't held in high regard at the time and another event (whether it is WCT, masters or Philly) was the one then players wanted to win at the time. One should never judge by today's standards but rather by the standards present during the time.
That is so much true.Any top player in the 70īs would rather win Dallas or the Masters than the AO...except all those that got a bid at the Oz open because it was the rest of the food the really big ones left ( great but not supergreat guys like Vilas,Tanner and Gerulatis, later kriek won the Aussie Open when the big 3 did not play it)
"Esther,Evonne,Hana,Martina: was it a fairy stick or a tennis racket?"