View Single Post
Old 05-13-2012, 01:47 AM   #806
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 185

Originally Posted by krosero View Post
Well like you say, we don't have to be stiff about it, and that's really my main point about this. There's no need to be rigid about including the Masters and WCT Finals. I mean, what are we going to do, include the Masters as a major even in its first year (1970?), when it was just a set of round-robin matches? And include Dallas even as late as '88, when the tournament had long been in decline and the AO was back up to strength?
About the WCT Finals: we surely don't need to do that, because I consider the Masters more important since 1977. About the 1970 Masters: that year only 2 slam were great, we surely can't understimate the Masters. I don't know if you want to consider it a major or not, I accept both options, but it was surely an important event. Stan Smith had to beat both Laver and Rosewall (the stronger players of the year) to win it, I think he deserves some credit for that.

One, I would prefer to count the traditional Slams as majors, whenever it's sensible to do so. Even when they have moderately weak fields, they still carry a certain prestige and still present the unique challenge of 6 or 7 rounds to win.
That's what I also do. If the field is only partially depleted (for example, Wimbledon & Roland Garros 1972), I would choose the slam anyway. I exclude slams only when they are totally depleted: that means only Roland Garros 1970 and Wimbledon 1973 (both with one player from the top-10) + the Australian Open 1972-82.

Going with the weaker field at Dallas, because of a prestige factor, just repeats the problem we have with the AO: we now have chosen yet another tournament that doesn't stack up as one of the best attended events of the year.
The fact is that we have a different method.
For what I can understand, your is:
- we take the majors, we exclude the Australian Open weak decade, we take the other events with the best fields.
Mine is more like:
- we take the majors, we exclude the Australian Open weak decade, we take the WCT or the Masters because they were the most prestigious after the slams (they also had the best fields in 90% of the seasons, tough not on every one I have to admit).

Obviously these are only two possibilities, there are a lot of others: for example, we can simply consider the 1972-82 a three-major-per-year era, even if this would give us two problems: 1. we'll got some troubles if we are going to compare different historical moments (but we don't necessarily need to compare them, because as Kiki rightly said, every era is a special case); 2. we know that journalists used to call the WCT finals a Major back in the days... that demonstrates how much the situation was messy at the time.

Anyway I didn't say that the Philadelphia selection for 1976 is wrong, it's a definitely legitimate option, I accept every kind of vision, expecially when is so well explained (what I don't accept easily are statements like "the Australian Open was a Major because the ATP said that", but it's definitely not your case). Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up thinking "let's choose Philadelphia for 1976!", who knows... in Italy we use to say something like "only the idiots never change their minds".

Last edited by FedericRoma83; 01-08-2013 at 08:33 PM.
FedericRoma83 is offline   Reply With Quote