Originally Posted by FedericRoma83
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".
Love that last phrase, I don't recall hearing it.
I see entirely what you're saying, I don't have any big disagreements here.
But about Kiki's argument, I do have to say something. I agree with him, and you, and Timnz, that each era is best compared in its own context -- according to the standards of the time. No problem there. But to do that with the 70s and 80s, it is not necessary at all to give the era 5 or 6 majors per year. That will only invite bitter wars with fans of players from other eras, who will object -- rightfully IMO -- that the players of the 70s and 80s are being made to seem as larger figures in tennis history as a whole, than they really were. IMO the discussion will all get bogged down in useless fights, rather than what you all really want, which is to explain and highlight the features of the 70s and 80s.
To understand that era you have to take Dallas and the Masters into account, but there is no reason that cannot be done by simply considering them special tournaments -- and in certain cases, yes, one of them will be the fourth most important event of the year, maybe even rightfully called a major. There is no reason to call them all majors, every year they were held. All that needs to be done is to highlight the Dallas and Masters wins that a player may have.
In other words, you can highlight McEnroe's wins in Dallas and New York, in order to evaluate his career rightfully in the context of the era. On occasion you can even say that one of those titles was the fourth most important event of a particular year, and perhaps rightfully called a major. But calling all of Mac's wins in Dallas and New York majors just gives him an inflated place in tennis history as a whole, since champions of every other era only have 3 or 4 chances per year to win majors.