Originally Posted by krosero
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.
If you want to be fair to those fans that didnīt enjoy the Golden Era, why notn weighten the Ao.Masters and WCT by , lets say, give the winner of those events a 335 of the value...that way, you can give the 4 th biggest event its weighten value.
It could look like this. Letīs take 1979
Borg wins W and RG and 33% of the 4 th major (Masters)
Mac wins USO and 33% of the 4 th major (WCT)
Vilas wins a 3% of the 4 th major (AO)
Now, I am too lazy to weighten all those titles from 1970 to 1989, but a Ken Rosewall resumee may look like this ( only open era, we should also value Por slams as 66% and amateur slams as 33%, thus Emerson won substantially 4 majors)...
2 WCT titles: 66% of a major
1 FO, 1 USO= 2 majors
2 AO= 66% of a major
so, he won, 3 majors and 1/3 of another one...