Originally Posted by FedericRoma83
To win the Masters you have to play five matches, to win the WCT Finals you have to play three.
You just have to see the most important event, and since the Masters was played in New York its prestige esponentially increased year after year.
Go and watch the 1986 Masters final between Lendl and Becker.
If the fourth tournament was the WCT Finals (won by Jarryd) like you are saying, the Masters wouldn't have be so important to decide the world no. 1, because Lendl would have overtaken Becker anyway (RG&USO against WIM).
On the contrary, if the Masters was the fourth tournament (and it was, because the commentators clearly said "this is a sort of Slam"), a Becker victory would have created a draw situation (RG&USO against WIM&Masters) and Becker would have been the world no. 1 thanks to the head-to-head score (4-1): this was what all the commentators were saying.
(I don't agree with that, because even counting the Masters as a Major in 1986, and even presupposing a Beck victory, it would have been 2 Majors each, but Lendl had a stronger season overall. Nonetheless, this anecdote demonstrates without any kind of doubt which tournament was seen as most important).
In my opinion there is no way to consider the WCT Finals more than the 5th tournament of the year after 1977.
The Pro Majors weren't always played were you are saying: the French Pro was played at RG only until 1962. The Australian Pro had no less than four different locations.
Sorry, but I'm convinced that your avversion to this tournament has not real motivations. Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall both consider it a great tournament, so excuse me if I give more credit to their opinions, as they were there and playing. ;P
Exactly, the French Pro was only at RG in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968.
It moved to an indoor smoke-house in 1963 known as Stade Coubertin, another oxygen-deprived gas chamber, and no fit location for a major anything.
Why the move? Because the pros wanted to breathe some deep fumes?
No, because Stade Coubertin was cheaper than Roland Garros, and the pro game hit a financial dead zone after Gonzales and Hoad semi-retired. These guys WERE the pro game.
Why Wembley? Because the pros wanted to play in dense smoke?
No, because Wimbledon would not allow the pros to use their premises until 1967.
So, the best players were forced to play in third-rate facilities. Third-rate facilities do not qualify as a major.