Originally Posted by Mustard
Someone needs to tell these guys that before the open era started, the 4 mainstream majors were stepping stones to get into the professional game with the best monetary contract and challenge the real best players in the world, not like now where those 4 majors contain all the best players.
From the end of WW2 up until the start of the open era, apart from Roy Emerson, not one player dominated in the amateur majors for long, and that's because the best amateur players would turn professional. Kramer was dominant in the amateurs in 1946 and 1947, then turned professional, with Pails and Segura joining him. Gonzales turned professional after successfully defending his US Championships title and needing the money for his family. Sedgman turned pro in late 1952 after such a good period as an amateur. Ditto later on with McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Gimeno, MacKay, Buchholz etc.
Instead of them recognising that these players moved onto the professional game, i.e. to bigger things, why do I get the impression that they think these players fell off the face of the Earth instead?
Because they don't look at anything besides the records in majors. They don't ask what happened to the top players.
If the same conditions existed today of course top players like Nadal, Djokovic and Federer would turn Pro because they won amateur majors. Guess who would still be an amateur because he didn't dominate and win a major---Andy Murray! Maybe Murray would have won a lot of amateur majors now if the old system still existed. Federer would not have 17 classic majors because he would be a Pro, same with the others. Maybe by now Murray would have reached Roy Emerson type status because he may have dominated the amateurs. The Old system changed tennis records.