Originally Posted by pc1
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.
PC1, this is a great analogy. I love it. Think about what our debates here would look like if Andy Murray played the role of Emerson, while Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were toiling away on the pro tour as the best players in the world, but barred from the Slams.
TMF: Federer was ranked only #29 in the recent Tennis Channel special. Murray was #10. Those are experts, I think they know what they're talking about.
Mustard: Federer is among the most underappreciated champions in history. People only care about the 2 US titles he won as an amateur; much fewer people pay attention to what he did after turning pro. Same with Nadal and Djokovic. Those 3 players are all underappreciated champions. Look at their records on the grueling pro tour, they were unquestionably the best players in the world for many, many years.
TMF: You guys don't know what you're talking about.