Want your career wiped out bit by bit...adhere.to tennis fashions
Should events only be assessed with regard to prestige on the basis on the present only? If an event was regarded as major or pseudo-major in the past but not now - should players who won those events in the past not be credited with those major wins anymore? Is the present the only time to accurately assess careers?
So if in 15 years, no-one rates the french open anymore does Nadal majors total of 'important tournaments' get reduced to 4? Oh, no surely not. Problem is that has happened again and again in tennis history:
1/The winner of the Wct finals was called the world champion of tennis. Now that event is forgotten from the cv of the most prolific winner John McEnroe. Note: 2 years ago Rosewall was interviewed and asked out of all his amazing career, what win was he most proud of? Answer: his two Wct finals wins
2/ Did you know that budge wasn't the first winner of the grand slam? The first winner of all the official majors in a year was tony wilding in 1913. But 2 out of the 3 official majors of the time are now forgotten events and don't appear on wildings list of major lists.
So, let players beware...Any major achievements they might accrue now could be wiped out by fashion going forward.
Note: they are far more civilised in golf. They value their history. For instance, they regard bobby jones as a grand slam winner of golf, even though the events he won were different than golfs current majors. Pity Tony Wilding doesn't get similar credit that he deserves.
Last edited by timnz; 11-27-2012 at 10:07 PM.