Originally Posted by FedericRoma83
The 1972 edition was surely a Major: many absent, but also many strong players. On the contrary, I don't count the 1973 edition as a Major: only one of the top-10 players, it was the weakest Slam of the Open Era (except some A.O. editions).
Originally Posted by BobbyOne
Federic, We are dancing on dangerous ice if we begin to divide majors in true majors and non-majors depending on how many top players participated.
Wimbledon 1972 yes (with only 3 or 4 top players participating) and W.1973 no (with two top players participating)? That's too accidental.
It is ridiculously dangerous to just rank not on the field. We have discussed this in the past. Do we then decide on how strong the individual players are at this point? Of course not. Is the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic a double major because Laver won it by defeating Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe, Emerson, Okker, Ashe (a few times), Okker (a few times), Ralston and Roger Taylor? Laver did win 13 consecutive best of five matches without a loss against possibly the strongest field of all time. It was a prestigious event.
Incidentally the 1973 Wimbledon had Ilie Nastase, Jan Kodes and Jimmy Connors, Metrevili, Roger Taylor and a young Borg. Nastase, Kodes and Taylor were originally seeded before the boycott. Connors would not have been but in retrospect he was probably deserving of one of the top few seeds, imo probably top five considering his record and strength.
Admittedly majors at times can lose prestige like the Australian Open for a number of years. Clearly the Year End Masters and the WCT Championship was de facto majors at that time.