View Single Post
Old 01-10-2013, 07:11 PM   #12
timnz
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,857
Default Tradition and Importance

Quote:
Originally Posted by FedericRoma83 View Post
Official Majors are obviously irreplaceable today, nobody will doubt about them, but until 1982 tennis history had a lot of troubles as you know.
That's why, as I've said many times, until 1982 I'm not interested in what was official and what was not.
If a tournament had no deep fields, it was not an effective Major, but only a nominal one. Nobody take away Cochet's 2 WCCC from his résumé, but they just weren't that big.
Nobody considers Patterson one of the best players in 1927, even if he won the Australian Champs, because it was just a nominal Major, with no effective importance (just look at its field).
On the contrary, the 1927 Davis Cup won by Lacoste and Cochet against Tilden and Johnston was considered an earthquake in tennis history.
Try to go back in 1927 with a DeLorean and ask Patterson if he would have changed his Australian Champs with the Davis Cup. We all know what he would have answered.
I understand what you are saying but there are problems with that view. The problem is that if 1982 and earlier (not sure why you have picked that year - year of the last 'bad' Australian open?) if you just went on 'what are the top 5 tournaments in depth that year' - well it would change from year to year - and you would have no basis of comparison between players past and present or even past vs even longer ago. Because what was a 'major' tournament one year isn't the following etc etc. eg according to that criteria -no way was Wimbledon 1973 a major. Now people on this board have done lists on the top 4 tournaments a year. And I think that is highly valuable. But you would never get an official body recognizing the fact. Hence, if the ILTF says it is a major - it is a major. If people don't want to show up to the tournament when it is a major - well that's their fault.
timnz is offline   Reply With Quote