Originally Posted by timnz
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.
It was not their fault. If they want to skip a Major today, then it is a personal choice and the tournament will not be affected. Today the tour is well organized and all the players knows perfectly which ones are the great titles.
Back in the days it wasn't like that. There were a lot of controversies and confusion, multiple ranking system, financial problems, and so on. So it was not anyone's fault, it simply happened.
I don't care if no official body will recognize the fact, a fact doesn't need anyone's approval, a fact is a fact. Is there any tennis historician who considers Patterson superior to Borotra in 1927? I don't think so.
Originally Posted by Dan Lobb
Patterson won TWO Wimbledons. Wow! Twice as many as Johnston, and the same number as Tilden in the twenties.
His last Wimbledon was in 1922, I was talking about 1927.