McEnroe and "true" grand slam total

[AAAA]

Originally Posted by laurie

Ok, why don't you guy and do your school homework. I see your mum allowed you to look at the Tennis warehouse site in your leisure time. But since you are not contributing anything but rubbish, I think you can go away and do your homework now.

Or, have you been drinking too much Tetleys Bitter recently? Do you have that alcoholic bevergae in the States? It tastes terrible but some people like it.

Besides this comic, does anyone else have any info?

Accusations for being juvenile.

[Jack the Hack]

Great post Moose!

Really good info... and I think you are absolutely right about the prize money aspect here:

Originally Posted by Moose

Prize money was a big deal in the 70s/80s to top players because it virtually exploded over night. You'd be stupid not to chase bucks, when that was what got the most attention, rather than winning the French in front of an empty stadium, which offered less prize money than some regular tour events. If suddenly the French or Australian cut their prize money in half, I wonder what those events would look like in ten years. The players would gradually lose interest, tv networks would cut coverage, etc.

Thanks guys.

Moose, that's an interesting point about the Australian Open. They have worked hard to get the tournament to the level it currently is.

I would love to see the tournament played in february but maybe Australians out there might inform us about weather issues? It just seems so soon after christmas to play such a big event.

On another issue, I still use terms like Italian Open, Canadian Open, German Open. I refuse to use those horrific terms like Rome Masters or Rogers Cup etc.

AAAA, you always try to lower the tone of the debate. It's just what you want.

As you can see, I'm having a nice discussion with Moose etc. Obviously to join that debate is too much of an intellectual challenge for you, so it's better if you don't engage in the debate.

Adios.

[AAAA]

'Was Boris Becker the same force in the 90s as he was in the 80s?'

Discuss.

Ahhh....What a big baby.

Adios

[AAAA]

you've said Adios twice now and it was you that mentioned intellectual challenge.

Looks like you have too much time on your hands. You're willing to write messages all night if you have to. Boy, you are such a child aren't you.

You're spoiling it for the others. The discussion is actually quite an intersting one.

So, what has your contribution been to this discussion exactly, other than acting like a little child.

By the way, are you the one who said you give Tennis lessons? Are you capable of giving tennis lessons? Your knowledge seems dodgy to say the least. Those people who actually pay you for lessons must be mugs.

Unless you are making it up of course, I wouldn't put that past you. After all, you have a dumb message board name so you could be anyone and anything.

Oh well... here we go, another stupid reply coming my way in less than 5 minutes time.

[PBODY99]

Don't forget the one tittle that made MAC French Open Mixed with Mary C. None of the other GOAT wannabes mentioned has a Mixed Doubles tittle !!!!!!!!!

[AAAA]

Originally Posted by laurie

Looks like you have too much time on your hands. You're willing to write messages all night if you have to. Boy, you are such a child aren't you.

You're spoiling it for the others. The discussion is actually quite an intersting one.

So, what has your contribution been to this discussion exactly, other than acting like a little child.

By the way, are you the one who said you give Tennis lessons? Are you capable of giving tennis lessons? Your knowledge seems dodgy to say the least. Those people who actually pay you for lessons must be mugs.

Unless you are making it up of course, I wouldn't put that past you. After all, you have a dumb message board name so you could be anyone and anything.

Oh well... here we go, another stupid reply coming my way in less than 5 minutes time.

Personal attacks and false accusations.

[Moose Malloy]

Here are some more French Open stats, from a post by Dedans Penthouse in Feb:

Things got so bad financially, that the French Open was actually called The Vanaos Open in 1972 as the French Tennis Federation took 350,000 francs from a cosmetics company for the right to rename it The Vanaos Open. Fortunately, they only sold their soul to the corporate devil for one year and the tourney regained its rightful name.

The attendence for the entire 2 weeks in 1972 totalled only 51,101 which over 14 days translates to a shockingly few 3,650 people on average per day

The site itself in the early 1970's was only 3.25 hectares (8 acres) and contained...get this: FIVE COURTS. (today it is 8 acres containing 20 courts).

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=65514

[Rabbit]

The WCT tour was a big diversion from the ITF. The two entities went to war over who would play where. The ITF was against paying the players after everything went Open in 1968. Lamar Hunt started the WCT as an alternative and to promote professional tennis. I think his first round prize money was $5000 which was about half of what a player would make if they won a Grand Slam.

But, I don't know that a WCT 8-man event was as tough to win as a Grand Slam. For sure it was more interesting and had the top players, except for Ashe who opposed the whole thing (why?). It is for that reason that I don't give as much creedence to the WCT as a Grand Slam although I really used to love the WCT events.

[jukka1970]

Originally Posted by LttlElvis

If you were a big tennis fanatic in the the 70s to early 80s, the Dallas WCT finals was an impressive tournament for the time. Personally, I would rank it higher than the Australian Open, just a notch below the French Open and Masters Finals in MSG, and lower than Wimbledon and USOpen.

You had the top players gunning it out in a round robin format.

To me, McEnroe winning it multiple times was close to as impressive as winning a slam event. Like Moose Malloy said, the timing of this tourney was terrible, but it was supposed to be somewhat of a maverick tour competing against the regular tour.

I remember seeing McEnroe, just dominate everyone in Dallas in '84. It was like he was toying with them. I still can't believe he lost the French Open that year.

If anyone ever saw McEnroe play live in '84, you would consider him the G.O.A.T. I have seen Federer, Sampras, Agassi play live, and I am still most impressed by McEnroe. Never saw Laver play in person.

Am glad you posted the format, it just made my decision ten times easier. Since it was a round robin format, then no, sorry but it doesn't go above the slams. Was already leaning this way anyways, because people had the choice to play any of the slams if they chose to. Round Robin is a horrible way to decide who moves on. One of the major problems being is say he needs to play 4 matches, and he's lost his first 3, which means no matter what happens in the 4th match he is not moving on. His opponent in the 4th match is someone who needs a win to move on. What guarantee is there that the person who lost the first 3 would give it his all?

[jukka1970]

Originally Posted by PBODY99

Don't forget the one tittle that made MAC French Open Mixed with Mary C. None of the other GOAT wannabes mentioned has a Mixed Doubles tittle !!!!!!!!!

Your point being? For me this is one time in tennis where playing doubles or playing mixed doubles should not be a factor. I don't think it should have any weight on if you are the GOAT. This is one time, where the argument that a partner must be playing well really has some weight to it. It's one thing when being inducted into the hall of fame, because lets face it, the person is one of the players of the doubles team. But to be called the GOAT, one needs to compare that persons abilities against another, which means it needs to be compared as a singles player where the abilities are just of the people being compared.

Jukka

Originally Posted by jukka1970

Am glad you posted the format, it just made my decision ten times easier. Since it was a round robin format, then no, sorry but it doesn't go above the slams. Was already leaning this way anyways, because people had the choice to play any of the slams if they chose to. Round Robin is a horrible way to decide who moves on. One of the major problems being is say he needs to play 4 matches, and he's lost his first 3, which means no matter what happens in the 4th match he is not moving on. His opponent in the 4th match is someone who needs a win to move on. What guarantee is there that the person who lost the first 3 would give it his all?

That's a scenario that happens often in football. Towards the end of a season, one team may need to win to stay in the league, the opponents may not need the points so much and maybe not try as hard, the managers of other teams in a similar position in the table usually make statements that they hope all teams will try their hardest so issues like relegation can be resolved without controversy.

Over here in England, all teams have to play at the same time on the last day of the season to avoid any possible collusion.

So that could well be an issue when they experiment with the round robin format next year in certain events. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

[Moose Malloy]

Am glad you posted the format, it just made my decision ten times easier. Since it was a round robin format, then no, sorry but it doesn't go above the slams. Was already leaning this way anyways, because people had the choice to play any of the slams if they chose to.

It wasn't a round-robin format. The Dallas WCT event(which offered far more prize money to the winner & had far better attendance-bigger stadium as well- compared to the French Open in the 70s) was a single elimation 8 man event, best of 5 all rounds. Players had the choice to play slams, for sure, but why would they play slams that had no prize money, news coverage, or fans in the stands when WCT offered all that? Just so fans 30 years later could compare them to Federer or Sampras?

Like I've said many times before, you can't use the standards of greatness today compared to back then. Johan Kriek beating Brian Teacher in 2 AO finals doesn't seem quite as significant as Borg/Connors/Mac playing each other in Dallas Finals at the same time.

Plus you couldn't even watch the French Open on tv in the US in the 70s. You could watch Dallas WCT though. If it wasn't for the '72 Laver-Rosewall Dallas final you probably wouldn't be watching any tennis on tv today. It was that important an event to the growth of the sport.

[Moose Malloy]

For sure it was more interesting and had the top players, except for Ashe who opposed the whole thing (why?).

1975 Dallas WCT F - Ashe d. Borg 36 64 64 60

[Rhino]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Plus you couldn't even watch the French Open on tv in the US in the 70s. You could watch Dallas WCT though. If it wasn't for the '72 Laver-Rosewall Dallas final you probably wouldn't be watching any tennis on tv today. It was that important an event to the growth of the sport.

I'm not being funny but whether or not an event is televised in the US has no bearing on how big it is worldwide. I bet at the time you could watch the French Open on TV in Europe (where there are a lot more people) but could you watch the Dallas event? If you throw a lot of prize money at an event then of course the players will go (remember the Grand Slam Cup in Germany, all the big names played there too) but to compare an 8 man event it to a 128 man event and try to say that it is as important is a bit of a joke.
McEnroe had chances to win the French and the Aus, he just couldn't do it.

[Moose Malloy]

I'm not being funny but whether or not an event is televised in the US has no bearing on how big it is worldwide. I bet at the time you could watch the French Open on TV in Europe (where there are a lot more people) but could you watch the Dallas event?

The Dallas event was televised worldwide. Read some of my other posts in this thread. Like the comments by Newcombe about his Dallas win. And the atrocious attendance at the French in the 70s.
I'm betting that Dallas was televised in more countries than Roland Garros in the 70s. That seems very likely considering the huge difference in prize money. Money dictates everything-fans, tv deals, revenue etc. When players are playing in empty stadiums for peanuts in one event & players are playing in packed 20,000 seat stadiums in another for much bigger purses, it stands to reason that tv networks worldwide would be paying more for the rights to televise that latter.

and BTW the French was 64 draw for a few years in the 70s(that's how tough times were for that event)
and the australian was between 56-64 draw until 1988. Kinda puts into perspective why so many consider them lesser slams.

[LttlElvis]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

It wasn't a round-robin format. The Dallas WCT event(which offered far more prize money to the winner & had far better attendance-bigger stadium as well- compared to the French Open in the 70s) was a single elimation 8 man event, best of 5 all rounds. Players had the choice to play slams, for sure, but why would they play slams that had no prize money, news coverage, or fans in the stands when WCT offered all that? Just so fans 30 years later could compare them to Federer or Sampras?

Like I've said many times before, you can't use the standards of greatness today compared to back then. Johan Kriek beating Brian Teacher in 2 AO finals doesn't seem quite as significant as Borg/Connors/Mac playing each other in Dallas Finals at the same time.

Plus you couldn't even watch the French Open on tv in the US in the 70s. You could watch Dallas WCT though. If it wasn't for the '72 Laver-Rosewall Dallas final you probably wouldn't be watching any tennis on tv today. It was that important an event to the growth of the sport.

Thanks for clearing that up Moose. The WCT Dallas Finals was a single elimination tournament. I had forgotten that. I just remembered there was a handful of players ( and assumed wrongly that it was round robin.

ESPN would have a feature match every night of the week on prime time.