McEnroe and "true" grand slam total

[krosero]

I'm sure you know this, Ben-Hur, but that argument you quoted from Fabrice Leroy was withdrawn by Fabrice himself two years ago:

Originally Posted by SgtJohn

PS: Fabrice, I like your " Mac should have won this and that" theory...The Borg should have win at least 3 US Open and 3 australian if he had played them and would have 17 slams...
Plus, "if" some things were fair, for example, Mac would never have his celebrated 4-years-in-a-row-as-number-1, because in 82 he won nothing, though Connors made the Wimbledon-US double, and Lendl won 12 tournaments and was US runner-up...Mac should be No3 in 82!!!

Originally Posted by Fabrice Leroy

Yes, I know my argument is flawed. In truth, I still haven't gotten over Mac's loss at the 84 French Open. I still cringe when I think about it. But we all play tennis and we all know that a loss is a loss. I still think that Mac would have won a few AO titles had he made the trip down there in his prime (apart from 83). Regarding the other post by Colpo about Mac being the best, I would agree, although I am aware here again that this is not an objective assessment. No-one has enthralled me as a spectator more than Mac during his best years. I saw him anihilate Lendl at the 84 Brussels indoor (I had front-row seats) and was amazed at the imagination, the skill, the genius of Mac's game at the time. But I was 18, and I realize that, at that age, you perceive things with more intensity and you are more passionate about everything.

I mean, I would feel at least self-conscious about arguing with someone who 1) withdrew his argument and 2) may not even be listening. I would think it would look like grandstanding.

Sure, people still make Fabrice's argument. But I would quote them, in their current threads, for a real argument. Or start a new thread with your observations about the 84F final. The problem is not with your arguments, it's just that this whole business about being able to resurrect threads long after they're dead strikes me as problematic. But I've already said why above. It just strikes me as strange when people get all up in arms against others who are not even there.

I think other boards have rules about not responding to threads after 60 days.

[thalivest]

Yeah the 84 French final was more of a true classic then a storied choke. It is too bad Lendl does not get the credit he deserves for that victory. Actually he often doesnt get the credit he deserves in general as a player it seems.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by krosero

I'm sure you know this, Ben-Hur, but that argument you quoted from Fabrice Leroy was withdrawn by Fabrice himself two years ago:

I mean, I would feel at least self-conscious about arguing with someone who 1) withdrew his argument and 2) may not even be listening. I would think it would look like grandstanding.

Sure, people still make Fabrice's argument. But I would quote them, in their current threads, for a real argument. Or start a new thread with your observations about the 84F final. The problem is not with your arguments, it's just that this whole business about being able to resurrect threads long after they're dead strikes me as problematic. But I've already said why above. It just strikes me as strange when people get all up in arms against others who are not even there.

I think other boards have rules about not responding to threads after 60 days.

Well, after this thread was resurected a few days ago, I skimmed through it a bit but didn't actually see that post from Fabrice Leroy, or at least don't remember it. But in any case, he is withdrawing the notion that this match should count as a McEnroe victory of sorts. What I was addressing in my last post is the idea that Mcenroe outplayed Lendl in the third, or for that matter in any of the last three sets. This is I think a common misperception, not borne out by watching the match, as I explained. The third and fourth were very close, and in the fifth I think Lendl played better than McEnroe.

[Goosehead]

some interesting stuff in here seeing as 'tennis history wars' are going on in other threads.

i came to this via google search..mcenroe loses to wilander 1983 australian open sf.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by laurie

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.

The biggest reason that the Australian Open has stuck to the January time slot is the summer school holidays. Organizers feel that more people will come to the event during the summer holiday season - that is why they are reluctant to move it to a february to april time slot

[timnz]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Even though, I am only 22, I recognize that up until about the late-1980s, the Australian Open and French Open were considered nowhere near the prestige of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Consequently, great players in the last 20 years who have been successful at the Australian Open (notably Wilander, Edberg, Agassi, and Lendl) and French Open (notably Wilander and Lendl) have had their grand slam totals inflated.

As talented and successful as John McEnroe was, it is suprising to many that he won "only" 7 grand slams, however, when one analyzes his championships
(3 wimbledons and 4 U.S. Opens) he is tied for 2nd place (with, of course, Connors and Federer) for most presigious grand slams in the Open Era.

Some tennis historians have suggested that up until the late-1980s, winning other non-grand slam tournaments (notably the now defunct Dallas WCT tournament played in Spring) was as difficult and impressive as winning a grand slam.

Consequently, for McEnroe, who won the Dallas WCT tournament 5 times (including final victories over Borg, Connors, and Lendl), his "true" grand slam total should actually be 12. What do you think?

The French Open had regained full prestige of a Grand Slam since the mid to late 1970's ie well before the late 80's. It has equal status with Wimbledon and the US open in the period you refer to. The Australian Open started to regain it starting in 1983 when players like McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander came - that process of rehabilitation came to full fruition in 1988 with the change of venue and change to hard court and the expansion of the field to 128.

re. McEnroe - keep in mind that he competed at the event in December 1983 (only a month before his peak year and he was number 1), December 1985 (when he still was number 3) - he was only 24 and 26- all on Grass - which suited him. So if it was a lesser event - it should have been easier for him to win ....but he didn't. (having said that reading his biography his mind wasn't in the 1985 event - but that was his problem, it shouldn't be an excuse). So it is a bit of a myth that some hold that McEnroe didn't really compete at the Australian Open as a top player.

On the other hand, I am in agreement that more credit needs to be put against Mac for his WCT finals wins. His 5 wins tend to get swept under the carpet. Memory is short in tennis. The WCT finals was a very big event.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by timnz

The French Open had regained full prestige of a Grand Slam since the mid to late 1970's ie well before the late 80's. It has equal status with Wimbledon and the US open in the period you refer to. The Australian Open started to regain it starting in 1983 when players like McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander came - that process of rehabilitation came to full fruition in 1988 with the change of venue and change to hard court and the expansion of the field to 128.

re. McEnroe - keep in mind that he competed at the event in December 1983 (only a month before his peak year and he was number 1), December 1985 (when he still was number 3) - he was only 24 and 26- all on Grass - which suited him. So if it was a lesser event - it should have been easier for him to win ....but he didn't. (having said that reading his biography his mind wasn't in the 1985 event - but that was his problem, it shouldn't be an excuse). So it is a bit of a myth that some hold that McEnroe didn't really compete at the Australian Open as a top player.

On the other hand, I am in agreement that more credit needs to be put against Mac for his WCT finals wins. His 5 wins tend to get swept under the carpet. Memory is short in tennis. The WCT finals was a very big event.

No doubt. The way they publicized it at the time in the 1970's you often would think the WCT Championship was the biggest tournament in the world. I think they did call the winner the World Champion of Tennis. It was a different value system in those days.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

i came to this via google search..mcenroe loses to wilander 1983 australian open sf.

A surprising result. McEnroe then won his next 42 matches in a row.

Originally Posted by pc1

No doubt. The way they publicized it at the time in the 1970's you often would think the WCT Championship was the biggest tournament in the world. I think they did call the winner the World Champion of Tennis. It was a different value system in those days.

It was most up to date event at the time, with the WCT fully embracing the open era and what it meant for the sport of tennis. The old guard in the ILTF just clung onto the past as much as possible.

[timnz]

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.

[kiki]

Ashe played almost all Dallas Finals in the 70
Who said he didn't?
He won it in 75 and lost the 1973 final
He was a semifinalist in 71,72 and 74
In contrast he just played 2 Masters and reached the final in 78 and semis in 75

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

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.

This is such a good point, didn't want to just let it drop off. If the Grand Slam in golf has not always been made up of the same events, it makes you wonder why that is not the case with tennis' Grand Slam. As you've often noted, there were majors in tennis other than the four that came to make up the Grand Slam. Some of them no longer exist, but it doesn't mean they were not majors in their own time.

And I've seen myself how the definition of "Grand Slam" in tennis was once more flexible: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=416473.

Great point about Wilding.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by laurie

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.

Late January and February is the hottest time of the year here in Melbourne. It would just be too hot for the players. There was also a push a few years ago to have the AO played in March. I'm not sure if non-Australians know this, but Melbourne is one of the event capitals of the world and has been voted the sporting capital of the world various times. In March, Melbourne hosts the Australian Air Show (every second year), The Australian Formula One Grand Prix which some people consider to be bigger than tennis grand slams on a global sporting scale, the Australian Motor Show, plus the AFL (which is to Melbourne what NFL is to the USA) kicks off in March. In addition to that, Melbourne has all these international comedy/jazz/food/screen festivals which are on between January to March. So the first three months in Melbourne is jammed packed with all these events, in particular, the AO and the F1 Grand Prix. I don't think there is a city in the world which has two monstrous international events so close to each other, and I don't think there would be enough hotels in Melbourne to accomodate all the tourists coming into the city.

Just on the comment about the Marlboro Australian Open, to the poster who stated that, you are correct, but the commentators used to refer to it as the "1.5 Million Dollar Marlboro Australian Open" lol.

Part of the problem with the AO was that it was shared around between cities, it never had a permanent home. Once it finally settled in Melbourne, it was only then that the wheels were put in motion to make it an event worth taking seriously. And today, it is the richest tennis event in the world. As for the question about what would happen to it if prizemoney was decreased, well that could apply to any tournament in the world, including W. If prizemoney was decreased, personally I don't think it would stop the players competing in it, well not the top players anyway. They have enough money, it's the title they want.

[Gizo]

I do think though if events like Indian Wells, Rome, Montreal/Toronto suddenly started offering greater prize money round by round than the Australian Open or any of the slams for that matter, a lot of the players on the tour, especially the lower ranked ones, would start taking those events more seriously instead.

That was sort of the situation on the tour in the late 70s and early 80s. Many of the top players around then were not going to take the Australian Open more seriously than the Pepsi Grand Slam for instance which offered them considerably more prize money. Similarly its no wonder that Borg and Evert wanted to play in World Team Tennis instead of Roland Garros at some point in the 70s, when they could earn a lot more money at the former event than the latter one.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Part of the problem with the AO was that it was shared around between cities, it never had a permanent home. Once it finally settled in Melbourne, it was only then that the wheels were put in motion to make it an event worth taking seriously.

It moved around up to 1971, but then it settled down. The event has been in Melbourne since 1972, but the worst period of the Australian Open attendance slump was 1976-1982. I think moving it away from the Christmas period in 1982 was the start, and then moving to the new venue, Flinders/Melbourne Park, in 1988, was even bigger. Then there's the prize money difference as well.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It moved around up to 1971, but then it settled down. The event has been in Melbourne since 1972, but the worst period of the Australian Open attendance slump was 1976-1982. I think moving it away from the Christmas period in 1982 was the start, and then moving to the new venue, Flinders/Melbourne Park, in 1988, was even bigger. Then there's the prize money difference as well.

The AO was moved to January permanently in 1987. The event was not held in 1986, to allow for the change.

When I said the wheels were put in motion to make it a big event, I didn't mean straight away. Rome was wasn't built in a day and the status of the AO was not going to be elevated in a day either. I think the AO first began to be taken seriously in 1983 when Wilander and Lendl turned up. Then it wasn't too much longer that you had Becker and Edberg here too, and the move to Flinders Park, now known as Melbourne Park pretty much consolidated the AO's position as a worthy GS. The final nail in the coffin of the point of view that the AO was not a grand slam taken seriously was in 1995 when Agassi came over for the event. Given Agassi's reputation for being rebellious, the fact he came all this way to play the event was a massive boost for the image of the event. The fact he played Sampras in the final that year, even moreso.

The removal of any doubt whatsoever in my mind about the AO's importance was when Federer cried. And I don't mean when he lost to Nadal. I mean when he beat Baghdatis. At that stage he was seemingly unbeatable, had already won many slams and after an early fright, beat Baghdatis pretty comfortably in the end. Yet there he was getting emotional during his speech.

So by the time the 2012 final rolled around, it did not surprise me in the slightest that Djok and Nadal slugged it out for 6 hours. If you're going to come all this way down under, you may as well make it count while you're here.

[Blocker]

And just on McEnroe and the AO, I remember he came here in 1985 and on the first morning here, he spat on a journalist who was standing outside his hotel lol.

[kiki]

Mac has a total of 15 majors in relative terms since Masters and WCT finals were considered bigger events than the AO in most of the 70´s ( from 72 on and till 1987) and 80´s.

His 8 indoor majors include beating in the final match fellas like Connors and Borg, as well as Lendl a bunch of times, Ashe, all of them HOF players.

Becker,Federer,Rosewall and Sampras record should also be enhanced by their YEC and WCT wins.

[Gizo]

It's interesting that when the likes of Connors and Mac were skipping the Australian Open year after year, they were still playing at the Sydney Indoor event.

Obviously it had a better/less inconvenient slot on the calendar than the Aussie Open did at that time, but still it shows just how highly they valued the event that they were willing to fly to the other end of the world to play in it year after year.

In addition to the WCT Finals, we've lost a lot of other big indoor events over the last 10-20 years, Wembley, Philadelphia, Milan, Sydney Indoor and Tokyo Indoor.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Gizo

It's interesting that when the likes of Connors and Mac were skipping the Australian Open year after year, they were still playing at the Sydney Indoor event.

Obviously it had a better/less inconvenient slot on the calendar than the Aussie Open did at that time, but still it shows just how highly they valued the event that they were willing to fly to the other end of the world to play in it year after year.

In addition to the WCT Finals, we've lost a lot of other big indoor events over the last 10-20 years, Wembley, Philadelphia, Milan, Sydney Indoor and Tokyo Indoor.

Memphis,Stockholm,Frankfurt,Antwerp,San Francisco and a lot of two-three days exos like Milan Brooklyne Masters, Chicago Michelob, Molson Challenge at Toronto, Europe vs America at Barcelona, GS Cup at München or the Las vegas Challenge of Champions.