Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
- Thread starter granddog29
- Start date
No worries Dan.
That's Ivan's Wonderland.
This one is even better.
"The Martini & Rossi Award, for any late-comers," (like Ivan! NM's note) "is a trophy put up for the world-titlist. Points are awarded for finishes in the quarter-finals or better in the five major tournaments - Australia, Italy, France, Wimbledon and U.S."
Evening Star, 20 Aug 1967
"The Martini & Rossi Award, for any late-comers," (like Ivan! NM's note) "is a trophy put up for the world-titlist. Points are awarded for finishes in the quarter-finals or better in the five major tournaments - Australia, Italy, France, Wimbledon and U.S."
Evening Star, 20 Aug 1967
abmk
Bionic Poster
why should I take it in account when talking about matches in very big tournaments ? makes no sense.
I do take the tour matches into account when assessing the total H2H.
and no problem with responding to the long post. I was out, not in front of my computer. And that's not something I could reply to in 3-4 mins.
Now I had time to check.
Check post 8393.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ur-top-10-of-all-time-now-men.474196/page-168
And tell me who is the poster.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Like I said there are clear reasons why the names were so :
US Championships - only open to amateurs
US Pro - only open to the pros
US Open - open .
its not about no matter how it was called. Its about why they were called so. That there is a good reason that you could them in separate categories.
Your statement was "But despite that current praises some experts still mention that Fed equaled Laver by majors, that Rosewall is still with 23 "
so how does this statement of yours look like now ? Federer had already surpassed both Rosewall and Laver in terms of the value of majors won by the time he won Wimbledon 2012 , correct ? Going by your own definition. Its good to see you acknowledged that Federer's majors are clearly worth more than Rosewall's and Laver's.
Now that we've settled that, lets move on.
I was very clear that I don't agree with your way of counting. "Now lets look at it that way for a second (not that I agree)"
Now, I agree you have to calculate the entire careers of the players to evaluate them fully. I already said I don't evaluate the way you do.
I'm not saying Federer's career is better than Laver's and Rosewall's based on just the above. That's a different issue.
Let's see how the Australian Open was treated in the ranking era.
1973
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $100K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out more than $75K but less than $100K.
D : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with larger draws (64)
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with smaller draws (32)
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, regularly paying at least $20K
Australian Open had $30K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
1974
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $40K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as E)
1975
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $55K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
1976
AA : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
A : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $150K.
B : Assigned for tournaments paying out $125K
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $65K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
So, as you can see there is a top Category (the Majors) that doesn't follow the prize money divisions.
The Triple Crown events were among the richer of the circuit, but there were some richer ones (for example Las Vegas or Palm Springs) placed in a lower category.
In a very few words : Australian Open was treated as a regular tournament, just with a little bonus for being a Slam, but away from being a Major.
And there is no speculation: it is what happened.
Let's go down now, without rankings, but with many info.
1972
Out of WCT, out of Grand Prix, $8,800 total prize money, almost all Australian players (like the Aussie Champs of 1920s - 1930s !) the worst Slam of the Open Era, clearly not a Major.
1971
Great tournament, part of WCT circuit that literally saved the Aussie Open after a 1970 in deep red and no money in the pockets of the Australian Federation.
Not really Open (GP players could not play). I can close an eye on this one
1970
WCT/NTL players banned (so not really open and so almost all the best players missing), average prize money. Very difficult to close an eye.
1969
Average prize money, but medium/good field. It was the first Australian Open, so there was hype to play it even if some good players were missing.
My opinion : if Laver didn't clinch the Grand Slam, it would have been contested like 1970 edition.
1973
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $100K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out more than $75K but less than $100K.
D : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with larger draws (64)
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with smaller draws (32)
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, regularly paying at least $20K
Australian Open had $30K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
1974
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $40K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as E)
1975
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $55K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
1976
AA : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
A : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $150K.
B : Assigned for tournaments paying out $125K
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $65K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
So, as you can see there is a top Category (the Majors) that doesn't follow the prize money divisions.
The Triple Crown events were among the richer of the circuit, but there were some richer ones (for example Las Vegas or Palm Springs) placed in a lower category.
In a very few words : Australian Open was treated as a regular tournament, just with a little bonus for being a Slam, but away from being a Major.
And there is no speculation: it is what happened.
Let's go down now, without rankings, but with many info.
1972
Out of WCT, out of Grand Prix, $8,800 total prize money, almost all Australian players (like the Aussie Champs of 1920s - 1930s !) the worst Slam of the Open Era, clearly not a Major.
1971
Great tournament, part of WCT circuit that literally saved the Aussie Open after a 1970 in deep red and no money in the pockets of the Australian Federation.
Not really Open (GP players could not play). I can close an eye on this one
1970
WCT/NTL players banned (so not really open and so almost all the best players missing), average prize money. Very difficult to close an eye.
1969
Average prize money, but medium/good field. It was the first Australian Open, so there was hype to play it even if some good players were missing.
My opinion : if Laver didn't clinch the Grand Slam, it would have been contested like 1970 edition.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't follow golf too much, but Woods has 14 majors, not 16.
And he was proclaimed as the GOAT of golf by so many, even though Jack Nicklaus has 18 majors, because of his dominance, if I am not mistaken.
Achievements do remain in history. So do impressions of the general people/other players/experts. That's why you have tons of articles/rankings etc.
Those are measurements of those specific parameters. I already said you have to take the context into account for those years. Like Connors in 74 was 96-4. But he played only 7 top 10 players (TB ranking) IIRC. He played on the clearly weak Riordan tour. So that knocks the perceived dominance in that year down. You need to adjust vs the competition for that year.
Point was you said peak play/dominance couldn't be measured. I've shown you how it can be.
Dominance isn't the only indicator, but it is a significant one.
These parameters by themselves don't cover the rating of a player's entire career, nor are they meant to.
Your example of player A and player B is very much possible. But that aspect for A is covered by another parameter - longevity.
The question is how much weight you give to these parameters --- peak play, dominance, consistency, being #1, adaptability to surfaces, longevity, h2h vs top 10 players etc.
now that's a different issue. Gonzales and Rosewall are clearly under-rated by the public. Not my point. Point is I or others don't have reasons to belittle Rosewall purposely because :
a) Laver is widely regarded as the competitor to Federer as the GOAT, not Rosewall. Do you see us consistently belittling Laver just to put Federer ahead ? Nope.
b) and when I said historically about Gonzales, I meant by the players of those times and the experts of those times (not current ones who don't know)
See below ........
you need to remember that my list of the greatest players of all time - which is a mix of achievements and subjective opinion.
Its not a list of players with most achivements. (considering overall length of career)
they are not necessarily the same.
Rosewall would be higher in a list of most achieved.
Last edited:
I didn't reply right away because I wanted to be sure.
So I double checked and as I have like more than ten thousands of clips, sometimes it takes time
Check in the beginning of the article, where it states that the tournament was officiated by the English Federation, of which the ILTF was the successor.
It says that only with the Hard Court in the name of the tournament, it could have been recognized.
Because the World Grass Court was Wimbledon.
So it is a official Major
Last edited:
I didn't reply right away because I wanted to be sure.
So I double checked and as I have like more than ten thousands of clips, sometimes it takes time
Check in the beginning of the article, where it states that the tournament was officiated by the English Federation, of which the ILTF was the successor.
It says that only with the Hard Court in the name of the tournament, it could have been recognized.
So it is a official Major
Thanks for the article. It is always good to see original articles that help us clarify the organizational aspects of a tournament.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
It's worse than that. Check points% for all players, HC, in 2003. One of many huge errors that the ATP never even bothered to take a look at.I spitted on the ATP database, that it's full of faults.
Because they don't know the old results, they started to keep medium/good track in 1978.
But the rules they made at that time, I bet they knew them
I agree, a nice post.
Only one thing: we need to agree on the term "dominance".
Borg in 1977-78 did not dominate. Indeed in 1977 Bjorn was 3rd !
NatF
Bionic Poster
In the past I've defined dominance as;
1) 50%+ of majors won in that time period
2) 50%+ of all tournaments entered won in that time period
3) 90%+ win/loss record in that time period
Generally for me at least the top 2 need to be picked, in the pro tour this might not work quite so well. In some years with a fuller tournament circuit the top 2 could be roughly right - win loss record is impossible though.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That's true. It is very clear from the records of Borg and Nadal that clay dominance looks more impressive in terms of games. Quite obviously what we are after is some kind of reliable connection between games won, matches won and events won.
If we go only by games won, Borg and Nadal are clearly the best players of the OE, and no great grass-court player is in the running. But looking at matches we see the same kind of dominance in super years, regardless of the surface best suiting the player.
I have only one additional thought: perhaps we can say that any player who has both an incredibly long career and who is at the very top or very close to the very top for many of those years has to be looked at with extra respect. Also that dominance and #1 are not always the same thing. For instance, in my mind Fed was more dominant last year than Nadal, in spite of the end of the year ranking.
I'd always look very carefully at aging players who are not longer #1 but who are still winning top events long past an age that is expected for that, which is why I look very carefully at both Gonzalez and Rosewall in this respect, and I also believe that is a powerful argument for those who look at Tilden. I'm not so sure about Connors, because he hung on for so many years but really was no longer winning big titles after 1983.
It seems to me a good criterion, it is difficult to say if it is the best.
The problem is that mathematics does not go hand in hand with perception (McEnroe dominated the period 1981-84 even if two years did not dominate).
Furthermore ...
when two players are very close, does the dominator exist? Can they be two dominators? Federer and Nadal have massacred everyone in 2017.
One is dominator? Both ? Or no one?
I know Gary.
My point was that I often spit on ATP database for its inaccurate record of the info.
But this has not anything to do with ATP ranking points allocation during the years, that followed a categorization of the tournaments
I wrote that in a previous post.
The 1971-72 and 1974 are the reason I have Rosewall so high in my all time list
I Agree!
Before 1968 the majors were: Wimbledon, Australian Championships, French Championships and the US Championships. From 1968, when the open era began, the majors were: Wimbledon, US Open, French Open and Australian Open. South Africa, German or Italian championships or open were Never considered majors, nor are they today.
I'm tackling Sampras' career in another thread, and I'm putting your attention here to an issue I was thinking about: the competion (weak or not weak).
I would like to make a speech about the competition.
It's a popular/common thought that some times have had little competition (2017-2018) or beginning OE or Sampras Era.
Other times a stratospheric competition (1976-late 80s) or early Fedalovic.
In fact, we often read: Sampras won a lot because the only opponent was Agassi. Or Pioline!
By-pass that in the last year and a half there have been too many injuries ....first and only time in history so extraordinary case....
otherwise the competition has always been high IMO.
It's been different.
Federer had as main adversaries Nadal & Djokovic (TIER 1) + Wawr & Murray (TIER 2), the others proved to be very poor.
Also McEnroe for example had Connors, Borg, Lendl (TIER 1) but perhaps apart from Vilas (TIER 2) the others proved to be much lower level.
Sampras had perhaps only Agassi in TIER 1 but had to fight with an army of TIER 2.
Is it more difficult to win when there are two monsters in circulation but then there is a gap or when there is only one monster and so many dangerous players?
I would like to make a speech about the competition.
It's a popular/common thought that some times have had little competition (2017-2018) or beginning OE or Sampras Era.
Other times a stratospheric competition (1976-late 80s) or early Fedalovic.
In fact, we often read: Sampras won a lot because the only opponent was Agassi. Or Pioline!
By-pass that in the last year and a half there have been too many injuries ....first and only time in history so extraordinary case....
otherwise the competition has always been high IMO.
It's been different.
Federer had as main adversaries Nadal & Djokovic (TIER 1) + Wawr & Murray (TIER 2), the others proved to be very poor.
Also McEnroe for example had Connors, Borg, Lendl (TIER 1) but perhaps apart from Vilas (TIER 2) the others proved to be much lower level.
Sampras had perhaps only Agassi in TIER 1 but had to fight with an army of TIER 2.
Is it more difficult to win when there are two monsters in circulation but then there is a gap or when there is only one monster and so many dangerous players?
Sad? I am pretty well. My idea? It's not mine.Ok, after a brief math count (easy even for a 5th grader) I guess that Wimbledon and US awarded 100 to the winner and 60 to the finalist.
Newcombe has no results in Rome and Paris (at least QF) and Graebner and Bungert have only one final (one in Wimbledon one in US) and the same points.
So I guess it was 4 times the Australian/Italian champs.
And I guess the French 39/40 points to the winner, to have Emerson at 80 total points (if we suppose that US is 4 times Australia)
So sad for Ivan, that we destroy his idea of 4 majors a year.
In 1967 the Aussie Champs was just like the Italian
Perfect. Then why Rome is not considered major for that years?
Well. TB has a similar point system. I am happy to be in such companion.
The tour matches are similar to the big tournament matches - high level of competition, top players played.
Are you reading good? Bobby mentions the achievements of Rosewall. What's the problem?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Players since 1920 who have been called the GOAT by a decent amount of players/experts...at least for a short time.
1. Tilden
2. Vines
3. Budge
4. Kramer
5. Gonzalez
6. Laver
7. Connors-yes a number of people were in awe of Connors and called him the GOAT.
8. Borg
9. Sampras
10. Federer
11. Nadal
12. Djokovic
13. McEnroe
Federer seems to get the most feedback as the GOAT but Laver gets a lot I think because of his Grand Slams. Kramer seems to get the most from past players.
Tilden may have even equaled Federer over the years. Even in 1969 he ranked easily first in a vote by great tennis experts like Bud Collins!
1. Tilden
2. Vines
3. Budge
4. Kramer
5. Gonzalez
6. Laver
7. Connors-yes a number of people were in awe of Connors and called him the GOAT.
8. Borg
9. Sampras
10. Federer
11. Nadal
12. Djokovic
13. McEnroe
Federer seems to get the most feedback as the GOAT but Laver gets a lot I think because of his Grand Slams. Kramer seems to get the most from past players.
Tilden may have even equaled Federer over the years. Even in 1969 he ranked easily first in a vote by great tennis experts like Bud Collins!
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That’s why I say I think Gonzalez would have probably won the French Pro or if it could have been played, a hypothetical French Open in the 1960s. He was an excellent clay player. The French Pro wasn’t played much in his top years.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don’t like it. We’re discussing singles. If you want a thread about a great Davis Cup player then you can include doubles.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
How many experts REALLY call him the GOAT?
No. It doesn't matter at all. Hundreds of tournaments have changed their names.
That's exactly the issue. The entire career of Laver and Rosewall is better than Fed's one.
My calculations are the same as yours but cover all the achievements. Even not all. Because I don't calculate the thousands ONS the pros have played.
Worst slam but SLAM!!!!!!!!!!!! Take it or leave it.Let's see how the Australian Open was treated in the ranking era.
1973
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $100K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out more than $75K but less than $100K.
D : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with larger draws (64)
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with smaller draws (32)
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, regularly paying at least $20K
Australian Open had $30K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
1974
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $40K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as E)
1975
A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $55K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
1976
AA : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
A : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $150K.
B : Assigned for tournaments paying out $125K
C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
Australian Open had $65K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)
So, as you can see there is a top Category (the Majors) that doesn't follow the prize money divisions.
The Triple Crown events were among the richer of the circuit, but there were some richer ones (for example Las Vegas or Palm Springs) placed in a lower category.
In a very few words : Australian Open was treated as a regular tournament, just with a little bonus for being a Slam, but away from being a Major.
And there is no speculation: it is what happened.
Let's go down now, without rankings, but with many info.
1972
Out of WCT, out of Grand Prix, $8,800 total prize money, almost all Australian players (like the Aussie Champs of 1920s - 1930s !) the worst Slam of the Open Era, clearly not a Major.
1971
Great tournament, part of WCT circuit that literally saved the Aussie Open after a 1970 in deep red and no money in the pockets of the Australian Federation.
Not really Open (GP players could not play). I can close an eye on this one
1970
WCT/NTL players banned (so not really open and so almost all the best players missing), average prize money. Very difficult to close an eye.
1969
Average prize money, but medium/good field. It was the first Australian Open, so there was hype to play it even if some good players were missing.
My opinion : if Laver didn't clinch the Grand Slam, it would have been contested like 1970 edition.
Rome was NEVER considered a Major, an important tournament for sure, but not a major.
No, dear abmk! Everybody talks and remembers the titles. If you go back to the articles you will read that experts and journalists raised the question if it's possible for Woods to beat the record by titles. This was the main theme.
You are contradicting yourself - talking of the dominance of Connors in 74 but at the same time having played weaker events and vs lower ranked players. That's what I told you before. You can't define some dominance without analysing the level of competition. And objectively you can't be dominant if there is a strong competition.
I am giving a low weight of all these indicators because the results matter. If the results are closer than other indicators like H2H matter.
All these indicators (peak play, dominance, consistency, being #1, adaptability to surfaces, longevity, h2h vs top 10) are secondary because they affect the most important - the results, the titles, the records. Nobody mentions the dominance of Phelps but everybody knows about his 23 titles IIRC.
Again widely regarded? As I told this is not a reasonable and fully informed opinion. Even by the players and experts of that time which didn't knew all the achievements of the players. These were fully personal opinions based on their direct matches. Thus these opinions are not representative.
Yeah. And this is the main problem. The achievements in your estimates takes a little part. But they are the most important. Because all the players in all sports are fighting 100% for titles and results not for dominance or peak play. Thus the achievements should consist at least 90% of the evaluation of a player.
Ok. Gonz by default. Not a big difference. By default not achievement-wise.
How have you defined these percentages?
NatF
Bionic Poster
The percentages define the dominance, the definition of the percentages is self-explanatory.
Well. Winning big titles from 73 to 83 is pretty good.
Then deduct Laver's 6 amateur slams, Rosewall's 4 and Emerson's12. In that case Rod has 5 slams, Rosewall-4 and whatever credit you want to give their pro majors-slams. Also, the 69 and 71 AO were highly competitive and deserve to be called full OE slams. The fact though that Rosewall won the 72 WCT, there is a good possibility he could have won the 72 AO, had the competition been as strong as the year before. Rosewall was an exceptional big tournament competitor and winner, equal to Laver and Gonzalez, at least.The funny part is the Laver/Rosewall ones are good ones. The Emerson ones are weak
POST WAR II
Post update AO2018 (after Nadal 2017 and a definitive reading of Sampras)... WORK IN PROGRESS....
Federer GOAT
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Nadal T1/T2
5) Rosewall T2
6) Sampras T2
7) Borg T2
8) Connors T2
9) McEnroe T3
10) Djokovic T3
11) Lendl T3
12) Agassi T4
I am not able to give a serious judgment on Kramer, Riggs, Segura and Hoad.
Clarification: the ranking is clearly not precise because speculative as I can not really get into the merits of the Pro / Am period.
Without giving a ranking of what were the big events Pro/Am v OE, is impossible for me to make a comparison between the 2 ages.
No. Rosewall is somewhere between 50 and 100. But pc1 respects him a lot.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I recall an interview with Borg at the USO where he said he'd won all the major events except the USO - he named Wimbledon, the French, The Masters/Dallas (IIRC) and also Rome.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I’ve seen him play. Have you?
But why 50%? Why not 2%? Or 70%? Nothing could define the so called "dominance". You need quality criteria for that.
As to the Post WW II list I mostly agree, except I would put Rosewall along with Nadal at Tier 1/ Tier 2. Also, I would put Agassi in T3 and Djokovic in T2POST WAR II
Post update AO2018 (after Nadal 2017 and a definitive reading of Sampras)... WORK IN PROGRESS....
Federer GOAT
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Nadal T1/T2
5) Rosewall T2
6) Sampras T2
7) Borg T2
8) Connors T2
9) McEnroe T3
10) Djokovic T3
11) Lendl T3
12) Agassi T4
I am not able to give a serious judgment on Kramer, Riggs, Segura and Hoad.
Clarification: the ranking is clearly not precise because speculative as I can not really get into the merits of the Pro / Am period.
Without giving a ranking of what were the big events Pro/Am v OE, is impossible for me to make a comparison between the 2 ages.
Yes. Rome was a big event wanted by Borg but not a slam.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I just gave you a definition for dominance. If you have a different one that's fine but we can come up with a criteria for dominance just like you come up with criteria to rate tournaments.
Major =/= Slam
Wembley was not a slam but was a major, WCT finals not a slam but a major - especially in 1972 with the non-major AO
