What is a Major?
- Thread starter -NN-
- Start date
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
When I search "tennis majors" in google the first results that come up for me are the following:
http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/grand-slam-titles-winners-mens-women/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)
Are majors only an ITF construct?
Are majors any tournaments that can be called the most important/valuable of their time under their own unique circumstances?
Can it be applied in retrospect to non-ITF tournaments?
Does a tournament being a major tournament automatically mean it is a most prestigious/important/valuable/legacy-defining tournament?
Do fluctuations in quality subvert the term in either direction; from the demotion of classic majors to the promotion of non-major tournaments, ITF or otherwise.
http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/grand-slam-titles-winners-mens-women/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)
Are majors only an ITF construct?
Are majors any tournaments that can be called the most important/valuable of their time under their own unique circumstances?
Can it be applied in retrospect to non-ITF tournaments?
Does a tournament being a major tournament automatically mean it is a most prestigious/important/valuable/legacy-defining tournament?
Do fluctuations in quality subvert the term in either direction; from the demotion of classic majors to the promotion of non-major tournaments, ITF or otherwise.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Quoting here because I think it's relevant.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Probably relevant in small doses.
One of the great symphonies in history.
No but, what is a major?
Are majors only an ITF construct?
Are majors any tournaments that can be called the most important/valuable of their time under their own unique circumstances?
Can it be applied in retrospect to non-ITF tournaments?
Does a tournament being a major tournament automatically mean it is a most prestigious/important/valuable/legacy-defining tournament?
Do fluctuations in quality subvert the term in either direction; from the demotion of classic majors to the promotion of non-major tournaments, ITF or otherwise?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think the concept of major tournaments or tournaments of great value is something that transcends the ITF and any other governing body. I think it's human nature to ascribe value to things, to compare etc...
I have quite a fluid outlook on things, what I consider a major depends on several criteria - and I'm not really how many need to satisfied for me to accept an event as a major - it's like a gut feel, totally subjective;
1) Top players: The best players need to be participating, a major is more than just a venue IMO. It should be a prize that the best of the best fight for.
2) Format: In my mind there's a minimum threshold for the format of an event before it can be considered a major. Generally this means more than a few rounds and at least a BO5 match.
3) Hierarchy: Generally in a standardised tour the events need to be recognised by the players, tour, independents as being of great value. This is linked to the next one...
4) The Tennis: How much do the players want it? If the top players are involved and playing sensational tennis and giving 110% that can elevate a victory for me beyond the stand hierarchy e.g. Rome 2006
There might be more but that's all that comes to mind straight off @-NN-
I have quite a fluid outlook on things, what I consider a major depends on several criteria - and I'm not really how many need to satisfied for me to accept an event as a major - it's like a gut feel, totally subjective;
1) Top players: The best players need to be participating, a major is more than just a venue IMO. It should be a prize that the best of the best fight for.
2) Format: In my mind there's a minimum threshold for the format of an event before it can be considered a major. Generally this means more than a few rounds and at least a BO5 match.
3) Hierarchy: Generally in a standardised tour the events need to be recognised by the players, tour, independents as being of great value. This is linked to the next one...
4) The Tennis: How much do the players want it? If the top players are involved and playing sensational tennis and giving 110% that can elevate a victory for me beyond the stand hierarchy e.g. Rome 2006
There might be more but that's all that comes to mind straight off @-NN-
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
It will (hopefully) become a discussion on what a major IS and what we want it to be.
And everything in between.
For example maybe a major is not the strongest and best tournament, it's simply the most important "brand" of tournament as decided by some sort of governing body and it acts as an aegis which can't be pierced even by significant periods of negative turmoil for the brand. It just so happens that the brand is usually the most highly regarded one and therefore more often than not produces the deep fields and great quality in tandem with the prestige or the default and inherent value of the brand (the highest value).
And everything in between.
For example maybe a major is not the strongest and best tournament, it's simply the most important "brand" of tournament as decided by some sort of governing body and it acts as an aegis which can't be pierced even by significant periods of negative turmoil for the brand. It just so happens that the brand is usually the most highly regarded one and therefore more often than not produces the deep fields and great quality in tandem with the prestige or the default and inherent value of the brand (the highest value).
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think we can at least state what is certainly a major by modern criteria e.g. one of the 4 biggest events of the year, we can bring this back to the 70's and include the WCT finals as the 4th biggest in place of some editions of the AO.
Beyond that is what is more difficult question.
Beyond that is what is more difficult question.
I think it's a matter tangled, NN.
In Italy (and I believe in Europe excluding Great Britain), the Big 4 in the years 70-80-90 were called "four Grand Slam Tournaments" or simply "4 Slam". No one spoke of the majors.
Majors I have an Anglo-Saxon history (USA, Great Britain, Australia).
In Chile, China, Paraguay or Turkey do not know.
Now slam and majors are appointed to identify the Big 4.
Finding the 4th replacing AO poor years beginning your Open is not a fruitful exercise. AO remains a slam / majors although poor.
BIG other tournaments that have alternated over the years Open (Lipton, US Pro, Us Pro Indoor, South Pac., Rome, Las Vegas, Seiko, Dallas, ...) were big events >>> AO but were not majors.
I think the term is attributed to the Anglo-Saxons to identify BIG 4.
Creates a lot of confusion because, for example in the middle of Pro was the majors were 4 scandalous amateurs tournaments.
The term Pro majors do not know whether it is true or a recent invention, the fact remains that Wembley, US Pro and Pro French were almost always the top tournaments.
Lower than the World Tour, IMHO.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
This is a very interesting perspective that I hadn't really thought about. Thanks. I'm keen to see how other frequent users of this subforum respond later on to my queries, your comments, and those of NatF.
At a glance maybe it looks like a simple question. Like you, I believe that it is a matter tangled.
I asked @metsman the same question and he gave a great answer but only referred to the ITF Grand Slam events (and just for Open Era). Within just that branch of events, it's already messy and not uniform throughout history. Then there's everything else.
A matter tangled.
NatF
Bionic Poster
This depends whether we're discussing Majors or majors. If we're discussing Majors then there can only be 4, the 4 we know today. If we're discussing the latter, majors, then there is room for debate.
NatF
Bionic Poster
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
That GIF is legendary good gawd. Worthy of major status.
It also reminds me of watching this:
I think this is relevant to the thread and the nature of discussions in general in this subforum and also GPPD. I recommend that we all watch it for at least 5 minutes and then take some time to reflect on how it mirrors our existence here before finally contributing some thoughts to the thread. It might appear that I'm joking but I think it could be cathartic for many. Besides, who ever knows when I'm joking and being serious anyway.
So, watch this vid for 5 minutes guys and then think about the fundamental questions relevant to this thread.
***
In case that wasn't clear, please watch this video for 5 minutes.
Thank you.
NatF
Bionic Poster
That video is incredible, time is actually slowing down.
My main takeaway is that I now have a new dance to practice...
It would be helpful to the opinion of others and especially from different countries/states.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
My understanding is that the terms "major," and "Grand Slam," in tennis are derived from the same terms as they are used in golf. Originally, the Grand Slam of golf consisted of the original golf majors the US Open, the U.S. Amateur Championships, the British Open and the British Amateur Championships. Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam in 1930, obviously as an amateur. The U.S. and British Amateur events were later replaced by the Masters and PGA Championships.
To my knowledge, since 1925, the majors in tennis have always been the Wimbledon Championships, the U.S. Nationals, the French Championships and the Australian Championships. To my knowledge, the term Grand Slam was first used in tennis shortly after Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam of golf. Don Budge then won the first grand slam of tennis in 1938.
KG, Pro majors: Read krosero.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
They remain the same in terms of a Grand Slam. However, as we all know, they have varied historically in importance.
A former major champion told me that in her day (late 50s/60s) that the women considered The Italian far more important to RG.
I've also read that in the 70s The Circle Cup and Colgate Finals were are far more importance than the Australian, and for a few years (mid 70s) the French.
You could also argue that those at the top of the game prioritised Team Tennis over both these majors during the mid 70s.
A former major champion told me that in her day (late 50s/60s) that the women considered The Italian far more important to RG.
I've also read that in the 70s The Circle Cup and Colgate Finals were are far more importance than the Australian, and for a few years (mid 70s) the French.
You could also argue that those at the top of the game prioritised Team Tennis over both these majors during the mid 70s.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
A major is currently just considered the four championships, the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. The tennis hierarchy and system has stabilized so this is clearly the way it is. However in the Early Days of the Open era it was not that way. The problem was that the Old Pros and the former amateurs who just turned pro wanted to make big money even over the prestige of the four majors of Australian, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. Tournaments like the WCT Championship were called majors by the media and for all intents and purposes they were. John Newcombe was considered the number one player in the world for the first half of 1974 because he dominated the WCT tour and won the WCT Championship despite the fact that Jimmy Connors was virtually unbeatable and won the Australian and Borg won the French. Newcombe had said his goal that year was to win the WCT Championship and I believe Wimbledon.
Arthur Ashe was number one in 1975 because he won the WCT Championship and Wimbledon in 1975. Check this video out on the 1975 WCT Championship. Notice they say around the 1:10 minute mark that the winner would be crowned the World Champion of Tennis. At around the 4:25 mark the commentator said that the WCT Championship was this years first major championship. Clearly the players and the media considered the WCT Championship to be a major in those days. The WCT tour was perhaps the first top organized tour in the Open Era so naturally the championship would be considered a major. Also and perhaps more important is the fact the winner of the WCT Championship won a huge amount of price money. Was winning the WCT Championship with only 8 players in the tournament overall as tough as winning a major with all the top players participating in a 128 player field? I would have to say no but at the same time the WCT Tour was played throughout the season and only the top 8 qualified so that also means a lot.
In the early Open Era there were many big money tournaments like the Tennis Champions Classic in 1970 and 1971 which were of huge prestige and the top players really to participate. The Howard Hughes and the Alan King in Las Vegas were also big money tournaments of large prestige.
On the Old Pro Tour prior to 1968 there generally were several tournaments that were considered very Important Tournaments. Some of them were Wembley, the French Pro and the US Pro. Another was the Johannesburg tournament I believe according to some players. It was hard to always have a tournament that would be considered the equivalent of a major on the Old Pro Tour because of the uncertain status of the tournaments every year. For example the 1964 US Pro went bankrupt and the players didn't get a penny. Laver won that tournament over Pancho Gonzalez in the final. Tournaments like the French Pro and Wembley weren't always played every year so a player couldn't put it on their calendar as an event they wanted to win the next year since they weren't certain it would be played. Wembley were clearly the big event in most years but there could be other big events like the 1967 Wimbledon Pro or the Tournament of Champions in the late 1950s which was won three of four years by Pancho Gonzalez, the other year it was won by Lew Hoad.
One major event on the Old Pro Tour that I believe is not taken into account is the old World Championship Tours which were the most important event on the Old Pro Tour. Often their tours were played for over 100 matches. For example Jack Kramer defeated a young Pancho Gonzalez 96 matches to 27 to retain his standing as the number one pro and the top player in the world. Kramer retired and Gonzalez won either 6 or 7 World Championship Tours over greats like Tony Trabert, Lew Hoad, Pancho Segura, Frank Sedgman and Ken Rosewall among others. Tennis Base gives Gonzalez's win over Tony Trabert in 1956 5100 points. To put this in the proper perspective Tennis Base give Rod Laver's 1968 Open Wimbledon win 2119 points. The thing about the old World Championship Tours is that the winner was guaranteed to be considered the number one player and the huge of amount of matches played which was very grueling and tough. I would easily say that winning just one World Championship Tour is worth at least two current Open Majors because of the reward of being number one for the year, the generally super tough work competition and the huge amount of matches and work.
I do think when we consider who is number one that we have to consider the strength of the field. I could see some tournaments with less prestige but with great fields like the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. One thing about the Tennis Champions Classic that year was there were often big gaps between rounds although I believe the last three rounds were played in a few days. Laver won that tournament over a super elite field with 13 wins and 0 losses which was view by experts and fans with awe.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
The bit in bold might be the only thing that really matters.
It's an interesting point. To give another example, let's compare 2007 Madrid with 2016 Wimbledon. Who's win was more impressive? At what point does a players performance in a lesser event become more important than a lesser performance in a bigger event?
Following some things you have said in another thread, I value Davis Cup highly because it seems all the players really want to win it - just not every year and not at the same time. Same with the Olympics.
Do players value the slams because they are important, or are the slams important because all the players want to win them?
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Brilliant video. Fascinating.
Also, It says Ashe's first major title for seven years, which I assume was the 68 USO.
Although didn't he win the AO in 1970?
Interesting to watch Ashe play Borg down the middle - presumably to cut the angles and negate Borg's speed.
Also saw Lew Hoad in the crowd jump to his feet after a Laver winner.
And, I never thought I'd see Marc Cox and Lloyd Bridges in the same film AND narrated by Moses/Ben Hur
Thoroughly enjoyable.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The Laver versus Borg match was pretty good also. I wish I would have seen the whole match. That was considered a super match.Brilliant video. Fascinating.
Interesting to watch Ashe play Borg down the middle - presumably to cut the angles and negate Borg's speed.
Also saw Lew Hoad in the crowd jump to his feet after a Laver winner.
And, I never thought I'd see Marc Cox and Lloyd Bridges in the same film AND narrated by Moses/Ben Hur
Thoroughly enjoyable.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The problem I have with the World Championship Tours is that they were often against a rookie and all you had to do was win more matches than them - which to be frank for an experienced pro versus a rookie isn't so great a feat that it should be worth 2 modern slams. We can reward it for the value of the attrition and playing that many matches but then do we reward players with majors for strong win/loss records across a year or for having dominant records against the top 10. Some World Tours were against several seasoned Pro's, those have a lot more value for me but it's still exceedingly hard to give it a fair value.
I think the World Championship Tours should be treated as having great value within the years their played and in the contribution they gave to the #1 ranking. But there's no modern day comparison and I don't think we should be treating it as the equivalent of multiple majors today. That doesn't make sense to me for the reasons stated above.
The TCC is more like a series of one night stands than a tournament. The participants face off with the top 4 (?) qualifying and competing for the overall title. I assume that would be the last few rounds you mention. This is another type of event that's really hard to rate.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Sounds like a chicken or egg question. The slams have history, money, ranking points going for them. The players want all 3. If just 1 or 2 of those switched to favour a new tournament I have little doubts it would be considered the 5th major immediately.
I personally found Nalbandian's exploits in Madrid more impressive, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has more value than Murray's Wimbledon win because of #2 the format.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
These days 'Major' is just another term for Slam. If you say so-and-so won a Major it means they won one of the 4 top tennis tournaments.
Majors, the WTF and Masters events are classed as 'Big' tournaments according to the ATP.
Any other definition just tends to cause controversy and confusion.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
True enough. However even a young Gonzalez, Rosewall and Hoad were tough. The Hoad/Gonzalez tough was tough because Hoad was trained by Kramer, Rosewall and Segura to fix up his weaknesses. Gonzalez did play on tour veterans like Hoad (later), Rosewall again, Kramer, Segura (several times) and defeated them.
It does show the problems in setting up values for some of the old events in tennis history.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Oops. Sorry. I was glancing through the thread and missed that.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
LOL I was supposed to quote PDJ and not you.
As for your points, I also agree with a lot of it. I can't absolutely agree with all the details because I don't have a super firm opinion on them yet, such as the value of those World Championship Tours. Really great and detailed post which I couldn't like enough.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
As you know, I call them Full Field Tournaments.
NatF
Bionic Poster
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I missed it to, but it was in a quote that I hadn't expanded. Main thing is that I got to watch an enjoyable video.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Kramer beat Riggs in 1947-1948 and Budge beat Vines in 1939. I don't know if you can count Tilden winning because the amateurs probably were stronger then.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I C what you did there.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't necessarily want you to agree firmly with all the details. I think in studying all of this we cannot have firm opinions if we really want to understand this. We can always build a better mousetrap as they say. We are constantly getting new information so if we don't change opinions or are locked into an opinion we are not doing justice to the research. Over the years I've had various opinions on whether a player has accomplished a lot or not.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Forgot about Vines beating Tilden in 1934 also.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I can only say what she told me - and she did win it quite a few times!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes we can have some conclusions after we research it well. Even then we can change things if we realize there are errors in our thought process.
One thing we cannot do is arrive at the conclusion first and just manipulate the information so it fits the conclusion. I find too many do this.
Similar threads
- Nathaniel_Near
- Former Pro Player Talk
