Pronouncements about prestige are always inexact and subjective -- and they cannot give Dallas a better attendance than what Philadelphia had. Dallas had only one of the top 3 players (Borg). Philly had all three (Connors, Borg, Nastase). I don't object to prestige as a concept, the way some other posters do. But I do object when I think "prestige" is used (misused) to ignore the realities of draw strength. At best I think you could say that the prestige of the Dallas title makes that event equal with Philadelphia; but when someone says that Philadelphia, which had the better draw, cannot even compare to Dallas, I know the concept of prestige is being misused. And this is a perfect example: calling the '76 Masters the fifth most important event of the year, just because it was a tour-ending championship. The top 3 were absent (Connors, Borg, Nastase). So was the French Open champion (Panatta). I think it's a very artificial thing, making Dallas and the Masters into majors whenever they were played, simply because they were tour-ending championships. How can an event be considered a major if the top 3 players in the world, and all the champions of the Slams played in that year, don't even bother to go? Dallas was clearly more prestigious than the Masters in '76, but even so, its prestige was not beyond criticism, as you can see here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&dq=borg connors caracas clay&pg=2867,3027260 Who decides #1 according to margins of victory? And you know the reason nobody puts McEnroe above Connors in 82: because Mac won no Slams, and Connors won two.