The question you ask is interesting BT.
On one side there is
- the Bo5 totem,
- history
- our willingness to reduce problems, to synthesize, to focus on one event or at most 4 events.
On the other hand there is the fact that
- all the best players win the other Big Titles,
- points assigned by ATP.
Totem Bo5: it seems to me that there is the certainty that in tennis the best is the one that best plays long and expensive tournaments.
It's very strange this. Tennis is a sport of class and technique, great physical form should not be seen as a positive characteristic.
If a player plays Bo3 tournaments well but not Bo5 is seen as a failure. The physicist seems to be more considered of the technique. Better the power-game than a stop-volley ?
History: it is said that the history of the slams is monumental but it is a false history.
It's simply very long but the Australian has always been a tournament for beggars, a National.
And the others 3 before 1968 were full of supporting actors, almost never big names.
The winners and runner-ups until 1968 are really poor.
Our concentration is very limited, the media know it and sell a product: so we watch swimming only at the Olympics, we only see the NBA playoffs, the World Cup final, the Rugby World Cup final, the Tour de France.
It's serious this? Is this an interest in sport?
In cinema, do we only see Oscar-winning films? In the music only 10 songs of country music or blues? Or are there too many 10? Better 4.
Do the top players only engage in slams? Apart from Sampras who for a number of reasons could not emerge in the other big titles all the other champions have won many big titles. Djokovic, Nadal and Fedr have won many slams and many other big titles.
ATP ranking attributes many points to the Masters (half of a slam) but it seems that fans and the media are not interested.
We read that winning a slam > 10 Masters, but 3 Masters > 1 slam for ATP.
Personal comment:
I do not like slams because they are all Bo5, I would like at least 1 to be Bo3, another Bo5, but only from the semi-finals, because they are favored more physical players and less those with more individual technique.
Leconte, Gene Mayer, Lutz and Panatta had a similar technique to Borg, Connors and Lendl but they did not have their body.
The story of the slam is mythologized because it is largely disgusting. It's not just ugly, but really disgusting.
Fans of this sport should not reduce problems, synthesize, but concentrate on the whole season: tennis can not be reduced to 4 events. Otherwise the vision is partial, therefore wrong.
Not considering how much ATP recognizes WTC and Masters 1000 means not attaching importance to ATP.
Not considering WTC and Masters 1000 means eliminating half of the palmares also of the Big 3.