I notice on wikipedia that the World Pro Championships in Berlin in 1932-1933 had been added to the list of professional majors. Does anybody know what the scores were for the finals in these years?
In 1932 Plaa d. Tilden for first place (it was a r.r. with also Nüsslein and Albert Burke participating) 6-0,7-5,8-6. Nüsslein emerged third.
In 1933 there was again a round robin. Nüsslein beat Tilden 1-6,6-4,7-5,6-3 for first place. Third was K. Kozeluh, fourth Najuch.
It's worth mentioning that both events had large participation. In 1932 there were at least 64 players participating.
I notice on wikipedia that the World Pro Championships in Berlin in 1932-1933 had been added to the list of professional majors. Does anybody know what the scores were for the finals in these years?
Thanks very much
Mustard, I have forgotten something to tell: I possess a photograph (got it from Frau Nüsslein) showing Martin Plaa after his sensational win against Tilden. It shows Plaa in tears...
I find it worth to mention that Plaa won the first set by 6-0! Tilden in those days seldom lost a set that way...
In 1935 he lost two sets by 6-0 in the final of the US Pro against K. Kozeluh.
Plaa's win shows also that he, Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Ramillon, A. Burke and Najuch were more than just journeymen as some posters (or is it only one poster?) try to insinuate...
is there a definition of the term ´journeymen´that is widely accepted?
I'm not of English language but I think that kiki and maybe others use that word to belittle players like Nüsslein and K. Kozeluh...
Winners of majors (mostly pro majors) were Tilden, K. Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Richards, Plaa, Ramillon, Najuch and A. Burke...
Members of Hall of Fame are Tilden, Richards, Kozeluh and Nüsslein (by the way, the latter two proposed by myself and later by Bud Collins).
Mustard, I have forgotten something to tell: I possess a photograph (got it from Frau Nüsslein) showing Martin Plaa after his sensational win against Tilden. It shows Plaa in tears...
I find it worth to mention that Plaa won the first set by 6-0! Tilden in those days seldom lost a set that way...
In 1935 he lost two sets by 6-0 in the final of the US Pro against K. Kozeluh.
Plaa's win shows also that he, Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Ramillon, A. Burke and Najuch were more than just journeymen as some posters (or is it only one poster?) try to insinuate...
is there a definition of the term ´journeymen´that is widely accepted?
Yes I will own up. That was me who updated the Wikipedia article.
Never heard of guys like Plaa,Ramillom,Najuch and Burke
Where did they come frpm?
In no definition of "journeymen" would you find reference to players like Nusslein and Segura.
We should consider up and downs in pro tennis history. The pro scene of the 20s was in reality contested by tennis coaches, who had given tennis lessons and were no longer available for the strict amateur code. Dan Maskell tells his story in his autobiography. Real pro tennis as a spectators sport started with Suzanne Lenglen and C.C. (Cash and Carry) Pyle, who promoted the first tour between the French star, who had trouble with the Queen Mary and the Wimbledon committee, and a hapless US counterpart. Some men played on the undercart, among them Vinnie Richards. Despite the boost given by Tilden, the pro scene in the 30s was still evolving; all in all i still reckon the amateur game at the majors and the DC to be a bit more competitive.
In the late 40s, the pro game got a shot in the arm with the arrival of Kramer. The 1948 US pro at Forest Hills was a fine affair with 128 men competing, and Kramer, Budge, Riggs and Kovacs in the draw. In the early 50s the pro game took a dip. Kramer was very selective in his play, Gonzalez sometimes in and out, the whole tour sometimes in disarray. McCauley describes the Gonzalez-Trabert tour as the begin of the real strong pro game. In the late 50s, the pro tour overshadowed the amateur game, when virtually all leading amateurs had turned pro. But somehow, promoter Kramer let this big chance for an earlier pro or open game go. In the early 60s, the tour had financial and personal problems before Laver's arrival. 1967 was again a strong year, when 7 pros were in the overall top ten.
was there a real chance in the late 50´s for open tennis to come that soon?
There was a vote on whether tennis should go open in 1960, and it missed out by 5 votes.
i didn´t know that. who had the right to vote? members of the ITF?
I have to say, an equally strong case is developing for the Bristol Cup being a Pro. Major. It is very clear that Kozeluh was regarded by everyone as the World Pro. Champion at the beginning of 1931. That was the primary reason he had the head to head tour with Tilden once Tilden turned Pro. to determine who the new Pro Champion was. Why was Kozeluh regarded as the World Pro Champion? - because he was the winner of the Bristol Cup (he actually won it many times). Now if a tournament establishes who is the World Champion for the year - surely it should be regarded as a Pro. Major.
The guy says that the French Pro, Wembley Pro and US Pro are seen as the big 3 by sources because of their longevity, but that in some years, the other big tournaments listed were as big, if not bigger, but they were shortlived by comparison.
Personally, I agree with you Timnz, that the Tournament of Champions, Wimbledon Pro and World Pro, should be listed there on the table. I have never understood the argument that "sources" should predominate, as if sources were any more impartial and perfect.
In no definition of "journeymen" would you find reference to players like Nusslein and Segura.
Never heard of guys like Plaa,Ramillom,Najuch and Burke
Where did they come frpm?
Aren' you a vampire? I mean your relation to old Fraulwin Nusslein is just....
Journeymamship is the general standart for 90% of normal people that must work a whole journey to make a living including middle to high class, midle to middle class, middle to working class and, of course, working class
In my mouth it never pretends being an insult but rather to aknowlwdge a non true champuion player who, in spite of this shortcoming he or she never overcame, can have high middle class status and be respected in his profession in the way a Nusslein, a Kovacs, a Segura or more recently a Ferrer and other non major achievers were respected
On the wikipedia page now, there's the French Pro, Wembley Pro and US Pro on the main table, and the other shorter lived big tournaments listed below, with champions each year also listed.
That's also my view: World Pro, F.H. pro and Wimbledon 1967 are big tournaments but not majors because they did not be equivalents to the GS tournament and did not have enough tradition.
What is equivalency in your view? What made them equivalent?
Regarding Tradition - what establishes tradition? The duration of the event right? But that is only discovered retrospectively. They only knew the French Pro, Wembley and the US Pro had longevity retrospectively. But at the time, refer to the photo of Nusslein from my last posts, they regarded the World Pro alongside of the US Pro. - as being part of the 'big' events. They weren't to know that the World Pro. didn't have staying legs. We must judge history as how people perceived it at the time. Otherwise if we might find that the present 4 majors drop off the list of majors in the future because one or more might go out of fashion.
I think it is useful to compare this to golf. Golf's 4 majors changed over times. Bobby Jones is regarded as the guy who won Golf's calendar Grand Slam. However, the majors he won are different than today's majors. Nobody depreciates Jones' achievement and says that it is not a grand slam, because the events are not the same as today's events. No, they realise that the majors change over time - so they judge his achievements according to what was perceived at the time. Everybody in late 1933 early 1934 regarded Nusslein as World Pro. Champion. They did because of his win in Berlin. It's very clear that that event held at least as much weight if not more than the US Pro championships at the time. The fact that it didn't continue as the World Championship shouldn't take anything away from the fact, at the time, it was the World Championship and therefore worthy of a Major status.
Let me rephrase this. If the Berlin World Pro. Championships had continued for decades - then it would be regarded as a Pro. Slam right? (According to your 'tradition' statement). But if it had continued in 1934,1935, 1936...etc etc, 1966, 1967 - would that have made the 1933 event more different for Nusslein to win? No, not at all. It was was it was at the time. He should be given credit for winner what was a major at the time.
The same problem has happened with the World Hard Court Championships. It was officially (according to the ILTF) and regarded by all of the players of the day as a Major. But these days because it is a forgotten event - suddenly people don't recognize it as a Major anymore. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it was recognized as a major at the time. We must get away from historical revisionism.
I think it's common sense at the majority of experts that pro tennis had three majors after the war (or since 1956 the Paris event).
Thus we were able to state that Rosewall and Laver achieved a so called Pro Grand Slam even though the players themselves did not call it that way.
The Tournament of Champions (1956-1959) was just as big an event, as was the Wimbledon Pro of 1967.
Laver won the Wimbledon Pro in 1967, anyway.
The Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open have been official majors, recognised by the ITF, since 1924-1925. That is why WCT Dallas and the Masters, as big as they were at the time, were not majors. They were just the tournaments that had the most prize money and were more up to date with the immediate demands of open tennis, unlike the establishment that clung to the old ways as much as possible.
But as you know the WCT Dallas was perhaps a title more desired by at least some players over at least some majors.
The Tournament of Champions (1956-1959) was just as big an event, as was the Wimbledon Pro of 1967.
Laver won the Wimbledon Pro in 1967, anyway.[/QUOTE
The Tournament of Champions and Wimbledon 1967 were surely big events but should we include them as pro majors? Then-where is the limit? Should not we include also L.A. Masters, Madison Square Garden, PSW, Masters (1970 and later) and WCT finals? I would say a NO to all of them.
The Tournament of Champions (1956-1959) was just as big an event, as was the Wimbledon Pro of 1967.
Laver won the Wimbledon Pro in 1967, anyway.[/QUOTE
The Tournament of Champions and Wimbledon 1967 were surely big events but should we include them as pro majors? Then-where is the limit? Should not we include also L.A. Masters, Madison Square Garden, PSW, Masters (1970 and later) and WCT finals? I would say a NO to all of them.
What Pro majors had official status? As I said before, the current 4 have been official in the open era and amateur era since 1924-1925.
What Pro majors had official status? As I said before, the current 4 have been official in the open era and amateur era since 1924-1925.
Mustard, you are right that the pro majors did have a doubtful status. They did not have the official label "Pro Grand Slam". Nevertheless it was common sense among the pros that Wembley, French Pro and US Pro were the foremost tournaments, and we should rate them as pro majors. Additional tournaments are thus the more doubtful.
But It's maybe interesting that Rosewall valued his two WCT finals as his greatest achievements even though he won four open era G.S. events. I stress that I don't agree with him because I rate his US Open win of 1970 his best win.
Mustard, you are right that the pro majors did have a doubtful status. They did not have the official label "Pro Grand Slam". Nevertheless it was common sense among the pros that Wembley, French Pro and US Pro were the foremost tournaments, and we should rate them as pro majors. Additional tournaments are thus the more doubtful.
.
Was there a sense in 1933 that those 3 tournaments were above the World Pro in Berlin? In reading the newpaper entries and hearing about Tilden's rating of the tournament I don't get that sense at all. The sense is that if anything the World Pro rated above them - or at least at their level. Hence, would it be more proper to say that the World Pro. was a Pro major but lost it's Pro Major status retrospectively because it didn't continue as such? But should Nusslein and Plaa be penalised for that?
Was there a sense in 1933 that those 3 tournaments were above the World Pro in Berlin? In reading the newpaper entries and hearing about Tilden's rating of the tournament I don't get that sense at all. The sense is that if anything the World Pro rated above them - or at least at their level. Hence, would it be more proper to say that the World Pro. was a Pro major but lost it's Pro Major status retrospectively because it didn't continue as such? But should Nusslein and Plaa be penalised for that?
I can add a bit about the old World's Pro Championship.
The 1934 French Pro (Tilden beat Plaa in final) was originally called "World's Pro Championship" even though world champion Nüsslein did not paticipate.
In 1935 there also must have been a World pro Championship at Paris because I have an old clipping of 1936 with a hint to the 1935 event when Tilden won. No details known.
In August 1936 Nüsslein beat Tilden (SF) and Cochet (final) at Roland Garros in the world pro championship. No details known.
The 1937 Wembley event was called the world's pro indoor champ.
The 1939 French Pro was also labelled the world pro championship.
Thus we get a certain tradition of the World Pro...
I think sometimes we get too much in technicalities. The Tournament of Champions and the Wimbledon Pro were super important tournaments and arguably the most important of the year. Were they Pro Majors? I don't think so. But the fact they were so prestigious is more important. I don't think the pros were into the idea that "I have to build up my majors count now." They were into winning big tournaments and winning money.
What was more important to the Pros in 1972, the WCT Championship or the French and Australian? I would think the WCT Championship. Rosewall won it over Laver that year. Some may argue that it was a small field but I would argue back that they earned it by playing so well over the course of the WCT circuit as the WTF tournament is now.
I would also argue that the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, while perhaps not a Pro Major was the biggest and most important tournament in the Old Pro Tour history.
This is another reason why I think it's so flawed to count majors as the most important criteria to determine the best player of all time.
Great points here. The "official" pro majors were often minor events.
While the 1967 Wimbledon was the most important pro tournament in the way it transitioned to open tennis, and showed Laver at his absolute peak form, I would suggest that the 1959 Forest Hills had a stronger field and showcased a number of greats at their prime. Hoad, Gonzales, a younger and better Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Anderson at his best, Cooper, Segura, Rose, Giammalva (who was a good player, and won a pro tournament that year at Tuscaloosa beating both Riggs and Budge).
Plus, the last TWO rounds were best-of-five sets, a tougher challenge than the semis in 1967, which featured a very deteriorated Hoad among the last four.
I can add a bit about the old World's Pro Championship.
The 1934 French Pro (Tilden beat Plaa in final) was originally called "World's Pro Championship" even though world champion Nüsslein did not paticipate.
In 1935 there also must have been a World pro Championship at Paris because I have an old clipping of 1936 with a hint to the 1935 event when Tilden won. No details known.
In August 1936 Nüsslein beat Tilden (SF) and Cochet (final) at Roland Garros in the world pro championship. No details known.
The 1937 Wembley event was called the world's pro indoor champ.
The 1939 French Pro was also labelled the world pro championship.
Thus we get a certain tradition of the World Pro...
I don't have the references to your indications above. However, rather than Berlin being vaguely the 'World Pro Championships' - it was universally and unambiguously regarded as such. Your above mentions maybe some promoter 'talking up' the event (though it was reasonable to call the Wembley event the World Pro indoor). In contrast universally Berlin in 1932/33 was called and regarded as the World Pro. It was a major at the time, regarded by all as such.
I don't have the references to your indications above. However, rather than Berlin being vaguely the 'World Pro Championships' - it was universally and unambiguously regarded as such. Your above mentions maybe some promoter 'talking up' the event (though it was reasonable to call the Wembley event the World Pro indoor). In contrast universally Berlin in 1932/33 was called and regarded as the World Pro. It was a major at the time, regarded by all as such.
timnz, there are newspaper clippings about those maybe strange championships.
Hans Nüsslein used to claim that he won three world pro championships: Berlin 1933, Paris 1936 and Wembley 1937
I agree that 1959 ToC had a stronger field than Wimbledon pro 1967.
Dan, do you realize that Budge was 44 and Riggs was 41 at Tuscaloosa? It's hardly a proof of Giammalva's greatness...
True, but they were not REALLY ancient, and could probably beat a lot of players in 1959.
Giammalva won the 1955 Eastern Grasscourts Championships, an important tournament, and played for the U.S.A. Davis Cup team.
Budge won only ONE match in his 1954 tour...5 years earlier than 1959!
That ONE match was a great win against first-place Gonzales.
Yes it was. But what did Budge win in 1959?