A re- defining of what constitutes being a pro-slam event

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, Apr 13, 2012.

  1. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,448
    The thing that has prompted this thread was reading Lew Hoads wikipedia article, where the author had listed Hoads 1959 tournament of champions win of 1959 as one of his pro slam wins. Now regardless of your view of wikipedia, it is clear that wikipedia has defined and consistently used the pro slams as only being wembley, the us pro and the french pro. So for consistency reasons the tournament of champions win should be taken out.

    HOWEVER its clear that having said the above, in 1959 forest hills tounament of champions was regarded as the premier event of that year . It was in feature articles in Sports Illustrated and Time magazine, and had coverage by Allison Danzig in the N.Y. Times.

    My feeling is that a new definition of pro slam needs to be developed, which is the wembley, us pro & crench pro plus whatever event was the most prestigous event of the year outside of those events.

    Some years are clear on that eg 1967 wimbledon pro. 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 tournament of champions etc. Some are less clear eg should the 4th event of 1966 be the Madison Square Garden Pro or Forest hills pro?

    Its crazy not to include as 'majors' those events in a particular year are possibly the most prestiguous of all of that year. Also since pro. Slam was a made up concept of certain tennis historians where does one go to modify their definition?
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2012
    #1
  2. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,342
    It's dangerous to do that because what is important may vary. I understand the logic and it makes perfect sense.

    For example I would tend to think the field Laver faced at the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was as strong as you can get and you can argue it's a major. Certainly what Laver did in winning the tournament which was all best of five sets was a unique accomplishment in history. Do we rank it as a major?

    Do we rank the WCT Championships as majors? I certainly think for years that they were as prestigious as majors and more prestigious than for example the Australian Open in some years.

    Certainly the 1967 Wimbledon Pro was for all intents and purposes a major. It's tough to do because tournaments often vary in prestige from year to year.
     
    #2
  3. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,448
    However

    1971 had the 4 traditional majors. For symmetry perhaps we need 4 pro majors since the 1930s. What is clear is that is bizarre that the most important event of the year isnt regarded as a being a major, as is the case in 1959 forest hills or 1967 with the wimbledon pro.

    What if stolle had won the wimbledon pro. ? On his record it would show no pro majors but everybody would know that iswonthemost importantevent of the year.
     
    #3
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,342
    I just wish we had an accurate system to work out which field is the absolute toughest in a best of five for the men. Is strength of field the key? Prestige has to be there also.

    Jan Kodes' victory at the 1973 Wimbledon is definitely not as strong as some majors or some top tournaments but it still is Wimbledon and looks good on the resume.
     
    #4
  5. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I count the following tournaments as majors:

    Amateur majors
    Australian Championships (1927-1940, 1946-1968 )
    French Championships (1925-1939, 1946-1967)
    Wimbledon (1877-1914, 1919-1939, 1946-1967)
    US Championships (1882-1967)
    World Hard Court Championships (1912-1914, 1920-1923)
    World Covered Court Championships (1913, 1919-1923)
    Australasian Championships (1924-1926)

    Professional majors
    French Pro (1930-1939, 1956, 1958-1967)
    Wembley Pro (1934-1939, 1949-1953, 1956-1967)
    US Pro (1927-1943, 1945-1967)
    Tournament of Champions (1956-1959)
    Wimbledon Pro (1967)

    Open majors
    Australian Open (1969-January 1977, December 1977-1985, 1987-Present Day)
    French Open (1968-Present Day)
    Wimbledon (1968-Present Day)
    US Open (1968-Present Day)

    Other tournaments like the WCT Dallas event, the Masters and MSG Pro event are not counted as majors, but are as important as it gets outside the major status. With WCT Dallas and the Masters, it was a case of a richer, more professionally run tournament while the powers that be held back some of the majors.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2012
    #5
  6. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,448
    Criteria

    I agree that the wimbledon pro and the tournament of champions should be regarded as majors. But if they are why not other premier events like the madison square gardens proof the mid 60s or the forest hill pro of 1966?
     
    #6
  7. elegos7

    elegos7 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    I think the best solution is to choose the 4 most important events in a year. In this way we can avoid having 7 or 8 "majors" (like in 1967 where apart from the amateur majors the pros also had many major tournaments).

    I myself selected the 4 most important events each year since 1913, the establishment of the ILTF. Before that date, there were fewer important events in a year.

    In each year I chose at least one amateur event, even when the best players were among the professionals, because the public and the press were much more interested in amateur events.

    Here are my selections:

    1877 WIM Gore
    1878 WIM Hadow
    1879 WIM Hartley IRL Vere ‘St. Leger’ Goold
    1880 WIM Hartley IRL W. Renshaw Prince's Lawford
    1881 WIM W. Renshaw IRL W. Renshaw Prince's W. Renshaw
    1882 WIM W. Renshaw IRL W. Renshaw Prince's E. Renshaw
    1883 WIM W. Renshaw IRL E. Renshaw Prince's Lawford
    1884 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Lawford USA Sears
    1885 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Lawford USA Sears
    1886 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Lawford USA Sears
    1887 WIM Lawford IRL E. Renshaw USA Sears
    1888 WIM E. Renshaw IRL E. Renshaw NoE Hamilton
    1889 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Hamilton NoE Hamilton
    1890 WIM Hamilton IRL Lewis NoE Pim
    1891 WIM Baddeley IRL Lewis NoE Pim
    1892 WIM Baddeley IRL E. Renshaw NoE Pim
    1893 WIM Pim IRL Pim NoE Pim
    1894 WIM Pim IRL Pim NoE Baddeley
    1895 WIM Baddeley IRL Pim NoE Baddeley
    1896 WIM Mahony IRL Baddeley NoE Baddeley
    1897 WIM R. Doherty IRL Eaves USA Wrenn
    1898 WIM R. Doherty IRL Mahony NoE L. Doherty
    1899 WIM R. Doherty IRL R. Doherty USA Whitman
    1900 WIM R. Doherty IRL R. Doherty USA Whitman
    1901 WIM Gore IRL R. Doherty USA Larned
    1902 WIM L. Doherty USA Larned DC Whitman
    1903 WIM L. Doherty USA L. Doherty DC L. Doherty
    1904 WIM L. Doherty USA Ward DC L. Doherty
    1905 WIM L. Doherty USA Wright DC Smith
    1906 WIM L. Doherty USA Clothier DC Smith
    1907 WIM Brookes USA Larned DC Brookes
    1908 WIM Gore USA Larned DC Wright
    1909 WIM Gore USA Larned DC Brookes
    1910 WIM Wilding USA Larned DC -
    1911 WIM Wilding USA Larned DC Brookes
    1912 WIM Wilding USA McLoughlin DC Parke
    1913 WIM Wilding USA McLoughlin WHC Wilding DC Parke
    1914 WIM Brookes USA Williams WHC Wilding DC McLoughlin
    1915 USA Johnston
    1916 USA Williams
    1917 USA Murray
    1918 USA Murray
    1919 WIM Patterson USA Johnston IntA Gobert DC Patterson
    1920 WIM Tilden USA Tilden WHC Laurentz DC Johnston
    1921 WIM Tilden USA Tilden WHC Tilden DC Johnston
    1922 WIM Patterson USA Tilden WHC Cochet DC Johnston
    1923 WIM Johnston USA Tilden WHC Johnston DC Tilden
    1924 WIM Borotra USA Tilden Olympic Games Richards DC Tilden
    1925 WIM Lacoste USA Tilden FRA Lacoste DC Johnston
    1926 WIM Borotra USA Lacoste FRA Cochet DC Johnston
    1927 WIM Cochet USA Lacoste FRA Lacoste DC Lacoste
    1928 WIM Lacoste USA Cochet FRA Cochet DC Cochet
    1929 WIM Cochet USA Tilden FRA Lacoste DC Cochet
    1930 WIM Tilden USA Doeg FRA Cochet DC Cochet
    1931 WIM Wood USA Vines pUSA Tilden DC Cochet
    1932 WIM Vines USA Vines pUSA Kozeluh DC Borotra
    1933 WIM Crawford USA Perry pGER Nusslein DC Perry
    1934 WIM Perry FRA von Cramm pWEM Vines pUSA Nusslein
    1935 WIM Perry FRA Perry pFRA Vines DC Perry
    1936 WIM Perry FRA von Cramm pSouthport Nusslein DC Perry
    1937 WIM Budge pTour Vines pFRA Nusslein DC Budge
    1938 WIM Budge pTour Vines pFRA Nusslein DC Budge
    1939 USA Riggs pTour Budge pUSA Vines pFRA Budge
    1940 USA McNeill pUSA Budge
    1941 USA Riggs pUSA Perry
    1942 pTour Budge pUSA Budge
    1943
    1944
    1945 phUSA Riggs
    1946 USA Kramer pUSA Riggs phUSA Riggs DC Kramer
    1947 USA Kramer pUSA Riggs pPhi Riggs DC Kramer
    1948 USA Gonzales pUSA Kramer pTour Kramer DC Parker
    1949 WIM Schroeder USA Gonzales pUSA Riggs pWEM Kramer
    1950 WIM Patty pTour Kramer pUSA Segura pPhi Gonzales
    1951 WIM Savitt pTour Kramer pUSA Segura pPhi Kramer
    1952 WIM Sedgman pUSA Segura pWEM Gonzales DC Sedgman
    1953 USA Trabert pTour Kramer pWEM Sedgman DC Hoad
    1954 WIM Drobny FRA Trabert pTour Gonzales phUSA Gonzales
    1955 WIM Trabert USA Trabert pUSA Gonzales phUSA Gonzales
    1956 WIM Hoad USA Rosewall pUSA Gonzales pWEM Gonzales
    1957 WIM Hoad pToChamp Gonzales pWEM Rosewall pUSA Gonzales
    1958 WIM Cooper pUSA Gonzales pWEM Sedgman pFRA Rosewall
    1959 WIM Olmedo pToChamp Hoad pWEM Anderson pFRA Trabert
    1960 WIM Fraser pTour Gonzales pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
    1961 WIM Laver pUSA Gonzales pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
    1962 WIM Laver USA Laver pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
    1963 WIM McKinley pUSA Rosewall pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
    1964 WIM Emerson pUSA Laver pWEM Laver pFRA Rosewall
    1965 USA Santana pUSA Rosewall pWEM Laver pFRA Rosewall
    1966 WIM Santana pUSA Laver pWEM Laver pFRA Rosewall
    1967 WIM Newcombe pUSA Laver pWIM Laver pFRA Laver
    1968 WIM Laver USA Ashe FRA Rosewall PSW Laver
    1969 WIM Laver USA Laver FRA Laver AUS Laver
    1970 WIM Newcombe USA Rosewall PSW Laver Sydney Dunlop Laver
    1971 WIM Newcombe USA Smith FRA Kodes AUS Rosewall
    1972 WIM Smith USA Nastase FRA Gimeno WCT Rosewall
    1973 WIM Kodes USA Newcombe FRA Nastase WCT Smith
    1974 WIM Connors USA Connors FRA Borg WCT Newcombe
    1975 WIM Ashe USA Orantes FRA Borg WCT Ashe
    1976 WIM Borg USA Connors FRA Panatta WCT Borg
    1977 WIM Borg USA Vilas FRA Vilas Masters Connors
    1978 WIM Borg USA Connors FRA Borg Masters McEnroe
    1979 WIM Borg USA McEnroe FRA Borg Masters Borg
    1980 WIM Borg USA McEnroe FRA Borg Masters Borg
    1981 WIM McEnroe USA McEnroe FRA Borg Masters Lendl
    1982 WIM Connors USA Connors FRA Wilander Masters Lendl
    1983 WIM McEnroe USA Connors FRA Noah Masters McEnroe
    1984 WIM McEnroe USA McEnroe FRA Lendl Masters McEnroe
    1985 WIM Becker USA Lendl FRA Wilander Masters Lendl
    1986 WIM Becker USA Lendl FRA Lendl Masters Lendl
    1987 WIM Cash USA Lendl FRA Lendl AUS Edberg
    1988 WIM Edberg USA Wilander FRA Wilander AUS Wilander
    1989 WIM Becker USA Becker FRA Chang AUS Lendl
    1990 WIM Edberg USA Sampras FRA Gomez AUS Lendl
    1991 WIM Stich USA Edberg FRA Courier AUS Becker
    1992 WIM Agassi USA Edberg FRA Courier AUS Courier
    1993 WIM Sampras USA Sampras FRA Bruguera AUS Courier
    1994 WIM Sampras USA Agassi FRA Bruguera AUS Sampras
    1995 WIM Sampras USA Sampras FRA Muster AUS Agassi
    1996 WIM Krajicek USA Sampras FRA Kafelnikov AUS Becker
    1997 WIM Sampras USA Rafter FRA Kuerten AUS Sampras
    1998 WIM Sampras USA Rafter FRA Moya AUS Korda
    1999 WIM Sampras USA Agassi FRA Agassi AUS Kafelnikov
    2000 WIM Sampras USA Safin FRA Kuerten AUS Agassi
    2001 WIM Ivanisevic USA Hewitt FRA Kuerten AUS Agassi
    2002 WIM Hewitt USA Sampras FRA Costa AUS Johansson
    2003 WIM Federer USA Roddick FRA Ferrero AUS Agassi
    2004 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Gaudio AUS Federer
    2005 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Safin
    2006 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Federer
    2007 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Federer
    2008 WIM Nadal USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Djokovic
    2009 WIM Federer USA Del Potro FRA Federer AUS Nadal
    2010 WIM Nadal USA Nadal FRA Nadal AUS Federer
    2011 WIM Djokovic USA Djokovic FRA Nadal AUS Djokovic
    2012 WIM USA FRA AUS Djokovic

    Based on these, here are the players with the most major titles:
    Rosewall 20
    Laver 19
    Federer 16
    Gonzales 15
    Tilden, Borg, Sampras 14
    Lendl 12
    W. Renshaw, Cochet, Kramer 11
    McEnroe, Nadal 10
     
    #7
  8. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,962
    The 1966 Forest Hills should be included, if it were not for the crazy scoring system which degraded this particular tournament, making it appear less than serious. A lot of commentators had a laugh over this event.
    The MSG event, like other indoor events, did not attract the best play from the top players.
    Wembley in 1959 was contested by Anderson and Segura, ranked 7 and 8 among the pros, while the Forest Hills event was decided between Hoad and Gonzales, the top two guys that year.
     
    #8
  9. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    I agree in great parts with elegos. To chose the 4 most important events of the year gives you the freedom, that you don't get into a definition war. Criteria could be strength of draw, tradition, publicity, prize money and venue. The pro majors is a construct, that became common only after McCauley rated them as such in his book about pro tennis. There were only 3 instead of 4 each year, thats a big difference to the 4 majors today. For instance, i think Gonzalez and Laver would have won more in their intense prime, if they had 4 instead of 3 opportunities. And the circuit wasn't built around them, as we know it now. For instance, the French pro was often played only a week before Wembley, and changed its surface and venue from RG to Coubertin stadium and back. The US pro at Cleveland in the 50s had often weak fields, with the top Aussies very seldom participating. It changed, when it got a consistent home at Boston, Longwood.
    The "tour" in the whole was the most prominent parameter for the old pros, consisting of tournaments, four man tours, World Series. Those 3 tournaments, and foremost Wembley, were (of course not in all years) the tournament stops, where the pro thought, that they had the most significance, because of tradition, prize money, publicity and venue.
    Furthermore these championships didn't stop in 1967, but were played for years afterwards. Laver for instance is always credited (with full right) for winning 5 US pro championships.
    I like in Elegos' approach, that he gives the amateur game some credit, with rating the Wim amateur championships. I always have been a strong advocat for the pro grame and their lost records, but sometimes it gets overlooked, that in some years the amateurs did well. For instance, in the early 50s, the amateur game was often stronger than the chaotic pro game, when Kramer was very selective in his play and Gonzalez completely out for a while.
     
    #9
  10. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,448
    Wimbledon

    I agree in concept, and appreciate the work this represents as well. I do have queries about the selection of wimbledon as one of the top 4 though. Particularly in certain years like 1972 and 1973 when it had a very weak field.
     
    #10
  11. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    But professional players like Kramer, Segura and Gonzales were the best in the world at that time. I think the best amateur was Sedgman until he turned pro for 1953.
     
    #11
  12. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Using my criteria, I have the following:

    List of majors won
    Ken Rosewall: 23 (4 amateur, 15 pro, 4 open)

    Rod Laver: 20 (6 amateur, 9 pro, 5 open)

    Pancho Gonzales: 17 (2 amateur, 15 pro)

    Roger Federer: 16

    Bill Tilden: 15 (11 amateur, 4 pro)

    Pete Sampras: 14

    Roy Emerson: 12 (12 amateur)

    Bjorn Borg: 11
    Henri Cochet: 11 (10 amateur, 1 pro)

    Rafael Nadal: 10
    Don Budge: 10 (6 amateur, 4 pro)
    Fred Perry: 10 (8 amateur, 2 pro)

    Andre Agassi: 8
    Jimmy Connors: 8
    Ivan Lendl: 8
    Ellsworth Vines: 8 (3 amateur, 5 pro)

    Mats Wilander: 7
    John McEnroe: 7
    John Newcombe: 7 (2 amateur, 5 open)
    Tony Trabert: 7 (5 amateur, 2 pro)
    Frank Sedgman: 7 (5 amateur, 2 pro)
    Rene Lacoste: 7 (7 amateur)
    Anthony Wilding: 7 (7 amateur)
    William Larned: 7 (7 amateur)
    William Renshaw: 7 (7 amateur)

    Boris Becker: 6
    Stefan Edberg: 6
    Bobby Riggs: 6 (3 amateur, 3 pro)
    Jack Crawford: 6 (6 amateur)
    Laurie Doherty: 6 (6 amateur)
    Richard Sears: 6 (6 amateur)

    Novak Djokovic: 5
    Hans Nusslein: 5 (5 pro)
    Jack Kramer: 5 (3 amateur, 2 pro)
    Lew Hoad: 5 (4 amateur, 1 pro)

    Jim Courier: 4
    Guillermo Vilas: 4
    Karel Kozeluh: 4 (4 pro)
    Vinny Richards: 4 (4 pro)
    Manuel Santana: 4 (4 amateur)
    Ashley Cooper: 4 (4 amateur)
    Frank Parker: 4 (4 amateur)
    Jean Borotra: 4 (4 amateur)
    Bill Johnston: 4 (4 amateur)
    Reggie Doherty: 4 (4 amateur)
    Robert Wrenn: 4 (4 amateur)

    Gustavo Kuerten: 3
    Arthur Ashe: 3
    Jan Kodes: 3
    Pancho Segura: 3 (3 pro)
    Alex Olmedo: 3 (2 amateur, 1 pro)
    Neale Fraser: 3 (3 amateur)
    Jaroslav Drobny: 3 (3 amateur)
    Adrian Quist: 3 (3 amateur)
    Gerald Patterson: 3 (3 amateur)
    Arthur Gore: 3 (3 amateur)
    Malcolm Whitman: 3 (3 amateur)
    Wilfred Baddeley: 3 (3 amateur)
    Oliver Campbell: 3 (3 amateur)

    Marat Safin: 2
    Lleyton Hewitt: 2
    Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 2
    Patrick Rafter: 2
    Sergi Bruguera: 2
    Johan Kriek: 2
    Ilie Nastase: 2
    Stan Smith: 2
    Mal Anderson: 2 (1 amateur, 1 pro)
    Fred Stolle: 2 (2 amateur)
    Nicola Pietrangeli: 2 (2 amateur)
    Mervyn Rose: 2 (2 amateur)
    Vic Seixas: 2 (2 amateur)
    Dick Savitt: 2 (2 amateur)
    Budge Patty: 2 (2 amateur)
    Ted Schroeder: 2 (2 amateur)
    John Bromwich: 2 (2 amateur)
    Don McNeill: 2 (2 amateur)
    Gottfried von Cramm: 2 (2 amateur)
    James Anderson: 2 (2 amateur)
    William Laurentz: 2 (2 amateur)
    Lindley Murray: 2 (2 amateur)
    Richard Norris Williams: 2 (2 amateur)
    Norman Brookes: 2 (2 amateur)
    Maurice McLoughlin: 2 (2 amateur)
    Joshua Pim: 2 (2 amateur)
    Henry Slocum: 2 (2 amateur)
    John Hartley: 2 (2 amateur)

    Juan Martin del Potro: 1
    Gaston Gaudio: 1
    Andy Roddick: 1
    Juan Carlos Ferrero: 1
    Albert Costa: 1
    Thomas Johansson: 1
    Goran Ivanisevic: 1
    Carlos Moya: 1
    Petr Korda: 1
    Richard Krajicek: 1
    Thomas Muster: 1
    Michael Stich: 1
    Andres Gomez: 1
    Michael Chang: 1
    Pat Cash: 1
    Yannick Noah: 1
    Brian Teacher: 1
    Vitas Gerulaitis: 1
    Roscoe Tanner: 1
    Adriano Panatta: 1
    Mark Edmondson: 1
    Manuel Orantes: 1
    Andres Gimeno: 1
    Butch Buchholz: 1 (1 pro)
    Welby Van Horn: 1 (1 pro)
    Bruce Barnes: 1 (1 pro)
    Joe Whalen: 1 (1 pro)
    Robert Ramillon: 1 (1 pro)
    Martin Plaa: 1 (1 pro)
    William Bowrey: 1 (1 amateur)
    Tony Roche: 1 (1 amateur)
    Rafael Osuna: 1 (1 amateur)
    Chuck McKinley: 1 (1 amateur)
    Sven Davidson: 1 (1 amateur)
    Ken McGregor: 1 (1 amateur)
    Art Larsen: 1 (1 amateur)
    Bob Falkenburg: 1 (1 amateur)
    Jozsef Asboth: 1 (1 amateur)
    Dinny Pails: 1 (1 amateur)
    Yvon Petra: 1 (1 amateur)
    Marcel Bernard: 1 (1 amateur)
    Joseph Hunt: 1 (1 amateur)
    Henner Henkel: 1 (1 amateur)
    Vivian McGrath: 1 (1 amateur)
    Wilmer Allison: 1 (1 amateur)
    Sidney Wood: 1 (1 amateur)
    John Doeg: 1 (1 amateur)
    Edgar Moon: 1 (1 amateur)
    John Colin Gregory: 1 (1 amateur)
    John Hawkes: 1 (1 amateur)
    Gordon Lowe: 1 (1 amateur)
    Andre Gobert: 1 (1 amateur)
    Otto Froitzheim: 1 (1 amateur)
    William Clothier: 1 (1 amateur)
    Beals Wright: 1 (1 amateur)
    Holcombe Ward: 1 (1 amateur)
    Harold Mahony: 1 (1 amateur)
    Frederick Hovey: 1 (1 amateur)
    Willoughby Hamilton: 1 (1 amateur)
    Ernest Renshaw: 1 (1 amateur)
    Herbert Lawford: 1 (1 amateur)
    Frank Hadow: 1 (1 amateur)
    Spencer Gore: 1 (1 amateur)
     
    #12
  13. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    510
    So it looks like Rosewall is the greatest then. Discussion about the GOAT is settled! :) Great player spanning the amateur and Open eras for over 20 years.
     
    #13
  14. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    That's one way of looking at it. Rosewall's biggest plus was his ability to show up in big tournament finals and beat favoured opponents, which has enabled Rosewall to win more majors than any other player in the history of the game. On the other hand, Rosewall never won Wimbledon, and was only the best player in the world from 1961-1963, possibly 1964. Laver won a CYGS in the amateurs in 1962, a CYGS in the pros in 1967, and a CYGS in the open era in 1969. He was also the best player in the world from 1965-1969, and perhaps 1964, 1970 and 1971 as well.

    Then there's Gonzales, a man who won the world pro tour for 7 years in a row, won 8 US Pros, 4 Wembley Pros, 3 Tournament of Champions titles as a professional, as well as his 2 US Championships titles from his amateur days. And even at age 41, he could beat a peak Laver in 5 sets in a $10,000 winner takes all exhibition in MSG.
     
    #14
  15. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,342
    In all seriousness it is clear that Rosewall is in the discussion when we discuss the best ever. He's overqualified to be there as is Laver, Tilden, Borg, Gonzalez etc.
     
    #15
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    This is the truly realistic approach.It reflects reality and puts the players in real prospective.I just can´t wait to see newtards jumping right on you for putting Nadal behind Lendl and Federer behind Rosewall and Laver.

    I´d give an extra weight to winning the 4 big titles the same year, so Laver gest 21 points and advances Rosewall by a mere 1...and Federer, by 5 points.
     
    #16
  17. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    510
    They must have been all amazing players at their peaks. Rosewall should have two or three Wimbledon titles to his name. Early 60's seems to have been Rosewall's absolute prime.Laver was McEnroe's idol growing up, I believe, and everyone says Gonzales was an all time great. I think because the tennis world was so much different then, people only see Gonzales' couple of amateur titles and don't know about the pro's. Looks like Rosewall and Gonzales had even greater longevity than Laver. Gonzales was a decade older than Rod, I think. It is so hard to know who the best ever is, I just like to say many players have a good claim and all should be remembered as greats.
     
    #17
  18. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    510
    Rosewall is definitely in the discussion. He was winning majors from the 1950's to the 1970's and won WCT Dallas twice in succession, beating his arch rival Laver in both finals. WCT was massive in the early 70's especially, as we know. 'Muscles' has very impressive credentials.
     
    #18
  19. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    If we count pro majors, open majors, WCT Dallas and the Dunlop Sydney Open of 1970, then Rosewall and Laver have been in 16 big finals, with Rosewall winning 9.

    The big finals that they played
    1963 French Pro: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-8, 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4)
    1963 US Pro: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-2, 6-2)

    1964 French Pro: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3)
    1964 Wembley: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (7-5, 4-6, 5-7, 8-6, 8-6)
    1965 French Pro: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
    1965 US Pro: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
    1966 French Pro: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-2, 14-12)
    1966 Wembley Pro: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-2, 6-3)
    1966 US Pro: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 4-6, 6-2, 8-10, 6-3)
    1967 Wembley Pro: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 8-6, 6-2)
    1967 Wimbledon Pro: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-2, 12-10)
    1968 French Open: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-1, 2-6, 6-2)
    1969 French Open: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
    1970 Dunlop Sydney Open: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (3-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2, 6-3)
    1971 WCT Dallas: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 7-6)
    1972 WCT Dallas: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6)
     
    #19
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    still waiting for 1972 Finals real footage.

    What if we open a fund and get to know which media or journalists has it?
     
    #20
  21. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I don't think the full match is available, unfortunately. The 1970 Sydney final exists in its entirety, though. Is the 1968 French Open final available anywhere? That was the first final of a major in the open era.
     
    #21
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    There must be somebody or some sports channel that still ahve that match.

    I also miss 1979 final.The only major final between Borg and mc Enroe that is not available by now.
     
    #22
  23. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,448
    Who makes the rules - answer: we do

    The currently regarded 'Pro Major' tournaments are open to opinion. Prominent tennis historians such as Robert Geist and Raymond Lee say that they make up the Pro. majors ie Wembley, the French Pro, the US Pro.

    However, I do think it is appropriate that a finessing of the 'rules' could be done if an event wasn't one of the above three but was regarded by the Pro. tennis players of the time as the biggest event of a particular year. I think confidently we could say that about the Tournament of Champions (1956, 1957, 1958, 1959) and the Wimbledon Pro. (1967). I think universally they were regarded as the biggest event of the year. Hence, I feel these should be accorded 'Pro Major' status for those years.

    I notice that some person in April has been updating Wikipedia articles such as Pancho Gonzales', Lew Hoad and Rod Laver - with recognizing their Tournament of Champions/Pro Wimbledon wins as Pro. Majors wins. The article explaining Pro. Majors however still keeps with the original three of Wembley, the French Pro, the US Pro.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_tennis_tournaments_before_the_Open_Era

    How unassalable is the category of 'Pro Major'?
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
    #23
  24. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I think it's right that the Tournament of Champions (1956-1959) and the Wimbledon Pro (1967) are recognised as majors. I think that page link should be changed to include these tournaments. I mean think about it, the first professional tournament ever held at Wimbledon is obviously a major. Does this mean that Laver is a 5-time Wimbledon champion and Rosewall a 5-time Wimbledon runner-up?
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
    #24
  25. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,962
    I certainly regard Laver as a 5-time Wimbledon champ, and Rosewall a 5-time runner-up.
    And Gonzales and Hoad had their greatest tournament victories at the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions from 1957 to 1959.
    The 1956 T of C at LA was an inaugural event, and lacked Hoad and Rosewall in the field.
    By the following summer, both had signed pro contracts, and Kramer could move the event to the real big-time at Forest Hills where the top press media were located. A pity that Kramer feared television coverage would hurt ticket sales, and refused TV contracts. This would have been a major TV event.
    The 1967 Wimbledon Pro was a great success on BBC TV, and the play is preserved in the BBC archives, and should be released.
    After the 1959 Forest Hills event, Kramer applied to the USPLTA to have it recognized as the official US Pro (there had been no official US Pro since 1951). This applicaton was granted, and Kramer promptly designated the upcoming Sydney event the Tournament of Champions.
    The projected Forest Hills US Pro for 1960 was postponed until 1963, because Kramer (and then Trabert, his successor as pro manager) could not get both Gonzales and Hoad into the field at the same time.
    Wembley (a poor indoor substitute for Wimbledon, which would not allow pro play until 1967), and the Cleveland "US Pro" (a commercial title, not an official one), are really inadequate candidates for any major status.
    I think that it is a measure of desparation to cobble together a supposed "pro Grand Slam" in an attempt to assess the pros of the pre-open era.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
    #25
  26. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Dan, can we please stop arguing about the US Pro/Tournament of Champions? Regarding the 1967 Wimbledon Pro tournament, are you sure it's still in the BBC archive? I ask because from 1972-1978, the BBC had a policy of binning a lot of their archive footage of dramas, sports etc. The science fiction show, Doctor Who, has a total of 106 episodes from the 1960s still missing today. Dad's Army has episodes missing etc. Could the Wimbledon Pro tournament have suffered the same fate?
     
    #26
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,962
    As a rule, BBC preserved their historic tennis coverage.
    I conducted correspondence with the BBC in the late 1970's and 1980's to obtain copies of these great events (including the Wimbledon finals from the 1950's and the 1967 Wimbledon Pro). I was assured that these events were preserved in the archives, but that my requests were a violation of policy.
    Years later, copies of the Wimbledon finals have surfaced, and I suspect that the 1967 event exists somewhere.
     
    #27
  28. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    It would be great to see those matches someday.
     
    #28
  29. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,962
    In addition, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) televised the January, 1963 matches between Hoad and Laver and between Laver and Rosewall at Kooyong, both were great matches. Hoad won a close five-setter against Laver, and Laver outhit Rosewall over four sets the next day.
    I have seen portions rebroadcast about fifteen years ago, and they probably still exist in the ABC archives, and should be released.
     
    #29
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,962
    Normally, the 1966 Forest Hills Pro should be regarded as the premier pro tournament of that year.
    However, the promoter, James van Allen, apparently decided to utilize his own peculiar scoring system in the event, which drew strong adverse criticism from the press, and overall the event did harm to the image of the pro tour.
    Once again, the pro tour shot itself in the foot.
    Accordingly, this event cannot be considered a major, and certainly not a major success.
     
    #30
  31. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    In some Wimbledon videos, like the 4 episode Wimbledon series released around 2005, are clips of the 1967 finals (not only Newsreel clips, but tv coverage). So the film must exist in the archive. I have seen short clips from Laver- Hoad, and Laver-Rosewall matches from Australia in the early 60s in various tv shows and in a video cd with Laver, Borg, Ashe and Connors, which was and is sold on the internet. I think they are archived by IMG London. They have a webside with their material, but its difficult and quite costly to get access to that material.
     
    #31

Share This Page