Tournament of Champions - 1956 to 1959 - is it a Pro. Slam - yes or no?

[timnz]

Tournament of Champions is figuring on a number of Wikipedia pages as being one of the Pro. Slams (look at Lew Hoad's wikipedia page for instance where he won the 1959 event). It hasn't traditionally been regarded as one of the 'Pro Slams' - but is it?

Same question for Pro. Wimbledon of 1967.

[urban]

I am not happy with the term pro slam, but its reasonable, to reckon those championships as at least equal with the so called pro majors, yes. Still for most years, there were only 3 pro majors instead of the normal 4 majors per year, so the majors counting is still somewhat misleading.

[Mustard]

Yes, they are. They were arguably the biggest professional tournaments of the year. To not count them is ridiculous really. We all know how big Wimbledon is, so to not count the first professional tournament to be held at Wimbledon, would clearly be wrong. The same is true with a tournament as big as the Tournament of Champions.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

Tournament of Champions is figuring on a number of Wikipedia pages as being one of the Pro. Slams (look at Lew Hoad's wikipedia page for instance where he won the 1959 event). It hasn't traditionally been regarded as one of the 'Pro Slams' - but is it?

Same question for Pro. Wimbledon of 1967.

I would rate the 1957, 1958, and 1959 T of C at Forest Hills, plus the 1967 Wimbledon Pro as the greatest pro tournaments ever. Just look at the fields, and the level of play in the finals. The best ever.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I would rate the 1957, 1958, and 1959 T of C at Forest Hills, plus the 1967 Wimbledon Pro as the greatest pro tournaments ever. Just look at the fields, and the level of play in the finals. The best ever.

Interesting. Tell me about your thoughts on the 1956 Tournament of Champions. Obviously you don't rate it as high.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

Interesting. Tell me about your thoughts on the 1956 Tournament of Champions. Obviously you don't rate it as high.

The 1956 T of C was an inaugural event, intended to be the pre-eminent event in the pro game, but lacked Hoad and Rosewall, was only best-of-three sets, and was not at Forest Hills, the media and cultural centre of USA (and the world?). Why not at Forest Hills? Because the event lacked the cache and drawing power at this stage to justify the expense of Forest Hills.
Note: The T of C was also played at White City Sydney in 1959, following the re-designation of the Forest Hills event as the US Pro.
Gonzales won the Sydney T of C by beating both Hoad and Rosewall, his biggest tournament win of 1959.

[Q&M son]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The 1956 T of C was an inaugural event, intended to be the pre-eminent event in the pro game, but lacked Hoad and Rosewall, was only best-of-three sets, and was not at Forest Hills, the media and cultural centre of USA (and the world?). Why not at Forest Hills? Because the event lacked the cache and drawing power at this stage to justify the expense of Forest Hills.
Note: The T of C was also played at White City Sydney in 1959, following the re-designation of the Forest Hills event as the US Pro.
Gonzales won the Sydney T of C by beating both Hoad and Rosewall, his biggest tournament win of 1959.

Thanks for the answer

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

I disagree that ToC and Wimbledon 1967 were the best ever pro tournaments.
Wembley and French Pro had often as strong fields and in several years had 16 participants. I agree that ToC and Wimbledon 1967 were first-class events.

Why do you always denigrate Wembley and French Pro?

I don't give ToC and Wim. 1967 a pro GS status because they were played only a few times and once respectively.

The Masters in the late 1950s and in 1964 had as tough participation.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

I disagree that ToC and Wimbledon 1967 were the best ever pro tournaments.
Wembley and French Pro had often as strong fields and in several years had 16 participants. I agree that ToC and Wimbledon 1967 were first-class events.

Why do you always denigrate Wembley and French Pro?

I don't give ToC and Wim. 1967 a pro GS status because they were played only a few times and once respectively.

The Masters in the late 1950s and in 1964 had as tough participation.

The status of the Wembley and French Pro changed according to the year and the venue.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The status of the Wembley and French Pro changed according to the year and the venue.

Certainly not as drastically as you've made out in the past. You only seem to care if it was at Forest Hills or Roland Garros. Remember the "smoke and lack of oxygen" line you were pushing in regards to the 1952 Wembley Pro final between Gonzales and Kramer, which only kicked in, in your view, when Kramer led 5-2 in the fifth set?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The 1956 T of C was an inaugural event, intended to be the pre-eminent event in the pro game, but lacked Hoad and Rosewall, was only best-of-three sets, and was not at Forest Hills, the media and cultural centre of USA (and the world?)

You do realise that Rosewall and Hoad were both still amateurs at the time of the 1956 Tournament of Champions? With you being a Hoad fan, you should know that he turned professional after retaining his Wimbledon title in July 1957.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

Your "majorlike" Kooyong event also changed according to time. That's my answer to your Wembley and French Pro changed according to time.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

You do realise that Rosewall and Hoad were both still amateurs at the time of the 1956 Tournament of Champions? With you being a Hoad fan, you should know that he turned professional after retaining his Wimbledon title in July 1957.

Of course, and that is the point. Hoad and Rosewall were still amateurs, but big names and big draws.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

Your "majorlike" Kooyong event also changed according to time. That's my answer to your Wembley and French Pro changed according to time.

Exactly, and every major tennis event has to be judged individually.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Of course, and that is the point. Hoad and Rosewall were still amateurs, but big names and big draws.

Why say it, though? Amateurs like what Hoad and Rosewall were in August 1956, were never going to play at the 1956 Tournament of Champions. By the 1957 Tournament of Champions, Hoad had just turned professional after retaining his Wimbledon title and Rosewall had been a pro for 10 months since ruining Hoad's tilt at the 1956 Grand Slam.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Why say it, though? Amateurs like what Hoad and Rosewall were in August 1956, were never going to play at the 1956 Tournament of Champions. By the 1957 Tournament of Champions, Hoad had just turned professional after retaining his Wimbledon title and Rosewall had been a pro for 10 months since ruining Hoad's tilt at the 1956 Grand Slam.

And that is why the 1957, 1958, 1959 T of C at Forest Hills took place at Forest Hills, the media centre of the planet. The 1956 event had a lesser field, and could not command Forest Hills as a venue.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

Was Forest Hills really regarded as the top venue in the world in the end-1950s? I would say that Wimbledon was a bit higher regarded as it is also nowadays in comparison to US Open.

[Mustard]

Wimbledon didn't allow professional tennis players on their courts until August 1967.

[BobbyOne]

Mustard,

You are of course right about Wimbledon.

But Wembley was at least as important than Pro Forest Hills which did not have the tradition of the Wembley event.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Wimbledon didn't allow professional tennis players on their courts until August 1967.

Exactly, but at that time, New York was a more exciting and prosperous city, with big things happening in every avenue of human endeavour. (The United Nations, Bernstein and the NY Philharmonic, the great Yankee teams, live television drama,great Broadway shows, etc.)
Wimbledon snobbishly banned the pros, and this was a great mistake for the greater good of the game.
Forest Hills was light years ahead of Wembley as a tennis venue, with more history, open air (not the gas chamber of Wembley), major media.