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

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Right.
Take a look at the field for the 1959 Forest Hills Tournament of Champions.
Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Rose, Giammalva.
Six members of the ITHF (Hall of Fame), all but Giammalva winners of multiple major titles. (Rose won both the Australian and French singles titles.)
How many major winners and ITHF members were in the Berlin "World Pro Championship", an event which was officially sanctioned by whom?
Need we go on with this? Really?

Ther Berlin World Pro Championship was sanctioned by the international Pro Players Association (I forgot the exact name).

You can't compare it with the 1959 event because in the early 1930s not many of the top players had turned pro but with Tilden, K. Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Richards, Plaa, Ramillon, Najuch there were some excellent pros around.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Ther Berlin World Pro Championship was sanctioned by the international Pro Players Association (I forgot the exact name).

Thank you for answering the least important of my questions.
But the major objections remain.

[Mustard]

In 1932-1933, Vines was still amateur, and the only really prominent big-time player to turn professional had been Bill Tilden, who had a fantastic first year as a pro in 1931. But Plaa, and especially Nusslein, were starting to become a nuisance for an aging Tilden before long, and then Vines, Perry and Budge came over as the 1930s went on.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Thank you for answering the least important of my questions.
But the major objections remain.

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).

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Right.
Take a look at the field for the 1959 Forest Hills Tournament of Champions.
Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Rose, Giammalva.
Six members of the ITHF (Hall of Fame), all but Giammalva winners of multiple major titles. (Rose won both the Australian and French singles titles.)
How many major winners and ITHF members were in the Berlin "World Pro Championship", an event which was officially sanctioned by whom?
Need we go on with this? Really?

Yes absolutely we need to go with this (with full respect Dan).

Karel Kozeluh
Bill Tilden
Albert Burke
Hans Nüsslein

were all great players. The Pro. game at the time was the Pro game. If you were discounting the 1932, 1933 World Championships because there wasn't enough depth, in your opinion, to the Pro game - wouldn't you also need to discount the US Pro and the French Pro at the same time period? I am not saying that they were better than Vines. I am simply saying it was the top Pro tournament. And being the Top professional tournament it was worthy of major status. It is also reported and respected during the period as the Pro World title - hence this isn't imagined - it is real. I am just trying to bring the history books up to date with what was true on the ground at the time.

[timnz]

Not seeing any reason to deny the Berlin World Pro Championships 1932 & 1933 and the Bristol Cup (1920's and early 1930')- Pro Major status. They were regarded as amongst the Major Pro tournaments at the time. Hence, that is good enough for me. My only question is about the Bristol Cup in the early 1930's - was it still regarded as a Major then with Berlin being around in 1932 and the French Pro being around in 1930 and 1931?

If you add them to the list of Wembley, French Pro, US Pro, Tournament of Champions and Wimbledon Pro - then it still ensures that there aren't more than 4 Pro Majors in any one calendar year.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

Yes absolutely we need to go with this (with full respect Dan).

Karel Kozeluh
Bill Tilden
Albert Burke
Hans Nüsslein

were all great players. The Pro. game at the time was the Pro game. If you were discounting the 1932, 1933 World Championships because there wasn't enough depth, in your opinion, to the Pro game - wouldn't you also need to discount the US Pro and the French Pro at the same time period? I am not saying that they were better than Vines. I am simply saying it was the top Pro tournament. And being the Top professional tournament it was worthy of major status. It is also reported and respected during the period as the Pro World title - hence this isn't imagined - it is real. I am just trying to bring the history books up to date with what was true on the ground at the time.

The problem remains that only Tilden had established himself in the more competitive world of amateur tennis, and the others only by playing among themselves. This fails the test of credibility.
In 1959, all the players had made names in the amateur field first, even Segura (he won Queens Club in 1947).
The Forest Hills T of C was in a much higher league then the inaugural events of the 1920's and early 1930's. Likewise the 1967 Wimbledon Pro.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The problem remains that only Tilden had established himself in the more competitive world of amateur tennis, and the others only by playing among themselves. This fails the test of credibility.
In 1959, all the players had made names in the amateur field first, even Segura (he won Queens Club in 1947).
The Forest Hills T of C was in a much higher league then the inaugural events of the 1920's and early 1930's. Likewise the 1967 Wimbledon Pro.

So you don't think any pro majors (wembley, french pro, us pro) should be counted until what year? (since you don't think the fields were deep enough at that time)

Most people count the US pro as being a major from 1927. What year do you think it should be counted from?

Most people count the French pro as being a major from 1930. What year do you think it should be counted from?

Most people count wembley as being a major from 1934. What year do you think it should be counted from?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by timnz

Not seeing any reason to deny the Berlin World Pro Championships 1932 & 1933 and the Bristol Cup (1920's and early 1930')- Pro Major status. They were regarded as amongst the Major Pro tournaments at the time. Hence, that is good enough for me. My only question is about the Bristol Cup in the early 1930's - was it still regarded as a Major then with Berlin being around in 1932 and the French Pro being around in 1930 and 1931?

If you add them to the list of Wembley, French Pro, US Pro, Tournament of Champions and Wimbledon Pro - then it still ensures that there aren't more than 4 Pro Majors in any one calendar year.

It's a very tough decision if we should count Bristol Cup 1930 and later as a major. I don't know the answer.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

So you don't think any pro majors (wembley, french pro, us pro) should be counted until what year? (since you don't think the fields were deep enough at that time)

Most people count the US pro as being a major from 1927. What year do you think it should be counted from?

Most people count the French pro as being a major from 1930. What year do you think it should be counted from?

Most people count wembley as being a major from 1934. What year do you think it should be counted from?

Excellent questions.
I would suggest that if there are only two reasonable contenders in a tournament, it should be regarded as a two-man show, not a real tournament.
That would exclude most pro tournaments before 1939, when there were about four or five reasonable contenders for the major pro events. Budge ruined this calculation by withdrawing from the 1939 US Pro for strange reasons, perhaps to avoid facing Vines at this time.
The Budge/Riggs tournaments in 1946 and 1947 had only Kovacs and van Horn to offer any challenge to the top two guys. Budge and Riggs regularly made the big finals.
I would say that by 1953, with the emergence of Segura and Sedgman in the pro ranks, there is sufficient depth to start talking about "majors" in the pro context.
There should be some consideration of stamina in a major event, which you do not get when you only have one serious challenge.
This is where the amateur majors have a huge edge on the pro majors, with seven rounds, sometimes with a challenge in an early round.

[Mustard]

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?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

Thanks very much

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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?

Yes I will own up. That was me who updated the Wikipedia article.

The evidence just got overwhelming that this was a Pro Major. It had a much larger field than any of the other Pro Majors of the 50's or 60's. In 1933 it had over 80 players! I also did an Internet Search of the newspapers at the time - consistently it was called the World Pro. Championship. Tilden who was runner up to Plaa in 1932 - rated Plaa the number 1 for 1932 - one would think largely on the basis of that tournament. The final confirmation for me was Tennis Historian Ray Bowers in the 'History of the Pro Tennis Wars Chapter IV' this tournament at the time was regarded as the most prestigious professional tournament in the world.

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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...

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

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...

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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...

i sense that as well, that it is sometimes used to belittle players.
i wanted to ask for a definition of that term in order to see whether everybodys definition is about the same if it´s not, how can you argue?
is someone not a journeyman, who beats the no.1 player in the world?
or do you need to win a major or be ranked top ten to not be a journeyman?
btw, i don´t think kiki is a native english speaker and i know i´m not.
the more reason to find a common definition to know what the other means

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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).

Never heard of guys like Plaa,Ramillom,Najuch and Burke
Where did they come frpm?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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...

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