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

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by timnz

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 partly agree with your reservation regarding tradition and equivalents. But only regarding the pre WW2 events. Not regarding the post WW2 events. The latter had long tradition and were equivalents to the G.S. tournaments as they were held at Paris, at London and in the USA.

The US Pro was establishes as early as 1927 and had a certain tradition even in the 1930s.

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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).

The Tournament of Champions (1956-1959) was just as big an event, as was the Wimbledon Pro of 1967.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

Laver won the Wimbledon Pro in 1967, anyway.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

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.

[Mustard]

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by pc1

But as you know the WCT Dallas was perhaps a title more desired by at least some players over at least some majors.

But it wasn't self-describing itself as a Major - whereas the World Pro in Berlin in 32/33 was. The public perceived it as such at the time - newspaper clipping reveal that. Nobody in 32/33 didn't think that the World Pro wasn't a major championship. In fact they though of it as THE Professional Major championship.

[BobbyOne]

[quote=Mustard;6922106]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.

[Mustard]

[quote=BobbyOne;6923215]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

[BobbyOne]

[quote=Mustard;6923258]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

[timnz]

[quote=BobbyOne;6923306]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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?

[BobbyOne]

[quote=timnz;6923482]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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 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...

[timnz]

[quote=BobbyOne;6923663]

Originally Posted by timnz

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.

[BobbyOne]

[quote=timnz;6928501]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

That ONE match was a great win against first-place Gonzales.

Yes it was. But what did Budge win in 1959?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Yes it was. But what did Budge win in 1959?

Budge and Riggs were still active, and Budge won a set off Laver in 1962.
Riggs beat someone in 1973, who was that?