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

[Dan Lobb]

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.

In the Eastern Grasscouts tournament, Giammalva beat Seixas, Nielsen (Wimbledon runner-up that year), and Shea in impressive matches to win the event.

[kiki]

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.

Big win for Nusslein¡¡¡ Tilden was, what, 40?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Big win for Nusslein¡¡¡ Tilden was, what, 40?

Nusslein had his share of big wins my friend. For example he won the 1934 US Pro Champs by defeating Ellsworth Vines in the semi by 7-9 6-1 6-3 6-2 and Kozeluh in the final 6-4 6-2 1-6 7-5.

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Actually, I think that the point we have been trying to make, despite some distractions, is that the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, and the 1967 Wimbledon were not merely the EQUIVALENT of the established pro majors, but were significantly SUPERIOR to them. That, I believe, is the point.
A marked SUPERIORITY, which the established pro majors, for a number of reasons, could not hope to emulate.
Then, does it make any sense whatsoever NOT to include these super-tournaments among the pro majors? Obviously, the amswer must be "NO"!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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

I doubt bthat Budge would have won a set off Laver when they played in a serious match.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

In the Eastern Grasscouts tournament, Giammalva beat Seixas, Nielsen (Wimbledon runner-up that year), and Shea in impressive matches to win the event.

I never doubted that Giammalva was a good player. I only wrote that it was not great of him to beat Budge and Riggs in 1959.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Actually, I think that the point we have been trying to make, despite some distractions, is that the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, and the 1967 Wimbledon were not merely the EQUIVALENT of the established pro majors, but were significantly SUPERIOR to them. That, I believe, is the point.
A marked SUPERIORITY, which the established pro majors, for a number of reasons, could not hope to emulate.
Then, does it make any sense whatsoever NOT to include these super-tournaments among the pro majors? Obviously, the amswer must be "NO"!

Wembley and French pro were on the same level with Forest Hills and Wimbledon 1967. They had 16 great players in several years.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Wembley and French pro were on the same level with Forest Hills and Wimbledon 1967. They had 16 great players in several years.

The French Pro was not always held at Roland Garros, when it would be a major. Stade Coubertin was an embarrassment for a major venue.
Likewise Wembley.
In the years when Forest Hills and Wimbledon Pro were held, they overshadowed the other tournaments. Not even close.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I doubt bthat Budge would have won a set off Laver when they played in a serious match.

Prime Don Budge was one of the greatest shotmakers of all time. He was very close to prime Laver, IMO. It doesn't surprise me that a 47 year old Budge could split sets with a pre-prime Laver in a friendly exo.

[timnz]

Forgive me but I would include the berlin world pro championships in 32/33 if I was retarting the thread today. Big field, best players playing it, universal recognition of it being a major in the press and amongst the players at the time. I would also argue for the bristol cup as well (because its winner was routinally called the world pro champion in the press) but lets leave that aside for now.

It just seems wrong that Plaa, Nusslein, Gonzales, Hoad & Laver are missing majors from their Resume.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

It just seems wrong that Plaa, Nusslein, Gonzales, Hoad & Laver are missing majors from their Resume.

Indeed it does.
We should add for the above, at least
Gonzales Tournament of Champions Forest Hills (the LA 1956 field was much weaker) in 1957 and 1958
Hoad Tournament of Champions Forest Hills 1959
Laver Wimbledon Pro 1967

There is no reeason to remove these events from the list of major wins, as someone anonymously did.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

Forgive me but I would include the berlin world pro championships in 32/33 if I was retarting the thread today. Big field, best players playing it, universal recognition of it being a major in the press and amongst the players at the time. I would also argue for the bristol cup as well (because its winner was routinally called the world pro champion in the press) but lets leave that aside for now.

It just seems wrong that Plaa, Nusslein, Gonzales, Hoad & Laver are missing majors from their Resume.

Gonzales' Widipedia biography lists the Tournament of Champions and the Wimbledon Pro among the Pro Slams he participated in, winning three of them.