Please stop equating 1960s tournaments with Open Era majors

[kiki]

Originally Posted by John123

Completely agreed. No doubt.




Once again, there is no disagreement here whatsoever. We're on the same page.




I'm very glad you brought this up. I wanted to explain it in my original post, but it was a long post already, so I waited to see if anyone would ask.

I chose analogues based solely on where I estimated each player would be in the respective world rankings of his day. Seppi is ranked #37 now, and I figured that was about right for an old Olmedo. I actually considered using Hewitt as you suggested because his career was a much better fit; but Hewitt's current ranking is #174, so I didn't think that was fair to Olmedo. Of course you're right that Olmedo was a much greater player over the course of his career than Seppi -- no comparison at all. But all I meant was to describe where Olmedo and the others ranked in 1967.




I know -- see my last comment. I'm talking about Ayala's level of play in 1967 only.




Someone else here said that I underrated MacKay, so you can never please everyone! But I think we're basically in agreement on everything. I should have explained my approach in the original post.




Exactly.




Once again, this is precisely what I think.




Yes.

I think you better think twice to make those absurd comparatives.Olmedo vs Seppi is the same as comparing Safin vs John Douglas ( a 1960´s journeyman)

[timnz]

Yes the Pro slams can't be equated with the Open era slams. However, it is pretty much universally agreed that the Pro's were better players than the amateurs.

So if we care at all about tennis history - we want it to be accurate. Open era Grand Slam's didn't exist before 1968. So what do we say to that. Nothing that happened before 1968 was important in tennis? Or that the pre-1968 players weren't good players? Obviously neither of those. So how do we assess the best players in the world of the 1950's and 1960's? The only way we can is with the tournaments (and perhaps the head to head tours) that they played. The top tournaments that they played were the Pro. Slams - so we can discount those. And they have to be rated than the amateur slams at the same time. Almost everyone believes that Rosewall was number 1 for 1962 not Rod Laver. So if Pro. Slams rated over Amateur slams - then they were the highest rated events at the time. Hence, unless you feel that tennis should be totally discounted before 1968 - then you have to rate the Pro. Slams. There was no other standard to measure by at the time.

A very significant event was Laver's Open era slam of 1969. That showed that the best Pro was also the best Open era player.

Do we really think that Laver or Rosewall wouldn't have won most of the Grand Slam titles from 1963 to 1968 Australian - if tennis had gone open in 1961 (which it very nearly did)? If we do - then doesn't it just make sense to rate their top titles?

[ttwarrior1]

big deal, if laver had more matches to play he would of just beat them as well

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

Yes the Pro slams can't be equated with the Open era slams. However, it is pretty much universally agreed that the Pro's were better players than the amateurs.

So if we care at all about tennis history - we want it to be accurate. Open era Grand Slam's didn't exist before 1968. So what do we say to that. Nothing that happened before 1968 was important in tennis? Or that the pre-1968 players weren't good players? Obviously neither of those. So how do we assess the best players in the world of the 1950's and 1960's? The only way we can is with the tournaments (and perhaps the head to head tours) that they played. The top tournaments that they played were the Pro. Slams - so we can discount those. And they have to be rated than the amateur slams at the same time. Almost everyone believes that Rosewall was number 1 for 1962 not Rod Laver. So if Pro. Slams rated over Amateur slams - then they were the highest rated events at the time. Hence, unless you feel that tennis should be totally discounted before 1968 - then you have to rate the Pro. Slams. There was no other standard to measure by at the time.

A very significant event was Laver's Open era slam of 1969. That showed that the best Pro was also the best Open era player.

Do we really think that Laver or Rosewall wouldn't have won most of the Grand Slam titles from 1963 to 1968 Australian - if tennis had gone open in 1961 (which it very nearly did)? If we do - then doesn't it just make sense to rate their top titles?

"The top tournaments that they played were the Pro Slams."
Unfortunately, this was not always true. In fact, between 1952 and 1962 the so-called US Pro at Cleveland was not officially recognized by the USPLTA as an official championship. The 1951 US Pro, definitely a pro major, was held at Forest Hills, and lost a ton of money for the promoter, Jack March. He decided to hold the 1952 US Pro in a minor locale in Cleveland, where the costs were lower, and the USPLTA refused to sanction the event, or the other so-called "US Pro" events he continued to hold in Cleveland.
Jack Kramer moved his own Tournament of Champions to Forest Hills in 1957, where it became the preeminent pro tournament of the late 1950's, and following the 1959 Forest Hills Pro, a great event with Hoad defeating Gonzales in an awesome display of tennis, Kramer applied to the USPLTA for official recognition of the event as the real US Pro. Kramer obtained approval for this application, but the 1960 Forest Hills Pro had to be cancelled when Gonzales pulled out of the tournament schedule. In 1963, the event was finally held, with Laver and Rosewall playing the final to a largely empty stadium for no prize money.
In short, you have to look at each individual tournament, and its peculiar circumstances, to assess its importance.
In 1967, the most important tournament was not Wembley (held in a densely smoked arena, with no air-conditioning), or the equally smoky Stade Coubertin, or the Boston US Pro, but the Wimbledon Pro, with a great final between Laver and Rosewall, the best of the year.
Similarly, the list of competitors and champions at the Kooyong Pro in the late 1950's and early 1960's, held in Australia's foremost stadium, marks it as a major Pro event. The pretender US Pro at Cleveland, the British Pro at Nottingham, and the Australian Pro at various small venues in Australia, were actually minor events with weak fields.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

Yes the Pro slams can't be equated with the Open era slams. However, it is pretty much universally agreed that the Pro's were better players than the amateurs.

So if we care at all about tennis history - we want it to be accurate. Open era Grand Slam's didn't exist before 1968. So what do we say to that. Nothing that happened before 1968 was important in tennis? Or that the pre-1968 players weren't good players? Obviously neither of those. So how do we assess the best players in the world of the 1950's and 1960's? The only way we can is with the tournaments (and perhaps the head to head tours) that they played. The top tournaments that they played were the Pro. Slams - so we can discount those. And they have to be rated than the amateur slams at the same time. Almost everyone believes that Rosewall was number 1 for 1962 not Rod Laver. So if Pro. Slams rated over Amateur slams - then they were the highest rated events at the time. Hence, unless you feel that tennis should be totally discounted before 1968 - then you have to rate the Pro. Slams. There was no other standard to measure by at the time.

A very significant event was Laver's Open era slam of 1969. That showed that the best Pro was also the best Open era player.

Do we really think that Laver or Rosewall wouldn't have won most of the Grand Slam titles from 1963 to 1968 Australian - if tennis had gone open in 1961 (which it very nearly did)? If we do - then doesn't it just make sense to rate their top titles?

"The top tournaments that they played were the Pro Slams."
Unfortunately, this was not always true. In fact, between 1952 and 1962 the so-called US Pro at Cleveland was not officially recognized by the USPLTA as an official championship. The 1951 US Pro, definitely a pro major, was held at Forest Hills, and lost a ton of money for the promoter, Jack March. He decided to hold the 1952 US Pro in a minor locale in Cleveland, where the costs were lower, and the USPLTA refused to sanction the event, or the other so-called "US Pro" events he continued to hold in Cleveland.
Jack Kramer moved his own Tournament of Champions to Forest Hills in 1957, where it became the preeminent pro tournament of the late 1950's, and following the 1959 Forest Hills Pro, a great event with Hoad defeating Gonzales in an awesome display of tennis, Kramer applied to the USPLTA for official recognition of the event as the real US Pro. Kramer obtained approval for this application, but the 1960 Forest Hills Pro had to be cancelled when Gonzales pulled out of the tournament schedule. In 1963, the event was finally held, with Laver and Rosewall playing the final to a largely empty stadium for no prize money.
In short, you have to look at each individual tournament, and its peculiar circumstances, to assess its importance.
In 1967, the most important tournament was not Wembley (held in a densely smoked arena, with no air-conditioning), or the equally smoky Stade Coubertin, or the Boston US Pro, but the Wimbledon Pro, with a great final between Laver and Rosewall, the best of the year.
Similarly, the list of competitors and champions at the Kooyong Pro in the late 1950's and early 1960's, held in Australia's foremost stadium, marks it as a major Pro event. The pretender US Pro at Cleveland, the British Pro at Nottingham, and the Australian Pro at various small venues in Australia, were actually minor events with weak fields.

[BobbyOne]

pc1

I agree that the middle to late 1950s were extremely tough in competition. At the pros we have six all-time greats from Gonzalez to Trabert (the latter the "weakest" of them; pc1 has mentioned them) plus Cooper, Anderson, Rose and Kramer (the latter partly
playing). At the amateurs we have Olmedo, Laver, Emerson, Fraser, Drobny, Patty, Seixas, Sven Davidson, Flam, Nielsen (twice Rosewall conqueror at Wimbledon), Ayala, Richardson. Porbably I have forgotten a few...

[newmark401]

Personally, I would treat the professional tour as a completely separate tour from the amatuer one, simply because players who played on one tour couldn't play on the other. This doesn't invalidate either tour.
--

The comparisons between both of the above tours reminds me a bit of the comparison between the majors and the Olympic tennis events. Some commentators are arguing that the Olympic tennis tournament should be raised to the level of a major. However, this is a rather strange argument, given that the Olympics are held only once every four years. Also, there were no official tennis events at the Olympic games between the years 1924 and 1988. In addition, the Olympic tennis events are held over just one week or so and have smaller draws than the majors. So, all in all, the Olympic tennis events are not nearly on a par with the four majors, despite the undoubted prestige of an Olympic medal.
-----

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by timnz

Yes the Pro slams can't be equated with the Open era slams. However, it is pretty much universally agreed that the Pro's were better players than the amateurs.

So if we care at all about tennis history - we want it to be accurate. Open era Grand Slam's didn't exist before 1968. So what do we say to that. Nothing that happened before 1968 was important in tennis? Or that the pre-1968 players weren't good players? Obviously neither of those. So how do we assess the best players in the world of the 1950's and 1960's? The only way we can is with the tournaments (and perhaps the head to head tours) that they played. The top tournaments that they played were the Pro. Slams - so we can discount those. And they have to be rated than the amateur slams at the same time. Almost everyone believes that Rosewall was number 1 for 1962 not Rod Laver. So if Pro. Slams rated over Amateur slams - then they were the highest rated events at the time. Hence, unless you feel that tennis should be totally discounted before 1968 - then you have to rate the Pro. Slams. There was no other standard to measure by at the time.

A very significant event was Laver's Open era slam of 1969. That showed that the best Pro was also the best Open era player.

Do we really think that Laver or Rosewall wouldn't have won most of the Grand Slam titles from 1963 to 1968 Australian - if tennis had gone open in 1961 (which it very nearly did)? If we do - then doesn't it just make sense to rate their top titles?

Best explanation of that matter.

It's also interesting that the old pros (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno) won eight out of the first ten open majors where they participated (only Ashe and Newcombe broke that rule). This even though all three were oldies already in that period (1968 to 1972)...

Thus we can be sure that Laver and Rosewall (and maybe Gimeno on clay) would have won all open majors 1963 to 1967 if open era came earlier.

In fact Laver and Rosewall won all 15 pro majors of that period even though Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno were among their opponents.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

"The top tournaments that they played were the Pro Slams."
Unfortunately, this was not always true. In fact, between 1952 and 1962 the so-called US Pro at Cleveland was not officially recognized by the USPLTA as an official championship. The 1951 US Pro, definitely a pro major, was held at Forest Hills, and lost a ton of money for the promoter, Jack March. He decided to hold the 1952 US Pro in a minor locale in Cleveland, where the costs were lower, and the USPLTA refused to sanction the event, or the other so-called "US Pro" events he continued to hold in Cleveland.
Jack Kramer moved his own Tournament of Champions to Forest Hills in 1957, where it became the preeminent pro tournament of the late 1950's, and following the 1959 Forest Hills Pro, a great event with Hoad defeating Gonzales in an awesome display of tennis, Kramer applied to the USPLTA for official recognition of the event as the real US Pro. Kramer obtained approval for this application, but the 1960 Forest Hills Pro had to be cancelled when Gonzales pulled out of the tournament schedule. In 1963, the event was finally held, with Laver and Rosewall playing the final to a largely empty stadium for no prize money.
In short, you have to look at each individual tournament, and its peculiar circumstances, to assess its importance.
In 1967, the most important tournament was not Wembley (held in a densely smoked arena, with no air-conditioning), or the equally smoky Stade Coubertin, or the Boston US Pro, but the Wimbledon Pro, with a great final between Laver and Rosewall, the best of the year.
Similarly, the list of competitors and champions at the Kooyong Pro in the late 1950's and early 1960's, held in Australia's foremost stadium, marks it as a major Pro event. The pretender US Pro at Cleveland, the British Pro at Nottingham, and the Australian Pro at various small venues in Australia, were actually minor events with weak fields.

You will never admit that Kooyong was not a pro major.

The 1967 Wimbledon final was not the best pro final that year. In fact Wembley with or without smoke was clearly the best final: 5 set on the highest level...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Best explanation of that matter.

It's also interesting that the old pros (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno) won eight out of the first ten open majors where they participated (only Ashe and Newcombe broke that rule). This even though all three were oldies already in that period (1968 to 1972)...

Thus we can be sure that Laver and Rosewall (and maybe Gimeno on clay) would have won all open majors 1963 to 1967 if open era came earlier.

In fact Laver and Rosewall won all 15 pro majors of that period even though Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno were among their opponents.

correction : many of the open majors, not all . They would still be prone to the occasional upset. Wouldn't the best amateurs in emerson, santana have any shot at any of the majors ? really ?

emerson was 5-5 with laver for example in 68 though he was already on a rapid decline by then ....

obviously hoad would have had excellent chances in 63 , given he was thrashing Laver left right in that year ......

gonzales in 64 would have decent chance as well ....

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You will never admit that Kooyong was not a pro major.

The 1967 Wimbledon final was not the best pro final that year. In fact Wembley with or without smoke was clearly the best final: 5 set on the highest level...

Laver was hotter at Wimbledon. Rosewall was also brilliant at Wimbledon, but Laver was in the stratosphere, probably Laver's best ever performance.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Laver was hotter at Wimbledon. Rosewall was also brilliant at Wimbledon, but Laver was in the stratosphere, probably Laver's best ever performance.

I have read that Rosewall got injured during the Wimbledon final.

Regarding Laver's best performance: What about his 6-0,6-1,6-0 win over Rosewall at Wembley 1968?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I have read that Rosewall got injured during the Wimbledon final.

Regarding Laver's best performance: What about his 6-0,6-1,6-0 win over Rosewall at Wembley 1968?

If Rosewall was playing injured, why did he get better as the match progressed?
It looks like Rosewall, who had already won at Wembley that season, was content to sleep that day.

[Goosehead]

looks interesting so i bump this up a bit.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

correction : many of the open majors, not all . They would still be prone to the occasional upset. Wouldn't the best amateurs in emerson, santana have any shot at any of the majors ? really ?

emerson was 5-5 with laver for example in 68 though he was already on a rapid decline by then ....

obviously hoad would have had excellent chances in 63 , given he was thrashing Laver left right in that year ......

gonzales in 64 would have decent chance as well ....

abmk, Surprises are always possible. But it is meaning much that Laver and Rosewall won all pro majors 1963-1967 against strong competition of Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno...

[3fees]

Nice,except-THEY PLAYED WITH WOOD RACQUETS,,much harder to win a major with wood,,the new racquets are much more forgiving,give power,,jrs with modern rackets hit as hard as many in the field with wood racquets did,
wood racquet slam is worth 2 or 3 modern racquet slams, also the string technology was different,,Textured nylon cost a mint in those days,,nylon was the major string for many players--nat gut was for those that had excess cash. The smaller field proves the point that tennis was much more difficult then as it is now, hitting with wood-either your arm was the size of a tiger leg or you would find another sport,,I seen many try with wood racquets and then quit as it was very tough to play with a wood racquet and there arms were sore all the time.