Gottfried von Cramm

[newmark401]

Originally Posted by krosero

He won these five-setters in the Slams, that I know of

Some more five-set victories by Gottfried von Cramm:

1932 International German Championships, Hamburg

QF: Gottfried von Cramm d. Harry Lee (GBR) 6-4, 6-3, 5-7, 2-6, 6-4
--

1933 International German Championships, Hamburg

FI: Gottfried von Cramm d. Roderich Menzel 7-5, 2-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
--

1934 German Covered Court Championships, Bremen

FI: Gottfried von Cramm d. Pierre-Henri Landry (FRA) 6-1, 2-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2
--

1934 Capri, Italy

FI: Gottfried von Cramm (GER) d. Christian Boussus (FRA) 2-6, 6-8, 7-5, 6-3, 6-0
--

1935 Merano, Italy

FI: Gottfried von Cramm (GER) d. Henner Henkel (GER) 4-6, 0-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-4
--

1936 Monte Carlo, Monaco

FI: Gottfried von Cramm (GER) d. Henner Henkel (GER) 4-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5
--

1937 Pacific Southwest Championships, California

SF: Gottfried von Cramm (GER) d. Joseph Hunt 6-4, 4-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-2
--

1938 Australian Championships, Adelaide

QF: Gottfried von Cramm (GER) d. Vivian McGrath 6-2, 3-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-0
--

1954 Saarbruecken, Germany

FI: Gottfried von Cramm d. Engelbert Koch 8-6, 3-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2
--

[krosero]

Terrific information, Mark. This is a really impressive record in five-setters (four wins over Menzel alone).

Found another:

1931 French, R32, Du Plaix

In our lists above I count 18 wins and no losses in five-setters, between a loss in Davis Cup in '32 to Lyttleton-Rogers and his famous five-set loss to Budge in '37.

That's 5 wins in Davis Cup, 7 in the Slams and 6 in non-Slam tournaments (presuming that the Hamburg event in '32 was held in August, as it was in '33).

It would be astounding if his loss to Budge ended a streak of that length, but can we say he had no losses in that five-year period? Anyone have information on his five-set losses?

[urban]

Interesting informations. Obviously von Cramm's 5 set record was special. One match, often described as his swan song was his Davis Cup appearance in 1953 at Paris, when he lost in 5 sets (after leading 2-0) against French leading player Robert Haillet. He was over 40 years, but in his career after 1946 still the leading player in Germany, with many good wins over Drobny, Torben Ulrich and others. He was Germany's sportsman of the year in 1948 and 49 and did much for Germany's re-admission to the Olympics and other big international sports events.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by urban

Two aspects, which are mentioned in the articles, seem to me contradicting some myths and cliches about von Cramm: One, that he had a formidable serve, probably the best twist serve before the War, which contradicts, that he was a pure baseline or clay artist (i heard even Perry making such a statement).

In '35 Ferdinand Kuhn in the New York Times said "it is one of the finest services in the game."

I have these few stats on him.

1937 Wimbledon final – Budge led von Cramm 2-0 in aces
1937 Davis Cup – Budge and von Cramm tied 8-8 in aces
1937 Forest Hills – Budge led von Cramm 7-5 in aces

1937 Wimbledon final
Budge served on 111 points and 15 serves did not come back: 13.5%
Cramm served on 76 points and 12 serves did not come back: 15.8%

[krosero]

As for the surface issues, here is Fisher in A Terrible Splendor (p70).

In late June 1934 Cramm, the new French champion, was in London playing Wimbledon. He was determined one day to conquer this tennis Everest, although the English grass courts really didn't suit his game. He had molded his strokes on red-clay courts, similar to those of Roland Garros. Clay-court specialists, used to a slower and surer bounce, developed longer strokes, enabling them to generate more power and topspin for the sluggish environment. But on grass the ball skidded low and quick and often erratically, so one needed a short backswing in order to react. "My backswing is too pronounced for grass," Cramm admitted. "Moreover, grass takes half the effect from a high-kicking service favored by many [clay-]court players like myself."

All this might help explain why he could lose in straights to Perry at Wimbledon but beat him at Roland Garros.

But it also makes his 5-set performance against Budge, on Wimbledon's grass, all the more impressive.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Good articles on von Cramm. Yes, von Cramm is often reduced to his 3 Wim final losses to Perry and Budge. He was however, certainly since the times of Cochet, the best clay courter of the 30s. I know, that some historians like Robert Geist, who wrote a book on Nuesslein, refer to the pro Hanne Nuesslein as the better German player, but all German sources like Kleinschroth, Najuch or Menzel prefer von Cramm, who beat Nuesslein in their pro-am encounter at Rot Weiß in four sets. With a bit of luck, von Cramm could have challenged Cochets title haul at RG. He was forced to scratch RG in 1937 by his federation, on order to focus on Davis Cup duties. His team-mate Henner Henkel won RG instead of him. In 1938 and 39 he was banned, then came the War. He would surely have beaten Bill McNeil (i think he actually had beaten him shortly before RG 1939 at Cairo), and would have given Don Budge a run for his money in 1938. He had beaten Budge twice in team matches in Australia begin 1938. He also won a ton of German titles at Rothenbaum, Hamburg.
Two aspects, which are mentioned in the articles, seem to me contradicting some myths and cliches about von Cramm: One, that he had a formidable serve, probably the best twist serve before the War, which contradicts, that he was a pure baseline or clay artist (i heard even Perry making such a statement). And second: He won a lot of 5 set matches, so contradicting any rumor of mental weaknesses, which i often read about him.

I've always heard that von Cramm's serve was superb. Players like Kramer, Sidney Wood and Budge ranked his serve very highly. His stamina was such that he felt he had a huge advantage in the fifth set.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

His stamina was such that he felt he had a huge advantage in the fifth set.

The London Times argued that the two bagels von Cramm gave Perry at RG were not due to his own improvements as a player, which implies a low level of play from Perry. But I'm skeptical, because von Cramm won several fifth-set bagels in his career. He even bageled Budge in their first Davis Cup meeting, in '35 (though Budge did come back to win that match).

American Lawn Tennis actually remarked that Perry had not realized the extent of "immense technical improvement" made by von Cramm, when he lost to him at RG. They also say that Perry's defense held up in the fifth set, but he was still bageled (unlike the first set when Perry made "a series of amazing errors").

The London Times called it "a disappointing final," but American Lawn Tennis said that the "quality of play in the [middle] three sets was equal to the best ever seen at Roland Garros."

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

The London Times argued that the two bagels von Cramm gave Perry at RG were not due to his own improvements as a player, which implies a low level of play from Perry. But I'm skeptical, because von Cramm won several fifth-set bagels in his career. He even bageled Budge in their first Davis Cup meeting, in '35 (though Budge did come back to win that match).

American Lawn Tennis actually remarked that Perry had not realized the extent of "immense technical improvement" made by von Cramm, when he lost to him at RG. They also say that Perry's defense held up in the fifth set, but he was still bageled (unlike the first set when Perry made "a series of amazing errors").

The London Times called it "a disappointing final," but American Lawn Tennis said that the "quality of play in the [middle] three sets was equal to the best ever seen at Roland Garros."

I would tend to believe both. The London Times was probably disappointed the English player Fred Perry lost to a player who played at a higher level.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

I would tend to believe both. The London Times was probably disappointed the English player Fred Perry lost to a player who played at a higher level.

Makes sense, that probably explains it.

[urban]

When i read several German and British accounts of von Cramm, i got the impression, that he was heralded as a sort of gracious loser, a man with an elegant game and courtly manners, but without killer instinct, who always lost the big matches to the more battle hard anglo-american tigers Perry and Budge. But his superb 5 set record indicates, that he was in truth a tenacious, resilient fighter, who battled through many long, tough matches and tournaments (at RG 1934 he seems to have won at least 3 straight 5 setters). Also his serve was not mentioned as a special weapon, while these accounts often referred to Tilden's cannon ball serve.
The statement of von Cramm, which Krosero cites, regarding the surface specifics of his twist serve and his long backswing, surely makes sense, but cannot explain the swift in clay and grass results completely. The kicker certainly works better on harder court, when it bounces really high. So von Cramm could ace Perry 4 straight times at RG, while on grass the serve wasn't as effective. Rafter, who had a big kicker also, was more effective on hard courts than on grass, where the kicker was easier to return (he was also no slouch on clay courts). On the other hand, Edberg, who had a similar kicker, was very effective on grass.
The longer backswing gave von Cramm on grass a distinct disadvantage against Perry, who was famous for his early taken, short forehand drive out of a crouching position (not unlike Connors), which opened the court for him. Perry copied this crispy forehand after Cochet, who had developed it earlier, although he grew up on clay courts. On the other hand, seeing pictures and films of Budge, i always thought, that Budge had a long backswing, too, on both flanks; he even hit his volleys with a quite long backswing. In the 30s, grass tennis was foremost baseline tennis (like today), maybe the short, low forehand gave Perry some advantages here.
Watching Pathé clips from some Australian matches of early 1938, with von Cramm and Budge and some doubles play, on this forum side above, von Cramm looked - even on grass - the most natural player to me, with an easy, fluent, smooth style, with decent volleys especially in doubles, a sort of early forerunner of Edberg without the cramped forehand.
Maybe i am contradicting myself a bit, but so is tennis, it's never easy to understand - as is life.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by urban

When i read several German and British accounts of von Cramm, i got the impression, that he was heralded as a sort of gracious loser, a man with an elegant game and courtly manners, but without killer instinct, who always lost the big matches to the more battle hard anglo-american tigers Perry and Budge. But his superb 5 set record indicates, that he was in truth a tenacious, resilient fighter, who battled through many long, tough matches and tournaments (at RG 1934 he seems to have won at least 3 straight 5 setters).

For a long time I had the same impression of von Cramm, until I started learning more about him. Again I think that comes from focusing on his Wimbledon career and his Davis Cup loss to Budge. If those are the two focal points, there's not a single win in there by von Cramm.

He did beat Budge in a long match which you've mentioned before, in Melbourne, as part of a series among the U.S., Australia and Germany. The score was 6-4, 8-10, 12-10.

That comes to 50 games, which is more than in any of their previous matches that I know of (I count 7) -- except of course for the classic Davis Cup meeting which went to 58 games.

And the Melbourne match, I presume, was on grass.

Von Cramm's record against Budge is somewhat contradictory. He pushed Budge to five sets at Forest Hills and in Davis Cup, both times on grass -- and beat him in Melbourne. But Budge beat him decisively in the Wimbledon final, dropping only 9 games.

Originally Posted by urban

Also his serve was not mentioned as a special weapon, while these accounts often referred to Tilden's cannon ball serve.

Here's another quote from Kuhn, written after the '35 Wimbledon final: "[Perry's] greatest problem was von Cramm’s service – the first serve delivered with almost the speed of Tilden’s cannonball and the second twisting viciously to Perry’s backhand."

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by urban

When i read several German and British accounts of von Cramm, i got the impression, that he was heralded as a sort of gracious loser, a man with an elegant game and courtly manners, but without killer instinct, who always lost the big matches to the more battle hard anglo-american tigers Perry and Budge. But his superb 5 set record indicates, that he was in truth a tenacious, resilient fighter, who battled through many long, tough matches and tournaments (at RG 1934 he seems to have won at least 3 straight 5 setters). Also his serve was not mentioned as a special weapon, while these accounts often referred to Tilden's cannon ball serve.
The statement of von Cramm, which Krosero cites, regarding the surface specifics of his twist serve and his long backswing, surely makes sense, but cannot explain the swift in clay and grass results completely. The kicker certainly works better on harder court, when it bounces really high. So von Cramm could ace Perry 4 straight times at RG, while on grass the serve wasn't as effective. Rafter, who had a big kicker also, was more effective on hard courts than on grass, where the kicker was easier to return (he was also no slouch on clay courts). On the other hand, Edberg, who had a similar kicker, was very effective on grass.
The longer backswing gave von Cramm on grass a distinct disadvantage against Perry, who was famous for his early taken, short forehand drive out of a crouching position (not unlike Connors), which opened the court for him. Perry copied this crispy forehand after Cochet, who had developed it earlier, although he grew up on clay courts. On the other hand, seeing pictures and films of Budge, i always thought, that Budge had a long backswing, too, on both flanks; he even hit his volleys with a quite long backswing. In the 30s, grass tennis was foremost baseline tennis (like today), maybe the short, low forehand gave Perry some advantages here.
Watching Pathé clips from some Australian matches of early 1938, with von Cramm and Budge and some doubles play, on this forum side above, von Cramm looked - even on grass - the most natural player to me, with an easy, fluent, smooth style, with decent volleys especially in doubles, a sort of early forerunner of Edberg without the cramped forehand.
Maybe i am contradicting myself a bit, but so is tennis, it's never easy to understand - as is life.

I think von Cramm was a gracious loser. But, that is not mutually exclusive of his being a great and gracious winner, which he also was. Losing a few big matches to all time greats like Budge and Perry doesn't define his truncated career, IMO.

[krosero]

When Von Cramm came back from two sets down to beat Riggs at Forest Hills in '37, Allison Danzig showed him a lot of respect in the NY Times:

"Baron Gottfried von Cramm came from behind again yesterday to thwart Robert L. Riggs of Los Angeles with his superb fighting qualities after losing the first two sets and now stands face to face with Donald Budge in the match the American tennis public has waited all Summer long to see....

"Though Riggs's failure to show stronger lasting powers was disappointing, it should be remembered that von Cramm was never hitting so mercilessly as in the final set. Considering the ordeal he has gone through in four successive matches, the Baron's recuperative powers place him in a class with William Tilden."

[krosero]

Danzig goes into detail about how New York tennis fans were overwhelming the Forest Hills complex and quickly snapping up all available tickets on the final weekend, trying to see Budge and von Cramm and hoping that they would meet in the final.

I was wondering if 1980 was the next time that the same two men contested a five-setter at Wimbledon and then a five-set rematch in New York.

There are some similarities between the summers of '37 and '80. Each time the tennis world seems to have been lit up by an "instant" classic, which produced a kind of clamor for a rematch. When Borg beat McEnroe at Wimbledon there were a lot of people referring back to the Budge-von Cramm match, and saying that the new match had surpassed the old one.

Von Cramm labored through five-setters to make the final in New York, just as Borg did; and they both lost. Borg had not lost a five-setter in four years, and we haven't confirmed it, but it seems possible that von Cramm had not lost a five-setter himself in about five years, when he lost that Davis Cup match to Budge.

Von Cramm is reminding me already of Borg with descriptions of how he played his best in fifth sets (and all those fifth-set bagels).

The buzz in 1980 was dominated by Borg's quest for a Grand Slam, and that was no factor in '37. Davis Cup was a dominant theme in '37, and much less so in 1980. Plenty of other differences too -- but it's kind of fun to see how things repeat themselves, with a twist, in sports.

[krosero]

A list of von Cramm matches spanning his entire career is posted at Tennis Archives: http://www.tennisarchives.com/coureu...coureurid=1172

On that list there are, in fact, no five-set losses between June 1932 and July 1937 (on those dates he lost five-setters in Davis Cup, the latter to Budge).

And the only five-setter he ever lost in the Slam events appears to be the US final against Budge in New York.

I can't say how complete the list is. It does not include Davis Cup, which is not a problem because that information is available elsewhere. But it also does not include the exos with Budge in Australia from early '38.

And I noticed mistakes in the scorelines of at least a few matches: 1935 RG semifinal and final; 1937 US semifinal.

[Idzznew]

Krosero I saw your remarks about results on my website Tennisarchives.
Always good to hear about errors so they can be changed. I changed the results.

best
Alex
www.tennisachives.com

[kiki]

Von Cramm was kind of a prussian junker, thus, the **** regime hated him and was eager to deposses him of any nobiliary title...

[kiki]

why the use of **** is banned? nazionalsocialism

[newmark401]

Originally Posted by kiki

why the use of **** is banned? nazionalsocialism

National socialism (Nationalsozialismus) in its long form. Some words appear to be banned here, although they are not swear words as such. Don't ask me why this is so.

Anyway, those people did a good job in messing up the latter part of Gottfried von Cramm's career, when he was nearing his peak. He could well have won the Wimbledon singles title in 1939 if he had entered that particular tournament.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Idzznew

Krosero I saw your remarks about results on my website Tennisarchives.
Always good to hear about errors so they can be changed. I changed the results.

best
Alex
www.tennisachives.com

No problem, appreciate your hard work.

Originally Posted by kiki

why the use of **** is banned? nazionalsocialism

I guess the term is used here more often as an insult than as a reference to the real thing.