US Professional Indoor Championships pre. 1968

[timnz]

Does anyone have information about this pre. 1968 championship. It is not to be confused with the US Professional Championship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pr..._Championships

and also not confused with the the 1968 and beyond US Pro. Indoors held in Philadelphia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pro_Indoor


I know that Rod Laver won the event in question in:

1965 & 1967 over Pancho Gonzales both times in the final

and Pancho Gonzales beat Rosewall in the 1964 final, at White Plains in New York State.

Does anyone have a list of winners/finalists - locations it was played in?

[Moose Malloy]

I recommend you buy this book(its used in a lot of wikepedia tennis articles)

Michel Sutter, Vainqueurs Winners 1946-2003

It has winners & runnerups of every event played those years. think its out of print.

you may be able to find it here

http://www.tennisbookshop.com/

[elegos7]

Originally Posted by timnz

Does anyone have information about this pre. 1968 championship. I know that Rod Laver won the event in question in:

1965 & 1967 over Pancho Gonzales both times in the final

and Pancho Gonzales beat Rosewall in the 1964 final, at White Plains in New York State.

Does anyone have a list of winners/finalists - locations it was played in?

I have the following editions of this tournament.

Jan 3 1932
US Pro Indoors, New York USA: Vinnie Richards (USA) - Charles Wood (USA) 6-3 6-4 6-4

Dec 31 1933
US Pro Indoors round-robin, New York USA: Bill Tilden (USA) - Vinnie Richards (USA) 6-4 6-1 6-2

Mar 23 1947
US Pro Indoors Championships (World Pro Indoor Championships), Philadelphia USA: Bobby Riggs (USA) - Don Budge (USA) 6-1 8-6 6-3

May 31 1964
US Pro Indoor Championships, White Plains USA: Pancho Gonzales (USA) - Ken Rosewall (AUS) 5-7 3-6 10-8 11-9 8-6

May 2 1965
US Pro Indoor Championships, New York USA : Rod Laver (AUS) - Pancho Gonzales (USA) 6-3 6-1

So this event was played and titled in a random way, there was not a continuous series. The World Pro Indoor Championships in Philadelphia was played a couple of more times in the early 1950s, but I think then it did not carry the US Pro Indoors title.

[urban]

Interesting question. I think, although it was no continuous series, the US pro indoor was important in years, when the US pro was played outdoors on grass at Forest Hills or later since 1964 at Boston. Following the descriptions of McCauley, I would rank it the fourth most important event on the pro tour in some years as 1964, 65 and 67. In 1966 i have the Forest Hills round robin as the fourth event.

In the 65 and 67 years, it was played at the 71st Regiment Armoury on 34th street in New York City. In 1965, it was a milestone in the most intense rivalry between Laver and Gonzalez in the spring of 1965. For a short time Gonzalez regained his old form, overcame Rosewall and played Laver in a string of finals. Here at the US pro indoor, before a capacity crowd of 3500 people, Gonzalez beat Rosewall 6-4, 6-2 in the semis. Laver won in a close encounter with Gimeno in the semis. I think, Vines describes the final and Laver's returns in particular in his book. Laver won 6-3, 6-1 in 34 minutes, on a new type of surface, a "cushionary rubber over plywood". McCauley writes: "Laver handled the big Gonzales serve with great aplomp and left the Californian shaking his head in bewilderment as he consistently lashed backhands past him".

The 1967 final between Laver and Gonzalez ended 7-5, 14-16, 7-5, 6-2. Gianni Clerici has noted this match as the most significant match between Laver and Gonzalez. It was famous, because Gonzalez accused Laver of short serving him at a crucial point at 5 all in the third. Laver became very angry, but channeled his anger and ran away with the victory.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by urban

Interesting question. I think, although it was no continuous series, the US pro indoor was important in years, when the US pro was played outdoors on grass at Forest Hills or later since 1964 at Boston. Following the descriptions of McCauley, I would rank it the fourth most important event on the pro tour in some years as 1964, 65 and 67. In 1966 i have the Forest Hills round robin as the fourth event.

In the 65 and 67 years, it was played at the 71st Regiment Armoury on 34th street in New York City. In 1965, it was a milestone in the most intense rivalry between Laver and Gonzalez in the spring of 1965. For a short time Gonzalez regained his old form, overcame Rosewall and played Laver in a string of finals. Here at the US pro indoor, before a capacity crowd of 3500 people, Gonzalez beat Rosewall 6-4, 6-2 in the semis. Laver won in a close encounter with Gimeno in the semis. I think, Vines describes the final and Laver's returns in particular in his book. Laver won 6-3, 6-1 in 34 minutes, on a new type of surface, a "cushionary rubber over plywood". McCauley writes: "Laver handled the big Gonzales serve with great aplomp and left the Californian shaking his head in bewilderment as he consistently lashed backhands past him".

The 1967 final between Laver and Gonzalez ended 7-5, 14-16, 7-5, 6-2. Gianni Clerici has noted this match as the most significant match between Laver and Gonzalez. It was famous, because Gonzalez accused Laver of short serving him at a crucial point at 5 all in the third. Laver became very angry, but channeled his anger and ran away with the victory.

What is short serving?

[urban]

Serving before the returner is ready to play. Maybe there is another better English term.

[timnz]

Who was the 1966 winner? Anyone know?

[urban]

Following the McCauley book, it wasn't played.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by urban

Serving before the returner is ready to play. Maybe there is another better English term.

i was thinking more in the lines of Michael Chang against Lendl at Roland Garros. underhanded serving

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by urban

Serving before the returner is ready to play. Maybe there is another better English term.

I call it "quick serving."

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

What is short serving?

Laver accused Gonzales of that...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by urban

Interesting question. I think, although it was no continuous series, the US pro indoor was important in years, when the US pro was played outdoors on grass at Forest Hills or later since 1964 at Boston. Following the descriptions of McCauley, I would rank it the fourth most important event on the pro tour in some years as 1964, 65 and 67. In 1966 i have the Forest Hills round robin as the fourth event.

In the 65 and 67 years, it was played at the 71st Regiment Armoury on 34th street in New York City. In 1965, it was a milestone in the most intense rivalry between Laver and Gonzalez in the spring of 1965. For a short time Gonzalez regained his old form, overcame Rosewall and played Laver in a string of finals. Here at the US pro indoor, before a capacity crowd of 3500 people, Gonzalez beat Rosewall 6-4, 6-2 in the semis. Laver won in a close encounter with Gimeno in the semis. I think, Vines describes the final and Laver's returns in particular in his book. Laver won 6-3, 6-1 in 34 minutes, on a new type of surface, a "cushionary rubber over plywood". McCauley writes: "Laver handled the big Gonzales serve with great aplomp and left the Californian shaking his head in bewilderment as he consistently lashed backhands past him".

The 1967 final between Laver and Gonzalez ended 7-5, 14-16, 7-5, 6-2. Gianni Clerici has noted this match as the most significant match between Laver and Gonzalez. It was famous, because Gonzalez accused Laver of short serving him at a crucial point at 5 all in the third. Laver became very angry, but channeled his anger and ran away with the victory.

The 1966 Forest Hills event was potentially the premiere tournament of 1966.
Unfortunately, the promoter and financier for the event, James Van Allen, insisted that the pros use his own whacky Van Allen Scoring System, which no one, not the fans, not even the players, could understand. It left everyone confused as to what had taken place, and served to bring discredit on the professional tour, at a time when the pros were struggling and failing to attract fans.
Had it not been for Open tennis, the pro game might have disappeared.

[urban]

The Forest Hills pro was played from 6th-12th June 1966. 12 pros played along the lines of table tennis scoring until 31 points won. The first round robin consisted of Segura, Buchholz, Davies, Ayala, Barthes, Gimeno, Hoad, Olmedo, Laver, MacKay, Rosewall, Gonzalez. They were divided into 2 groups. The leaders played off in a second round robin:
Laver-Rosewall 31-20
Laver- Gonzalez 31-22
Laver-Gimeno 31-22
Rosewall Gimeno 31-27
Rosewall-Gonzalez 31-20
Gonzalez-Gimeno 31-20.
The top two played a final:
Laver-Rosewall 31-29.
To win this event, Laver beat in succession in 9 matches: Segura, Buchholz, Gimeno, Barthes, Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Rosewall.

[Nadal_Power]

That's great urban. I wish to see that 31-29 final

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by urban

The Forest Hills pro was played from 6th-12th June 1966. 12 pros played along the lines of table tennis scoring until 31 points won. The first round robin consisted of Segura, Buchholz, Davies, Ayala, Barthes, Gimeno, Hoad, Olmedo, Laver, MacKay, Rosewall, Gonzalez. They were divided into 2 groups. The leaders played off in a second round robin:
Laver-Rosewall 31-20
Laver- Gonzalez 31-22
Laver-Gimeno 31-22
Rosewall Gimeno 31-27
Rosewall-Gonzalez 31-20
Gonzalez-Gimeno 31-20.
The top two played a final:
Laver-Rosewall 31-29.
To win this event, Laver beat in succession in 9 matches: Segura, Buchholz, Gimeno, Barthes, Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Rosewall.

I think that you mean, Laver beat in succession in 9 mini-matches, don't you think?

[urban]

He won the maxi-matches as well in 1966 and 67.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by urban

He won the maxi-matches as well in 1966 and 67.

Indeed, the other tournaments used the traditional scoring system, but the Van Allen concoction ruined the Forest Hills event, and cast a shadow over the pro game, making it look less than serious.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Indeed, the other tournaments used the traditional scoring system, but the Van Allen concoction ruined the Forest Hills event, and cast a shadow over the pro game, making it look less than serious.

I think casting shadows is the purpose of your membership at TT.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I think casting shadows is the purpose of your membership at TT.

Do you mean challenging the established nonsense?