Pre-open era was a immature stage of tennis history - Page 6

Mustard · 11-12-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

This is Muster's list...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445343

Best amateur players per year in the pre-open era:
1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson

Best professional players per year in the pre-open era:
1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales

If you and Muster believe Pancho was the best, fine, but other people may differ(eg Dan Lobb). I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong.

Lew Hoad didn't turn professional until July 1957. Why have you brought up the best amateur list? Hoad was the best amateur player in 1956 and 1957, but Gonzales was the best professional player, and the best professionals were the best players in that era. Hoad had a world pro tour against Gonzales in 1958, and Hoad managed to get a 18-9 lead at one stage, before Gonzales eventually won 51-36.

Mustard · 11-12-2012, 06:51 PM

From the 1930s to the 1960s, if you made a name for yourself as a great amateur player, by winning majors like Wimbledon, US Championships etc. you almost certainly turned professional, in order to challenge the best players in the world for open prize money. The professional tour was smaller in terms of numbers, but very high in terms of playing level.

Dan Lobb · 11-13-2012, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

Lew Hoad didn't turn professional until July 1957. Why have you brought up the best amateur list? Hoad was the best amateur player in 1956 and 1957, but Gonzales was the best professional player, and the best professionals were the best players in that era. Hoad had a world pro tour against Gonzales in 1958, and Hoad managed to get a 18-9 lead at one stage, before Gonzales eventually won 51-36.

No, it was 18 to 8, and Gonzales had given up hope, according to Kramer. Hoad's back gave out at Palm Springs, and the series turned around drastically.

TMF · 11-13-2012, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

That's exactly what happened with Roy Emerson. In casual lists that basically only count Slams and do not get into analysis, Emerson is rated very highly because he has 12 Slams. Slams that he won without having to face a number of players who were better than him. Like Roddick if he didn't have to face Federer.

What you say about Roddick and Federer is true, and good logic. I just hope you use the same logic when looking at the names on the Tennis Channel list.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post? Without a split fields there would be prone for upsets, as i have gave a few examples.

Roddick would greatly benefitted if there was a split field, as evidence that he couldn't beat Federer. However, there's no evidence that Emmerson would win NOTHING had there was no split field, or the entire amateur would win nothing either. I'm sure there would be plenty of upsets.

TMF · 11-13-2012, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talker

Splitting the field, I agree, changes much. Another reason not to take the pre open ERA seriously.

That is why those records aren't used today, the tennis minds has determined those records are tainted.

QFT. That's why tennis records are published that only covered in the open-era. It has more meaningful when tennis competes in one tour.

urban · 11-13-2012, 10:40 AM

Have some of you ever read a book on tennis? At least the Collins encyclopedia. Of course the records of pre open era tennis are published.

TMF · 11-13-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban

Have some of you ever read a book on tennis? At least the Collins encyclopedia. Of course the records of pre open era tennis are published.

But my point is most of the published are only from the open-era. I believe historians see open era tennis stats are the holy grail(eg years #1, slam count, weeks at #1, winning %, most titles, etc.)

Mustard · 11-13-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

Why did you ignore the rest of my post? Without a split fields there would be prone for upsets, as i have gave a few examples.

We've been through this so often:

1. The amateur fields didn't have the best players, but did have the big numbers in the draw
2. The professional fields had the best players, but smaller numbers in the draw

There's a reason why nobody after Fred Perry dominated the majors in the amateur field, apart from Roy Emerson, and that's because once they had made a name for themselves as a top amateur player, they would turn professional and then be barred from the mainstream majors until the open era began in April 1968.

After Don Budge won the 1938 Grand Slam, he turned professional
After Bobby Riggs won the 1941 US Championships, he turned professional
After Jack Kramer dominated 1947 in the amateurs, he turned professional
After Pancho Gonzales beat Ted Schroeder in the 1949 US Championships final, he turned professional
After Frank Sedgman dominated in the amateurs in 1952, he turned professional
After Tony Trabert dominated the amateurs in 1955, he turned professional
After Ken Rosewall did very well in the fall of 1956, he turned professional
After Lew Hoad won his second Wimbledon title in 1957, he turned professional
Ashley Cooper and Mal Anderson turned professional after being the best 2 amateur players of 1958.
After Rod Laver won the 1962 Grand Slam, he turned professional.

Is it clearer now?

And then there's players like Hans Nusslein (barred from being an amateur player for life at the age of 15 for allegedly taking payments), and Pancho Segura (a 4-time US Championships semi finalist as an amateur, but a far superior player in the professional game and arguably Gonzales' main rival).

BobbyOne · 11-13-2012, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

We've been through this so often:

1. The amateur fields didn't have the best players, but did have the big numbers in the draw
2. The professional fields had the best players, but smaller numbers in the draw

There's a reason why nobody after Fred Perry dominated the majors in the amateur field, apart from Roy Emerson, and that's because once they had made a name for themselves as a top amateur player, they would turn professional and then be barred from the mainstream majors until the open era began in April 1968.

After Don Budge won the 1938 Grand Slam, he turned professional
After Bobby Riggs won the 1941 US Championships, he turned professional
After Jack Kramer dominated 1947 in the amateurs, he turned professional
After Pancho Gonzales beat Ted Schroeder in the 1949 US Championships final, he turned professional
After Frank Sedgman dominated in the amateurs in 1952, he turned professional
After Tony Trabert dominated the amateurs in 1955, he turned professional
After Ken Rosewall did very well in the fall of 1956, he turned professional
After Lew Hoad won his second Wimbledon title in 1957, he turned professional
Ashley Cooper and Mal Anderson turned professional after being the best 2 amateur players of 1958.
After Rod Laver won the 1962 Grand Slam, he turned professional.

Is it clearer now?

And then there's players like Hans Nusslein (barred from being an amateur player for life at the age of 15 for allegedly taking payments), and Pancho Segura (a 4-time US Championships semi finalist as an amateur, but a far superior player in the professional game and arguably Gonzales' main rival).

Mustard, I agree with your well written post. There is only a little reservation.
Rosewall did not only very well in the fall of 1956. In fact he was the top amateur after Wimbledon for the remaining year.

Dan Lobb · 11-13-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

We've been through this so often:

1. The amateur fields didn't have the best players, but did have the big numbers in the draw
2. The professional fields had the best players, but smaller numbers in the draw

There's a reason why nobody after Fred Perry dominated the majors in the amateur field, apart from Roy Emerson, and that's because once they had made a name for themselves as a top amateur player, they would turn professional and then be barred from the mainstream majors until the open era began in April 1968.

After Don Budge won the 1938 Grand Slam, he turned professional
After Bobby Riggs won the 1941 US Championships, he turned professional
After Jack Kramer dominated 1947 in the amateurs, he turned professional
After Pancho Gonzales beat Ted Schroeder in the 1949 US Championships final, he turned professional
After Frank Sedgman dominated in the amateurs in 1952, he turned professional
After Tony Trabert dominated the amateurs in 1955, he turned professional
After Ken Rosewall did very well in the fall of 1956, he turned professional
After Lew Hoad won his second Wimbledon title in 1957, he turned professional
Ashley Cooper and Mal Anderson turned professional after being the best 2 amateur players of 1958.
After Rod Laver won the 1962 Grand Slam, he turned professional.

Is it clearer now?

And then there's players like Hans Nusslein (barred from being an amateur player for life at the age of 15 for allegedly taking payments), and Pancho Segura (a 4-time US Championships semi finalist as an amateur, but a far superior player in the professional game and arguably Gonzales' main rival).

I think the point TMF is making is that if tennis had been open, say from 1930, the top pros would have been LESS dominant than their records actually were.
There is some reasonableness in this. Vines in the 1930's was prone to upsets, and would have had a tougher time in major tournaments playing against Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, Budge and others.
The pros in the 1950's had limited tournament play until 1958, and Kramer and Gonzales would have faced possible upsets from Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall, who all, in fact, did actually show well against Gonzales in tournament play. Many of the "major" pro wins by the top players were against weak fields, because the top amateurs were not able to play against them.
Laver and Rosewall desperately attempted to sign Emerson and Santana to pro contracts to give some needed depth to the pro game.

BobbyOne · 11-13-2012, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I think the point TMF is making is that if tennis had been open, say from 1930, the top pros would have been LESS dominant than their records actually were.
There is some reasonableness in this. Vines in the 1930's was prone to upsets, and would have had a tougher time in major tournaments playing against Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, Budge and others.
The pros in the 1950's had limited tournament play until 1958, and Kramer and Gonzales would have faced possible upsets from Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall, who all, in fact, did actually show well against Gonzales in tournament play. Many of the "major" pro wins by the top players were against weak fields, because the top amateurs were not able to play against them.
Laver and Rosewall desperately attempted to sign Emerson and Santana to pro contracts to give some needed depth to the pro game.

Vines was prone to upsets only as an amateur.

Mustard · 11-13-2012, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Vines was prone to upsets only as an amateur.

And only in 1933.

In reponse to Dan Lobb and the number of professional tournaments, they certainly increased the number of pro tournaments in the late 1950s, but there were many from 1954-1957 as well, especially 1954 when there were also a lot of small tournaments across North America. 1951-1953 had a lot less tournaments, but even in these years, Gonzales won a total of 8 tournaments over these 3 years combined.

Dan Lobb · 11-13-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

And only in 1933.

In reponse to Dan Lobb and the number of professional tournaments, they certainly increased the number of pro tournaments in the late 1950s, but there were many from 1954-1957 as well, especially 1954 when there were also a lot of small tournaments across North America. 1951-1953 had a lot less tournaments, but even in these years, Gonzales won a total of 8 tournaments over these 3 years combined.

In the early 1950's, Gonzales was rusty without regular play, and lost some big finals (1951 Forest Hills, 1953 Wembley). From 1954, he got regular play, and was more consistent.

TMF · 11-13-2012, 02:48 PM

Let me ask you guys two questions....

If we have a split field today, would the players in each tour stand a better chance of having a better career? Yes or no.

If the pre-open era never had the split field, would the players suffer more losses? Yes or no.

There's no point in arguing anymore.

BobbyOne · 11-13-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

Let me ask you guys two questions....

If we have a split field today, would the players in each tour stand a better chance of having a better career? Yes or no.

If the pre-open era never had the split field, would the players suffer more losses? Yes or no.

There's no point in arguing anymore.

TMF, There is yet a point in arguing as long as there are one-sided posters...

I'm quite sure that the careers of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would not have been significantly different if there were not split fields. I doubt that the top amateurs would have bothered the top pros too much. The "big three" would have probably won 20 or more open majors.

hoodjem · 11-13-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

Best amateur players per year in the pre-open era
1877: Spencer Gore
1878: Frank Hadow
1879: John Hartley
1880: John Hartley
1881: William Renshaw
1882: William Renshaw
1883: William Renshaw
1884: William Renshaw
1885: William Renshaw
1886: William Renshaw
1887: Herbert Lawford
1888: Ernest Renshaw
1889: William Renshaw
1890: Willoughby Hamilton
1891: Wilfred Baddeley
1892: Wilfred Baddeley
1893: Joshua Pim
1894: Joshua Pim
1895: Joshua Pim
1896: Wilfred Baddeley
1897: Reggie Doherty
1898: Reggie Doherty
1899: Reggie Doherty
1900: Reggie Doherty
1901: Arthur Gore
1902: Laurie Doherty
1903: Laurie Doherty
1904: Laurie Doherty
1905: Laurie Doherty
1906: Laurie Doherty
1907: Norman Brookes
1908: William Larned
1909: William Larned
1910: Tony Wilding
1911: Tony Wilding
1912: Tony Wilding
1913: Tony Wilding
1914: Tony Wilding
1915: Bill Johnston
1916: Richard Norris Williams
1917: Lindley Murray
1918: Lindley Murray
1919: Bill Johnston
1920: Bill Tilden
1921: Bill Tilden
1922: Bill Tilden
1923: Bill Tilden
1924: Bill Tilden
1925: Bill Tilden
1926: Rene Lacoste
1927: Rene Lacoste
1928: Henri Cochet
1929: Henri Cochet
1930: Henri Cochet
1931: Ellsworth Vines
1932: Ellsworth Vines
1933: Jack Crawford
1934: Fred Perry
1935: Fred Perry
1936: Fred Perry
1937: Don Budge
1938: Don Budge
1939: Bobby Riggs
1940: Don McNeill
1941: Bobby Riggs
1942: Ted Schroeder
1943: Joseph Hunt
1944: Frank Parker
1945: Frank Parker
1946: Jack Kramer
1947: Jack Kramer
1948: John Bromwich
1949: Pancho Gonzales
1950: Budge Patty
1951: Frank Sedgman
1952: Frank Sedgman
1953: Tony Trabert
1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson
1962: Rod Laver
1963: Roy Emerson
1964: Roy Emerson
1965: Roy Emerson
1966: Fred Stolle
1967: John Newcombe

Best professional players per year in the pre-open era
1927: Vinny Richards
1928: Vinny Richards
1929: Karel Kozeluh
1930: Karel Kozeluh
1931: Bill Tilden
1932: Bill Tilden
1933: Bill Tilden
1934: Ellsworth Vines
1935: Ellsworth Vines
1936: Ellsworth Vines
1937: Ellsworth Vines
1938: Ellsworth Vines
1939: Don Budge
1940: Don Budge
1941: Fred Perry
1942: Don Budge
1943: ???
1944: Bobby Riggs
1945: Bobby Riggs
1946: Bobby Riggs
1947: Bobby Riggs
1948: Jack Kramer
1949: Jack Kramer
1950: Jack Kramer
1951: Jack Kramer
1952: Pancho Segura
1953: Jack Kramer
1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales
1962: Ken Rosewall
1963: Ken Rosewall
1964: Rod Laver
1965: Rod Laver
1966: Rod Laver
1967: Rod Laver

Best players per year in the open era
1968: Rod Laver
1969: Rod Laver
1970: Rod Laver
1971: John Newcombe
1972: Stan Smith
1973: Ilie Nastase
1974: Jimmy Connors
1975: Arthur Ashe
1976: Jimmy Connors
1977: Guillermo Vilas
1978: Bjorn Borg
1979: Bjorn Borg
1980: Bjorn Borg
1981: John McEnroe
1982: Jimmy Connors
1983: John McEnroe
1984: John McEnroe
1985: Ivan Lendl
1986: Ivan Lendl
1987: Ivan Lendl
1988: Mats Wilander
1989: Boris Becker
1990: Stefan Edberg
1991: Stefan Edberg
1992: Jim Courier
1993: Pete Sampras
1994: Pete Sampras
1995: Pete Sampras
1996: Pete Sampras
1997: Pete Sampras
1998: Pete Sampras
1999: Andre Agassi
2000: Gustavo Kuerten
2001: Lleyton Hewitt
2002: Lleyton Hewitt
2003: Andy Roddick
2004: Roger Federer
2005: Roger Federer
2006: Roger Federer
2007: Roger Federer
2008: Rafael Nadal
2009: Roger Federer
2010: Rafael Nadal
2011: Novak Djokovic
2012: Novak Djokovic

Very nice list. Commendable!

hoodjem · 11-13-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

First, I am sorry for my bad English.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.

2) Pre-open era can not be compared with open era, especially with the era from 90's to now. Why? Because pre-open era' standard was too low.
Tennis was not a global sport back then. We have a small pool of tennis players whom played against other regularly. And some of them won more than others. It was meaningless, or at least not meaning much. How many of tournament they won have only 8 men, 10 men, 14 men? Or even less? And we are counting those tournaments as the same with tournaments today? Grand Slam in the past as the same with grand slam today? No way in h e l l.

3) There are too much changes in tennis from 19th century to today. In a better way, I must say. From the beginning to 1968, it was like a childish-period. There were too many errors in the system and it made player look greater than they actually were. From 1968 to the end of 80's tennis world was organized better but there were still many holes in that system. 90's till now is good. Of course the system is not flawless. But we have no myth anymore.

I dont say players in the past were not great. Of course they were great. But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.

I am sorry for the transparency of your specious premise.

Let me state it succinctly: Federer is the greatest because tennis in the pre-Open era was no good.

TheFifthSet · 11-13-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

Splitting the field does make a huge impact, regardless if you one field had most of the best player like Fed/Nole/Nadal playing in the same field. There wouldn't be a Rosol upsetting Nadal at Wimbledon, no Safin beating Fed in 05 AO, no Nalbandian beating Fed at the Master Cup, no Del Potro beating Fed at 09 USO, no young Fed beat Sampras in 01 Wimbledon, or no Krajicek beating Sampras in 96 Wimbledon. The list goes on endlessly.

Huge impact? Does it really? The big 4 have won EVERY single grand slam title since the 2005 Australian Open, with Del Potro being the lone exception. That's 31 out of 32. You really think it would make a huge impact, when the top 4 have won pretty much every major for almost the last decade?

Again, the field wasn't really "split". Virtually all the legendary players were the pros.

Quote:

And with Roddick in another field who don't have to face these guys especially Federer, he would have a legendary career

You're kind of making my point here. Roddick would have a great career sans the big 4, but he wouldn't be half the player, and would never be in contention for best in the world in a field of Nadal, Fed, Murray, and Djokovic. And he wouldn't deprive them of very much (although he would garner the occasional scalp). So, bizzarely, you are arguing against yourself here.

TheFifthSet · 11-13-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

This is Muster's list...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445343

Best amateur players per year in the pre-open era:
1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson

Best professional players per year in the pre-open era:
1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales

If you and Muster believe Pancho was the best, fine, but other people may differ(eg Dan Lobb). I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong.

Hoad was still blossoming in '56-'57, whereas Gonzales was a far more seasoned champ. Hoad was not the best player in the world in either of those years, and in '58 (Hoad's first year as a pro), Gonzales beat him 51-36 on the tour and beat him in the TOC.

Dan Lobb · 11-13-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Hoad was still blossoming in '56-'57, whereas Gonzales was a far more seasoned champ. Hoad was not the best player in the world in either of those years, and in '58 (Hoad's first year as a pro), Gonzales beat him 51-36 on the tour and beat him in the TOC.

Yes, but suppose Hoad had turned pro in 1953 (and Kramer made him a hot offer), at the age of 19. (Alternatively, that tennis is opened in 1954).
What happens next? I think that Hoad matures by 1955, and is a serious challenge to Gonzales in every tournament.
Likewise, if Trabert and Rosewall turn pro in 1954, you also have two more contenders in majors, especially at Roland Garros (you cannot assume that Gonzales, who was tough on clay, would beat these three guys at Roland Garros, because all three were even better on clay than Gonzales).
Sedgman is also more of a contender, because on grass his game is tougher than on wood.
How do you see Gonzales winning twenty majors? Sorry, I don't.
The field in the late fifties (from 1956 to 1960) is just too strong for one player to "dominate" the way Federer has at times.

11-13-2012, 02:48 PM	#114
TMF G.O.A.T. Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,636	Let me ask you guys two questions.... If we have a split field today, would the players in each tour stand a better chance of having a better career? Yes or no. If the pre-open era never had the split field, would the players suffer more losses? Yes or no. There's no point in arguing anymore. __________________ NadalAgassi: I think Serena's final slam tally will be something from 18-27. My best guess is 24 or 25 though; Nole(2010) will never win Wimbledon

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode