Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Bobby, we can also downgrade any tournament, even a slam, in a year when the field is weak, and we don't even have to do this only in a year when players are not allowed to play, or when they are injured and can't compete.

Quite obviously Nadal and Federer are still two of the best players ever to have played the game, with their recent meeting at the AO evidence of this. But we can say that this AO should not get a full 2000 points because Murray and Djokovic were obviously both playing very badly. Already some people are trying to devalue that final, for that reason.

Not good enough? Then let's look at the last RG where Nadal was not able to play at all. How can that RG be of the same caliber when the best clay player in the world was not there to compete, when his play up to that point suggests that he was dangerous, again. So let's give less points to that.

And so on.

Not good enough?

Then, as I said, let's not consider RG Vilas's win at RG the year Borg could not play. The following year Borg won RG without dropping a set and killed Vilas in the final. Vilas only won 4 games in '78. Borg lost 12 games in his last three matches.

And so on...

You can always find weak years for any slam or for any other tournament that is held year after year.

There were two factors that interfered with the French Pro. The first was WWII, the second was the devastation France faced after the war. I have a close friend who has told me about growing up in France after WWII, and I don't think anyone in the US has any idea of how poor the country was. This doesn't even get into what happened to the young men in France.

But my God, look at the winners in the 30s, then look at the winners when it started back up.

Certainly we can look at the draws year by year as with all tournaments, but an attempt to devalue a tournament at which Rosewall won something like 8/9 finals, two against Hoad and four against Laver, seems like a clear effort to change history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Pro_Championship_draws

I would say those draws were for the most part pretty impressive, and isn't it interesting that Rosewall won not only on clay but on wood? ;)
There is a huge difference in status between Paris clay and Paris wood, like two different worlds. The French championship of any tennis group. pro or amateur BELONGS on clay...wood is an aberration for Paris, the result of financial problems, not artistic meaning.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
A simple definition of a major I've not yet seen (or perhaps skipped over) would be....

A major is an event (or group of like events) that sit clearly and significantly above all others on the tour. Or I could phrase it as an event that sits in the very top few of every year.

I've seen perhaps similar definitions but not quite so concise as that.
What if that event is important, but only appears in one out of every two or three years? That was the problem in the old pro tour, no consistency in the schedule.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Bobby, we can also downgrade any tournament, even a slam, in a year when the field is weak, and we don't even have to do this only in a year when players are not allowed to play, or when they are injured and can't compete.

Quite obviously Nadal and Federer are still two of the best players ever to have played the game, with their recent meeting at the AO evidence of this. But we can say that this AO should not get a full 2000 points because Murray and Djokovic were obviously both playing very badly. Already some people are trying to devalue that final, for that reason.

Not good enough? Then let's look at the last RG where Nadal was not able to play at all. How can that RG be of the same caliber when the best clay player in the world was not there to compete, when his play up to that point suggests that he was dangerous, again. So let's give less points to that.

And so on.

Not good enough?

Then, as I said, let's not consider RG Vilas's win at RG the year Borg could not play. The following year Borg won RG without dropping a set and killed Vilas in the final. Vilas only won 4 games in '78. Borg lost 12 games in his last three matches.

And so on...

You can always find weak years for any slam or for any other tournament that is held year after year.

There were two factors that interfered with the French Pro. The first was WWII, the second was the devastation France faced after the war. I have a close friend who has told me about growing up in France after WWII, and I don't think anyone in the US has any idea of how poor the country was. This doesn't even get into what happened to the young men in France.

But my God, look at the winners in the 30s, then look at the winners when it started back up.

Certainly we can look at the draws year by year as with all tournaments, but an attempt to devalue a tournament at which Rosewall won something like 8/9 finals, two against Hoad and four against Laver, seems like a clear effort to change history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Pro_Championship_draws

I would say those draws were for the most part pretty impressive, and isn't it interesting that Rosewall won not only on clay but on wood? ;)
And yet, the French championship WAS held in post-war Paris beginning in 1946, at Roland Garros. There was more involved in the lack of pro play in the post-war decade, part of it was that Roland Garros was controlled by local folks and the pros were only hired hands there, even in 1950, Segura and Kramer played the pro final at Palais du Sports, not Roland Garros, on indoor wood. This was a financial consideration, not tennis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

treblings

Hall of Fame
A simple definition of a major I've not yet seen (or perhaps skipped over) would be....

A major is an event (or group of like events) that sit clearly and significantly above all others on the tour. Or I could phrase it as an event that sits in the very top few of every year.

I've seen perhaps similar definitions but not quite so concise as that.

i think that´s as good a definition as i´ve heard so far
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
johnny-petraglia.jpeg
That's no hippy!






These are hippies:
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I don't think it would be an impossible chance to outdo most of the information that I can find about tennis elsewhere.

There is a reason why I keep coming back here, in spite of the noise.

I have consistently said that we have a few amazing historians here, and I would put you and Krosero right at the top of the list. If you two guys combine efforts it really would be possible to do some unique work here, or show it.

By the way, unlike many other people here, I think Bobby can potentially contribute many valuable insights, and the effort of a few people to paint him as a fool who knows nothing about tennis has greatly angered me. I need to make that clear.

There is a degree of incompetence in the records kept for tennis that I find amazingly sloppy. It is common knowledge that the ATP's statistics for 3003 are horribly wrong, and you can see that Tennis Abstract has made a huge effort to correct that year. As recently as last year the ATP completely screwed up data during the Olympics, so the rest of the year was also ruined for HC data. No one there has lifted a finger to correct that problem.

I can't imagine such sloppiness going on for football, basketball or baseball. There would be an avalanche of protest.

An example of the incompetence:

I tried to message Brad Gilbert.

He replied:

"I do not ask @SharkoTennis"

Sharko replied:

"Thanks and will investigate this. So it was 2003 on hard 2nd serve pts won?"

This was wrong. Sharko is clueless, so I gave him examples.

Never got another answer.

Here is the error:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/roger-federer/f324/player-stats?year=2003&surfaceType=all

Total Points Won: 58%

That would have resulted in a game % of around 66% and would have been a record for dominance since the ATP started keeping records.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RogerFederer

TA has the correct figure. Click on career for time span.

TPW=54.1%

The whole business of getting accurate information for tennis is relatively new, and sites like TA are even newer. Even so, the ATP has not budged one inch in correcting horribly wrong information.

So I figure what we are all doing is making a difference, slowly.

Gary, Thanks for defending me.

But I cannot agree with every point. For being a tennis historian on the very top of the list this person should not have an agenda, neither a pro agenda nor an anti(Rosewall) agenda.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
There is a huge difference in status between Paris clay and Paris wood, like two different worlds. The French championship of any tennis group. pro or amateur BELONGS on clay...wood is an aberration for Paris, the result of financial problems, not artistic meaning.

Wrong again, Dan Lobb.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Does the ATP even bother to keep records for pre-1968? Like, somehow, tennis was invented in 1968?
Dan, they don't have anything useful before 1991. You can probably check matches, but Tennnis Abstract is piggy-backing on ATP data. It's very frustrating because all the things I've found out are for the last 25 years.

Very frustrating...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
@-NN- and others, some posts by SgtJohn on what the top 4 events of every year were.

Perhaps some of our fabled historians can verify how accurate this might be, @pc1 @krosero @urban @BobbyOne

From 1987 in his list the 4 traditional majors take on Major status.

(Sorry about the terrible layout, I had to copy this from MS Word directly, and it didn't keep any of my page settings...)
1986
RG Lendl (Pernfors)
Wim Becker (Lendl)
USO Lendl (Mecir)
Boca West Lendl (Wilander)

1985
AO Edberg (Wilander)
RG Wilander (Lendl)
Wim Becker (Curren)
USO Lendl (McEnroe)

1984
AO Wilander (Curren)
RG Lendl (McEnroe)
Wim McEnroe (Connors)
USO McEnroe (Lendl)

1983
AO Wilander (Lendl)
RG Noah (Wilander)
Wim McEnroe (Lewis)
USO Connors (Lendl)

1982
RG Wilander (Vilas)
Wim Connors (McEnroe)
USO Connors (Lendl)
Masters Lendl (McEnroe)

1981
RG Borg (Lendl)
Wim McEnroe (Borg)
USO McEnroe (Borg)
Masters Lendl (Gerulaitis)

1980
RG Borg (Gerulaitis)
Wim Borg (McEnroe)
USO McEnroe (Borg)
Masters Borg (Lendl)

1979
RG Borg (Pecci)
Wim Borg (Tanner)
USO McEnroe (Gerulaitis)
Masters Borg (Gerulaitis)

1978
Philadelphia Connors (Tanner)
RG Borg (Vilas)
Wim Borg (Connors)
USO Connors (Borg)

1977
RG Vilas (Gottfried)
Wim Borg (Connors)
USO Vilas (Connors)
Masters Connors (Borg)

1976
Philadelphia Connors (Borg)
RG Panatta (Solomon)
Wim Borg (Nastase)
USO Connors (Borg)

1975
RG Borg (Vilas)
Wim Ashe (Connors)
USO Orantes (Connors)
Masters Nastase (Borg)

1974
WCT Finals Newcombe (Borg)
RG Borg (Orantes)
Wim Connors (Rosewall)
USO Connors (Rosewall)

1973
WCT Finals Smith (Ashe)
RG Nastase (Pilic)
USO Newcombe (Kodes)
Masters Nastase (Okker)

1972
WCT Finals Rosewall (Laver)
RG Gimeno (Proisy)
PSW Los Angeles Smith (Tanner)
USO Nastase (Ashe)

1971
AO Rosewall (Ashe)
Rome Laver (Kodes)
Wim Newcombe (Smith)
USO Smith (Kodes)

1970
Sydney Laver (Rosewall)
Wim Newcombe (Rosewall)
USO Rosewall (Roche)
Barcelone Santana (Laver)

1969
AO Laver (Gimeno)
RG Laver (Rosewall)
Wim Laver (Newcombe)
USO Laver (Roche)

1968
RG Rosewall (Laver)
Wimbledon Laver (Roche)
PSW Los Angeles Laver (Rosewall)
USO Ashe (Okker)

1967
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
World Pro Laver (Rosewall)
Wimbledon Pro Laver (Rosewall)
US Pro Laver (Gimeno)

1966
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
Barcelona Gimeno (Rosewall)
New York MSG Pro Rosewall (Laver)
US Pro Laver (Rosewall)

1965
French Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Milan Pro Gimeno (Rosewall)
Wembley Laver (Gimeno)
US Pro Rosewall (Laver)

1964
Noordwijk Pro Gimeno (Rosewall)
French Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
US Pro Laver (Gonzales)

1963
French Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Wembley Rosewall (Hoad)
US Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Italian Pro Rosewall (Laver)

1962
French Pro Rosewall (Gimeno)
Wembley Rosewall (Hoad)
Stockholm Pro Rosewall (Gimeno)
Wimbledon Laver (Mulligan)

1961
Geneva Pro Gonzales (Rosewall)
Copenhagen Pro Gonzales (Olmedo)
French Pro Rosewall (Gonzales)
Wembley Rosewall (Hoad)

1960
Victorian Pro Hoad (Rosewall)
World Cham’p Tour Gonzales (Rosewall)
French Pro Rosewall (Hoad)
Wembley Rosewall (Segura)

1959
Melbourne Pro Sedgman (Gonzales)
French Pro Trabert (Sedgman)
Los Angeles Pro RR Gonzales (Hoad)
Tourn. Of Champ. Hoad (Gonzales)

1958
Australian Pro Sedgman (Trabert)
French Pro Rosewall (Hoad)
Wembley Sedgman (Trabert)
Tourn. Of Champ. Gonzales (Rosewall)

1957
Australian Pro Segura (Sedgman)
Wembley Rosewall (Segura)
Tourn. Of Champ. Gonzales (Sedgman)
RG Davidson (Flam)

1956
French Pro Trabert (Gonzales)
Wembley Gonzales (Sedgman)
Tourn. Of Champ. Gonzales (Sedgman)
Wimbledon Hoad (Rosewall)

1955
US Pro Gonzales (Segura)
US Pro Hard Court Gonzales (Segura)
Scarborough Pro Gonzales (Segura)
RG Trabert (Davidson)

1954
Australian Pro Sedgman (Segura)
US Pro Gonzales (Sedgman)
US 4-men Tour Gonzales (Segura)
Roland Garros Trabert (Larsen)

1953
New York Indoor Kramer (Sedgman)
Scarborough Pro Segura (Sedgman)
Wembley Sedgman (Gonzales)
Paris Pro Sedgman (Gonzales)

1952
Phil. Indoor Pro Gonzales (Segura)
Wembley Gonzales (Kramer)
US Pro Segura (Gonzales)
Wimbledon Sedgman (Drobny)

1951
Phil. Indoor Pro Kramer (Gonzales)
Berlin Pro Segura (Earn)
Wembley Gonzales (Segura)
US Pro Segura (Gonzales)

1950
Phil. Indoor Pro Gonzales (Kramer)
Wembley Gonzales (Van Horn)
Paris Pro Indoors Segura (Kramer)
US Pro Segura (Kovacs)

1949
Scarborough Kramer (Budge)
Wembley Kramer (Riggs)
Barcelona Kramer (Segura)
Forest Hills Gonzales (Schroeder)

1948
Melbourne Pro Kramer (Pails)
US Claycourt Pro Kovacs (Lufler)
US Pro Kramer (Riggs)
Davis Cup Schroeder (Parker)

1947
US Indoor Pro Riggs (Budge)
Buffalo Pro Kovacs (Riggs)
US Pro Riggs (Budge)
RG Asboth (Sturgess)

1946
Southern Pro Budge (Riggs)
Miami Beach Van Horn (Kovacs)
US Pro Riggs (Budge)
US Pro Hard Court Riggs (Budge)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
1945
US Pro Claycourt Van Horn (Nogrady)
US Pro Hardcourt Riggs (Budge)

1943
US Pro Barnes (Nogrady)

1942
US Pro Budge (Riggs)

1941
US Pro Perry (Skeen)
Forest Hills RR Perry (Budge)

1940
US Pro Budge (Perry)
US Open Budge (Barnes)

1939
Southport Nusslein (Tilden)
French Pro Budge (Vines)
Wembley Budge (Nusslein)
US Pro Vines (Perry)

1938
Davis Cup Budge (Bromwich)
RG Budge (Menzel)
Wimbledon Budge (Austin)
Forest Hills Budge (Mako)

1937
Davis Cup Budge (Austin)
RG Henkel (Austin)
Wimbledon Budge (Von Cramm)
Forest Hills Budge (Von Cramm)

1936
Davis Cup Perry (Quist)
Roland Garros Von Cramm (Perry)
Wimbledon Perry (Von Cramm)
Forest Hills Perry (Budge)

1935

Davis Cup Perry (Austin)
Roland Garros Perry (Von Cramm)
Wimbledon Perry (Von Cramm)
Wembley Vines (Tilden)

1934
Davis Cup Austin (Perry)
Roland Garros Von Cramm (Crawford)
Wimbledon Perry (Crawford)
Wembley Vines (Tilden)

1933
Davis Cup Perry (Cochet)
Roland Garros Crawford (Cochet)
Wimbledon Crawford (Vines)
Forest Hills Perry (Crawford)

1932
Davis Cup Borotra (Vines)
RG Cochet (De Stefani)
Wimbledon Vines (Austin)
Forest Hills Vines (Cochet)

1931
Davis Cup Cochet (Austin)
RG Borotra (Boussus)
Wimbledon Wood (Shields)
Forest Hills Vines (Lott)

1930
Davis Cup Cochet (Tilden)
Roland Garros Cochet (Tilden)
Wimbledon Tilden (Allison)
Forest Hills Doeg (Shields)

1929
Davis Cup Cochet (Tilden)
Roland Garros Lacoste (Borotra)
Wimbledon Cochet (Borotra)
Forest Hills Tilden (Hunter)

1928
Davis Cup Cochet (Tilden)
Roland Garros Cochet (Lacoste)
Wimbledon Lacoste (Cochet)
Forest Hills Cochet (Hunter)

1927
Davis Cup Lacoste (Tilden)
Roland Garros Lacoste (Tilden)
Wimbledon Cochet (Borotra)
Forest Hills Lacoste (Tilden)

1926
Davis Cup Johnston (Lacoste)
Roland Garros Cochet (Lacoste)
Wimbledon Borotra (Kinsey)
Forest Hills Lacoste (Borotra)

1925
Davis Cup Johnston (Tilden)
Roland Garros Lacoste (Borotra)
Wimbledon Lacoste (Borotra)
Forest Hills Tilden (Johnston)

1924
Davis Cup Tilden (Richards)
Olympics (Paris) Richards (Cochet)
Wimbledon Borotra (Lacoste)
Forest Hills Tilden (Johnston)

1923
Davis Cup Tilden (Anderson)
HC World Champ’s Johnston (Washer)
Wimbledon Johnston (Hunter)
Forest Hills Tilden (Johnston)

1922
Davis Cup Johnston (Tilden)
HC World Champ’s Cochet (de Gomar)
Wimbledon Patterson (Lycett)
Forest Hills Tilden (Johnston)

1921
Davis Cup Johnston (Tilden)
HC World Champ’s Tilden (Washer)
Wimbledon Tilden (Norton)
Forest Hills Tilden (Johnston)

1920
Davis Cup Johnston (Tilden)
HC World Champ’s Laurentz (Gobert)
Wimbledon Tilden (Patterson)
Forest Hills Tilden (Johnston)

1919
Aus. vs USA match Tilden (Johnston)
US Clay Johnston (Tilden)
Wimbledon Patterson (Brookes)
Forest Hills Johnston (Tilden)

1918
US Clay Tilden (Garland)

1917
Newport Murray (Niles)

1916
Newport Williams (Johnston)

1915
Newport Johnston (McLoughlin)

1914
Davis Cup McLoughlin (Wilding)
HC World Champ’s Wilding (Salm)
Wimbledon Brookes (Wilding)
Newport Williams (McLoughlin)

1913
Davis Cup Parke (McLoughlin)
HC World Champ’s Wilding (Gobert)
Wimbledon Wilding (McLoughlin)
Newport McLoughlin (Williams)

1912
Davis Cup Parke (Brookes)
Monte-Carlo Wilding (Moore)
Wimbledon Wilding (Gore)
Newport McLoughlin (Johnson)

1911
Davis Cup Brookes (Heath)
Monte-Carlo Wilding (Decugis)
Wimbledon Wilding (Ropert Barrett)
Newport Larned (McLoughlin)

1910
Monte-Carlo Decugis (Ritchie)
Wimbledon Wilding (Gore)
Longwood Bowl Larned (McLoughlin)
Newport Larned (Bundy)

1909
Davis Cup Brookes (Wilding)
Monte-Carlo Alexander (L Doherty)
Wimbledon Gore (Ritchie)
Newport Larned (Clothier)

1908
Davis Cup Wright (Wilding)
Monte-Carlo Wilding (Eaves)
Wimbledon Gore (Ropert Barrett)
Newport Larned (Wright)

1907
Davis Cup Brookes (Gore)
Monte-Carlo Ritchie (L Doherty)
Wimbledon Brookes (Gore)
Newport Larned (LeRoy)

1906
Davis Cup L Doherty (S Smith)
Monte-Carlo L Doherty (Eaves)
Wimbledon L Doherty (Riseley)
Newport Clothier (Wright)

1905
Davis Cup L Doherty (S Smith)
Monte-Carlo L Doherty (Ritchie)
Wimbledon L Doherty (Brookes)
Newport Wright (Ward)

1904
Davis Cup L Doherty (R Doherty)
Monte-Carlo R Doherty (Ritchie)
Wimbledon L Doherty (Riseley)
Newport Ward (Clothier)

1903
Davis Cup L Doherty (R Doherty)
Monte-Carlo R Doherty (Riseley)
Wimbledon L Doherty (Riseley)
Newport L Doherty (Larned)

1902
Monte-Carlo R Doherty (Hillyard)
Irish L Doherty (S Smith)
Wimbledon L Doherty (A Gore)
Newport Larned (R Doherty)

1901
Champ’s of Europe Decugis
Irish R Doherty (L Doherty)
Wimbledon Gore (R Doherty)
Newport Larned (Wright)

1900
Paris Olympics L Doherty (Mahony)
Irish R Doherty (Gore)
Wimbledon R Doherty (S Smith)
Newport Whitman (Larned)

part 2
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Final part

1899
Champ’s of Europe Mahony (R Doherty)
Irish R Doherty (Mahony)
Wimbledon R Doherty (Gore)
Newport Whitman (Paret)

1898
Irish Mahony (Eaves)
Northern L Doherty (Hobart)
Wimbledon R Doherty (L Doherty)
Newport Whitman (Davis)

1897
Irish Eaves (Baddeley)
Northern Baddeley (R Doherty)
Wimbledon R Doherty (Mahony)
Newport Wrenn (Eaves)

1896
Irish Baddeley (Mahony)
Northern Baddeley (Mahony)
Wimbledon Mahony (Baddeley)
Newport Wrenn (Hovey)

1895
Irish Pim (Eaves)
Northern Baddeley
Wimbledon Baddeley (Eaves)
W Newton Int’l RR Pim (Mahony)

1894
Irish Pim (Chaytor)
Northern Baddeley (Pim)
Wimbledon Pim (Baddeley)
Brit. Indoors Mahony

1893
Irish Pim (E Renshaw)
Northern Pim (Baddeley)
Wimbledon Pim (Baddeley)
Brit. Indoors Mahony (Meers)

1892
Irish E Renshaw (Lewis)
Northern Pim (Barlow)
Wimbledon Baddeley (Pim)
Brit. Indoors Meers (Lewis)

1891
Irish Lewis (Pim)
Northern Pim (Baddeley)
Wimbledon Baddeley (Pim)
Brit. Indoors Lewis

1890
Irish Lewis (Hamilton)
Northern Pim (Hamilton)
Wimbledon Hamilton (W Renshaw)
Brit. Indoors Lewis

1889
Irish Hamilton (E Renshaw)
Northern Hamilton (Mahony)
Wimbledon W Renshaw (E Renshaw)
Brit. Indoors Lewis (Barlow)

1888
Irish E Renshaw (Hamilton)
Northern Hamilton (Grove)
Wimbledon E Renshaw (Lawford)
Brit. Indoors Lewis (Meers)

1887
Irish E Renshaw (Lawford)
Northern Grove (Chaytor)
Wimbledon Lawford (E Renshaw)
Brit. Indoors Lewis (EL Williams)

1886
Irish Lawford (Hamilton)
Northern Grove (Dwight)
Wimbledon W Renshaw (Lawford)
Brit. Indoors EL Williams (Lawford)

1885
Irish Lawford (Chatterton)
Northern Dwight (Stewart)
Wimbledon W Renshaw (Lawford)
Brit. Indoors Lawford (Ross)

1884
Irish Lawford (E Renshaw)
Northern Stewart (Wilberforce)
Wimbledon W Renshaw (Lawford)
Scottish Gamble (Horn)

1883
Irish E Renshaw (W Renshaw)
Northern Wilberforce (Richardson)
Wimbledon W Renshaw (E Renshaw)
Prince’s Champ. Lawford (E Renshaw)

1882
Irish W Renshaw (Richardson)
Northern Richardson (E Renshaw)
Wimbledon W Renshaw (E Renshaw)
Prince’s Champ. E Renshaw (Lubbock)

1881
Irish W Renshaw (Lawford)
Northern Richardson (Browne)
Wimbledon W Renshaw (Hartley)
Prince’s Champ. W Renshaw (Mulholland)

1880
Irish W Renshaw (Goold)
Northern Richardson (Fairlie)
Wimbledon Hartley (Lawford)
Prince’s Champ. Lawford (Lubbock)

1879
Irish Goold (Barry)
Wimbledon Hartley (Goold)
Cheltenham W Renshaw (Goold)

1878
Wimbledon Hadow (S Gore)

1877
Wimbledon S Gore (Marshall)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
According to this list if I've counted correctly

The following players have this many top 4 events;

Rosewall: 21
Gonzalez: 19
Laver: 18
Borg: 13
Lendl: 10
Connors: 9
McEnroe: 7

-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------

Hoad: 3 (sorry @Dan Lobb )

I have of course not tallied up top 4 events for everyone according to this list. Interesting that Gonzalez comes out above Laver, McEnroe does worse than I expected as well.

And sorry @BobbyOne only 21 for Rosewall ;) :D
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
According to this list if I've counted correctly;

Rosewall: 21 majors
Gonzalez: 19
Laver: 18 majors
Borg: 13 majors
Lendl: 10 majors
Connors: 9 majors
McEnroe: 7 majors

-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------

Hoad: 3 majors (sorry @Dan Lobb )

I have of course not tallied up everyones majors according to this list. Interesting that Gonzalez comes out above Laver, McEnroe does worse than I expected as well.

And sorry @BobbyOne only 21 majors for Rosewall ;) :D
The St John's list is very useful and a great source of information but I do disagree with calling the "Pro Majors" (I dislike that term as all of you know but I'll use it for now since a lot of you like it. It's hardly traditional.) actual majors nor is any tournament on the Old Pro Tour actual classic majors. I could see arguments for them to be the strongest tournament that year. Gonzalez's 6 or 7 World Championship Tours aren't included. If I recalled Gonzalez was lower in Important Tournaments compared to TIlden and Laver but they also did NOT include his World Championship Tours.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The St John's list is very useful and a great source of information but I do disagree with calling the "Pro Majors" (I dislike that term as all of you know but I'll use it for now since a lot of you like it. It's hardly traditional.)not actual classic majors but I could see arguments for them to be the strongest tournament that year. Gonzalez's 6 or 7 World Championship Tours aren't included. If I recalled Gonzalez was lower in Important Tournaments compared to TIlden and Laver but they also did NOT include his World Championship Tours.

I probably wouldn't include the World Championship tours as majors full stop. Not to say that don't have great value, but I would consider them a different kind of event. I'd have them as major tour or something.

Regarding calling those professional events pro majors I'm fine with it as long as we're being honest with how we're doing it. I have edited my post to call them top 4 events, because that's more what I was getting at. If it was a proper list of majors and I was going for equivocal events I would expand the list to probably include top 5 events, simply because I feel the YEC is at least equal to many of those events. I believe it would be a fairer representation for all involved. But off course that would run into the other problems we've been discussing.

I also don't believe such lists are a good representation of how many Big 4 Majors would be won if tennis had always been Open. But thats a different discussion.

The term I really dislike is Pro Slams, but if we consider that a major need not be an event on par with the 4 Slams then we have scope to include several other events.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Also, I included everything on that list but I would at least personally omit any amateur events from the list from at least the late 30's to early 40's onwards.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I probably wouldn't include the World Championship tours as majors full stop. Not to say that don't have great value, but I would consider them a different kind of event. I'd have them as major tour or something.

Regarding calling those professional events pro majors I'm fine with it as long as we're being honest with how we're doing it. I have edited my post to call them top 4 events, because that's more what I was getting at. If it was a proper list of majors and I was going for equivocal events I would expand the list to probably include top 5 events, simply because I feel the YEC is at least equal to many of those events. I believe it would be a fairer representation for all involved. But off course that would run into the other problems we've been discussing.

I also don't believe such lists are a good representation of how many Big 4 Majors would be won if tennis had always been Open. But thats a different discussion.

The term I really dislike is Pro Slams, but if we consider that a major need not be an event on par with the 4 Slams then we have scope to include several other events.

Yes I agree and that was also a part of my thinking on that.
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
@-NN- and others, some posts by SgtJohn on what the top 4 events of every year were.

Perhaps some of our fabled historians can verify how accurate this might be, @pc1 @krosero @urban @BobbyOne

From 1987 in his list the 4 traditional majors take on Major status.

If you can find it he did another, better, list where he included more than 4 tournaments for numerous years and included 1/2 points etc...

Also, I think he had a rule of including at least 1 clay event for every year, regardless of it's quality, and I think he abandoned this for the other list.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
If you can find it he did another, better, list where he included more than 4 tournaments for numerous years and included 1/2 points etc...

Also, I think he had a rule of including at least 1 clay event for every year, regardless of it's quality, and I think he abandoned this for the other list.

If you've seen it before you might better be able to search for it?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
it seems to me, as if you were trying to apply modern standards of consistency to the pro scene of the 50´s and 60´s.
No, I am just pointing out that there was no regular set of "pro majors" at that time. The identity of the most important pro tournaments changed from year to year.
The idea of any type of consistency for the "three" pro majors in the fifties is absurd, as the Cleveland event and often the French event were not especially significant fixtures year to year.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Thanks, not had a chance to look at it yet but it does strike me as interesting that in say 1971 Rome would be considered top 4 above the WCT.

Edit: That list looks a lot better to me. I'll import it a little later if someone doesn't want to beat me to it.
Maybe 1971 Rome was picked because it was on red clay with some of the top players like Newcombe, Okker, Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Emerson, Roche and Laver playing. Laver defeated Kodes in the final in straight sets. The 1971 Dallas Tournament was in its first year so perhaps he didn't think it had the necessary prestige. I think it did from the very beginning.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
According to this list if I've counted correctly

The following players have this many top 4 events;

Rosewall: 21
Gonzalez: 19
Laver: 18
Borg: 13
Lendl: 10
Connors: 9
McEnroe: 7

-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------

Hoad: 3 (sorry @Dan Lobb )

I have of course not tallied up top 4 events for everyone according to this list. Interesting that Gonzalez comes out above Laver, McEnroe does worse than I expected as well.

And sorry @BobbyOne only 21 for Rosewall ;) :D

NatF, That list mirrors my (and others') opinion that Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver (with Tilden) would be candidates to amass 20 or more open era majors.

I will not cry about a list where Rosewall tops Pancho and Rod... ;-)
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I probably wouldn't include the World Championship tours as majors full stop. Not to say that don't have great value, but I would consider them a different kind of event. I'd have them as major tour or something.

Regarding calling those professional events pro majors I'm fine with it as long as we're being honest with how we're doing it. I have edited my post to call them top 4 events, because that's more what I was getting at. If it was a proper list of majors and I was going for equivocal events I would expand the list to probably include top 5 events, simply because I feel the YEC is at least equal to many of those events. I believe it would be a fairer representation for all involved. But off course that would run into the other problems we've been discussing.

I also don't believe such lists are a good representation of how many Big 4 Majors would be won if tennis had always been Open. But thats a different discussion.

The term I really dislike is Pro Slams, but if we consider that a major need not be an event on par with the 4 Slams then we have scope to include several other events.

NatF, I do believe that the championship rolls of the three pro majors give a good picture of a theoretic open GS tableau.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
No, I am just pointing out that there was no regular set of "pro majors" at that time. The identity of the most important pro tournaments changed from year to year.
The idea of any type of consistency for the "three" pro majors in the fifties is absurd, as the Cleveland event and often the French event were not especially significant fixtures year to year.

Dan Lobb, A lie at least regarding the years 1958 to 1967.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, That list mirrors my (and others') opinion that Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver (with Tilden) would be candidates to amass 20 or more open era majors.

I will not cry about a list where Rosewall tops Pancho and Rod... ;-)

NatF, I do believe that the championship rolls of the three pro majors give a good picture of a theoretic open GS tableau.

I think you're underestimating the impact of open tennis a bit. The standard in the pros was very high but it's easier to prepare for matches when you know your opponents like the back of your hand. Better the devil you know.

In practice those players might amass around 20 majors but I also think it's possible things play out a little differently.

I agree it's a good indication that Laver/Rosewall etc...would atleast be the favourites in those events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Thanks, not had a chance to look at it yet but it does strike me as interesting that in say 1971 Rome would be considered top 4 above the WCT.

Edit: That list looks a lot better to me. I'll import it a little later if someone doesn't want to beat me to it.

NatF, I think that the Italian Open were only No.5 among the 1971 tournaments, WCT Final No. 2 or 3.

In Rome there were 7 Top Ten players participating as also in Dallas were. But the prestige of Dallas was higher.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I think you're underestimating the impact of open tennis a bit. The standard in the pros was very high but it's easier to prepare for matches when you know your opponents like the back of your hand. Better the devil you know.

In practice those players might amass around 20 majors but I also think it's possible things play out a little differently.

I agree it's a good indication that Laver/Rosewall etc...would atleast be the favourites in those events.
You also have to consider all the others would have the benefit of top competition in an Open scenario also so their level may very well be higher. The Old Pro may very well be the favorites but best of five for seven rounds is much more grueling so you never know. This is all "what if" stuff. The bottom line is that the top pros like Laver, Gonzalez, Hoad and Rosewall were super players and I have no doubt they would have won a number of Open Majors during the time they were playing on the Old Pro Tour.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I think you're underestimating the impact of open tennis a bit. The standard in the pros was very high but it's easier to prepare for matches when you know your opponents like the back of your hand. Better the devil you know.

In practice those players might amass around 20 majors but I also think it's possible things play out a little differently.

I agree it's a good indication that Laver/Rosewall etc...would atleast be the favourites in those events.

NatF, I disagree. If open era began earlier, Laver and Rosewall would also know the "amateurs" and most probably beat them. Look at Kramer's comparison Wimbledon and US Championships till 1967 where he gives the actual winners and the "open" GS winners. From 1959 he states only Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver as winners, and I'm sure he would also treated the other two GS tournaments similarily.

EDIT: Don't forget that even old Laver and Rosewall did win almost all early open era majors.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Gary, I also would not care how the term for the big pro titles is but only if we distinguish these titles from other important tournaments (with Forest Hills and 1967 Wimbledon the exception).

It might be of interest that in the German "Tennis Magazin" of November, 1991, there is a six pages interview with Ken Rosewall where at the end there are listed Rosewall's greatest achievements. Besides of Davis Cup wins, the amateur majors and many open era tournament wins (including Hongkong, 1977) the list comprises only the three pro majors before open era. They are called British Professional (meant is Wembley), French Professional and US Professional. The interview and summary was written long before Joe McCauley wrote his book and long before I firstly used the term "pro major"...

The silly interviewer, Achim Schneider, asked Rosewall why we left the amateur scene in order to play small show tournaments. Muscles answered that the pros had at least an equal competition as the amateurs had at their important tournaments. Those matches were really hard matters, hard things, as he said...
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
According to this list if I've counted correctly

The following players have this many top 4 events;

Rosewall: 21
Gonzalez: 19
Laver: 18
Borg: 13
Lendl: 10
Connors: 9
McEnroe: 7

-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------

Hoad: 3 (sorry @Dan Lobb )

I have of course not tallied up top 4 events for everyone according to this list. Interesting that Gonzalez comes out above Laver, McEnroe does worse than I expected as well.

And sorry @BobbyOne only 21 for Rosewall ;) :D
What is your "top four"? I hope that it is not completely arbitrary.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
If you can find it he did another, better, list where he included more than 4 tournaments for numerous years and included 1/2 points etc...

Also, I think he had a rule of including at least 1 clay event for every year, regardless of it's quality, and I think he abandoned this for the other list.
That sounds more realistic.
However, I am beginning to accept that Kramer knew what he was talking about when he designated the Top Four for 1958/59 as L.A. Masters, Forest Hills, Kooyong, and White City...this was PROFESSIONAL tennis, and the standards of importance were different than for the amateurs.
Further, I do not think that we can take seriously that Cleveland was the U.S. Pro, when even the promoters did not make such a claim, or the "French Pro" at Palais Royal or Stad Coubertin were of major significance compared to Roland Garros, there is a difference in stature between the two venues.

I like Sgt. John's approach, but I would include a different composition of events.
 
Last edited:

krosero

Legend
It might be of interest that in the German "Tennis Magazin" of November, 1991, there is a six pages interview with Ken Rosewall where at the end there are listed Rosewall's greatest achievements. Besides of Davis Cup wins, the amateur majors and many open era tournament wins (including Hongkong, 1977) the list comprises only the three pro majors before open era. They are called British Professional (meant is Wembley), French Professional and US Professional. The interview and summary was written long before Joe McCauley wrote his book and long before I firstly used the term "pro major"...

The silly interviewer, Achim Schneider, asked Rosewall why we left the amateur scene in order to play small show tournaments. Muscles answered that the pros had at least an equal competition as the amateurs had at their important tournaments. Those matches were really hard matters, hard things, as he said...
A very nice find, Bobby. My own documentation has been thinnest on the European side, and this is exactly the sort of thing I would never have found -- not through newspaper archives.

This article is quite remarkable actually, because as you said it's 9 years before McCauley wrote his book in which he gave the championship rolls of Wembley/French/US Pro's and named them as the major tournaments of the pros. Of course in the 70s both Peter Rowley and Ellsworth Vines had named those 3 tourneys as the most significant on the old pro tour, but I wonder, now, what source was used by this writer in German Tennis Magazine. As a tennis publication they would have had access to tennis histories in books and articles.

This particular writer hardly seems sympathetic to the old pro history, or knowledgeable about it, so I doubt very much that he drew up that list of Rosewall's old pro titles on his own research. He likely was drawing on some source. I just wonder what that could be, since it was years before McCauley.
 

krosero

Legend
it seems to me, as if you were trying to apply modern standards of consistency to the pro scene of the 50´s and 60´s.
I think so, too, and if consistency is a criteria, it should be pointed out again that the other pro tournaments had even less consistency than the 3 pro majors. All of these other tournaments had shorter runs than did the Big 3.

It's not as if the second-tier tournaments were held every year, while the Pro Majors showed up inconsistently. The Pro Majors stood out in the long span of the old pro tour (approximately 1927-67) precisely for showing up more than other events. The pro majors, and the world championship tour, stood out as the most consistent events.

Of course it's not a consistency like we have today -- but again that should not be the standard. Consistency should be measured against other tournaments/events of the time period, not against our events.
 

krosero

Legend
I have not found any formal documentation, yet, demonstrating the sanction that Wembley Pro was given, from the ILTF. I do have this statement by Bill Tilden indicating that the World Pro Championships in Berlin (1932-33) was officially sanctioned.

AP report of January 18, 1934:

“Nusslein is the holder of the professional world’s title as recognized by the International Federation of which the United States Professional Association is not a member,” Tilden said. “Vines and I are playing for the indoor world’s professional championship, which is held by me, not Mr. Nusslein.”​

It's just unclear, by "International Federation", does Tilden mean the ILTF, or an international pro body?

The US Pro governing body mentioned by Tilden also comes up here in this AP story on Jan. 22, 1934:

FOREIGN TENNIS ACES COMPLAIN

European Racquet Experts Object to Tour by Tilden, Vines

NEW YORK, Jan. 22—(AP)—The current Bill Tilden-Ellsworth Vines tour has no sanction from the National Professional Tennis association, J. P. Allen, secretary of the organization, explained today as a result of conflicting developments.

Several protests were received from foreign professionals, including Hans Nusslein of Germany, when the Tilden-Vines tour went on the road, billed as being for the “world professional championship.” Nothing was done about this, Allen said, for the simple reason that Tilden’s troupe is a private enterprise and in no way connected with the national association.

Big Bill Indoor Champ.

“Tilden holds the national indoor professional title, won at the tournament this winter in Philadelphia,” said Allen. “Nusslein is the world outdoor pro title-holder, having won the championship tournament in Europe last summer. Neither of these titles can be won or lost except in the annual tournaments. They are not subject to ‘challenge matches.’ Tilden Tours, Inc., which has most of the star professionals under contract this year, is conducting and billing its attractions to suit its own purposes.”​

March 14, 1934 in the Palm Beach Post:

Hans Nusslein, world professional champion who gained that honor by defeating Bill Tilden at Berlin last fall in the International Tennis federations recognized tournament, made his appearance during the afternoon and stroked a clear-cut victory over Jimmy Kenny, of Palm Beach and Newport, 6-2, 6-0, and 6-2.​

January 22, 1934 in the Palm Beach Post:

NUSSLEIN WILL ACCEPT TILDEN'S OFFER TO PLAY

The world's outdoor tennis professional is very willing, in fact anxious, to play Bill Tilden a series of matches to test the supremacy of the two.

But, it is doubtful that any title will be at stake.

Hans Nusslein of Germany, wintering at Palm Beach and located at the Everglades club clay courts, is the world outdoor pro tennis champ. He won the right to call himself that at Berlin last September in the finals of the International Professional Tennis federations tournament recognized for the world's title. Tilden and Bruce Barnes won the doubles title there.

Tilden is holder of the national indoor title, an honor he gained at Philadelphia several weeks ago. But, as far as being world's indoor champion--well, that honor is questioned by Nusslein who so far has failed to find where the International pro federation has recognized such a tournament.

Right now it's Nusslein and "Vinnie" Richards who hold the major professional titles so far as singles are concerned. Nusslein's title is impeachable, that explained above. Richards won the American title last fall, defeating Frank Hunter in the finals.

Nusslein, questioned at the Everglades club, said he is more than willing to play Tilden, in answer to the latter's statement made at Cleveland the other evening. "Tilden is the greatest player the world has produced," Nusslein said, "and I firmly believe him to be at the peak of his game now. He is better than when he played in the amateur ranks and I do not underestimate his ability as the foremost player, professional or amateur.

"However, I believe I can defeat him in a series of matches and wish to remind Mr. Tilden that I did just that in Europe last summer, winning seven of 12 matches, including the championship at Berlin. It is true that he defeated me more often than I he during the American tour in 1932."

Nusslein could not understand Tilden's reference to a sore arm he had at the Berlin championship matches, saying that he and Tilden played together only several hours prior to championship matches and that Big Bill was at the top of his game then and very apparently at the peak during the tournament.

"Tilden, about eight days after the championship, was defeating Cochet and Plaa in straight sets at Paris," Nusslein added.

If, and when they play, and a title is at stake, the tournament must gain the sanction of some ruling association, either the American Professional association or the International Federation.

And, it looks like any impending match will not be played before April 1, that because of the Tilden's tours –T.P.​

Nusslein was often referred to in early 1934 as world pro champion. A number of reports in '35 state that he lost that title to Vines at the inaugural Wembley championships of 1934.

United Press report on that '34 Wembley:

Ellsworth Vines Defeats Tilden For Tennis Title

LONDON, ENGLAND (U.P.)—Ellsworth Vines, professional tennis champion of the United States, Friday defeated Big Bill Tilden 9-7, 7-5, 6-2 in the round robin final at Wembley and won the world professional championship.

In a battle regarded as one of the greatest ever seen in London lawn tennis, Vines’ youth was the deciding factor. Tilden began to tire in the second set and lost his masterful stroking. He netted balls frequently and was confronted at every turn by Vines’ counters on drop shots and hops, which Tilden tried to use to slow up the game.​

The Clarion Ledger (Jackson, MS) on March 10, 1935:

Hans Nusslein, former German professional tennis title holder and pro champion of the world until last year, joined Big Bill Tilden’s tennis troupe that will stop here for exhibition matches March 27…

Since Hans Nusslein first came into prominence in the tennis world by winning the German title in 1931, his rise has been phenomenal. He has held the world’s professional title, relinquishing it last year to Ellsworth Vines at Wembly [sic], England.

He had previously defeated all comers including Vines and Kozeluh to win the United States professional championship in August 1934.​

Raleigh Register (Beckley, West Virginia) on March 24, 1935:

Every man in the troupe holds one or more world’s championships. Tilden is recognized as the greatest tennis player of all times; Vines is the present world’s professional champion; Nusslein was world’s champion until last year, when Vines wrested the crown from him at Wimbledon [sic]…​

But Wembley possibly did not (yet?) have status as the world pro championship with the same certainty that Berlin Pro had. Nusslein still held the world pro title even after his defeat by Vines at the '34 Wembley, per this report in the Burlington Daily Times on April 4, 1935:

Although not generally credited with the honor, Hans Nusslein who is to appear here Thursday night at 8 o'clock with Big Bill Tilden's tennis professionals is the holder of the world's professional singles championship and the co-holder of the world's pro doubles.

Nusslein, a German, won the championship in 1933 in Berlin. Since no tournament was held last year, he still retains the title. An unusual fact in his winning the universal honor is that in the field of 164 entries he won in straight sets.​

Now, Berlin Pro was actually held in 1934 as always, so when this article says that "no tournament was held last year," it means that no tournament in '34 was held to be the World Pro.

This was in American Lawn Tennis, a report from their English correspondent, about the 1935 Wembley:

Professional Tournament in London​

It does not seem possible to say by whose authority the lawn tennis contests held at the Wembley Stadium in the vicinity of London during the week September 30-October 5 were styled “The World’s Men’s Professional Indoor Championship.” It will perhaps suffice if I say that they are not recognized as such by the governing body of the game in the country in which they were held and probably owe their title to the fertile brain of one W T Tilden, who was, in a manner of speaking, the author of their being.​

So when did Wembley gain formal sanction, and what form did that take?
 
Last edited:

treblings

Hall of Fame
It might be of interest that in the German "Tennis Magazin" of November, 1991, there is a six pages interview with Ken Rosewall where at the end there are listed Rosewall's greatest achievements. Besides of Davis Cup wins, the amateur majors and many open era tournament wins (including Hongkong, 1977) the list comprises only the three pro majors before open era. They are called British Professional (meant is Wembley), French Professional and US Professional. The interview and summary was written long before Joe McCauley wrote his book and long before I firstly used the term "pro major"...

The silly interviewer, Achim Schneider, asked Rosewall why we left the amateur scene in order to play small show tournaments. Muscles answered that the pros had at least an equal competition as the amateurs had at their important tournaments. Those matches were really hard matters, hard things, as he said...

Great find, Bobby.
Schneiders opinion, that the pros played only small show tournaments, mirrors what most people thought of and knew of the old pro scene.
Of course, journalists like him should have seen it as their duty to investigate further and to educate themselves of what really happened.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
I have not found any formal documentation, yet, demonstrating the sanction that Wembley Pro was given, from the ILTF. I do have this statement by Bill Tilden indicating that the World Pro Championships in Berlin (1932-33) was officially sanctioned.

AP report of January 18, 1934:

“Nusslein is the holder of the professional world’s title as recognized by the International Federation of which the United States Professional Association is not a member,” Tilden said. “Vines and I are playing for the indoor world’s professional championship, which is held by me, not Mr. Nusslein.”​

It's just unclear, by "International Federation", does Tilden mean the ILTF, or an international pro body?

The US Pro governing body mentioned by Tilden also comes up here in this AP story on Jan. 22, 1934:

FOREIGN TENNIS ACES COMPLAIN

European Racquet Experts Object to Tour by Tilden, Vines

NEW YORK, Jan. 22—(AP)—The current Bill Tilden-Ellsworth Vines tour has no sanction from the National Professional Tennis association, J. P. Allen, secretary of the organization, explained today as a result of conflicting developments.

Several protests were received from foreign professionals, including Hans Nusslein of Germany, when the Tilden-Vines tour went on the road, billed as being for the “world professional championship.” Nothing was done about this, Allen said, for the simple reason that Tilden’s troupe is a private enterprise and in no way connected with the national association.

Big Bill Indoor Champ.

“Tilden holds the national indoor professional title, won at the tournament this winter in Philadelphia,” said Allen. “Nusslein is the world outdoor pro title-holder, having won the championship tournament in Europe last summer. Neither of these titles can be won or lost except in the annual tournaments. They are not subject to ‘challenge matches.’ Tilden Tours, Inc., which has most of the star professionals under contract this year, is conducting and billing its attractions to suit its own purposes.”​

March 14, 1934 in the Palm Beach Post:

Hans Nusslein, world professional champion who gained that honor by defeating Bill Tilden at Berlin last fall in the International Tennis federations recognized tournament, made his appearance during the afternoon and stroked a clear-cut victory over Jimmy Kenny, of Palm Beach and Newport, 6-2, 6-0, and 6-2.​

January 22, 1934 in the Palm Beach Post:

NUSSLEIN WILL ACCEPT TILDEN'S OFFER TO PLAY

The world's outdoor tennis professional is very willing, in fact anxious, to play Bill Tilden a series of matches to test the supremacy of the two.

But, it is doubtful that any title will be at stake.

Hans Nusslein of Germany, wintering at Palm Beach and located at the Everglades club clay courts, is the world outdoor pro tennis champ. He won the right to call himself that at Berlin last September in the finals of the International Professional Tennis federations tournament recognized for the world's title. Tilden and Bruce Barnes won the doubles title there.

Tilden is holder of the national indoor title, an honor he gained at Philadelphia several weeks ago. But, as far as being world's indoor champion--well, that honor is questioned by Nusslein who so far has failed to find where the International pro federation has recognized such a tournament.

Right now it's Nusslein and "Vinnie" Richards who hold the major professional titles so far as singles are concerned. Nusslein's title is impeachable, that explained above. Richards won the American title last fall, defeating Frank Hunter in the finals.

Nusslein, questioned at the Everglades club, said he is more than willing to play Tilden, in answer to the latter's statement made at Cleveland the other evening. "Tilden is the greatest player the world has produced," Nusslein said, "and I firmly believe him to be at the peak of his game now. He is better than when he played in the amateur ranks and I do not underestimate his ability as the foremost player, professional or amateur.

"However, I believe I can defeat him in a series of matches and wish to remind Mr. Tilden that I did just that in Europe last summer, winning seven of 12 matches, including the championship at Berlin. It is true that he defeated me more often than I he during the American tour in 1932."

Nusslein could not understand Tilden's reference to a sore arm he had at the Berlin championship matches, saying that he and Tilden played together only several hours prior to championship matches and that Big Bill was at the top of his game then and very apparently at the peak during the tournament.

"Tilden, about eight days after the championship, was defeating Cochet and Plaa in straight sets at Paris," Nusslein added.

If, and when they play, and a title is at stake, the tournament must gain the sanction of some ruling association, either the American Professional association or the International Federation.

And, it looks like any impending match will not be played before April 1, that because of the Tilden's tours –T.P.​

Nusslein was often referred to in early 1934 as world pro champion. A number of reports in '35 state that he lost that title to Vines at the inaugural Wembley championships of 1934.

United Press report on that '34 Wembley:

Ellsworth Vines Defeats Tilden For Tennis Title

LONDON, ENGLAND (U.P.)—Ellsworth Vines, professional tennis champion of the United States, Friday defeated Big Bill Tilden 9-7, 7-5, 6-2 in the round robin final at Wembley and won the world professional championship.

In a battle regarded as one of the greatest ever seen in London lawn tennis, Vines’ youth was the deciding factor. Tilden began to tire in the second set and lost his masterful stroking. He netted balls frequently and was confronted at every turn by Vines’ counters on drop shots and hops, which Tilden tried to use to slow up the game.​

The Clarion Ledger (Jackson, MS) on March 10, 1935:

Hans Nusslein, former German professional tennis title holder and pro champion of the world until last year, joined Big Bill Tilden’s tennis troupe that will stop here for exhibition matches March 27…

Since Hans Nusslein first came into prominence in the tennis world by winning the German title in 1931, his rise has been phenomenal. He has held the world’s professional title, relinquishing it last year to Ellsworth Vines at Wembly [sic], England.

He had previously defeated all comers including Vines and Kozeluh to win the United States professional championship in August 1934.​

Raleigh Register (Beckley, West Virginia) on March 24, 1935:

Every man in the troupe holds one or more world’s championships. Tilden is recognized as the greatest tennis player of all times; Vines is the present world’s professional champion; Nusslein was world’s champion until last year, when Vines wrested the crown from him at Wimbledon [sic]…​

But Wembley possibly did not (yet?) have status as the world pro championship with the same certainty that Berlin Pro had. Nusslein still held the world pro title even after his defeat by Vines at the '34 Wembley, per this report in the Burlington Daily Times on April 4, 1935:

Although not generally credited with the honor, Hans Nusslein who is to appear here Thursday night at 8 o'clock with Big Bill Tilden's tennis professionals is the holder of the world's professional singles championship and the co-holder of the world's pro doubles.

Nusslein, a German, won the championship in 1933 in Berlin. Since no tournament was held last year, he still retains the title. An unusual fact in his winning the universal honor is that in the field of 164 entries he won in straight sets.​

Now, Berlin Pro was actually held in 1934 as always, so when this article says that "no tournament was held last year," it means that no tournament in '34 was held to be the World Pro.

This was in American Lawn Tennis, a report from their English correspondent, about the 1935 Wembley:

Professional Tournament in London​

It does not seem possible to say by whose authority the lawn tennis contests held at the Wembley Stadium in the vicinity of London during the week September 30-October 5 were styled “The World’s Men’s Professional Indoor Championship.” It will perhaps suffice if I say that they are not recognized as such by the governing body of the game in the country in which they were held and probably owe their title to the fertile brain of one W T Tilden, who was, in a manner of speaking, the author of their being.​

So when did Wembley gain formal sanction, and what form did that take?

there is a mention of a National Professional Tennis association in the AP story. last night i read in McCauley and Chapter 9 starts with the sentence: "Early in 1946 the Pros formed a Players Association,..."
Do you know something about that association?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, I disagree. If open era began earlier, Laver and Rosewall would also know the "amateurs" and most probably beat them. Look at Kramer's comparison Wimbledon and US Championships till 1967 where he gives to actual winners and the "open" GS winners. From 1959 he states only Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver as winners, and I'm sure he would also treated the other two GS tournaments similarily.

EDIT: Don't forget that even old Laver and Rosewall did win almost all early open era majors.

Can't agree here Bobby I'm afraid. Fully open tennis from the beginning would have created a completely different environment for all the players involved. I don't think we should expect it to make little or no difference. With respect to Kramer he had a vested interest in promoting the pro tour. Even with a thorough and in depth discussion we'll never know how it would have played out. We can say who the favourites were in each event but upsets do happen so I think it's wise to be cautious personally.

The problem is that they couldn't "know" all the amateurs as there would be new players rising up, greater depth etc...the old pro was predictable in terms of draws. Open tennis would not be. Maybe Laver draws a young Tony Roche in the 3rd Round of Wimbledon and loses in 5 sets, maybe Rosewall draws Newcombe at the AO in an early round and Newcombe's serve is unplayable that day etc...Maybe some rather unknown player with something to prove plays the match of his life in the first round. The element of surprise would be there far more. More often than not they would win because of their quality, but we must assume that the opportunity for upsets would be there.

Well Ashe did win the first USO ;) Regardless the amateurs were ill prepared for the level of play from the Pro's, they hadn't been exposed to it. In Open Tennis they would have grown up with it and learnt from it. Even in the first few years of the Open Era the former amateur players were frequently in the finals of the GS even if they didn't win them.

What is your "top four"? I hope that it is not completely arbitrary.

I used the list I posted just above that quote...the one from SgtJohn. It's obviously no more arbitrary than the way you choose important tournaments...
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
Can't agree here Bobby I'm afraid. Fully open tennis from the beginning would have created a completely different environment for all the players involved. I don't think we should expect it to make little or no difference. With respect to Kramer he had a vested interest in promoting the pro tour. Even with a thorough and in depth discussion we'll never know how it would have played out. We can say who the favourites were in each event but upsets do happen so I think it's wise to be cautious personally.

The problem is that they couldn't "know" all the amateurs as there would be new players rising up, greater depth etc...the old pro was predictable in terms of draws. Open tennis would not be. Maybe Laver draws a young Tony Roche in the 3rd Round of Wimbledon and loses in 5 sets, maybe Rosewall draws Newcombe at the AO in an early round and Newcombe's serve is unplayable that day etc...Maybe some rather unknown player with something to prove plays the match of his life in the first round. The element of surprise would be there far more. More often than not they would win because of their quality, but we must assume that the opportunity for upsets would be there.

Well Ashe did win the first USO ;) Regardless the amateurs were ill prepared for the level of play from the Pro's, they hadn't been exposed to it. In Open Tennis they would have grown up with it and learnt from it. Even in the first few years of the Open Era the former amateur players were frequently in the finals of the GS even if they didn't win them.



I used the list I posted just above that quote...the one from SgtJohn. It's obviously no more arbitrary than the way you choose important tournaments...

i agree with your reasoning.
i´m sure that Rosewall and Laver would have been 1 and 2 for most of the 60´s had there been open tennis. they would have been clear favourites to win
most of the majors. with guys like Hoad, Gimeno or an ageing Gonzalez amongst others coming close.

could there have been surprises or upsets in major tournaments caused by amateurs?
Of course, imo. saying otherwise would implicate that there wasn´t much depth in men´s tennis in the 60´s. Upsets doesn´t mean winning majors necessarily but beating top pros occassionally.

i think there was enough depth in men´s tennis, and while the pros face the problem that there careers are harder to compare to greats of the open era, i think also the amateurs who won amateur majors didn´t have the chance to prove how good they really were.
A very nice find, Bobby. My own documentation has been thinnest on the European side, and this is exactly the sort of thing I would never have found -- not through newspaper archives.

This article is quite remarkable actually, because as you said it's 9 years before McCauley wrote his book in which he gave the championship rolls of Wembley/French/US Pro's and named them as the major tournaments of the pros. Of course in the 70s both Peter Rowley and Ellsworth Vines had named those 3 tourneys as the most significant on the old pro tour, but I wonder, now, what source was used by this writer in German Tennis Magazine. As a tennis publication they would have had access to tennis histories in books and articles.

This particular writer hardly seems sympathetic to the old pro history, or knowledgeable about it, so I doubt very much that he drew up that list of Rosewall's old pro titles on his own research. He likely was drawing on some source. I just wonder what that could be, since it was years before McCauley.

could the source have been Rosewall himself?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
That sounds more realistic.
However, I am beginning to accept that Kramer knew what he was talking about when he designated the Top Four for 1958/59 as L.A. Masters, Forest Hills, Kooyong, and White City...this was PROFESSIONAL tennis, and the standards of importance were different than for the amateurs.
Further, I do not think that we can take seriously that Cleveland was the U.S. Pro, when even the promoters did not make such a claim, or the "French Pro" at Palais Royal or Stad Coubertin were of major significance compared to Roland Garros, there is a difference in stature between the two venues.

I like Sgt. John's approach, but I would include a different composition of events.

Dan Lobb, You are not beginning to accept. You accepted Kramer's strange designation from the beginning because it favoured Hoad...

Please write "Stade". What does Palais Royal mean in this context?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
A very nice find, Bobby. My own documentation has been thinnest on the European side, and this is exactly the sort of thing I would never have found -- not through newspaper archives.

This article is quite remarkable actually, because as you said it's 9 years before McCauley wrote his book in which he gave the championship rolls of Wembley/French/US Pro's and named them as the major tournaments of the pros. Of course in the 70s both Peter Rowley and Ellsworth Vines had named those 3 tourneys as the most significant on the old pro tour, but I wonder, now, what source was used by this writer in German Tennis Magazine. As a tennis publication they would have had access to tennis histories in books and articles.

This particular writer hardly seems sympathetic to the old pro history, or knowledgeable about it, so I doubt very much that he drew up that list of Rosewall's old pro titles on his own research. He likely was drawing on some source. I just wonder what that could be, since it was years before McCauley.

krosero, Yes, I also doubt that Achim Schneider did his own research. Unfortunately I don't know which source was uses for the achievements' compilation. Interesting the term British Pro for Wembley.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Can't agree here Bobby I'm afraid. Fully open tennis from the beginning would have created a completely different environment for all the players involved. I don't think we should expect it to make little or no difference. With respect to Kramer he had a vested interest in promoting the pro tour. Even with a thorough and in depth discussion we'll never know how it would have played out. We can say who the favourites were in each event but upsets do happen so I think it's wise to be cautious personally.

The problem is that they couldn't "know" all the amateurs as there would be new players rising up, greater depth etc...the old pro was predictable in terms of draws. Open tennis would not be. Maybe Laver draws a young Tony Roche in the 3rd Round of Wimbledon and loses in 5 sets, maybe Rosewall draws Newcombe at the AO in an early round and Newcombe's serve is unplayable that day etc...Maybe some rather unknown player with something to prove plays the match of his life in the first round. The element of surprise would be there far more. More often than not they would win because of their quality, but we must assume that the opportunity for upsets would be there.

Well Ashe did win the first USO ;) Regardless the amateurs were ill prepared for the level of play from the Pro's, they hadn't been exposed to it. In Open Tennis they would have grown up with it and learnt from it. Even in the first few years of the Open Era the former amateur players were frequently in the finals of the GS even if they didn't win them.



I used the list I posted just above that quote...the one from SgtJohn. It's obviously no more arbitrary than the way you choose important tournaments...

NatF, Kramer did that speculation as late as 1979. So your argument is not convincing.

Also the old pros had not met the amateurs and had played always the same few players. They had to adapt their game to the amateurs and they had more pressure than the amateurs. Nevertheless Laver and Rosewall won almost all open GS tournaments from 1968 to early 1971 even though they were past their peak years.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, Kramer did that speculation as late as 1979. So your argument is not convincing.

Also the old pros had not met the amateurs and had played always the same few players. They had to adapt their game to the amateurs and they had more pressure than the amateurs. Nevertheless Laver and Rosewall won almost all open GS tournaments from 1968 to early 1971 even though they were past their peak years.

Regardless of when Kramer said it I'm not convinced he was giving detailed thoughts on how the tennis landscape would different if open tennis had been around for a while. And even if he did give it a lot of thought, it's just still only speculation - albeit from an established source. I don't think anyone is doubting that those players would be favoured at the USO/Wimbledon, but being the favourite and going out and winning every edition is another story.

The fact the old Pro's had yet to play the amateurs is mitigated by the fact that they were already used to playing the best players in the world, the amateurs weren't. Laver and Rosewall but they had an advantage moving from the pro's to open tennis that the amateurs didn't. Such an advantage would not have manifested if all those players had grown up with open tennis.

I would consider 1969 one of Laver's peak years, clearly Rosewall was past his by some years.

i agree with your reasoning.
i´m sure that Rosewall and Laver would have been 1 and 2 for most of the 60´s had there been open tennis. they would have been clear favourites to win
most of the majors. with guys like Hoad, Gimeno or an ageing Gonzalez amongst others coming close.

could there have been surprises or upsets in major tournaments caused by amateurs?
Of course, imo. saying otherwise would implicate that there wasn´t much depth in men´s tennis in the 60´s. Upsets doesn´t mean winning majors necessarily but beating top pros occassionally.

i think there was enough depth in men´s tennis, and while the pros face the problem that there careers are harder to compare to greats of the open era, i think also the amateurs who won amateur majors didn´t have the chance to prove how good they really were.

Indeed, I wouldn't dispute that they would have been the favourites. It's important to not think of those players as amateurs in a hypothetical open tennis situation. They would all be professionals.

I think the likes of Emerson, maybe Santana etc...and in later years a young Newcombe, Roche, Ashe could cause upsets. We've seen in recent years that Djokovic has been the favourite for pretty much every slam since 2011 but his strike rate has not been impeccable or even close. Even Federer who was hoovering up slams at an insane rate had to slow down eventually. Perhaps there would be less propensity for upsets than today because the field was not as deep, the newer strings also mean that even a journeyman can have huge strokes let alone a guy like say Rosol who can get hot with 100 mph shots off both wings.
 
Top