4 Most Important Tournaments Each Year

[AndrewD]

Geographical diversity has absolutely nothing to do with a Grand Slam. While you can debate, endlessly, the merit of certain tournaments the simple fact remains that the term Grand Slam can only ever refer to the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Opens. It doesn't refer to professional events and it doesn't refer to any other amatuer events, only those four mentioned. Just consider that it is really only from the Crawford era onwards that the leading players did compete in all of the major amatuer events. So, that the Grand Slam didn't exist before that time is particularly apt.

Also, if you are going to factor in how players fared outside their own nation, you would seriously devalue Gonzalez's achievements although, to a certain degree, that should be done.

As to the use of cement courts. They were in place as a surface option from the early days of tennis in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. I can't say when the first one came into being, however, cement was used in California (Santa Monica) from 1879. The proliferation of cement courts on the West Coast of the United States (probably on public courts) was the reason so many players used a Western grip on the forehand (to counter the high bounce). Don Budge, who grew up on those courts had to alter his grip to something closer resembling Eastern when he began to compete in the grasscourt circuit.

 

[chaognosis]

Geographical diversity has absolutely nothing to do with a Grand Slam.

Really? So you think it's just a coincidence that the Grand Slam consists of the championships of each of the four major tennis-playing nations (historically speaking, that is)? I think geographical diversity - the fact that this was a truly international test of supremacy - was very significant indeed.

While you can debate, endlessly, the merit of certain tournaments the simple fact remains that the term Grand Slam can only ever refer to the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Opens. It doesn't refer to professional events and it doesn't refer to any other amatuer events, only those four mentioned. Just consider that it is really only from the Crawford era onwards that the leading players did compete in all of the major amatuer events. So, that the Grand Slam didn't exist before that time is particularly apt.

I don't think anyone would argue with you about the proper usage of the term, but it is nevertheless interesting to trace the morphology of the concept. Jonathan makes an excellent point that Doherty's feat of winning the Wimbledon and U.S. Championships could be considered a sort of proto-Slam, the first manifestation of proven international singles supremacy. Also, Tilden's sweep of the most important titles in America and Europe in 1921 was a historic event, and - along with the dominant Tilden-Johnston Davis Cup team - it helped redefine the United States as the center of the tennis world in the 1920s. The Grand Slam per se began with Crawford (and ultimately Budge), but it is fascinating to witness the development TOWARDS the Grand Slam prior to 1933. The exploits of Doherty and Tilden were major milestones in the history of the game, and at the very least bear some family resemblance to the Grand Slam.

As far as dubbing other tournaments as "true Slams" goes - I think the intent is noble, though obviously in practice is presents a lot of problems. (I always prefer the term "major" to "Slam," however, which I think would clear up matters for you as well.) There is no doubt that in the post-Kramer years the traditional amateur majors lacked a lot of the top talent and accordingly can't be considered the best indicator of greatness. Nevertheless, it is also true that the pro majors never attained the prestige - or captured the public attention - that the amateur tournaments commanded. Moreover, before the mid-1960s it is perhaps too difficult to separate the pro tournaments from the head-to-head series. For example, in 1958 Sedgman had probably the best tournament record but Gonzales was still widely considered the No. 1 and the "major" pro event of the year was clearly the Gonzales-Hoad series (the two even landed on the cover of Sports Illustrated). Likewise, even after the institution of the Grand Slam began in earnest, the Davis Cup was still for many years held in higher esteem than any of the major championships, save perhaps Wimbledon. Our contemporary obsession with "Slams" can thus taint our perception of the past.

Also, if you are going to factor in how players fared outside their own nation, you would seriously devalue Gonzalez's achievements although, to a certain degree, that should be done.

Undoubtedly, and I think this is a major flaw in the historical reconstruction of the lost pro years. Many proclaim Gonzales as having been invincible for nearly a decade, with an unbroken streak of dominance, but in fact he was quite vulnerable when he toured outside the United States. It may be impossible to establish a true world ranking for these years, when pro tennis consisted of an uneasy balance between head-to-head series and tournaments, but at the very least there is room for more research (and better writing) to be done. Precise year-by-year comparisons of Gonzales and Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, etc., are extremely difficult. For example, when exactly did the No. 1 spot pass from Gonzales to Rosewall? Was it 1960, '61, or '62? A case could be made for all three years.

As to the use of cement courts. They were in place as a surface option from the early days of tennis in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. I can't say when the first one came into being, however, cement was used in California (Santa Monica) from 1879. The proliferation of cement courts on the West Coast of the United States (probably on public courts) was the reason so many players used a Western grip on the forehand (to counter the high bounce). Don Budge, who grew up on those courts had to alter his grip to something closer resembling Eastern when he began to compete in the grasscourt circuit.

Thank you for this - I too am interested in the evolution of surfaces, and confess I know much too little about it.

 

[SgtJohn]

Hi everyone,

Thanks AndrewD for your info about hard courts. I think you're nitpicking a little about about my use of the 'true Slams' phrase, but anyway, as chaog proposed, you can replace it by 'Major tournaments', and I think everything's OK, as no one would argue that the Australian Open '64 was a 'major tournament' of the year, for instance...

I found the info I was referring to. In 'Total Tennis', Collins mention (speaking about the first Open Era event at Bournemouth), that in Europe, 'hard court' meant clay. I know Collins isn't always so reliable, so I'm checking with you...Does somebody know more on this topic? Were there so few cement or asphalt courts in Europe until the Open Era?

Thanks!
Jonathan

 

[heycal]

Thank you for this - I too am interested in the evolution of surfaces, and confess I know much too little about it.

I'm very interested in the evolution of surfaces too, and probably know even less about them than you do. About the only thing I have heard, true or not, is that clay was invented in Europe because it could easily absorb the passing showers of that region without interrupting play.

It's a great topic. I recommend you start a new thread about surfaces, because I'd love to learn more.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Hi John, I noticed in another thread, you mention Rosewall has '25' majors. Have you revised other players as well? thanks

 

[SgtJohn]

Hi John, I noticed in another thread, you mention Rosewall has '25' majors. Have you revised other players as well? thanks

Hi,
I don't remember exactly which thread you're referring too exactly...In the last version of my list, I credit Rosewall with 23 majors (I keep going back and forth on the 'majors' for the early 70's and also for the 50's when there were very few good pro events).
Of course it's still a work-in-progress, and very interesting discussions are going on on some talk pages on wikipedia that could provoke some more changes...

 

[Moose Malloy]

do you have any 'super 9' counts on the pre-open era players yet? thanks

in the 'its too early to call federer goat' thread you mentioned rosewall's 25 'true' majors, so I thought there may have been some changes.

 

[Tennis old man]

Thank you for this post!!!

 

[Tennis old man]

Hi everyone!
The idea of the "True Slams" is one that has been interesting me for a while. I'm currently working on a big file for the whole 1877-2007 period listing the 4 true slams and the 9 "Super 9" events for all year. The work is not finished (takes a lot of time), but here are some "preview" results for the "true slams":

1983-2007: AO, RG, Wimbledon, US Open (IMO the AO was a big one from 1983, when the top3 (Lendl, Mac, Mats) was there for the first time since 1971. It seems hard to dismiss Wimlander's and Edberg's doubles as they were perceived as big victories at the time)

(except 1986 (no AO): Wimbledon, US open, RG, Boca West (with its 128-draw and best-of-5 matches))

1975, 1977-1982: RG, Wim, USO+Masters

1974, 1976,:RG, Wim, USO+Philadelphia (128-draw, very good field)

1973: RG, USO, Rome (128-draw, excellent field), Masters
(year of the Wimbledon boycott)

1972:Wim, USO, Dallas WCT Finals, PSW Los Angeles

1971:Wim, USO, Rome (128-draw), Australian Open (one of the rare good fields there)

1970:Wim, USO, PSW Los Angeles, Philadelphia

1969: AO, RG, Wim, USO

1968: RG, Wim, USO, PSW Los Angeles

Pro Era, 1946-1967: noeledmonds is right about the big three, Wembley, US Pro, French Pro, but there was only one Wimbledon pro in 1967. Before, you have to give the nod each year to a fourth tournament, but there was no tradition so which tournament it is changes quite often. I can give you my list if some of you are interested.

Pre-war Era, 1925-1945:
RG, Wim, US Champ's, Davis Cup (it's not a "classic" format, but it was too significant at the time to be 'forgotten' in any "true slams" list.)

Before: Many changes throughout the years
Wimbledon and the US Champs were always majors when they existed, Davis Cup too.
Other majors include the Irish Champ's (before WW1), the British Covered Tournament or the Prince's Championships. Again, I could provide details, if people are interested in tennis "archaeology".

With these majors, here is a list of title leaders, as of today (II might change my mind on some details...):

Gonzales: 26
Rosewall: 23
Laver: 22
L Doherty: 19
Tilden: 18
Sampras: 14
Borg, Perry, Budge: 13
Lendl: 11
Federer:10

As you see, Laver is third, but if you consider "second-echelon" , or "Super 9" event, he won an astounding number, between 40 and 45!

Sorry I have no more time to elaborate, but if you think of any remark, don't hesitate, this could be useful to me!

Jonathan

The guy of the pic is on top!!! Great Pancho!

 

[garcia_doomer]

do you have any 'super 9' counts on the pre-open era players yet? thanks

in the 'its too early to call federer goat' thread you mentioned rosewall's 25 'true' majors, so I thought there may have been some changes.

Have it?

 

[TennisExpert]

Hi,
I don't remember exactly which thread you're referring too exactly...In the last version of my list, I credit Rosewall with 23 majors (I keep going back and forth on the 'majors' for the early 70's and also for the 50's when there were very few good pro events).
Of course it's still a work-in-progress, and very interesting discussions are going on on some talk pages on wikipedia that could provoke some more changes...

Where are you John? I want to see your recent list!

 

[Q&M son]

Usually, Roland Garros featured very good players from 1973 on, with the exception of Connors, and Borg missed the 1977 RG only, then I consider there is a tradition in the mid 70s that the French is a 'big one', so I won't dismiss a single year because the field was a little weak, otherwise, I could as well dismiss some US Open in the 90s because Sampras was injured, and so on...

Jonathan

I could not be more agree with John.

Timely post, but please enough with this, nobody banned Connors or Borg, they choose (for different reasons) not played the French that year, and both were not injured too. Just Vilas had his chance and just got it. That's all.

Maybe cause Borg injury in USO 77, the event was not a true Slam too

 

[hoodjem]

There are currently 4 tournaments (the 4 grand slam events) that are considered more significant than any other events. However it is well known that this has not always been the case. Before the Australian Open’s move to Melbourne (and conversion to rebound-ace) in 1988 it was considered a 2nd tier event. Before the open-era (pre-1968 ) it becomes far more complicated as amateurs and professionals competed in different events. This situation is made worse by the fact that many professionals competed in pro tour events more than in tournament events. The information on pro tour events is also incomplete. However it should be possible to complete a list of the 4 most important tournaments for each year back to at least the beginning of the open-era and possibly beyond. If we bear in mind that top amateurs who turned professional normally struggled at the start of their professional career it seems fairest to take the top 4 professional events as most important events of the year.

Although this is by no means a perfect comparison of achievements, once the top 4 events of each year have been established it should be easier to compare achievements across the years for different players.

I do not pretend to have the knowledge to compile such a list of tournaments myself, but with the help from the vast knowledge on this board it should be possible to put forward a reasonably accurate list. I have filled in the more obvious choices and attempted the rest. Any help would be much appreciated.

1988-2007: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open
1975-1987: French Open, Wimbledon, U.S Open, Wembley Championship
1972-1975: French Open, Wimbledon, U.S Open, U.S Pro Tennis Championship
1968-1971: French Open, Wimbledon, U.S Open, Wembley Championship
Pre 1968: U.S Pro, Wembley Pro, French Pro Championship, Wimbledon Pro

Interesting thread.

Where is Sgt. John's chronological list of the four most important tournaments per year?

 

[Dan Lobb]

No problem...I just recall everyone this is (still!) a temporary list. I'm working on my 'super 9' list for all time, and this could lead to modifications of my 'true slams'.

By the way, I need an opinion from you all: this Federer vs Nadal case made me consider the question of surface from a historical point of view. I wonder if it's not unfair that many of my 'true slams' for the pro years don't involve any clay tournament. I mean, Federer can only play 3 slams on his favorite surfaces, though in my list, the pro slams that I chose were often all grass and indoor (then very fast surfaces). For instance, in my list, Laver makes a kind of Grand Slam in 1967 by winning the most important tournaments, by far: Wimbledon Pro, Wembley Pro, French Pro and US Pro. But neither of them was on a slow surface that year. I'm considering changing a bit my list, as it seems unfair that modern players have to win on their worst surface to make a Grand Slam (think Wilander and Lendl on grass, Sampras and Mac on clay), though pros had not , in my list...

Another quick question: I read somewhere that what was called "hard courts" in the old time was actually clay, a kind of Har-Thru. What do you know about this? When was cement first used? The US Pro Hard courts won by Riggs and Kramer in the late 40s were on clay then?

Here are the lists:

Tilden:

Newport '1919 (just after WW1, there were very few european tournaments, so my fourth slam apart from Forest Hills, Wimbledon and Davis Cup had to be American. As the US champ's had just moved from Newport, the tournament there had still very much prestige...).

Paris World Championships on clay 1921

His 10 amateur Slams

6 Davis Cup: 1920-1925 (in 1926 he lost one match for the first time, and thus doesn't qualify as a 'winner' of the Cup. Johnston deserves that honor as he managed to beat Lacoste.)


That's 18 titles. It doesn't include any pro title, as Tilden was prominent in a time when the pro tour was not at the same level as the amateur slams...


Gonzales:

Forest Hills 48, 49
US Pro Indoors 50, 52, 64
Wembley 50, 51, 52, 56
Berlin World Pro 52
US Pro 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61 (the '58 US Pro was too depleted, and there were too much other big tournaments that year, so it didn't make it on my list)
US Pro Hard Courts 54, 55
New York MSG Pro 54
Scarborough Pro 55
Forest Hills Tourn. of Champions 56, 57, 58
Los Angeles Masters Pro Round Robin 57
Geneva Gold Trophy 61

--->26 titles

Lendl: 8 official slams, Masters 81, 82 (fourth event until 1983, instead of the Australian), Boca Raton 86 (fourth event that year, as there was no Australian...)
Then that's 11 slams...


Jonathan

Interesting that you omit the 1958 US Pro.
The US Pro in the fifties after the Forest Hills event in 1951 was an unaccredited and weak event.

 

[hoodjem]

Where is SgtJon's chronological list of the four most important tournaments per year?

 

[elegos7]

Where is SgtJon's chronological list of the four most important tournaments per year?

I have it here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3098705

 

[kiki]

While all those analysis are great and my knowledge is more limited, however it stands clear to me that there were 6 big events prior to 1971: The 4 slams and the Rome and Johannesburg (Italian and South African Open) tournaments.At least, they got so much praise from the top players.

By 1971 or 1972, the two indoor majors (Masters/WCT) had replaced the Italian and South African.However, there were also a few semi majors ( or equivalents to currrent TMS) during the 70´s and 80´s: Las Vegas,Tokyo,Boston,Indianapolis,Wembley and, of course, Philadelphia.In some years, Hamburg,Toronto,Barcelona ,Montecarlo,Stockholm and Palm Springs/La Quinta were just as good as those mentioned.

The women had also two indoor majors, the year end Virginia Slims Championships and the Avon Tour Finals, which are clearly equivalents to the Gran Prix Masters and the WCT Finals, IMO.