early recognition of Emerson's GS record

[DBH]

It has occasionally been mentioned that Emerson's record of 12 GS titles was little-known until Sampras began approaching it, and until Pete specifically mentioned it as a record he was gunning for.

I found a couple of quotes that show that there was some level of awareness of this record in the somewhat distant past:

From Rod Laver's 1971 autobiography (written with Bud Collins), "The Education of a Tennis Player":

On pp. 297-298 Laver writes, in regard to his losing both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1970: "Don't misconstrue my thoughts and believe that I've lost my hunger and have an oh-well feeling about Wimbledon and Forest Hills. Not likely. I mean to have those titles again, so I can pass Roy Emerson's record total of twelve Big Four singles championships."

About a decade later, in Curry Kirkpatrick's report on the 1981 French Open in the June 15, 1981 issue of Sports Illustrated, he writes:

"Borg's sixth French title makes it 11 Grand Slam singles championships, one more than Bill Tilden won, and ties him with Rod Laver for second on the alltime list. The leader is Roy Emerson with 12. That's right. Borg has one major championship to go. And Wimbledon is coming up fast."

It's kind of a shame that, because of a variety of circumstances, neither of these great champions could get over the hump and get GS title #12, especially since they seemed to be at the very top of their games when they bagged major title #11.

DBH

 

[urban]

Maybe it was more in the mind of Collins or Kirkpatrick. Fact is, that between 1970 and 1974, Laver played only 6 out of 20 majors, partly due to comittments with NTL and WCT. And if Borg had really wanted to go after Emerson's record, he could have competed more in Australia, and could have played some more Roland Garros.

 

[urban]

I want to add, that these cited comments are good findings by DBH and show a certain awareness of Emersons record among insiders and players. But as far as i know, there was made no big fuzz made about it in 1967, when Emerson broke Tilden's 10 majors mark in Australia. Emerson later said, that he himself hadn't known the fact. I think also, that no big celebration was made, when Court broke Wills' record on the womens side. For the moment, i cannot say myself, when Court exactly did surpass it.

 

[AndrewD]

Urban,

A lot of that has to do with the guy breaking the 'record' being
1) Australian and
2) Roy Emerson.

Aussies aren't overly fussed with stats, that seems to be more of an American thing (not surprising given all the stats involved in baseball). Secondly, you wouldn't find many guys more humble than Emmo. He considered Lew Hoad the best player to have lived and understood what the ban on professionals had meant to their career records so he would hardly have bragged about something he thought lacked any meaning. The American media didn't really care because it wasn't an American achievement (why Margaret Court's records are always devalued) so it was only when Sampras came on the scene that it mattered to them.

 

[chaognosis]

The American media didn't really care because it wasn't an American achievement (why Margaret Court's records are always devalued) so it was only when Sampras came on the scene that it mattered to them.

This explanation doesn't exactly hold true, because little to no fuss was made when Helen Wills held the record, either, and she held it for 41 years--still longer than Court (38 and counting). I do agree, though, that there was a major shift in media attention when Sampras began to make a serious charge at Emerson's record. Before the late 1990s, having the most major singles titles was by no means considered the primary GOAT criteria. Yes, this statistic was mentioned from time to time, as many different statistics are mentioned today, but far more important were the Grand Slams of Budge and Laver, the consecutive Wimbledons of Perry and later Borg, etc. One can come up with many possible explanations for this shift, one of which was certainly the desire to pump up an American champion's achievements in order to increase interest in the sport. I think another reason, though, is that what was previously seen as the highest accomplishment in tennis, the Grand Slam, was seen as increasingly unfeasible, so fans and commentators had to focus their attention on a more attainable measure of excellence. Audiences have short attention spans and like to believe that whoever they're seeing is, by some artificial standard, the best to ever play the game.

 

[AndrewD]

This explanation doesn't exactly hold true, because little to no fuss was made when Helen Wills held the record, either, and she held it for 41 years--still longer than Court (38 and counting).

You're talking apples and oranges. If there's one thing that overrode jingoism it was a general disinterest in female athletes (actually, the other thing would be if they were a black, female athlete - a la Althea Gibson). Wills Moody might have been ignored by the American press because she was a woman but Court was ignored (and continues to be ignored) because she wasn't American. Supposedly we live in more enlightened times but the American media still goes out of its way to downplay Court's achievements because her passport carries the wrong stamp. That, I'm sorry to say, is the intrinsic weakness with any and all American press - it's far too jingoistic to be entirely credible.

 

[hoodjem]

And if Borg had really wanted to go after Emerson's record, he could have competed more in Australia, and could have played some more Roland Garros.

So very true.

If Borg had really cared, the AO would have been easy pickings back then.

 

[hoodjem]

I think another reason, though, is that what was previously seen as the highest accomplishment in tennis, the Grand Slam, was seen as increasingly unfeasible, so fans and commentators had to focus their attention on a more attainable measure of excellence.

So very true.

Was Sampras ever even close to a true Grand Slam? (Please, none of that "career grand slam" specious hype).

Audiences have short attention spans and like to believe that whoever they're seeing is, by some artificial standard, the best to ever play the game.

aka Federer

 

[Dan Lobb]

So very true.

Was Sampras ever even close to a true Grand Slam? (Please, none of that "career grand slam" specious hype).




aka Federer

Thus we see the invention of new and previously unheard of tennis records which the players themselves never dreamed of.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Thus we see the invention of new and previously unheard of tennis records which the players themselves never dreamed of.

I didn’t know until recently that Courier was the youngest player to reach all four slam finals. Curious to know whether he knew himself.

 

[hoodjem]

Thus we see the invention of new and previously unheard of tennis records which the players themselves never dreamed of.

How about the Golden Career Martina-Serena Slam?

 

[Dan Lobb]

I didn’t know until recently that Courier was the youngest player to reach all four slam finals. Curious to know whether he knew himself.

How old was he?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

How old was he?

22, just shy of 23 at the time of the Wimbledon 1993 final.

 

[mike danny]

I didn’t know until recently that Courier was the youngest player to reach all four slam finals. Curious to know whether he knew himself.

And isn't Djokovic the youngest to reach semis of all 4?

 

[Mustard]

Emerson having 12 majors was mentioned in the early 1980s when Borg was close to it, and obviously in the 1990s when Sampras declared that he wanted to get the all-time majors record.

 

[Dan Lobb]

22, just shy of 23 at the time of the Wimbledon 1993 final.

There were younger aged finalists than that, surely Hoad and Rosewall.

 

[Mustard]

And isn't Djokovic the youngest to reach semis of all 4?

Djokovic was 20 when he did that, all in consecutive majors too, SF at 2007 French Open, SF at 2007 Wimbledon, F at 2007 US Open, W at 2008 Australian Open.

 

[NAS]

And isn't Djokovic the youngest to reach semis of all 4?

Yes he is, Carlos came close but he missed AO in 2023

 

[Mustard]

There were younger aged finalists than that, surely Hoad and Rosewall.

Yes, if we're going pre-open era. Hoad was still only 21 when he fell one match short of winning the 1956 Grand Slam, and Rosewall won the Australian and French in 1953 (age 18), runner-up of Wimbledon in 1954 and 1956 (age 19 and 21) and won the US in 1956 (age 21). Courier is the youngest male player to reach all 4 major finals in the open era though, aided by Borg barely playing the Australian Open no doubt.

 

[NAS]

There were younger aged finalists than that, surely Hoad and Rosewall.

Yes Hoad was pretty sure younger than Jim when he made all Four final but I think record is for open era

 

[mike danny]

Yes he is, Carlos came close but he missed AO in 2023

And missed the semis in 2024 too.

 

[NAS]

And missed the semis in 2024 too.

I think by 2024 Carlos was not going to claim the record as his DOB comes first in May

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And isn't Djokovic the youngest to reach semis of all 4?

Yep at the ripe young age of 20 and 8 months. Borg with his 1976 Wimbledon win reached the semi of all three that were important at this time at 20 and one month. Question remains what would have happened had he played the AO in 1975 or 1976. Heck even reaching the final of the 1977 (January) edition would have made him still younger than Djokovic in AO 2008.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

There were younger aged finalists than that, surely Hoad and Rosewall.

Should have specified OE.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes, if we're going pre-open era. Hoad was still only 21 when he fell one match short of winning the 1956 Grand Slam, and Rosewall won the Australian and French in 1953 (age 18), runner-up of Wimbledon in 1954 and 1956 (age 19 and 21) and won the US in 1956 (age 21). Courier is the youngest male player to reach all 4 major finals in the open era though, aided by Borg barely playing the Australian Open no doubt.

Borg would very likely have reached the final (most likely won) in one or more editions of the 75-77 AO. Even 78, his strongest year would still be enough to be younger than Jim. Even if it had been for full fields I think he would have reached at least one final.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Should have specified OE.

There is nothing wrong with specifying all-time.

 

[Waspsting]

Was Sampras ever even close to a true Grand Slam? (Please, none of that "career grand slam" specious hype).

How about the Golden Career Martina-Serena Slam?

Is this type of thing categorically different from the formulation of the Grand Slam?

As I understand it -

- Pat Crawford won Aus, French, Wimby and was runner-up at US one year
- a journalist wrote about it and said had he won the US, he'd have compelted the 'Grand Slam' of tennis
- the phrase caught on, Don Budge made it an express goal
- Budge achieved said goal and voila, the Grand Slam became cemented as a 'thing'

Back to the journalists article.
He didn't say these 4 events were the 4 biggest in the world
He said they were 4 of the 7 biggest - the others being South African, German and Italian

My reading of this is that what has come to be known as the 'Grand Slam events' was just a matter of random chance and circumstances
If Crawford had won South African, Italian, German titles and then fallen in the final of the US - then we'd have a completely different set of 'Slam events' (skimming over the non-tennis related difficulties of South Africa being able to maintain Slam status through the years)

Today, there'd be Melbourne Masters in December, a Paris Masters on clay and Wimbledon would a croquet club, with maybe a museam for the obsolte days when people were so foolish as to play tennis on grass

Maybe some of the events carried more weight than others? - Wimby, probably and US is probably important because of the powerful voice of American media in setting paradigms that shape the way much of the world frames things. But at least, lets say Italian, German, Wimby and US

Or if Crawford had won 4 of the first 6 events - lets say Aus, French, German, South African and fallen at US final, then the article would have said "... if he'd won US, he'd have completed the "Pentagon Slam", and again, we have a completely different paradigm moving forward

Its like if Carlos Alcaraz wins Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Canada and loses final of Paris this year - and the press say had he won Paris, he would have won the "Super-Duper Masters"
Jannik Sinner declares his intention of winning the Super-Duper Masters
And then does it
And the whole tennis world pushes the "Super-Duper Masters" as the gold standard of tennis

Everyone following the game right now will see the flaws in such a construct
Why Indian Wells and not Miami?
Why Monte Carlo and not Rome or Madrid?
Why Canada and not Cincy?
Why Paris and not Shanghai?

But people who come across the game in future, when everyones telling them that "Super-Duper Masters" is the real deal will simply swallow it - and in due time, so it will come to be accepted

I imagine people who followed the game prior to Budge and Crawford thought the "Grand Slam" was a bunch of made-up hooey along the above lines too

 

[Dan Lobb]

Is this type of thing categorically different from the formulation of the Grand Slam?

As I understand it -

- Pat Crawford won Aus, French, Wimby and was runner-up at US one year
- a journalist wrote about it and said had he won the US, he'd have compelted the 'Grand Slam' of tennis
- the phrase caught on, Don Budge made it an express goal
- Budge achieved said goal and voila, the Grand Slam became cemented as a 'thing'

Back to the journalists article.
He didn't say these 4 events were the 4 biggest in the world
He said they were 4 of the 7 biggest - the others being South African, German and Italian

My reading of this is that what has come to be known as the 'Grand Slam events' was just a matter of random chance and circumstances
If Crawford had won South African, Italian, German titles and then fallen in the final of the US - then we'd have a completely different set of 'Slam events' (skimming over the non-tennis related difficulties of South Africa being able to maintain Slam status through the years)

Today, there'd be Melbourne Masters in December, a Paris Masters on clay and Wimbledon would a croquet club, with maybe a museam for the obsolte days when people were so foolish as to play tennis on grass

Maybe some of the events carried more weight than others? - Wimby, probably and US is probably important because of the powerful voice of American media in setting paradigms that shape the way much of the world frames things. But at least, lets say Italian, German, Wimby and US

Or if Crawford had won 4 of the first 6 events - lets say Aus, French, German, South African and fallen at US final, then the article would have said "... if he'd won US, he'd have completed the "Pentagon Slam", and again, we have a completely different paradigm moving forward

Its like if Carlos Alcaraz wins Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Canada and loses final of Paris this year - and the press say had he won Paris, he would have won the "Super-Duper Masters"
Jannik Sinner declares his intention of winning the Super-Duper Masters
And then does it
And the whole tennis world pushes the "Super-Duper Masters" as the gold standard of tennis

Everyone following the game right now will see the flaws in such a construct
Why Indian Wells and not Miami?
Why Monte Carlo and not Rome or Madrid?
Why Canada and not Cincy?
Why Paris and not Shanghai?

But people who come across the game in future, when everyones telling them that "Super-Duper Masters" is the real deal will simply swallow it - and in due time, so it will come to be accepted

I imagine people who followed the game prior to Budge and Crawford thought the "Grand Slam" was a bunch of made-up hooey along the above lines too

Yes, there were other types of "grand slams" in the literature before the 1960s. This exclusive use of the term only was settled after Laver won his first in 1962.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Is this type of thing categorically different from the formulation of the Grand Slam?

As I understand it -

- Pat Crawford won Aus, French, Wimby and was runner-up at US one year
- a journalist wrote about it and said had he won the US, he'd have compelted the 'Grand Slam' of tennis
- the phrase caught on, Don Budge made it an express goal
- Budge achieved said goal and voila, the Grand Slam became cemented as a 'thing'

Back to the journalists article.
He didn't say these 4 events were the 4 biggest in the world
He said they were 4 of the 7 biggest - the others being South African, German and Italian

My reading of this is that what has come to be known as the 'Grand Slam events' was just a matter of random chance and circumstances

I suspect this version of history has come about partly because of Kramer's autobiography, and his assertion that Don Budge "made up" the four titles he would win. But last year I liaised with the ITF to confirm the minutes of their AGM in Paris in 1923.

After the International Lawn Tennis Federation was formed in 1913, one of their first duties was to formally identify the sport's premier tournaments. They selected three, one for each surface: "hard" (clay) was the World Hard Court Championships in Paris, and "indoor wood" was the World Covered Court Championships. Both were created specifically, and did not existed beforehand. "Grass" was different; the ILTF eventually selected Wimbledon, which left the USLTA so peeved that they refused to join.

The ILTF realised that without the USLTA their influence would always be limited, so eventually they came to an agreement; abolish the existing events, and replace them with the championships of the four largest national associations (by voting power), i.e. Australia, France, Britain, and new member USA. Their minutes state:

Official Championships​

​

(a) That the title of "World's Championships" on grass courts, hard courts, and covered courts, shall be abolished entirely from and after January 1st 1924, and that the "World's" title shall not be instituted or revived without the consent of the Federation.​

​

(b) That from and after January 1st 1924, the Federation will recognise officially the Championships as now held by the Lawn Tennis Association, the United States of America, Australia and France, such championships to be known as "Official Lawn Tennis Championships" recognised by the ILTF.​

So I don't buy the story that the four slams happened by accident, or that circumstances in the 1930s could have given us a different selection of majors. The ILTF designated those four events as the "official championships", and they were the sport's governing body. As far as I'm concerned, Crawford and Budge's whims had nothing to do with it.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

I suspect this version of history has come about partly because of Kramer's autobiography, and his assertion that Don Budge "made up" the four titles he would win. But last year I liaised with the ITF to confirm the minutes of their AGM in Paris in 1923.

After the International Lawn Tennis Federation was formed in 1913, one of their first duties was to formally identify the sport's premier tournaments. They selected three, one for each surface: "hard" (clay) was the World Hard Court Championships in Paris, and "indoor wood" was the World Covered Court Championships. Both were created specifically, and did not existed beforehand. "Grass" was different; the ILTF eventually selected Wimbledon, which left the USLTA so peeved that they refused to join.

The ILTF realised that without the USLTA their influence would always be limited, so eventually they came to an agreement; abolish the existing events, and replace them with the championships of the four largest national associations (by voting power), i.e. Australia, France, Britain, and new member USA. Their minutes state:

Official Championships​

​

(a) That the title of "World's Championships" on grass courts, hard courts, and covered courts, shall be abolished entirely from and after January 1st 1924, and that the "World's" title shall not be instituted or revived without the consent of the Federation.​

​

(b) That from and after January 1st 1924, the Federation will recognise officially the Championships as now held by the Lawn Tennis Association, the United States of America, Australia and France, such championships to be known as "Official Lawn Tennis Championships" recognised by the ILTF.​

So I don't buy the story that the four slams happened by accident, or that circumstances in the 1930s could have given us a different selection of majors. The ILTF designated those four events as the "official championships", and they were the sport's governing body. As far as I'm concerned, Crawford and Budge's whims had nothing to do with it.

i don't know if you contributed to this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)) but this topic came up a few days ago on Reddit (

https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/1ht1tw4

) and the top two comments gave similar responses based on that Wikipedia info

 

[Gizo]

The poster Krosero created a thread in the past, listing numerous examples of when the term 'grand slam' was used differently. They supported the point above, that it was only settled on as meaning winning all 4 majors in one year after Laver pulled that off as an amateur in 1962. Even in Budge's case, there were references to him achieving the grand slam, after he won his 4th straight major at Paris in June 1938.

Even a year or two before 1962, I'm sure I read that the term was used to describe a potential sweep of completely separate tournaments (US East coast grass court events) by Laver.

And it had previously been used to describe clean sweeps of Davis or Wightman Cup matches, combinations of tournament wins including the Italian Championships, sweeping the singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles at indiviudal majors etc.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

i don't know if you contributed to this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)) but this topic came up a few days ago on Reddit (

https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/1ht1tw4

) and the top two comments gave similar responses based on that Wikipedia info

No, I can't claim any credit for it. I did publish an article on my r/OldSchoolTennis subreddit to commemorate the centenary of the ILTF's historic 1923 meeting, but from what I can see the Wikipedia article already contained all of the pertinent info by then. So it can't even have been the case that someone read what I wrote and added it themselves.

However, I can at least show that I didn't just crib from Wikipedia myself, since I answered a similar post on Reddit four years ago: "What initially made the grand slam tournaments the most coveted/prestigious?"

 

[Pro tennis historian]

The poster Krosero created a thread in the past, listing numerous examples of when the term 'grand slam' was used differently. They supported the point above, that it was only settled on as meaning winning all 4 majors in one year after Laver pulled that off as an amateur in 1962. Even in Budge's case, there were references to him achieving the grand slam, after he won his 4th straight major at Paris in June 1938.

Even a year or two before 1962, I'm sure I read that the term was used to describe a potential sweep of completely separate tournaments (US East coast grass court events) by Laver.

And it had previously been used to describe clean sweeps of Davis or Wightman Cup matches, combinations of tournament wins including the Italian Championships, sweeping the singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles at indiviudal majors etc.

No, that's not correct. Krosero created a thread many years ago (a well researched thread, interesting to look at for those interested in the subject). This lists various instances of how the term Grand Slam was applied over the years. But as krosero makes clear...

I will be posting links to some articles that use the term in the conventional sense of winning the four Slams in one season, but I have not recorded every such instance. Such instances are numerous, and listing them all would obscure the other uses of the term.

the thread does not list most of the articles mentioning the conventional Grand Slam before 1962. There were many many articles which contained descriptions of the conventional Grand Slam before 1962, as anyone who has researched the subject (as I have) knows. After 1938 there were a few instances where the Grand Slam term was used unconventionally. Not all of the articles that krosero listed attempted to create an alternative set of major titles. For instance a "Grand Slam" of Wimbledon titles and a "Grand Slam" of eastern US titles are not the same as a Grand Slam of major titles. Also, krosero makes clear he only searched for a few years after 1962. It is possible in the millions of newspaper articles published after 1962 there may be other alternative versions of the Grand Slam. Important to view the articles in the correct context.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I suspect this version of history has come about partly because of Kramer's autobiography, and his assertion that Don Budge "made up" the four titles he would win. But last year I liaised with the ITF to confirm the minutes of their AGM in Paris in 1923.

After the International Lawn Tennis Federation was formed in 1913, one of their first duties was to formally identify the sport's premier tournaments. They selected three, one for each surface: "hard" (clay) was the World Hard Court Championships in Paris, and "indoor wood" was the World Covered Court Championships. Both were created specifically, and did not existed beforehand. "Grass" was different; the ILTF eventually selected Wimbledon, which left the USLTA so peeved that they refused to join.

The ILTF realised that without the USLTA their influence would always be limited, so eventually they came to an agreement; abolish the existing events, and replace them with the championships of the four largest national associations (by voting power), i.e. Australia, France, Britain, and new member USA. Their minutes state:

Official Championships​

​

(a) That the title of "World's Championships" on grass courts, hard courts, and covered courts, shall be abolished entirely from and after January 1st 1924, and that the "World's" title shall not be instituted or revived without the consent of the Federation.​

​

(b) That from and after January 1st 1924, the Federation will recognise officially the Championships as now held by the Lawn Tennis Association, the United States of America, Australia and France, such championships to be known as "Official Lawn Tennis Championships" recognised by the ILTF.​

So I don't buy the story that the four slams happened by accident, or that circumstances in the 1930s could have given us a different selection of majors. The ILTF designated those four events as the "official championships", and they were the sport's governing body. As far as I'm concerned, Crawford and Budge's whims had nothing to do with it.

The use of the term "grand slam", however, was not restricted to the Official Championships, but included other types of titles.
For example, Budge was referred to as winning a Grand Slam in 1937 of the Wimbledon, U.S., and Davis Cup titles. In 1937, these were the top three tennis events of the season.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

this topic came up a few days ago on Reddit (

https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/1ht1tw4

) and the top two comments gave similar responses based on that Wikipedia info

I just read that thread properly. Top answer has 180+ upvotes, yet seems to be conflating the formation of the ILTF and the Davis Cup, and also says the US and Australian Championships were created by the ILTF?! Dear Lord...

 

[Gizo]

No, that's not correct. Krosero created a thread many years ago (a well researched thread, interesting to look at for those interested in the subject). This lists various instances of how the term Grand Slam was applied over the years. But as krosero makes clear...



the thread does not list most of the articles mentioning the conventional Grand Slam before 1962. There were many many articles which contained descriptions of the conventional Grand Slam before 1962, as anyone who has researched the subject (as I have) knows. After 1938 there were a few instances where the Grand Slam term was used unconventionally. Not all of the articles that krosero listed attempted to create an alternative set of major titles. For instance a "Grand Slam" of Wimbledon titles and a "Grand Slam" of eastern US titles are not the same as a Grand Slam of major titles. Also, krosero makes clear he only searched for a few years after 1962. It is possible in the millions of newspaper articles published after 1962 there may be other alternative versions of the Grand Slam. Important to view the articles in the correct context.

I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with it here.

Yes there were many examples of the term 'grand slam' being used to describe the conventional achievement of winning all 4 majors in 1 year. But that was blurred by the fact that there were also many examples of it also used to describe a wide range of different accomplishments, including several in Budge's case before he swept all 4 majors in 1938.

The point isn't that different sets of accomplishments deemed to be grand slams weren't the equivalent to winning all 4 majors in a year. The point is that what constituted a 'grand slam' wasn't at all settled for good chunk of tennis history, and for long time it clearly was far from a 'sacrosanct' term, because of the fact that it was seemingly used in such a large variety of different settings, as Krosero set out.

And if there are examples of it being used to describe different accomplishments post-1962 (I haven't seen any between 1962 and 1984 but I agree some may exist), then just further highlights that point even more.

And then we know that in the 80s, the ITF deemed that Navratilova winning her 4th straight major at RG in 1984 constituted her completing the grand slam, with them awarding her a $1 million bonus. At the Australian Open at the end of the year when she was looking to sweep all the majors, she was introduced on to the court as having completed the grand slam earlier in the year. Dan Maskell was happy to follow the ITF's lead during that period, talking about Wilander looking to complete the 3rd leg of the grand slam at Wimbledon in 1985 (on the back of his 1984 Australian Open and 1985 RG triumphs) for example. So again the things got blurry then, until Graf won all 4 in 1988. But the outrage in some quarters about the ITF and Chatrier shifting the goal-posts shifting in 1984 never really made sense, when any previously wide concensus that a grand slam could only mean winning all 4 majors in one year and nothing else, had at most lasted for a relatively short amount of time in tennis history.

 

[urban]

The best and most extensive summary of this debate on Chatrier and Navratilovas feat in 1984 is in the book of Paul S. Fein. Tennis confidential 1. It contains a letter by Allison Danzig on that subject. Chatrier wanted to give the ILTF and especially his own French Open a big boost with his bonus money.

 

[Waspsting]

I suspect this version of history has come about partly because of Kramer's autobiography, and his assertion that Don Budge "made up" the four titles he would win. But last year I liaised with the ITF to confirm the minutes of their AGM in Paris in 1923.

After the International Lawn Tennis Federation was formed in 1913, one of their first duties was to formally identify the sport's premier tournaments. They selected three, one for each surface: "hard" (clay) was the World Hard Court Championships in Paris, and "indoor wood" was the World Covered Court Championships. Both were created specifically, and did not existed beforehand. "Grass" was different; the ILTF eventually selected Wimbledon, which left the USLTA so peeved that they refused to join.

The ILTF realised that without the USLTA their influence would always be limited, so eventually they came to an agreement; abolish the existing events, and replace them with the championships of the four largest national associations (by voting power), i.e. Australia, France, Britain, and new member USA. Their minutes state:

Official Championships​

​

(a) That the title of "World's Championships" on grass courts, hard courts, and covered courts, shall be abolished entirely from and after January 1st 1924, and that the "World's" title shall not be instituted or revived without the consent of the Federation.​

​

(b) That from and after January 1st 1924, the Federation will recognise officially the Championships as now held by the Lawn Tennis Association, the United States of America, Australia and France, such championships to be known as "Official Lawn Tennis Championships" recognised by the ILTF.​

So I don't buy the story that the four slams happened by accident, or that circumstances in the 1930s could have given us a different selection of majors. The ILTF designated those four events as the "official championships", and they were the sport's governing body. As far as I'm concerned, Crawford and Budge's whims had nothing to do with it.

Great, thanks for this, which puts alters my interpretation considerably

Still, I think my original stance is valid, which I'll contextualize. I don't want to put words in @hoodjem 's mouth, so if I've misunderstood him, I hope he corrects me
A comman take I've come across on this forum, particularly from posters from a certain generation/age group is that The Grand Slam (winning the 4 Slam events in the same calendar year) is the ultimate tennis achievement and they tend to have a dismissive, sniffy attitude towards deriviates of that Grand Slam conception (example, Career Grand Slam, non-calendar year Grand Slam, Golden Slam, Nole Slam etc.)

My stance is The Grand Slam came about in same way as the later deriviates, hence has no special validity with respect to the later derivatives
And the Slam events being granted official status by ILTF in 1924 doesn't change that
The ILTF granted the official status, but am I correct in saying they did not add something like, "... and he who wins the 4 official titles shall be said to have won the Grand Slam"?

If so, conceptualization of the Grand Slam as winning the 4 events in same calendar year is not an official thing. It came about same way the derivatives did - somebody achived it, and (for lack of a better term) the 'tennis world' got behind the concept and made it into a 'thing'

This is different from a goal being a thing, and then someone achieving it
It's achieving something, and then having that something be made into a thing - exactly the same way the later derivatives became things, like Graf's Golden Slam or whatever it is they call Agassi's feat of winning 4 Slams, YEC and Gold Medal

This is the thread of Krosero's others have referred to

Grand Slam

I’m starting this thread to show the number of ways in which the term “grand slam” was used from the 1930s to the 1960s. We’ve often debated whether the term should refer to taking the Australian, French, Wimbledon and USO in one season or across two calendar years – but that doesn’t even begin...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

I don't think it could be clearer that the writers don't have precise idea of Grand Slam as winning 4 Slam events in a calendar year. The earliest entires keep saying "Grand Slam" with quotation marks is tip of the iceberg in bringing that home

Budge is described as having completed the "Grand Slam" after winning 4 Slam events in succession across 2 years
Had he not gone onto win it in a calendar year also, the terminological history would have played differently

As it has played out, "Grand Slam" is taken to mean all done in 1 year and a derivate is "non-calendar year Grand Slam"
If he hadn't won it, "Grand Slam" would have been taken to mean winning 4 major events conseuctively and in due time, Laver's feats in '62 and '69 would be referred to as "Calendar Year Grand Slam"... just one variant of the Grand Slam

 

[Waspsting]

A seperate matter that I'm curious about and would like to hear the historian posters' views on concerns the actual status of the 4 Slam events in those early days, particularly the years Crawford and Budge came close to or won the Grand Slam

Were they in fact regarded by the players as being the 4 biggest events?

The marking of the 4 events, as outlined by King Olaf, sounds to me like a messy political thing, as opposed to rationally and soundly pinpointing what were the biggest events

Like a guy looking to hire employees and naturally looking for the best people for the job
But he ends up hiring people based on how rich and influential the families of his candidates are instead

That doesn't necessarily mean that the chosen candidates aren't the best candidates, but it does cloud the selection process

So my question - Australian, French, Wimby and US.... where did these events realistically stand, relative to the other tournaments of the world?

On top of the guys who've already contributed to the thread already, @Drob @NoMercy @KG1965 @krosero likely have knowledge about this sort of thing

 

[urban]

Budge had a number on his car shield with Grand Slam 1938. It was clear, when the Bridge term Grand Slam was coined by Jack Kieran for tennis in 1933, that it referred to Crawford, who was on the verge of winning the US champs in 1933 and complete the rout of all 4 major championships in a calendar year. Allson Danzig, who took over the term, always referred to a Calendar year series, as did Don Budge himself, who made a living out of his Grand Slam of 1938, which he completed in all newspapers, film clips and Tennis history books with his win over Mako at US champs in 1938. Trabert certainly would have gone to Australia in 1956, if he had still the chance to win a Grand Slam, having won the last 3 majors in 1955. There was no Grand Slam on the line, so de turned pro end 1955. There was much talk of a male Grand Slam in 1956, when Hoad approached Forest Hills. Bud Collins refers to it in his book My life with the pros,, it wass his very fisrt report on the US champs that year for the freshman reporter. I think, i have seen also a Sports Illustrated article on this occasion of Hoads potential win. Of course, Connolly got news and fame for winning the Grand Slam in 1953. I have a 4 part video program of ca. 1990, edited by the ILTF, which is called. The History of the Grand Slam, with interviews of Budge, Laver, Navratilova and Graf.. Maybe someone had piut this on the internet somewhere, or sells it somewhere.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The best and most extensive summary of this debate on Chatrier and Navratilovas feat in 1984 is in the book of Paul S. Fein. Tennis confidential 1. It contains a letter by Allison Danzig on that subject. Chatrier wanted to give the ILTF and especially his own French Open a big boost with his bonus money.

Danzig was rather biased, he was promoting the idea of the GS as being only the four majors we recognize today.

The actual term "Grand Slam" simply means a "sweep" of the type of events being described. That could mean something other than the four majors of today.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, both the Australian and French titles were considered below the level of the Wimbledon and US championships, and some players would skip the Australian and French tournaments.

The players themselves were probably unaware of the ILTF 1923 designation.

Few players attempted to win a calendar year GS of the four events, many considered the WCT or Masters events superior to the Australian or French.

 

[hoodjem]

I do wonder if Bobby Jones’s 1930 golf season (so-called “Grand Slam“ by journalist O.B. Keeler) influenced journalists AJ Gould and Kieran to wish to apply the term in a similar fashion for tennis?

 

[urban]

"I think, Rosewall was almost as unhappy at the result as I was.. He openly wept because he knew how much winning the last title in the hunt for the Grand Slam has meant to me.. He would have preferred not to be the player who thwarted me, when i was so close to achieving the elusive coup..." This is a citing by Lew Hoad on his loss at Forest Hills in 1956 in his book My Game from 1958. Maybe Lews genuine talk about the last title in the hunt for the Grand Slam and the elusive coup and the meaning of the Grand Slam is also biased..

 

[Drob]

Is this type of thing categorically different from the formulation of the Grand Slam?

As I understand it -

- Pat Crawford won Aus, French, Wimby and was runner-up at US one year
- a journalist wrote about it and said had he won the US, he'd have compelted the 'Grand Slam' of tennis
- the phrase caught on, Don Budge made it an express goal
- Budge achieved said goal and voila, the Grand Slam became cemented as a 'thing'

Back to the journalists article.
He didn't say these 4 events were the 4 biggest in the world
He said they were 4 of the 7 biggest - the others being South African, German and Italian

My reading of this is that what has come to be known as the 'Grand Slam events' was just a matter of random chance and circumstances
If Crawford had won South African, Italian, German titles and then fallen in the final of the US - then we'd have a completely different set of 'Slam events' (skimming over the non-tennis related difficulties of South Africa being able to maintain Slam status through the years)

Today, there'd be Melbourne Masters in December, a Paris Masters on clay and Wimbledon would a croquet club, with maybe a museam for the obsolte days when people were so foolish as to play tennis on grass

Maybe some of the events carried more weight than others? - Wimby, probably and US is probably important because of the powerful voice of American media in setting paradigms that shape the way much of the world frames things. But at least, lets say Italian, German, Wimby and US

Or if Crawford had won 4 of the first 6 events - lets say Aus, French, German, South African and fallen at US final, then the article would have said "... if he'd won US, he'd have completed the "Pentagon Slam", and again, we have a completely different paradigm moving forward

Its like if Carlos Alcaraz wins Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Canada and loses final of Paris this year - and the press say had he won Paris, he would have won the "Super-Duper Masters"
Jannik Sinner declares his intention of winning the Super-Duper Masters
And then does it
And the whole tennis world pushes the "Super-Duper Masters" as the gold standard of tennis

Everyone following the game right now will see the flaws in such a construct
Why Indian Wells and not Miami?
Why Monte Carlo and not Rome or Madrid?
Why Canada and not Cincy?
Why Paris and not Shanghai?

But people who come across the game in future, when everyones telling them that "Super-Duper Masters" is the real deal will simply swallow it - and in due time, so it will come to be accepted

I imagine people who followed the game prior to Budge and Crawford thought the "Grand Slam" was a bunch of made-up hooey along the above lines too

i'd love to see that article. i know the one you are referring too and it is famous. or, i THINK i know the one. The famous article compares to the "Grand Slam" in the card game Bridge. That supposedly is the start of the idea. I am thinking the reporter who proposed this was Al Danzig of NYT, but likely someone else.

Now, also, the idea that S.A., German and Italian were equal does not compute. In late 1923 the ILTF determined that the major events would be Aus, France, All-England and US, starting in 1925.

Italian did later come close to a Slam status, but after WWII; the German was always among the most prestigious until 2008 or whatever; and the South African i honestly don't think it was so much, altho it was pretty high in the Pro tour of tournaments and for a few years into OE.

So no, no "pentagons" or "sextagons". As of 1933, when Gentleman Jack nearly won all four, the fifth biggest tournament was arguably the Pacific Southwest In L.A. . . . arguably.

 

[Drob]

i was also unaware of a super-duper masters class.

But, yes, IW is first among equals and the Internazionali d' Italia is second most important. And there are reasons for this.

Cincy is clearly stronger than any other save the aforementioned.

Then it is basic equality.

Why?

in case if Rome it is historical pedigree plus keeping up the quality of the event, whilst once-prestigious MC has withered.

Key Biscayne (Miami) once seriously vied to be Fifth Slam. Now, different ownership/management, change of venue, less ambition and it finds itself run-of-mill Masters. I'm not sure the idea of the "Sunshine Double", were it to happen, would be as cool as when accomplished in the 1990s or even recent past.

Paris might have been 2nd or 3rd in importance in 1990s, into first years of this century. But now it is too-this-and-too-that and everybody has a complaint and these add up and now it is relatively "weak" - facilities too limited, schedule gets backed up; too late in season and the players are so tired after competing in 60 matches all year; Federer did not like it; Nadal could not win it; the cat had kittens . . . the gripes go on. It adds up and beats down on the prestige of the tournament.

But super-duper Masters? i guess i should try to stay more current

 

[Drob]

Grand Slam was coined by Jack Kieran for

there we go. Kieran was Danzig's tennis colleague on The New York Times.

 

[Drob]

I just read that thread properly. Top answer has 180+ upvotes, yet seems to be conflating the formation of the ILTF and the Davis Cup, and also says the US and Australian Championships were created by the ILTF?! Dear Lord...

if that is what the post said it is obviously wrong. US Nationals was a real-McCoy "slam" as we would call it since forever. At 1923 it was for the moment THE SLAM bec where you had to go to try to beat Bill Tilden. ILTF only recognized the obvious when it "sanctioned" US Nat'l as a "world championship." The World Covered Court Championship was dropped off the "world championship" trio in '23 bec it had never lived up to the billing. The Australian was added, to make a quartet. This was because Australia (or Australasia) was a Davis Cup champion nation, along w Britain and USA. France was not yet a DC Champ in '23, but it was home to the World Hard Court Championship, the undisputed No. 1 clay event and part of the pre-'23 trio of "world championships" of the ILTF at that time. So, it was natural France would maintain a "world championship." On top of that, the Paris Olympics of 1924 was designated the world championship of clay in lieu of WHCC that year. On top of that was Suzanne Lenglen . . .

 

[Drob]

If Borg had really cared, the AO would have been easy pickings back then.

This is important to take into account when comparing BIG THREE priorities with the past.

In 1973, Borg said his primary goal was to win the Davis Cup. He did so in 1975 and thereafter Borg's primary goal was to make as much money as quickly as possible as he could. But he also knew his tennis pedigree. So Wimbldedon and Roland Garros, primarily, the WCT Finals until he won it, USO and everything else secondary (he may have missed a beat on Rome, where he did not always compete). AO was not a real "slam" then. But it was the ILTF official major and winning it would have counted to the total. Borg did not see it that way. Connors did not see it that way.

Lendl and Mac did not go to AO until 1983, i believe. So, yes, the idea that the number 12 was some great thing . . . it wasn't there then.

IF ANYONE CAN IDENTIFY AND CITE THIS QUOTE: "Back then it was about more than majors," or, alternatively might have said "slams". I have this written down SOMEWHERE! but not sure i will ever find it. It comes from an important tennis match earlier this century, and is from one of the "television commentators," but not someone super famous. I believe I caught it out of the archive of tennis.tv, so it is probably a Masters 1000 final from 12 to 25 years ago. DOES ANYBODY KNOW THIS QUOTE and where it is?


This is not to say Aussie was never important until 1983, or, better, 1989. Jean Borotra went to Australia in 1928, after France attained the Davis Cup, and won the tournament. Elly Vines went to Australia to win that tournament in 1933. He lost. Fred Perry went twice, in 1934 and '35. He won one championship. Don Budge and Gottfired von Cramm went for the 1938 edition. Budge won it. So, the "major" guys were going to Australia in the 1930s. And, when travel became easier in the 1950s and 60s, a lot of the top amateurs went there - AND ALL THE TOP NON-AUSTRALIAN PROS WENT TO AUSTRALIA. Australia was a hotbed for Pro competition and results there important factors in determining the pro pecking order. In the amateur game, Trabert and Seixas went almost every year to the Australian. Some examples of healthy Aussie championships in the later amateur era were 1954, 1959 and 1966, when at least half the 16 seeds were foreigners, including prominents like Ashe, Graebner, Mackay, Buchholz, Gimeo, Olmedo, Okker.

The 1969 edition, which Laver won was quite strong:

1. Rod Laver (champion)
2. Ken Rosewall (third round)
3. Tom Okker (first round)
4. Tony Roche (semifinals)
5. John Newcombe (quarterfinals)
6. Pancho Gonzales (third round)
7. Fred Stolle (quarterfinals)
8. Marty Riessen (third round)
9. Andrés Gimeno (final)
10. Bill Bowrey (quarterfinals)
11. Roy Emerson (third round)
12. Ray Ruffels (semifinals)
13. Butch Buchholz (quarterfinals)
14. Mal Anderson (third round)
15. Roger Taylor (second round)
16. Allan Stone (third round)

Not so strong in 1970 (Sydney Dunlop International, won by Laver, was called "The Real Australian Open"); prettey strong in 1971 (Rosewall champ); very weak in 1972 (Rosewall champ); a little better 1973-75, then long dropoff until slight revival in 1983 and then put back on Slam footing ca. 1989. Where it has stayed.

 

[Drob]

"I think, Rosewall was almost as unhappy at the result as I was.. He openly wept because he knew how much winning the last title in the hunt for the Grand Slam has meant to me.. He would have preferred not to be the player who thwarted me, when i was so close to achieving the elusive coup..." This is a citing by Lew Hoad on his loss at Forest Hills in 1956 in his book My Game from 1958. Maybe Lews genuine talk about the last title in the hunt for the Grand Slam and the elusive coup and the meaning of the Grand Slam is also biased..

Nice excerpt. I would say "The Grand Slam" a la Budge was a thing to be grasped - if one was Australian, or if one was ambitious enough (like Budge). I think that Lew's perspective is not so distorted, but reflects a real - if exceedingly rare thing. I think Trabert was clearly trying for the GS at about the same time. Possibly Vines had it in mind as early as 1933. Laver was openly gunning for it in 1962, so the concept was there. One poster remarked that maybe fans have given up on this because it has proved impossible of achievement it makes close on 60 years.

 

[Drob]

A seperate matter that I'm curious about and would like to hear the historian posters' views on concerns the actual status of the 4 Slam events in those early days, particularly the years Crawford and Budge came close to or won the Grand Slam

The Australian was not "on par" with the other three. But in 1933, Vines competed at the Australian, so it was pretty big that year. Perry was there in 1934-35 and Budge and Cramm in 1938, as I mentioned. So Aussie had an allure. I think at that time, in general, PSW was bigger, MC was probably bigger, maybe Queen's, maybe German in the early 1930s, maybe Newport Casino. 1933 was a bit of an aberration, but a strong top-eight between Aussie and US players:

1. Ellsworth Vines (quarterfinals)
2. Jack Crawford (champion)
3. Wilmer Allison (semifinals)
4. Harry Hopman (quarterfinals)
5. John Van Ryn (second round)
6. Vivian McGrath (semifinals)
7. Keith Gledhill (finalist)
8. Adrian Quist (quarterfinals)