early recognition of Emerson's GS record

[Drob]

1935 is strong:

1. Fred Perry (finalist)
2. Jack Crawford (champion)
3. Roderich Menzel (quarterfinals)
4. Christian Boussus (third round)
5. Vivian McGrath (semifinals)
6. Adrian Quist (semifinals)
7. Giorgio de Stefani (quarterfinals)
8. Vernon Kirby (second round)

1938 is strong:

1. Don Budge (champion)
2. Gottfried von Cramm (semifinals)
3. Henner Henkel (third round)
4. John Bromwich (finalist)
5. Adrian Quist (semifinals)
6. Vivian McGrath (quarterfinals)
7. Jack Crawford (third round)
8. Gene Mako (quarterfinals)

 

[Hard Court]

Some good mentions here.
It's important to point out that there were times when the Australian had some good fields. Often, people seem to think that they never did until the 1980s. Each year should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[hoodjem]

Gottfired von Cramm

Brilliant! Positively brilliant!
(Gotta love it.)

 

[urban]

In The Fireside Book of Tennis 1971, p.238-240, is a long excerpt by Donald Budge about his 1938 Grand Slam. with the title Winning the Big Four.. " Everything i did that year (1938) was aimed to win them. I was due to go to Australia in the latter part of 1937... Playing the French championsghips was my biggest test.. Wimbeldon that year offered no problems... After Forest Hills: I had finally done it. I hadn't lost a singles since the Test matches. and i had won the Big Four."

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It's interesting that the most important and relevant statistic today when it comes to evaluating players was of no major significance back then.

Borg didn't bother to stay active for a couple more years to win RG again or play Australia just to get there. He would have easily won a few more slams playing Australia or staying active a couple more years (even if he wasn't winning Wimbledon again or the USO, which isn't a given, he would have had a couple of FOs in the bag).

 

[Dan Lobb]

"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..

Which was in 1958, two years later.
In 1956 Hoad was talking about winning The Big Three (Australian, Wimbledon, Forest Hills).
The Big Three was used in the press from Savitt's attempts to win them in 1951 at Forest Hills where Sedgman actually would win.
Only when Hoad read in Sports Illustrated when he went to New York in 1956 for the US championships about the four majors being the Grand Slam did he understand the concept.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Vines actually went to Australia in late 1932 on a tour with the American Davis Cup team, the thought of the four official championships being swept up into a Grand Slam was not in his mind.

 

[Dan Lobb]

In The Fireside Book of Tennis 1971, p.238-240, is a long excerpt by Donald Budge about his 1938 Grand Slam. with the title Winning the Big Four.. " Everything i did that year (1938) was aimed to win them. I was due to go to Australia in the latter part of 1937... Playing the French championsghips was my biggest test.. Wimbeldon that year offered no problems... After Forest Hills: I had finally done it. I hadn't lost a singles since the Test matches. and i had won the Big Four."

When did Budge write this statement? Not in 1938, I assume.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Some good mentions here.
It's important to point out that there were times when the Australian had some good fields. Often, people seem to think that they never did until the 1980s. Each year should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Usually it depended on whether or not the US Davis Cup team (or Indian or Italian) was participating, or on how strong the Australian group of players was.

 

[Drob]

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.

There Is a lot of Bud in that book.

Rocket was about cashing in quickly while he had the skills, hence the TCCs, WCT tour and other good paydays like PSW, Las Vegas, US Pro Indoor, Wembley, Sydney Dunlop etc.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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)

The US Davis Cup team was there, with the singles players Vines and Allison, the doubles pair of Van Ryn and Gledhill, although where is Frank Shields, who would finish 1933 as the US No. 1? Perhaps he was ignored, as he would also be dropped from the US Davis Cup team during the European tour in the summer and would skip Wimbledon.

Gledhill would have a fine tournament, finishing runnerup in singles to Crawford and winning the doubles title with his regular partner Vines.
Crawford would have a tough last two matches beating Allison in the five set semifinal and Gledhill in the final. The expected final between Vines and Crawford would therefore be postponed until the Wimbledon final.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Trabert and Seixas went whenever the US Davis Cup team challenged for the Davis Cup Final in Australia, the Australian was played shortly after the Davis Cup final. So they appeared in the Australian in 1954, 1955, other US team members appeared in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 after the Davis Cup. Because Australia usually won the Cup, the US team was already there.

 

[urban]

Birmingham Daily Gazette on 10. July 1956: "Just after Christmas 21-year old Lew Hoad solemnly annoucned his target for 1956 was to win the Grand Slam of the four majosr championships of the year - a feat last achieved by Don Budge"- Hoad is explicitley refering to FOUR major championships and the Grand Slam at the begin ogf his campaign. 1956 Thanks to Pro tennis hsitorian for the info. Many more, in fact tons of press, tv and book sources in 1956, and also since 1933 and 1938, when Budge won the Grand Slam at Forest Hills, see for instance Fireside book of Tennis, p. 664-666, "Budges Grand Slam", by Allson Danzig from 1938.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

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

I'd agree with the assertion that prior to Crawford, the Grand Slam was never a 'named target' as such. Although of course, going back to 1924 many of the top players didn't even play all four; aside from 1928 (when Borotra won the Triple Crown) none of Les Mousquetaires or Bill Tilden ever played Down Under. It's something that will have emerged in the 1930s as travel to and from Australia became more common.

I'd also say that the idea of a "non-calendar year" grand slam probably wasn't on anyone's mind until the 1970s, when the computer rankings appeared and you had a constant, week-by-week assessment of who was the best. Prior to then, rankings were done at the end of every year, and so a player's achievements had to be contained within that specific January-to-December window. That can be demonstrated by the contemporary coverage of Budge's win at the French in 1938. Here's the New York Times' report, which begins "Donald Budge today easily captured the second of four major titles he has set out to win this year." It barely makes a mention about how he was the holder of all four simultaneously, even though no man or woman before had achieved this. The closest is "Budge won the Australian crown earlier in the year and hopes to retain his Wimbledon and United States championships." Likewise, after he won his semi-final, their report began: "Giant Roderich Menzel of Czechoslovakia was the final barrier tonight between red-headed Don Budge of California and the second trick in his hoped-for tennis grand slam."

Having said that, in 1935 Australian newspapers did note that when Fred Perry won the French, "[he] has thus become the only player in the history of the game who has won all four major titles." So the concept of the achievement (a "career slam") definitely was a thing, even if it didn't have a label.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

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

I know that in the 19th century, the four tournaments closest to being "majors" were Wimbledon, the US Nationals, the Northern Championships, and the Irish Championships. Their status was certainly defined by who played in and won them, since there was no governing body at the time. Once the ILTF was formed, you then had a decade of the "surface slams" [sic], and the US Nationals which were obviously a de facto major regardless.

So prior to the 1923 meeting, we have two clear candidates for "slam status": Wimbledon and the USA. The question is what other national championships are elevated with them? With a disclaimer in advance that this is all speculation on my part...

We can immediately reduce the shortlist to the founding members: Australasia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Now cross off Austria, Hungary, and Germany; it's only five years after the end of WWI, so the politics of that are obvious. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland likely weren't seen as "big" enough. And Italy didn't have its own national championship until 1930.

Several obvious contributing factors which would have helped France's case...

• The ILTF were based in Paris until 1939.
• The country already hosted the Hard Court Championships which were being replaced.
• The massive popularity of Lenglen.
• Wasn't there a very healthy number of tournaments being hosted on the Côte d'Azur in those days (e.g. the one which also hosted Lenglen and Wills' Match of the Century)? I don't know how complicated it was to cross borders back then, but if the "infrastructure" in France was more developed, then a premier French Championship would certainly be a sensible option.

As for Australia, I can see two contributory factors in their favour, despite the distance required to travel to them:

• English was their spoken language.
• The influence of Sir Norman Brookes, who hadn't yet become president of the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia, but would have had the ears of those at the highest level.

Ultimately I think "messy politics" is probably apt. Even if the sport itself was much more popular and widespread at the time than many today realize, it was still administered by a very closed group of power brokers. Plenty of instances of them wielding their power in parochial fashion for many decades in the 20th century, so for them to have made decisions at the '23 AGM that were purely meritocratic would have been very out of character.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Birmingham Daily Gazette on 10. July 1956: "Just after Christmas 21-year old Lew Hoad solemnly annoucned his target for 1956 was to win the Grand Slam of the four majosr championships of the year - a feat last achieved by Don Budge"- Hoad is explicitley refering to FOUR major championships and the Grand Slam at the begin ogf his campaign. 1956 Thanks to Pro tennis hsitorian for the info. Many more, in fact tons of press, tv and book sources in 1956, and also since 1933 and 1938, when Budge won the Grand Slam at Forest Hills, see for instance Fireside book of Tennis, p. 664-666, "Budges Grand Slam", by Allson Danzig from 1938.

Danzig himself promoted the idea of the four official events as the Gran Slam.

Hoad was never quoted, and not in this Birmingham ( a newspaper which ceased in 1956) report some seven months after the purported event. This is not a direct quote, obviously, and conflicts with direct quotes from Hoad himself from the actual day, so I would require something more than this.

We do have direct quotes from Hoad right after the French Open of 1956 referring to the Big Three of Australian, Wimbledon and the US, in Tennis World of July 1956, and a statement that he first heard of the four slam of official events from reading the Sports Illustrated when he arrived in America for the US championships. I would choose a direct quote as the source, as would any historian.

"Even if I win the three big tournaments, even if Kramer raised his offer, I still wouldn't turn pro for at least two or three seasons." World Tennis, July 1956

The Big Three was also used in reference to Savitt as follows in 1951 in the Star News,

Star News (UPI), 4 September 1951. "Savitt was seeking the third grand slam in tennis annals, for the Australian, Wimbledon and United States titles had been won previously only by Fred Perry in 1934 and Don Budge in 1938". https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pGlgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N3INAAAAIBAJ&dq=grand slam tennis&pg=822,345156

 

[urban]

Someone seems to suupose, that Lew Hoad lied in a direct quote in his book "My game" and did try to rewrite history 1 or 1, 5 year, after he won the rare French- Wim double and almost made the real Grand Slam, one of the biggest feats in whole tennis. Better not diminish Lew Hoad, his career and his honesty..

 

[Pro tennis historian]

Here is a small selection of newspaper articles, 1 per year, that show the hype that surrounded a possible calendar Grand Slam for the decade from 1951 to 1960. All these articles were written before the players played in the US championships. Sometimes the speculation began quite early in the year and most attempts ended in failure.

1951 Melbourne Herald, 6 August 1951
Newspaper report before the US championships. Sedgman and McGregor did win the Grand Slam.

"Frank Sedgman and Ken McGregor can make tennis history next week by winning the American doubles championship at the Longwood Cricket Club in Boston. They want the American championship to complete a doubles "grand slam". They have won the Australian, French and English (Wimbledon) doubles titles."

SPORTS TALK - GRAND SLAM BY OUR CUP PAIR? - The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954) - 6 Aug 1951

Frank Sedgman and Ken McGregor, can make tennis history next week by winning the American doubles championship at the Long-wood Cricket Club in Boston. ...

trove.nla.gov.au

1952 The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, 6 January 1952
Newspaper reporter at the start of the year asking Sedgman about the possibility of winning the Grand Slam before the Australian began.

""To win the grand slam, gosh. I'd have to be a super-genius to do that". (The Grand slam is the Australian, French, Wimbledon and American titles in one year)."

McGregor makes Sedgman show top form to win Seaside title - The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW : 1931 - 1954) - 6 Jan 1952

Ken McGregor yesterday forced Frank Sedgman to reproduce his Davis Cup form to win the Seaside tennis singles championship at Manly. After McGregor had overwhelmed him in the first set. ...

trove.nla.gov.au

1953 The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, 1 June 1953
Newspaper report after Rosewall won the French championships

"Tennis experts yesterday gave 18-years-old Ken Rosewall an even chance of winning the championship "grand slam". Rosewall on Saturday defeated American Vic Seixas 6-3, 6-4, 1-6, 6-2, to win the French title. Rosewall won the Australian title in January. He now has to win Wimbledon and American titles to complete the "grand slam"."

Rosewall tipped to win

Tennis experts yesterday gave 18-years-old Ken Rosewall an even chance of winning the championship "grand slam." Rosewall on Saturday defeated American Vic Seixas, ...

trove.nla.gov.au

1954 Melbourne Argus, 22 January 1954
Newspaper report just before the start of the Australian championships

"American champion Tony Trabert believes he will complete the "grand slam of tennis" this year by winning the Australian, French, Wimbledon and American titles. He is sure he can make a flying start by capturing the Australian championship, which opens at White City tomorrow"

U.S.A. champion confident TRABERT PLANS FOR 'GRAND SLAM' - Sydney, Thursday - The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) - 22 Jan 1954

AMERICAN champion Tony Trabert believes he will complete the "grand slam of tennis" this year by winning the Australian, French, Wimbledon, and American titles. He is sure he can make a flying start ...

trove.nla.gov.au

1955 St Joseph Press-News, 29 January 1955
Newspaper report during Australian championships. Trabert had won the Australian doubles and was still in the singles.

"Trabert and Vic Seixas won the Australian National Doubles Championships today and Trabert immediately announced his aim to score a grand slam of the world's major tennis titles. "I'm after them all, both singles and doubles", the Yankee Davis Cup ace said, referring to the Australian, French, Wimbledon and U. S. crowns".

St. Joseph News-Press

books.google.co.uk

1956 Melbourne Argus, 22 June 1956
Newspaper report just before Wimbledon entitled "Lew tells millions: I'll win". Hoad spoke to the BBC's voice of Wimbledon Dan Maskell about the possibility of winning Wimbledon.

"I am desperately keen to win there and go on to America to complete the "grand slam" and so equal Donald Budge's record".

Lew tells millions: Til win' - The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) - 22 Jun 1956

LONDON, Thursday: Lew Hoad and his prospects were the star feature of last night's top British TV show ...

trove.nla.gov.au

1957 The Age, 18 January 1957
Yet another report on Hoad's quest for a Grand Slam (there were many articles talking of Hoad's desperation to win the Grand Slam in 1956). The anticipation had already begun at the start of the Australian in 1957. This year his quest ended earlier.

"Titleholder Lew Hoad starts on the trail of the tennis grand slam again today when he competes in the Australian tennis championships at Kooyong. Hoad, recognised last year as the best amateur in the world, won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles, but was beaten by Ken Rosewall in the American final. "

The Age

books.google.co.uk

1958 The Age, 18 January 1958
This year the January hype was about Cooper.

"Ashley Cooper, the number two seed, looks the logical champion. He will be defending the title he won by defeating Neale Fraser in the final at Kooyong last year, and this year he is ambitious to take the tournament "grand slam" by capturing the Australian, French, Wimbledon and American championships".

The Age

books.google.co.uk

1959 The Age, 28 January 1959
Olmedo winning the Australian.

"Olmedo takes title in four sets. Now has eyes on "Grand Slam".

The Age

books.google.co.uk

1960 Sydney Morning Herald, 22 January 1960
Report just before the Australian.

"Fraser, with his swinging service and determination to win the "grand slam" in singles events this year- the Australian, French, Wimbledon and United States titles".

The Sydney Morning Herald

books.google.co.uk

 

[urban]

Thanks for giving all those sources. They speak for themselves. I think, that one can find (and you have found) more on the female side referring To Little Mo in 1953. At the moment, i have a NY Times article "Connollys Grand Slam, Trabert crushes Seixas" from 1953 in front of me, from The Fireside Book of Tennis, p.726-729.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Someone seems to suupose, that Lew Hoad lied in a direct quote in his book "My game" and did try to rewrite history 1 or 1, 5 year, after he won the rare French- Wim double and almost made the real Grand Slam, one of the biggest feats in whole tennis. Better not diminish Lew Hoad, his career and his honesty..

No one is doing that, don't know how you got confused. The reality is posted above, "My Game" was published some time after 1956, so I do not see what you are upset about.

The quote I gave you after the 1956 French speaks for itself. You do accept the statement by Hoad after the RG?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Thanks for giving all those sources. They speak for themselves. I think, that one can find (and you have found) more on the female side referring To Little Mo in 1953. At the moment, i have a NY Times article "Connollys Grand Slam, Trabert crushes Seixas" from 1953 in front of me, from The Fireside Book of Tennis, p.726-729.

Which was by Danzig, who promoted this idea.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Thanks for giving all those sources. They speak for themselves. I think, that one can find (and you have found) more on the female side referring To Little Mo in 1953. At the moment, i have a NY Times article "Connollys Grand Slam, Trabert crushes Seixas" from 1953 in front of me, from The Fireside Book of Tennis, p.726-729.

So now we have only this reference from 22 June of 1956, not earlier, and Hoad had already defined the Grand Slam as the Big Three of Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S. following his win at Roland Garros. I gave you the reference above.

"Even if I win the three big tournaments, even if Kramer raised his offer, I still wouldn't turn pro for at least two or three seasons." World Tennis, July 1956

The Big Three was also used in reference to Savitt as follows in 1951 in the Star News,

Star News (UPI), 4 September 1951. "Savitt was seeking the third grand slam in tennis annals, for the Australian, Wimbledon and United States titles had been won previously only by Fred Perry in 1934 and Don Budge in 1938". https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pGlgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N3INAAAAIBAJ&dq=grand slam tennis&pg=822,345156

That all plays out with the idea that he was surprised with the Sports Illustrated article he read in New York.

 

[Drob]

Here is a small selection of newspaper articles, 1 per year, that show the hype that surrounded a possible calendar Grand Slam for the decade from 1951 to 1960

King's X

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is the relevant statement from Hoad,

Obituary: Lew Hoad

Lewis Alan Hoad, tennis player: born Sydney 23 November 1934; Australian doubles champion 1953, 1956, 1957; French doubles champion 1953; Wimbledon doubles champion 1953, 1955, 1956; French mixed doubles champion 1954; Australian singles champion 1956; French singles champion 1956; Wimbledon...

www.independent.co.uk

"'In fact, I wasn't even conscious of the Grand Slam. I remember picking up an American sports magazine with my picture on the cover and the words 'Grand Slammer from Down Under', and not knowing what they were bloody on about.'"

 

[Waspsting]

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.

I tried looking for it the other day, without success. I'll try again later and post it up if I can find it

It's important to point out that there were times when the Australian had some good fields. Often, people seem to think that they never did until the 1980s. Each year should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

I'm inclined to interpret this as a "weak tournament that occasionally had good fields", as opposed to a "strong tournament in general"

Per commentary in the '77 January final (Tanner-Vilas), that was the first final at the event to not have an Australian in it (Per wikipedia, there's 1 exceptions in 1912 when 2 Brits contested the final)
Even with a flood of great champions coming out of Australia, that doesn't sound like a great, global event. It sounds like a national championship, with the odd foreign guest now and then

I'd agree with the assertion that prior to Crawford, the Grand Slam was never a 'named target' as such. Although of course, going back to 1924 many of the top players didn't even play all four; aside from 1928 (when Borotra won the Triple Crown) none of Les Mousquetaires or Bill Tilden ever even played Down Under. It's something that will have emerged in the 1930s as travel to and from Australia became more common.

I'd also say that the idea of a "non-calendar year" grand slam probably wasn't on anyone's mind until the 1970s, when the computer rankings appeared and you had a constant, week-by-week assessment of who was the best. Prior to then, rankings were done at the end of every year, and so a player's achievements had to be contained within that specific January-to-December window. That can be demonstrated by the contemporary coverage of Budge's win at the French in 1938. Here's the New York Times' report, which begins "Donald Budge today easily captured the second of four major titles he has set out to win this year." It barely makes a mention about how he was the holder of all four simultaneously, even though no man or woman before had achieved this. The closest is "Budge won the Australian crown earlier in the year and hopes to retain his Wimbledon and United States championships." Likewise, after he won his semi-final, their report began: "Giant Roderich Menzel of Czechoslovakia was the final barrier tonight between red-headed Don Budge of California and the second trick in his hoped-for tennis grand slam."

Having said that, in 1935 Australian newspapers did note that when Fred Perry won the French, "[he] has thus become the only player in the history of the game who has won all four major titles." So the concept of the achievement (a "career slam") definitely was a thing, even if it didn't have a label.

I know that in the 19th century, the four tournaments closest to being "majors" were Wimbledon, the US Nationals, the Northern Championships, and the Irish Championships. Their status was certainly defined by who played in and won them, since there was no governing body at the time. Once the ILTF was formed, you then had a decade of the "surface slams" [sic], and the US Nationals which were obviously a de facto major regardless.

So prior to the 1923 meeting, we have two clear candidates for "slam status": Wimbledon and the USA. The question is what other national championships are elevated with them? With a disclaimer in advance that this is all speculation on my part...

We can immediately reduce the shortlist to the founding members: Australasia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Now cross off Austria, Hungary, and Germany; it's only five years after the end of WWI, so the politics of that are obvious. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland likely weren't seen as "big" enough. And Italy didn't have its own national championship until 1930.

Several obvious contributing factors which would have helped France's case...

• The ILTF were based in Paris until 1939.
• The country already hosted the Hard Court Championships which were being replaced.
• The massive popularity of Lenglen.
• Wasn't there a very healthy number of tournaments being hosted on the Côte d'Azur in those days (e.g. the one which also hosted Lenglen and Wills' Match of the Century)? I don't know how complicated it was to cross borders back then, but if the "infrastructure" in France was more developed, then a premier French Championship would certainly be a sensible option.

As for Australia, I can see two contributory factors in their favour, despite the distance required to travel to them:

• English was their spoken language.
• The influence of Sir Norman Brookes, who hadn't yet become president of the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia, but would have had the ears of those at the highest level.

Ultimately I think "messy politics" is probably apt. Even if the sport itself was much more popular and widespread at the time than many today realize, it was still administered by a very closed group of power brokers. Plenty of instances of them wielding their power in parochial fashion for many decades in the 20th century, so for them to have made decisions at the '23 AGM that were purely meritocratic would have been very out of character.

nice, thanks
The point regarding impracticality of non-calendar year Grand Slam in light of very distinct year-to-year structure of tour is particularly salient

More generally, you always get to the heart of whatever matter is being discussed and stay on point with it, which I very much appreciate

 

[Dan Lobb]

The point regarding impracticality of non-calendar year Grand Slam in light of very distinct year-to-year structure of tour is particularly salient

More generally, you always get to the heart of whatever matter is being discussed and stay on point with it, which I very much appreciateWe also have a reference to

We also have a reference to Maureen Connolly winning a grand slam over two calendar years.

Times Daily - Google News Archive Search

And Pancho Gonzales after winning the 1948 U.S. championships trying to go on and win a grand slam at the French and Wimbledon titles.

The Pittsburgh Press - Google News Archive Search

 

[DBH]

On the subject of how Borg and others viewed the Australian Open in the late 1970s and early 1980s: Of course, they rarely/never attended it in those years. But Borg (and Connors) would have made an exception in 1978 if Borg had won the 1978 U.S. Open to take the first three legs of the calendar-year Grand Slam. Curry Kirkpatrick's Sports Illustrated report on the 1978 Wimbledon has these memorable quotes on the subject:

---------
If he wins the American title at Flushing Meadow, Borg says he will go to Australia in December for the first legitimate crack at tennis' Grand Slam (French, Wimbledon, U.S. and Australian championships) since, again, Laver in '62 and '69.

"Before, I never even dream to win Grand Slam," Borg said.

Connors was asked, if Borg wins the U.S. Open, would he travel all the way to Australia to try to prevent such a moment. "I may follow him to the ends of the earth now," Jimbo said.
---------

Kirkpatrick's SI story on the 1980 U.S. Open mentioned that Borg had similarly planned to travel to the December 1980 Australian Open had he won the 1980 U.S. Open to put the calendar-year Grand Slam within reach:

---------
On the morrow, of course, Borg and McEnroe disappointed no one except the Australian travel agents lurking about the National Tennis Center. Down Under is where Borg would have journeyed in December for the last leg of the elusive Slam. Now he can stay home for Christmas. And so, too, can McEnroe.
---------

I assume Borg had a similar plan in 1979 had he won the first three legs of the Grand Slam that year.

 

[Dan Lobb]

On the subject of how Borg and others viewed the Australian Open in the late 1970s and early 1980s: Of course, they rarely/never attended it in those years. But Borg (and Connors) would have made an exception in 1978 if Borg had won the 1978 U.S. Open to take the first three legs of the calendar-year Grand Slam. Curry Kirkpatrick's Sports Illustrated report on the 1978 Wimbledon has these memorable quotes on the subject:

---------
If he wins the American title at Flushing Meadow, Borg says he will go to Australia in December for the first legitimate crack at tennis' Grand Slam (French, Wimbledon, U.S. and Australian championships) since, again, Laver in '62 and '69.

"Before, I never even dream to win Grand Slam," Borg said.

Connors was asked, if Borg wins the U.S. Open, would he travel all the way to Australia to try to prevent such a moment. "I may follow him to the ends of the earth now," Jimbo said.
---------

Kirkpatrick's SI story on the 1980 U.S. Open mentioned that Borg had similarly planned to travel to the December 1980 Australian Open had he won the 1980 U.S. Open to put the calendar-year Grand Slam within reach:

---------
On the morrow, of course, Borg and McEnroe disappointed no one except the Australian travel agents lurking about the National Tennis Center. Down Under is where Borg would have journeyed in December for the last leg of the elusive Slam. Now he can stay home for Christmas. And so, too, can McEnroe.
---------

I assume Borg had a similar plan in 1979 had he won the first three legs of the Grand Slam that year.

This shows the intermittent nature of the Australian Open at this time, stronger when it was seen as part of a quest for the Grand Slam.

The Aussie Open was later changed to a January time, which made it necessary to play the event in January at the beginning of the calendar year.

For 1980, the Aussie open was held in late December 1980-early January 1981, so it was not strictly a calendar year slam possibility.