Important Events aka Major Events on the Old Pro Tour

pc1

G.O.A.T.
No, Budge would not done as well as Tilden at 47 or 48. Tilden was born in 1893, Budge in 1915. Tilden though did not win his first Major till 1920, age 26-27
I agree totally. Budge was a terrific player but his game was based on power and even if he had kept himself in super physical shape it would be hard to imagine an old power player who would be effective in his late forties. Tilden had more variety to fall back on when he was older and he was in great shape for his age.
 

KG1965

Legend
Starting from 1964-These are the tournaments which is my best GUESS on what is called important tournaments. There may be more or less and of course I could be incorrect.
1964-Being the lazy guy that I am I will take Rod Laver's word in his latest autobiography that he won 7 important tournaments that year.
1965
US Pro Indoor
Masters Pro Round Robin
Newport Pro Champs
Wembley
1966
Forest Hills Pro Round Robin
US Pro Champs
Wembley
1967
Madison Square Garden Pro Champs
US Pro
Wembley
French Pro
Newport Casino Round Robin
Wimbledon Pro Champs

I may do the Open Era later.
1967 agree
1966 agree
1965 agree
1964 IMHO only Wembley and US Pro
1963 -
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
Wasn't there a very mixed reaction to one of those newport events in the mid-60's? It used the alternative scoring system and Gonzalez in particular was quite vocal about it. What do you do about a tournament like that?

What do you do about an "event" like the Johannesburg challenge match in 1964 between Laver and Rosewall?

Were there any tournaments in 1937/1938 that featured any two of Vines/Perry/Nusslein? I don't think there was so for those years I wouldn't count a single tournament as being important.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Wasn't there a very mixed reaction to one of those newport events in the mid-60's? It used the alternative scoring system and Gonzalez in particular was quite vocal about it. What do you do about a tournament like that?

What do you do about an "event" like the Johannesburg challenge match in 1964 between Laver and Rosewall?

Were there any tournaments in 1937/1938 that featured any two of Vines/Perry/Nusslein? I don't think there was so for those years I wouldn't count a single tournament as being important.

Clearly the status of the pro slams is a big sticking point here. For a long time now those three events have been "accepted" as clearly above the rest, but there has been a lot of suggestions from knowledgeable posters recently that it may not be the case.

In 1964 Laver said that Ken was still number 1 because he "won the biggest tournaments". As we know Laver won 2/3 pro slams so what is he talking about? He could just have been talking out of his a***, but I guess we can at least try and look at the possibility there were other big tournaments.

Looking at 1964 and taking into account Laver's comment the tournaments I would look at are:

US Pro Indoor (Bo5 final) - Rosewall R/U.
Masters - Rosewall won.
Cannes (Bo5 final) - Rosewall won.
Geneva (I think the top clay event) - Laver won.

People may want to suggest others, but certainly based on these Rosewall has the advantage. If you do a similar exercise for 1965 then Laver is at least equal or better than Rosewall if I recall.
It's hard to say. Laver wrote he won seven important tournaments also. By the way note that he didn't write he won two Pro Majors and five other important tournaments. I'll look at Laver's record in 1964 later.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
It's hard to say. Laver wrote he won seven important tournaments also. By the way note that he didn't write he won two Pro Majors and five other important tournaments. I'll look at Laver's record in 1964 later.
Just looking at the history of the L.A. Masters, it was a round robin affair in 1957, 1958, 1959, and a knockout best-of-three set final in 1964 and 1965. These latter two events do not look like they are among the most important of 1964 or 1965.
However, the format for the 1957-8-9 L.A. Masters follows the identical format as the 1956 L.A. Tournament of Champions, which leads me to suspect that the 1956 event was the precursor to the L.A. Masters, and not to the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions.
The "Tournament of Champions" moniker was also used for the White City event in 1957, and 1959, perhaps also for 1958. It was not a site-specific moniker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall
1957
Wembley
1958
Slazenger Pro
French Pro
1959
Queensland Pro
1960
Australian Pro Challenge
Jack Kramer Masters
French Pro
Wembley
1961
French Pro
Wembley
1962
French Pro
Wembley
1963
French Pro
Wembley
US Pro
Adler Pro Challenge
Rome Pro Challenge
1964
French Pro
Masters Pro
US Pro Hardcourt
Schlitz Pro
Cannes Pro
Western Province Pro
1965
Greater Washington Pro
US Pro
French Pro
US Pro Hardcourt
1966
Madison Square Garden Pro
Peacock Gap Pro
Newport Casino Pro
French Pro
Benoni Pro
Johannesburg Pro
1967
Masters Pro
US Pro Hardcourt
Newport
Natal Pro
(37 in Old Pro Tour Era)
1968
French Open
British Hard Court
Colonial Tennis Challenge
Wembley
1969
Bristol Open
1970
US Open
1971
Australian Open
South African Open
Washington
US Pro
WCT Finals
1972
Australian Open
WCT Finals
1973
None
1974
None
1975
None
1976
None
1977
None
Total of 50 even from Old Pro Tour Era and Open Era.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Starting from 1964-These are the tournaments which is my best GUESS on what is called important tournaments. There may be more or less and of course I could be incorrect.
1964-Being the lazy guy that I am I will take Rod Laver's word in his latest autobiography that he won 7 important tournaments that year.
1965
US Pro Indoor
Masters Pro Round Robin
Newport Pro Champs
Wembley
1966
Forest Hills Pro Round Robin
US Pro Champs
Wembley
1967
Madison Square Garden Pro Champs
US Pro
Wembley
French Pro
Newport Casino Round Robin
Wimbledon Pro Champs

I may do the Open Era later.

Edit-Using Tennis Base to help.
1965
Victoria Pro Challenge
US Pro Indoor
CBS TV Pro Series
Masters Pro
Peacock Gap Pro
Newport Casino
Wembley
Rhodesian Pro
(An additional four for Laver)
1966
Forest Hills Pro Challenge
US Pro
Wembley
South African Pro
Western Province Pro
(an additional two for Laver)
1967
Madison Square Garden Pro Champs
World Pro Champs
US Pro
Newport Casino Pro
Wimbledon Pro
French Pro
Wembley Pro
(One additional for Laver)
So a total of 20 Important Tournaments from 1965 to 1967 instead of the 13 I had.
Revised numbers with help from Tennis Base. Use the same technique with Rosewall.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Laver
1963
Kitzbuhel Pro
Cannes Pro
Dutch Pro

So Laver on the Old Pro Tour won 23 Important Tournaments in five years.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Starting from 1964-These are the tournaments which is my best GUESS on what is called important tournaments. There may be more or less and of course I could be incorrect.
1964-Being the lazy guy that I am I will take Rod Laver's word in his latest autobiography that he won 7 important tournaments that year.
1965
US Pro Indoor
Masters Pro Round Robin
Newport Pro Champs
Wembley
1966
Forest Hills Pro Round Robin
US Pro Champs
Wembley
1967
Madison Square Garden Pro Champs
US Pro
Wembley
French Pro
Newport Casino Round Robin
Wimbledon Pro Champs

I may do the Open Era later.

Edit-Using Tennis Base to help.
1965
Victoria Pro Challenge
US Pro Indoor
CBS TV Pro Series
Masters Pro
Peacock Gap Pro
Newport Casino
Wembley
Rhodesian Pro
(An additional four for Laver)
1966
Forest Hills Pro Challenge
US Pro
Wembley
South African Pro
Western Province Pro
(an additional two for Laver)
1967
Madison Square Garden Pro Champs
World Pro Champs
US Pro
Newport Casino Pro
Wimbledon Pro
French Pro
Wembley Pro
(One additional for Laver)

So a total of 20 Important Tournaments from 1965 to 1967 instead of the 13 I had.
1964-Revised version
US Pro
Wembley
Geneva Gold Trophy
Johannesburg Pro
(Reduction of three from the seven I have)
So from 1963 to 1967 Laver won 27 Important Tournaments.
In the Open Era I have Laver winning 31 Important Tournaments.

Laver, starting in 1963 (won three Important Tournaments in 1963) when he turned Pro to his retirement won 58 Important Tournaments using Tennis Base as my guide.
Laver, starting in 1963 (won three Important Tournaments in 1963) when he turned Pro to his retirement won 58 Important Tournaments using Tennis Base as my guide.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Bill Tilden
1912
0
1913
0
1914
0
1915
0
1916
0
1917
0
1918
NY Lawn Tennis Club
US Clay Court Champs
Meadows Cup
1919
Seabright
Newport Casino
1920
US Nationals Indoors
North and South Tournament
Wimbledon
Midland Counties Champs
US Nationals
New Zealand Championship
1921
World Hardcourt (top World Claycourt Championship in 1921)
Wimbledon
US Nationals
1922
Rhode Island Champs
Longwood
US Nationals
1923
Buffalo Indoor
US Claycourt Champs
US Nationals
1924
US Claycourt Champs
Illinois Champs
US Nationals
1925
Florida Champs
NY Metropolitan Clay Court
US Claycourt Champs
Illinois Champs
US Nationals
1926
Brooklyn Heights Casino Champs
Meadow Club
Newport Casino
1927
Florida Championship
US Claycourt Champs
Seabright
Meadow Club
Newport Casino
Pacific Southwest
1928
Queens
1929
Brooklyn Heights
Zurich
Eastern Grass Court Champs
Newport Casino
US Nationals
1930
Cannes Gallia
Monte Carlo
Italian Internationals
Wimbledon
Newport Casino
1931-(Turned Pro)
World Pro Challenge
Longwood Bowl
US Pro
1932
Eastern Pro Champs
Hamilton Pro
1933
0
1934
Grand Rapids Pro Champs
French Pro
1935
I.P.A US Pro Champs
World Pro Champs
US Pro Champs
1936
0
1937
0
1938
0
1939
0
1940
0

Up to 1940 Bill Tilden (if I counted correctly) has 58 important tournaments, tied with Laver. I doubt if he will have any more after 1940.
 

KG1965

Legend
pc1,
IMHO we should think to a circuit of this type (contrary to the current ATP Tour):
- there aren't tournaments with the prestige of 4 slam 2017;
- there is a circuit without 4 slam, without subdivisions of circuits, a circuit with the best players, with 20-25 tournaments scattered across for the USA, Europe, South Africa, Australia as well made:

1) 4 draws (as Boca Raton Pepsi or 70s Suntory Cup, remember?);
2) Round Robin as a Masters Grand Prix, a Challenge Cup WCT, Antwerp 80s, Rosemont and Molson 80s;
3) important tournaments that are called Majors improperly.
4) important tournaments similar to those that are called Majors improperly.

THE PRO TITLES ARE ALL IMPORTANT TITLES, PC1, BUT NO ONE HAS THE PRESTIGE OF 4 SLAM.

My Conclusions:
the important titles of Laver (and Rosewall) are >> those of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic BUT
the prestige of the Grand Slam tournaments >>>> the Pro tournaments.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
pc1,
IMHO we should think to a circuit of this type (contrary to the current ATP Tour):
- there aren't tournaments with the prestige of 4 slam 2017;
- there is a circuit without 4 slam, without subdivisions of circuits, a circuit with the best players, with 20-25 tournaments scattered across for the USA, Europe, South Africa, Australia as well made:

1) 4 draws (as Boca Raton Pepsi or 70s Suntory Cup, remember?);
2) Round Robin as a Masters Grand Prix, a Challenge Cup WCT, Antwerp 80s, Rosemont and Molson 80s;
3) important tournaments that are called Majors improperly.
4) important tournaments similar to those that are called Majors improperly.

THE PRO TITLES ARE ALL IMPORTANT TITLES, PC1, BUT NO ONE HAS THE PRESTIGE OF 4 SLAM.

My Conclusions:
the important titles of Laver (and I Rosewall) are >> those of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic BUT
the prestige of the Grand Slam tournaments >>>> to the Pro tournaments.
I agree that majors are clearly much bigger than the Important Tournaments on the Old Pro Tour.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
From what I read in the Tennis Warehouse forum, Laver said that he did not become #1 till the end of 64. I am inclined to believe that Mr Laver is more knowledgeable about that subject than anyone here.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
From what I read in the Tennis Warehouse forum, Laver said that he did not become #1 till the end of 64. I am inclined to believe that Mr Laver is more knowledgeable about that subject than anyone here.
The debate there is whether his rise to number one was based on his record for the entirety of 1964 or whether he was mistaken about the date among other things. I loathe to start that debate again. Laver does state that in his latest autobiography.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
@pc1,
...
I think for a tournament to be called a major, that needs to be done at the time it is played, not decades afterwards. Historians from 2066 might talk about whether or not Indian Wells should be considered the 5th major of 2016. Based on the prize money and the participants. I would strongly disagree.

glad you started a new thread about this, i think it´s a good idea
This, to me, is easily the most fundamental and determining part of the puzzle. We should go by the perception at the time an event was played. That doesn't make it easy given how rapid the fluctuations were, but it's a starting point of great significance. We should not ascribe false, manufactured and subjective importance but honour the values of the time and the perception of the time.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
This, to me, is easily the most fundamental and determining part of the puzzle. We should go by the perception at the time an event was played. That doesn't make it easy given how rapid the fluctuations were, but it's a starting point of great significance. We should not ascribe false, manufactured and subjective importance but honour the values of the time and the perception of the time.
And yes the perception was that there were no pro majors at that time. The term didn't exist until Peter Rowley mentioned it in his Rosewall biography I believe. Writers like Raymond Lee foolishly and in error promoted this myth but I understand he doesn't believe that now.

To call the Important Tournaments on the Old Pro Tour a major tournament much like the US Open today is overstating the importance of the Important Tournaments on the Old Pro Tour. They didn't have a set structure for tournaments in those days like they have now because everything was so unstable and they didn't have financial strength. How could they possible assume the French Pro was a so called Pro Major if it wasn't even going to be played?!

It's really not radical but just trying to correct incorrect information.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
In the book The Art of Tennis, edited by Alan Trengove and first published in 1963/64, Segura and the other pros of the day gave short accounts of their careers (the book is more about the specific shots and tactics of the pros). Segura doesn't mention any US pro wins there, but states instead, that two of his biggest wins were at age 36 in a grass court Sydney tournament, which he won over Gonzalez (in 5 sets) and Sedgman. And a year later in a round robin in California, which he won over Rosewall. Looking for references at McCauley, the first event must be, what is billed there as Australian pro at Sydney, 1957, Febr. 6-10. The second must be the Masters Round Robin played at Los Angeles (on cement i think) in 1958, Jun 28-July 6. Segura won that round robin over all top pros with an overall score of 6-0.
Going by the (often cited here) contemporary lens of 1963, Segura does seem to rate those two events as de facto pro majors, certainly as his two biggest wins on the pro tour.
My intuition tells me that this leads to a notion of importance depending on quality of opponent beaten, given that pro tennis was in haphazard limbo. Given the exclusivity of the pro tour, this lends itself to the idea of a narrow band of importance for the vast majority of events, ergo: typically not many "important" NOR "unimportant" tournaments.

Here is the post by Krosero that Urban is discussing.


Even Wembley and the French Pro really wasn't played that often. The French Pro wasn't played from 1940 to 1952, possibly played in 1953, was not played in 1954, 1955 and 1957 and possibly played in 1956. Wembley wasn't played from 1940 to 1948, not held in 1954, 1955 and then played until as late as 1971. It was not played from 1972 to 1975 and played from 1976 to 1990.

So in this way, considering the lack of a fixed schedule every day you really cannot equate the Old Pro Tour "Important Tournaments" with the Classic Open Majors of today. I think more importance should be focused on how many years did the player in question dominated and was number one. The World Championhips Tours was generally played every year from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s. I believe this is of more substance by a large amount over the Important Tournaments of the Old Pro Tour.

Counting these "Important Tournaments" as equivalent to majors doesn't make sense now to me. I used to think it was okay but not anymore when I examine the huge differences.

This doesn't take away from the greatness of players like Laver or Gonzalez but we just have to look at other tournaments plus the World Championship Tours and their overall dominance through their long tenure as the best player in the world.
Sexy purple text:

I've thought about that a lot and think it's the metric that most simply transcends and adjoins all of tennis history. Assumptions still have to be made, however, to the extent that it would be a struggle to give the #1 player in tennis from the pro tour the same level of validity as I'd give aYE#1 player today, because there were split tours and that means we can only imagine how the story would have unfolded with the true full tennis field. It still depends on supposition because the bifurcation of tennis lead to two different paths of concurrent evolution.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
My intuition tells me that this leads to a notion of importance depending on quality of opponent beaten, given that pro tennis was in haphazard limbo. Given the exclusivity of the pro tour, this lends itself to the idea of a narrow band of importance for the vast majority of events, ergo: typically not many "important" NOR "unimportant" tournaments.



Sexy purple text:

I've thought about that a lot and think it's the metric that most simply transcends and adjoins all of tennis history. Assumptions still have to be made, however, to the extent that it would be a struggle to give the #1 player in tennis from the pro tour the same level of validity as I'd give aYE#1 player today, because there were split tours and that means we can only imagine how the story would have unfolded with the true full tennis field. It still depends on supposition because the bifurcation of tennis lead to two different paths of concurrent evolution.
Yes I agree of course. Laver is the so to speak "control" if we use scientific terms here. Laver was clearly the dominant pro for the years 1963-1967. He may not have been number one all those years but over the period of time he was number one. So when the Open Era started in 1968 Laver was number one arguably from 1968 to 1970. So the data indicates that perhaps Laver would have been number one in the years previous to that since he was number one on the Old Pro Tour for a few years. Laver was arguably a superior player when he was on the Old Pro Tour than he was when the Open Era began. He was younger and he didn't have that nagging wrist injury he suffered in 1968 that troubled him for the rest of his career.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
@pc1

Yes, I think it's likely Laver, Rosewall, and to some extent, Gonzales, would have enjoyed dominance regardless; though the field would have adjusted faster I believe instead of languishing in relative mediocrity. With it, those guys might have become even better players than they were and the evolution of the game might have been hastened. I don't know, though. Perhaps the exclusive fine tuning done in the pro ranks lead to an equally profitable improvement. It's hard to know exactly how Emerson would have responded to the challenge though I imagine he'd have been good enough to help eat a little bit into the dominance of the Big Two of that era, so to speak. Regardless, that didn't happen. Because it didn't happen we have to suppose, but at the same time I think we'll come to solid agreements on those suppositions and I think we all acknowledge who the best players in the world were for the years in question.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
@pc1

Yes, I think it's likely Laver, Rosewall, and to some extent, Gonzales, would have enjoyed dominance regardless; though the field would have adjusted faster I believe instead of languishing in relative mediocrity. With it, those guys might have become even better players than they were and the evolution of the game might have been hastened. I don't know, though. Perhaps the exclusive fine tuning done in the pro ranks lead to an equally profitable improvement. It's hard to know exactly how Emerson would have responded to the challenge though I imagine he'd have been good enough to help eat a little bit into the dominance of the Big Two of that era, so to speak. Regardless, that didn't happen. Because it didn't happen we have to suppose, but at the same time I think we'll come to solid agreements on those suppositions and I think we all acknowledge who the best players in the world were for the years in question.
Agreed.

I am suggesting we redefine the terms to avoid the confusion which I believe I am greatly responsible for. None of this lowers the achievements of any greats. Their achievements are still there. I just think mixing the poor term of Pro Majors with regular Majors like Wimbledon is horrible and confusing to the casual fan. By doing this and mixing them together you are saying the so called Pro Majors are the same level as regular Majors and that's just plain wrong.

Now if we use Rosewall as an example we don't have him at 23 majors (15 Pro and 8 classic) anymore but just at 8 majors. However we also have Rosewall winning an incredible at least 50 important tournaments. That is awesome.
 

urban

Legend
If we compare eras, we will always go into apories, no matter how thoughtfully we evaluate all the stats. To compare Federer and Gonzalez in a direct way, is almost impossible. All i know, is that a margin of 18-2 between those two giants is absurd. Look for a moment, if Fed would have gone into the wilderness after winning Wim in 2003 and would come back to the limelight in 2021 or so. Maybe he will win some majors even then in the 2020s, who knows. On the other hand Fed could not win any World Series hth tours against Nadal or Djokovic, because they don't exist anymore. In that department Gonzalez "leads" Fed by 7 or 8 to none. And even if you look in closer spans, it gets tricky. Gonzalez won more World series than anyone, Laver could not win many World Series (because of non-existence), but won more tourneys, so even on the old pro tour the structure changed dramatically within 20 years. On the other hand those old pros played a lot of tennis high class tennis matches, as Tennis Base, Sutter, McCauley, Andrew Tas, Krosero have dug out. And this bulk of really played matches is imo the best factual basis to get a starting point. The best formula for evaluation is still to be found. I like the tennis base approach to use some flexible parameters, to look at overall records, hth records of the best players, surface diversity, weekly or monthly or half- yearly rankings (as close as possible) like tennis base and slasher did. Not that i agree completely with all the stats and evaluations there, but its a good basis for further discussions.
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Yes I agree of course. Laver is the so to speak "control" if we use scientific terms here. Laver was clearly the dominant pro for the years 1963-1967. He may not have been number one all those years but over the period of time he was number one. So when the Open Era started in 1968 Laver was number one arguably from 1968 to 1970. So the data indicates that perhaps Laver would have been number one in the years previous to that since he was number one on the Old Pro Tour for a few years. Laver was arguably a superior player when he was on the Old Pro Tour than he was when the Open Era began. He was younger and he didn't have that nagging wrist injury he suffered in 1968 that troubled him for the rest of his career.
A couple small disagreements. Using the word "arguably" means that whatever comes next is by no means agreed to by many people. We already have disputes for '64, and '63 clearly was not Laver's year. Whereas '65 to '69 meets your 5 year peak and is enough to set a period of clear dominance.

What you mean is that Laver was the most famous dominant player in the much of the 60s and so is the man we probably use as a yardstick, much like Fed.

Note that Fed was not #1 for the year before 2005, so he had four years, not five.

When you suggest that Laver was clearly the gold standard from as early as '63, you are rewriting history through the modern lens.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
A couple small disagreements. Using the word "arguably" means that whatever comes next is by no means agreed to by many people. We already have disputes for '64, and '63 clearly was not Laver's year. Whereas '65 to '69 meets your 5 year peak and is enough to set a period of clear dominance.

What you mean is that Laver was the most famous dominant player in the much of the 60s and so is the man we probably use as a yardstick, much like Fed.

Note that Fed was not #1 for the year before 2005, so he had four years, not five.

When you suggest that Laver was clearly the gold standard from as early as '63, you are rewriting history through the modern lens.
Gary,

Rosewall was number one in 1963 and arguably 1964. I meant for the five years from 1963 to 1967 if you add it up Laver had the best record. There was no rewriting. I used those years to show how many years Laver was on the Old Pro Tour.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Gary,

Rosewall was number one in 1963 and arguably 1964. I meant for the five years from 1963 to 1967 if you add it up Laver had the best record. There was no rewriting. I used those years to show how many years Laver was on the Old Pro Tour.
"Rewriting" is that the moment you used 1963-1970, other people who are Laver fanatics will immediately take that as your agreeing with the idea that he was clearly the best player for all those years.

I know you are not saying that.

Perhaps you missed Dan Lobb's insistence that he would make Laver the #1 seed in '63 at Wimbledon in an alternate reality where open tennis began earlier.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
"Rewriting" is that the moment you used 1963-1970, other people who are Laver fanatics will immediately take that as your agreeing with the idea that he was clearly the best player for all those years.

I know you are not saying that.

Perhaps you missed Dan Lobb's insistence that he would make Laver the #1 seed in '63 at Wimbledon in an alternate reality where open tennis began earlier.
When did I use 1963 to 1970?
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
When you suggest that Laver was clearly the gold standard from as early as '63, you are rewriting history through the modern lens.
I would argue that Laver was not no. 1 for 1963.

But I would also argue that when a modern lens is better informed, more complete, and thus more accurate, history should be rewritten.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
"Rewriting" is that the moment you used 1963-1970, other people who are Laver fanatics will immediately take that as your agreeing with the idea that he was clearly the best player for all those years.

I know you are not saying that.

Perhaps you missed Dan Lobb's insistence that he would make Laver the #1 seed in '63 at Wimbledon in an alternate reality where open tennis began earlier.
Gary,

You should read my fourth sentence in the post you quoted.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
@Gary Duane

Yes I agree of course. Laver is the so to speak "control" if we use scientific terms here. Laver was clearly the dominant pro for the years 1963-1967. He may not have been number one all those years but over the period of time he was number one. So when the Open Era started in 1968 Laver was number one arguably from 1968 to 1970. So the data indicates that perhaps Laver would have been number one in the years previous to that since he was number one on the Old Pro Tour for a few years. Laver was arguably a superior player when he was on the Old Pro Tour than he was when the Open Era began. He was younger and he didn't have that nagging wrist injury he suffered in 1968 that troubled him for the rest of his career.
Check the fourth sentence Gary. Also note I wrote 1968 to 1970 with the word arguably in there.

You realize this has nothing to do with Rosewall but to point out how Laver was number one on the Old Pro Tour and how well he did when Open Tennis started. This may prove the strength of the Old Pro Tour was my thought.

 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Gary,

You should read my fourth sentence in the post you quoted.
Here is what I was getting at:
Yes I agree of course. Laver is the so to speak "control" if we use scientific terms here. Laver was clearly the dominant pro for the years 1963-1967. He may not have been number one all those years but over the period of time he was number one. So when the Open Era started in 1968 Laver was number one arguably from 1968 to 1970.
By using to 63-67 and then 68-70 the implied meaning is that Laver was the #1 player all those years. You add the word "arguably" to the 68-70 period, but I had to read very carefully to realize you were not actually saying that he was #1 in the world from 63-70.

After the incredible debates that have gone on about 64 and 70, those years will be accepted as FACTUAL number one years, all of them. Then a casual reader will add 63 and assume Laver was #1 for all those years.

That's why I don't like the word "arguably", because it is legalize for "I'm about to make a claim and state it as fact".

I don't think it is clear at all that Laver was #1 in 70, or in 64. He certainly was not in 63.

What I said and what I'm repeating here is that there are several posters here who are ready to seize upon any statement as "proof" that Laver was #1 for longer than I think is reasonable.

And I'm saying that you, if I have understood you correctly, are not saying that. ;)
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Here is what I was getting at:

By using to 63-67 and then 68-70 the implied meaning is that Laver was the #1 player all those years. You add the word "arguably" to the 68-70 period, but I had to read very carefully to realize you were not actually saying that he was #1 in the world from 63-70.

After the incredible debates that have gone on about 64 and 70, those years will be accepted as FACTUAL number one years, all of them. Then a casual reader will add 63 and assume Laver was #1 for all those years.

That's why I don't like the word "arguably", because it is legalize for "I'm about to make a claim and state it as fact".

I don't think it is clear at all that Laver was #1 in 70, or in 64. He certainly was not in 63.

What I said and what I'm repeating here is that there are several posters here who are ready to seize upon any statement as "proof" that Laver was #1 for longer than I think is reasonable.

And I'm saying that you, if I have understood you correctly, are not saying that. ;)
I wasn't saying that. I was showing how Laver was number one on the Old Pro Tour and I was pointing how he did well in Open Tennis so we can possibly think that guys like Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad, Kramer may have accomplished a lot in Open Tennis if they played it earlier.

You realize how far off track this is from the topic and my point. :eek:
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I would argue that Laver was not no. 1 for 1963.

But I would also argue that when a modern lens is better informed, more complete, and thus more accurate, history should be rewritten.
Laver was not #1 in 63.

64 has been debated for months, with no consensus.

70 has been greatly debated, without consensus.

If we give Laver 65-69, that's five solid years, one more year than Fed was able to put together. He only had 2004 through 2007.

Staying at the absolute peak of tennis for more than five years is nearly impossible, and examining tennis since the beginning of the open era makes that very clear. Sampras's 6 #1 rankings at year end from the ATP I believe is a record, so six years for Laver and Gonzalez would be phenomenal.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
There were no Majors on the old Pro Tour. There were significant tournaments or important tournaments but no Slams or Majors.

If this lowers your estimation of what Laver or Gonzales or X accomplished, then so be it. I believe that they still accomplished what they accomplished.

Once these accomplishments are explained, they will still have the respect of all.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Laver was not #1 in 63.
I agree.
70 has been greatly debated, without consensus.
1970 has been pretty much settled. Go here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/1970-an-almost-complete-picture.580228/
What remains to do for 1970 is merely to append a few details; the verdict is, as they say, a forgone conclusion.

On the other hand if for consensus, we are waiting for the VVVV to agree, then death will come to us sooner (or to him).

Staying at the absolute peak of tennis for more than five years is nearly impossible, and examining tennis since the beginning of the open era makes that very clear. Sampras's 6 #1 rankings at year end from the ATP I believe is a record, so six years for Laver and Gonzalez would be phenomenal.
Yes. But, in addition to "phenomenal," I would also call it GOATworthy and correct.

(And maybe Tilden 1920-1925?)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I wasn't saying that. I was showing how Laver was number one on the Old Pro Tour and I was pointing how he did well in Open Tennis so we can possibly think that guys like Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad, Kramer may have accomplished a lot in Open Tennis if they played it earlier.

You realize how far off track this is from the topic and my point. :eek:
I wanted you to clarify that, not for me, but for other people.

I'm 100% in agreement that the other guys you mentioned would have been superb in open tennis. I think you are using Laver as an example of what a top player in the pro era could do in the open era because he made the transition and utterly dominated open tennis in 1969.

If I'm right I was never confused, only pointing out that the moment you are not very precise here other people will take comments and use them to make absurd talking points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I agree.
1970 has been pretty much settled. Go here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/1970-an-almost-complete-picture.580228/
What remains to do for 1970 is merely to append a few details; the verdict is, as they say, a forgone conclusion.
It's absolutely not settled for me. Quoting yourself hardly points to a consensus. It simply points to your personal point of view.

I am personally divided about who was #1 that year. In this era getting to #1 without a major is nearly impossible, so the key issue is how to rate majors in 1970 in terms of importance.

For me Laver has a very good claim, but so do two other players.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Thrust, what is your reasoning on that?
Recently, the Tennis Channel had a special on the pro tour called the Barnstormers. It explained the hardships that the pros had to endure in order to make the tour successful and for them to make some money. It seems that a few years before 68, there was an agreement by the British, French and US Tennis Associations to allow the pros to play with the amateurs. The Aussies originally said they would go along with the other associations, but at the last moment led by Hopman, the Aussies vetoed the deal. Hopman hated the pro tour because they took most of his top players away from the amateur tour and made it more difficult for the Aussies to win the DC, etc.. The Barnstormers is a great tribute to the old pros and should be seen by ever tennis lover here.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Recently, the Tennis Channel had a special on the pro tour called the Barnstormers. It explained the hardships that the pros had to endure in order to make the tour successful and for them to make some money. It seems that a few years before 68, there was an agreement by the British, French and US Tennis Associations to allow the pros to play with the amateurs. The Aussies originally said they would go along with the other associations, but at the last moment led by Hopman, the Aussies vetoed the deal. Hopman hated the pro tour because they took most of his top players away from the amateur tour and made it more difficult for the Aussies to win the DC, etc.. The Barnstormers is a great tribute to the old pros and should be seen by ever tennis lover here.
I recorded Barnstormers but haven't seen it yet. Thanks.
 

timnz

Legend
Laver was not #1 in 63.

64 has been debated for months, with no consensus.

70 has been greatly debated, without consensus.

If we give Laver 65-69, that's five solid years, one more year than Fed was able to put together. He only had 2004 through 2007.

Staying at the absolute peak of tennis for more than five years is nearly impossible, and examining tennis since the beginning of the open era makes that very clear. Sampras's 6 #1 rankings at year end from the ATP I believe is a record, so six years for Laver and Gonzalez would be phenomenal.
You are forgetting 2009 for Federer
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Wembley also went through some changes and different designations. I cite here Lance Tingay, who is always very precise about the right designations: "In 1951 the event was officialy recognised by the British Lawn Tennis Association and renamed the London Indoor Professional Championships. It became arguably the leading event on the professional calendar" (The Guiness Book of Tennis. Facts and Feats, London 1983, p. 220). It was not held 1954 and 1955. In 1968, it was named Kramer Tournament of Champions, 1969-1971 it became the British Covered Court Champs, 1976-1981 the Benson and Hedges Tournament.
Tingay also gave the prize money for the winners:1951-1953 it was 350 Pound for the winner, 1957 425 Pound, 1958-1967 1000 Pound for the winner. That also shows, that the Wimbledon pro 1967 had enormous prize money for the time.
I do not see any press reports of the 1968 Wembley event referred to as Jack Kramer's TOC, just "indoor professional championships at Wembley", the traditional designation. Is there a press report showing otherwise?
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
I do not see any press reports of the 1968 Wembley event referred to as Jack Kramer's TOC, just "indoor professional championships at Wembley", the traditional designation. Is there a press report showing otherwise?
I do believe that the 68 Wembley was arranged by Kramer, as was the French Tournament. As to what the official name of both tournaments was, I do not know.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I have just found a copy of the program for that 1968 Wembley event, and it clearly states "Jack Kramer Tournament of Champions".
However, the press did not seem to pick up on that, and simply called it "the indoor professional championships at Wembley".
 

urban

Legend
At Wembley in 1968, there were actually 3 pro tennis events. In spring in a NTL event, Laver beat Rosewall pretty badly in 3 straight sets. Then the BBC 2 event was played in April i think, where Laver again beat Rosewall in 2 sets. This event was billed as "World Professional Tennis Championshpis" and transmitted on tv as first ever pro tennis event to Germany. First time i actually saw those mythical, so long hidden pro players on tv. The Kramer event in autumn was a combined NTL/WCT event and so called by the trustful Lance Tingay, who makes no errors in those questions, also so billed in the 1968 World of Tennis yearbook. I saw pictures of Kramer in a line with those pros present. Kramer at that time was no longer the regular boss of the pros, that were McCall and Hunt. He was still operating as the organizer of the very important open Los Angeles South West Pacific event. Maybe he still had the copyright on it and brought the bill Tournament of Champions with him to London. Nevertheless, I don't see it as a direct follower of the TOC, which were played at Forest Hills 1957-1959.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
At Wembley in 1968, there were actually 3 pro tennis events. In spring in a NTL event, Laver beat Rosewall pretty badly in 3 straight sets. Then the BBC 2 event was played in April i think, where Laver again beat Rosewall in 2 sets. This event was billed as "World Professional Tennis Championshpis" and transmitted on tv as first ever pro tennis event to Germany. First time i actually saw those mythical, so long hidden pro players on tv. The Kramer event in autumn was a combined NTL/WCT event and so called by the trustful Lance Tingay, who makes no errors in those questions, also so billed in the 1968 World of Tennis yearbook. I saw pictures of Kramer in a line with those pros present. Kramer at that time was no longer the regular boss of the pros, that were McCall and Hunt. He was still operating as the organizer of the very important open Los Angeles South West Pacific event. Maybe he still had the copyright on it and brought the bill Tournament of Champions with him to London. Nevertheless, I don't see it as a direct follower of the TOC, which were played at Forest Hills 1957-1959.
Agree with all you say. But I was puzzled as to why the press did not pick up on the event title in the published program "Jack Kramer's Tournament of Champions". The press just ignored that title and instead called it "the indoor professional championships at Wembley", as if it should be the successor to the historic world indoor pro championships that were held in the fifties and sixties at Wembley.

I guess it just shows the lack of regularity in the old pro tour. And, no, this 1968 event could not be compared with the great old TOC events of the late fifties, which featured strong fields and large crowds and big outdoor stadiums on grass and big money., bigger money than this 1968 event.
 
Top