Important Events aka Major Events on the Old Pro Tour

thrust

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.
There was a Wembley tournament in 68 in which Rosewall beat Newcombe in the final. There was also a tournament in Paris, RG, in which Laver beat Newcombe in the final. I am pretty sure both were organized by Kramer.
 

urban

Legend
That the TOCs in the 50s had better prize money, is wrong. Wembley KTOC 1968 as successor of the London pro event had very good prize money and a very good draw of 16. Rosewall got 5000 British pounds for his win, his 6th Wembley win. In the next years the event was succeeded by the important open British Covered Court Championships, later Benson and Hedges tournaments with at least 32 draws. Winners included Laver (2), who won 6 Wembleys alltogether, Nastase, Connors (2), Borg and McEnroe (3).
The Roland Garros pro event in 1968 was played a week after Wimbledon on clay, and was the last French Pro. In some public statements is was billed as European Pro Championships.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
That the TOCs in the 50s had better prize money, is wrong. Wembley KTOC 1968 as successor of the London pro event had very good prize money and a very good draw of 16. Rosewall got 5000 British pounds for his win, his 6th Wembley win. In the next years the event was succeeded by the important open British Covered Court Championships, later Benson and Hedges tournaments with at least 32 draws. Winners included Laver (2), who won 6 Wembleys alltogether, Nastase, Connors (2), Borg and McEnroe (3).
The Roland Garros pro event in 1968 was played a week after Wimbledon on clay, and was the last French Pro. In some public statements is was billed as European Pro Championships.
That final RG Pro had a very strong field, Newk outlasted Rosewall but lost the final to Laver.
The 1968 Wembley TOC had a total purse of 20,000 pounds, but the Forest Hills TOC in the late fifties had national broadcast contracts, which fetched huge amounts of cash for the tour.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
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.
It seems clear from the pro player memoirs referring to that old pro era that the top pros did not make any attempt to win a Grand Slam of major pro events. They routinely avoided some of them if it was inconvenient to travel. Rosewall in 1963 and Laver in 1967 did not even mention winning a pro Grand Slam, which they surely would have done if the term had been current in those days.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
That the TOCs in the 50s had better prize money, is wrong. Wembley KTOC 1968 as successor of the London pro event had very good prize money and a very good draw of 16. Rosewall got 5000 British pounds for his win, his 6th Wembley win. In the next years the event was succeeded by the important open British Covered Court Championships, later Benson and Hedges tournaments with at least 32 draws. Winners included Laver (2), who won 6 Wembleys alltogether, Nastase, Connors (2), Borg and McEnroe (3).
The Roland Garros pro event in 1968 was played a week after Wimbledon on clay, and was the last French Pro. In some public statements is was billed as European Pro Championships.
The Forest Hills TOC and the Australian TOC had better prize money than Cleveland or Wembley in the late fifties.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
That the TOCs in the 50s had better prize money, is wrong. Wembley KTOC 1968 as successor of the London pro event had very good prize money and a very good draw of 16. Rosewall got 5000 British pounds for his win, his 6th Wembley win. In the next years the event was succeeded by the important open British Covered Court Championships, later Benson and Hedges tournaments with at least 32 draws. Winners included Laver (2), who won 6 Wembleys alltogether, Nastase, Connors (2), Borg and McEnroe (3).
The Roland Garros pro event in 1968 was played a week after Wimbledon on clay, and was the last French Pro. In some public statements is was billed as European Pro Championships.
The biggest money events on the old pro tour usually were related to either a well-heeled sponsor or to a national television broadcast.
That would mean Forest Hills TOC with a national television broadcast contract with CBS Sports, Wembley and Roland Garros with their own broadcasts, The 1967 Wimbledon Pro colour broadcast on the BBC Television, which was the first tennis televised in colour in Britain, the 1965 CBS Dallas tournament with a record prize money at that time.

Even in the old pro era, television was becoming the basis of the best money events. The pro TV series in 1962 and 1963 offered the best money per games played of that time,
 

urban

Legend
This is certainly correct, television did also great things to the popularity of golf, especially when Arnie Palmer became a big star. Strange, that Jack Kramer, the boss of pro tennis, was reluctant with tv transmission, because he feared, it would cost paying public. What an error. The 1966 Forest Hills round robin, which had the biggest prize money up to that date with 30500 $, was also transmitted on tv. The final was filmed and delayed transmitted in the US. Wembley had BBC coverage, i don't beleive that the French pro at Coubertin had tv. I do know, that the RG French pro 1968 was transmitted, the old coverage was available for some time on internet sellers. In the mid 1970s, virtually every tennis match in the US was on tv, sometimes transmitted a year later, and this laid the foundation for the tennis boom. The WCT final 1972 had some 20 million tv onlookers.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
This is certainly correct, television did also great things to the popularity of golf, especially when Arnie Palmer became a big star. Strange, that Jack Kramer, the boss of pro tennis, was reluctant with tv transmission, because he feared, it would cost paying public. What an error. The 1966 Forest Hills round robin, which had the biggest prize money up to that date with 30500 $, was also transmitted on tv. The final was filmed and delayed transmitted in the US. Wembley had BBC coverage, i don't beleive that the French pro at Coubertin had tv. I do know, that the RG French pro 1968 was transmitted, the old coverage was available for some time on internet sellers. In the mid 1970s, virtually every tennis match in the US was on tv, sometimes transmitted a year later, and this laid the foundation for the tennis boom. The WCT final 1972 had some 20 million tv onlookers.
Absolutely true, although I think that the 1966 Forest Hills Pro, while it had the biggest purse of the season, had only a regional television broadcast. Still, that in itself was important to the success of the event.
And Cleveland had a local television broadcast on the Cleveland CBS affiliate, which was important for the purse at that locale. L.A. Masters was televised locally in L.A., which was a big market in itself.

Even in this old pro era, television was a make-or-break necessity for the big pro tournaments. The pros could not play at Forest Hills without television, the 1963 event at Forest Hills failed financially because there was no television contract.

I suspect that the Forest Hills TOC for 1960 was cancelled because CBS apparently pulled the plug, Kramer had blacked out the New York area for the 1959 broadcast. The 1957 and probably 1958 broadcasts were not blacked out for NY, which would make a big difference for ad revenue for CBS. I am guessing that the 1959 blackout was not good for CBS ad revenue, and possibly might have caused CBS to pull out for 1960. A national sports broadcast on network television in that era was very lucrative. The pro football broadcasts gave out $125,000 per game in 1959, so those three broadcasts from Forest Hills TOC must have contributed a pile of money to the tour.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
This is certainly correct, television did also great things to the popularity of golf, especially when Arnie Palmer became a big star. Strange, that Jack Kramer, the boss of pro tennis, was reluctant with tv transmission, because he feared, it would cost paying public. What an error. The 1966 Forest Hills round robin, which had the biggest prize money up to that date with 30500 $, was also transmitted on tv. The final was filmed and delayed transmitted in the US. Wembley had BBC coverage, i don't beleive that the French pro at Coubertin had tv. I do know, that the RG French pro 1968 was transmitted, the old coverage was available for some time on internet sellers. In the mid 1970s, virtually every tennis match in the US was on tv, sometimes transmitted a year later, and this laid the foundation for the tennis boom. The WCT final 1972 had some 20 million tv onlookers.
Amateur tennis also benefited from television, the 1955 Davis Cup final at Forest Hills was the first time that tennis was broadcast in color. The national audience on TV was 9 million for the Hoad/Trabert match. That was huge for 1955, when television was still in its infancy as a mass consumer item.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Just to follow on from this assessment of the importance of television for the old pro game, I would suggest that the truly important old pro tournaments were those which had substantial television contracts, which translated directly into big money, not necessarily for the players themselves, but for the tour itself, providing a fund to satisfy the requirements of the player contract guarantees.

So I would suggest that the real old pro majors were those with LIVE national broadcasts, which paid the biggest money for television rights, which means Forest Hills TOC in 1957, 1958, and 1959, which had three national broadcasts for each tournament year, plus Wimbledon Pro in 1967, which had BBC colour coverage nationally in Britain and a record payday for the pros who played.

That makes four altogether. There was some national BBC coverage for Wembley, but that broadcast money did not go to the pro players themselves, just the organizers of the Wembley event. And the television coverage consisted largely of brief highlights shown on a delayed basis.

Other tournaments had local TV coverage, like L.A. Masters (which was a large local market) and Cleveland (the money there went to the local promoter, not to the pro tour). Forest Hills 1966 had delayed filmed broadcasts in a series, as did 1965 CBS Dallas, which was filmed and then broadcast one match at a time as a weekly series.

There were other fine tournaments, but they were played behind closed doors.
 

urban

Legend
Prize money is also a big factor. Money for tournaments, individual money winning for the year. Two examples. I recently found a program for the Wembley spring event 1968 (2.5-7.5. 1968). It had 8000 British pounds prize money. And i found a newspaper drawing of Phil Bissell of June 1965, which states that Laver was the leading money winner on the US tour with 23000 $:
www.artsy.net/artwork/charles-phil-bissell-rod-laver
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Prize money is also a big factor. Money for tournaments, individual money winning for the year. Two examples. I recently found a program for the Wembley spring event 1968 (2.5-7.5. 1968). It had 8000 British pounds prize money. And i found a newspaper drawing of Phil Bissell of June 1965, which states that Laver was the leading money winner on the US tour with 23000 $:
www.artsy.net/artwork/charles-phil-bissell-rod-laver
Prize money at Wembley in the 1950's and first half of the 1960's was GBP1,000 or US$2,800. That is not a great sum, actually below the contemporary Forest Hills TOC which was 1st prize money of US$3,000, and the Kooyong TOC first prize money was AUSP2,500 or US$5,600. The Kooyong first prize is exactly twice as much as the Wembley first prize.
But total money for those TOC events would be huge, the networks paid over US$100,000 per national sports broadcast, and there were three national broadcasts on CBS for each Forest Hills TOC event. That big broadcast money went into the Tennis Inc. fund to support the tour in the form of contract guarantees.
In the mid 1960's the top pros were making less money than the top amateurs, if you double that mid-1965 number for Laver to the full year it would be about US$4,600, about the same as Rosewall made in 1960 and again in 1964. The amateurs easily made more than that, Emerson turned down a two-year US$80,000 offer from Laver and Rosewall in 1964, and Emerson turned down a US$100,000 offer in 1967.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Thats not correct. Please don't write wrong things again and again. They don't become true due to iteration. We have exact numbers of the pure prize money (excluding guaranties, endorsement money, appearance money and special gifts). Laver was the leading prize money winner for 1963 with 60000$, 1964 with 57000$ and 1965 with 65000$, in 1966 close to 70000$ and 72000$ in 1967. Thats only pure prize money.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Just looking at the Australian first prize moneys in the late 1950's, which were about twice the level of the Wembley first prizes, makes me think that we should include them in the mix of major tournaments.

So I make it as follows, legitimate elite majors in the old pro/am era,

1) Any amateur Wimbledon or Forest Hills championship
This was the necessary stepping-stone to a pro career

2) Forest Hills TOC 1957, 1958, 1959
The most prominent of pro tournaments, good prize money, national live television broadcast in U.S., backbone of the tour funding for contract guarantees.

3) Kooyong and White City TOC and White City Masters (1958)
1958 Kooyong TOC and White City Masters had the biggest money prizes of the late 1950's.

4) Wimbledon Pro 1967
The biggest prize money of the old pro era. BBC television coverage in colour.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Prize money is also a big factor. Money for tournaments, individual money winning for the year. Two examples. I recently found a program for the Wembley spring event 1968 (2.5-7.5. 1968). It had 8000 British pounds prize money. And i found a newspaper drawing of Phil Bissell of June 1965, which states that Laver was the leading money winner on the US tour with 23000 $:
www.artsy.net/artwork/charles-phil-bissell-rod-laver
In 1960 Rosewall led the money list with $45,000, and in 1963 Rosewall was second in the money LIST with the same figure $45,000.
Laver's $60,000 figure included an extra percentage of the GATE given to him for the Australian tour in January, which Hoad provided to Laver from Hoad's own percentage.
That was to help reduce Laver's guarantee requirements going forward. That is not prize money at all. There is a difference between gate percentage and prize money.
Prize money is awarded for performance in a tournament or tour based on wins and losses. Gate money is a share of returns for ticket sales, not related to prize money.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Thats not correct. Please don't write wrong things again and again. They don't become true due to iteration. We have exact numbers of the pure prize money (excluding guaranties, endorsement money, appearance money and special gifts). Laver was the leading prize money winner for 1963 with 60000$, 1964 with 57000$ and 1965 with 65000$, in 1966 close to 70000$ and 72000$ in 1967. Thats only pure prize money.
The pros had to pay income tax on their earnings, whereas the amateurs were paid with money gifts, freewill non-contractual payments which were not subject to income tax.
Income tax rates in the 1960's were high compared to our own pre-Biden income tax rates.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Thats not correct. Please don't write wrong things again and again. They don't become true due to iteration. We have exact numbers of the pure prize money (excluding guaranties, endorsement money, appearance money and special gifts). Laver was the leading prize money winner for 1963 with 60000$, 1964 with 57000$ and 1965 with 65000$, in 1966 close to 70000$ and 72000$ in 1967. Thats only pure prize money.
Here is a contemporary source from 1965 claiming that Laver made $50,000 in 1963 and $40,000 in 1964.
If true, that 1964 figure of $40,000 is well below Emerson's take for that year.
Perhaps the 1965 report deducts travelling and living costs from the prize money won. The amateurs, of course, were provided with free travel and living expenses. When they played at a hotel resort, they lived at the hotels. Nice life.

 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
I am tired to engage in those cycles of useless discussions. You know, that Laver wrote in his own books, that he surpassed his guarantee of 110000$, before his second pro year 1964 ended. The sums i mentioned can be found with all contemporary sources and with dollars and cents in the thread Structure of the old pro tour. Laver was the first who surpassed 1 million $ in prize money alone in late 1971 (the sum was given in many widely publicized arrticles and books with dollars and cents and had 1 million and 6 thousand and some cents). He won 292000 in 1971, 201000 in 1970, 123000 in 1969, 70000 in 1968 (i am to lazy to give the cent numbers here). Between 1963 and 1967, he won 320000$. In 1963 60000 (source New York Herald from Jan 1964), in 1964 57000$ (source by Kramer provided by Scott tennis in the mentioned thread), in 1965 65000$ plus cents (source New York Times article of 1975). So for 1966 and 1967 remain ca. 140000$, a bit under 70000 in 1966, a bit over in 1967. In the years 1963-1967, Laver won on average 64000$ per year in prize money.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I am tired to engage in those cycles of useless discussions. You know, that Laver wrote in his own books, that he surpassed his guarantee of 110000$, before his second pro year 1964 ended. The sums i mentioned can be found with all contemporary sources and with dollars and cents in the thread Structure of the old pro tour. Laver was the first who surpassed 1 million $ in prize money alone in late 1971 (the sum was given in many widely publicized arrticles and books with dollars and cents and had 1 million and 6 thousand and some cents). He won 292000 in 1971, 201000 in 1970, 123000 in 1969, 70000 in 1968 (i am to lazy to give the cent numbers here). Between 1963 and 1967, he won 320000$. In 1963 60000 (source New York Herald from Jan 1964), in 1964 57000$ (source by Kramer provided by Scott tennis in the mentioned thread), in 1965 65000$ plus cents (source New York Times article of 1975). So for 1966 and 1967 remain ca. 140000$, a bit under 70000 in 1966, a bit over in 1967. In the years 1963-1967, Laver won on average 64000$ per year in prize money.
Well, not exactly prize money, that would include some percentages of gate for the 1963 Australian tour. Rosewall made $45,000 for 1963, a year which he dominated on the tennis court. I suspect that the lower figures in the TIME magazine article above may reflect NET returns after expenses for travel and living costs, possibly also after tax payments. Emerson, ,of course, did not have to pay expenses for travel and hotel stays, nor did he have to pay income tax on gifts of money. Emerson turned down an $80,000 contract offer in 1964 for two years, and a $100,000 two year offer in 1967, claiming that he was getting more than that as an amateur. Some of your numbers above are in the Open era, which is not relevant to our discussion here about the split era.
 

urban

Legend
For those, who are interested in tennis history facts, not in myth-building, i recommend some new youtube clips. They are from two Rod Laver matches of 1967 and 1968, and show grass court tennis at the US Pro Championships at Longwood, Chestnut Hill, Boston. This are color film clips from close to the baseline, no tv footage. One is from the 1968 final between Laver and Newcombe (6-4, 6-4, 9-7), the other from the semi of 1967 between Laver and Stolle (4-6, 6-2, 6-3). The US Pro, when played at Boston, was certainly a big (major or very important) event on the pro tour. In 1967, Laver the defending US pro champ faced the reigning US amateur champ Stolle. Stolle was a tall and lanky player, but had an elegant, nonchalant style of play with big serves and fine soft hands at the net. The grass in 1967 is awful, and Laver is wearing spike. The 1968 version of the US pro was the last on that bad grass, since 1969 they played on synthetic surface, later on har tru. Newk in 1968 shows his dynamic power, but also a clever mixture of lobs and dinks. Lavers backhand in the Newk match shows great variety, underspin, topspin, even sidespin, what you want, you get.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LHhwh7Qr64

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqYD2nBTT7o
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
For those, who are interested in tennis history facts, not in myth-building, i recommend some new youtube clips. They are from two Rod Laver matches of 1967 and 1968, and show grass court tennis at the US Pro Championships at Longwood, Chestnut Hill, Boston. This are color film clips from close to the baseline, no tv footage. One is from the 1968 final between Laver and Newcombe (6-4, 6-4, 9-7), the other from the semi of 1967 between Laver and Stolle (4-6, 6-2, 6-3). The US Pro, when played at Boston, was certainly a big (major or very important) event on the pro tour. In 1967, Laver the defending US pro champ faced the reigning US amateur champ Stolle. Stolle was a tall and lanky player, but had an elegant, nonchalant style of play with big serves and fine soft hands at the net. The grass in 1967 is awful, and Laver is wearing spike. The 1968 version of the US pro was the last on that bad grass, since 1969 they played on synthetic surface, later on har tru. Newk in 1968 shows his dynamic power, but also a clever mixture of lobs and dinks. Lavers backhand in the Newk match shows great variety, underspin, topspin, even sidespin, what you want, you get.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LHhwh7Qr64

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqYD2nBTT7o
Good footage. Interesting that when they moved to synthetic in 1969 it coincided with the loss of status of this tournament. My guess is that if they had staryed with grass, the tournament status would have been maintained.
Here are Laver and Stolle in 1967 at Wimbledon Pro, followed by footage of two players who are strangers to me....does anyone recognize them?
Better in full screen.


 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I am tired to engage in those cycles of useless discussions. You know, that Laver wrote in his own books, that he surpassed his guarantee of 110000$, before his second pro year 1964 ended. The sums i mentioned can be found with all contemporary sources and with dollars and cents in the thread Structure of the old pro tour. Laver was the first who surpassed 1 million $ in prize money alone in late 1971 (the sum was given in many widely publicized arrticles and books with dollars and cents and had 1 million and 6 thousand and some cents). He won 292000 in 1971, 201000 in 1970, 123000 in 1969, 70000 in 1968 (i am to lazy to give the cent numbers here). Between 1963 and 1967, he won 320000$. In 1963 60000 (source New York Herald from Jan 1964), in 1964 57000$ (source by Kramer provided by Scott tennis in the mentioned thread), in 1965 65000$ plus cents (source New York Times article of 1975). So for 1966 and 1967 remain ca. 140000$, a bit under 70000 in 1966, a bit over in 1967. In the years 1963-1967, Laver won on average 64000$ per year in prize money.
Those numbers are still below Emerson's take for the mid-1960's, which was about $75,000 per year. That would make sense for Emerson turning down Wally Dill's offer of $100,000 over two years in 1966, because 75 thou. is certainly more than 50 thou.
Emerson and Santana were certainly not amateurs, they were under contract to their respective national tennis associations as registered professionals.

Is Rex Bellamy a good enough source for you?

 

urban

Legend
Look i posted this article myself, after Santanas death. Nowhere in the article is the sum of $ 75.000 per year mentioned. There was a 200 days per year or 7 months rule intact for the amateurs, made by the ILTF to control shamateurism. Only then, in this time span, they were allowed to play for own money. In the other time, they were under the control of the national federations, to play Davis Cup etc. without any money. Santana made some 1000- 1500$ a week, but only in the weeks in smaller events, which gave some under the table appearance money. Santana did not play every week of those 7 months for smaller events. In many prime years, he focussed on Davis Cup play, not on the money. He even skipped some Roland Garros events in his prime. He had however a contract with a cigarette firm, Marlboro, like Emerson, which was allowed by the federations. But the pros also had additional contracts with cigarette firms, hotels, resorts, oil companies like BP, racket and sports companies like Dunlop or Slazenger and other companies, which were all not included in the prize money. Bellamy names correctly several of reasons, why Santana did not turn pro. Amateur tennis was a lot easier than the strenuous rigor of the pro tour with the elite competition every day.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Look i posted this article myself, after Santanas death. Nowhere in the article is the sum of $ 75.000 per year mentioned. There was a 200 days per year or 7 months rule intact for the amateurs, made by the ILTF to control shamateurism. Only then, in this time span, they were allowed to play for own money. In the other time, they were under the control of the national federations, to play Davis Cup etc. without any money. Santana made some 1000- 1500$ a week, but only in the weeks in smaller events, which gave some under the table appearance money. Santana did not play every week of those 7 months for smaller events. In many prime years, he focussed on Davis Cup play, not on the money. He even skipped some Roland Garros events in his prime. He had however a contract with a cigarette firm, Marlboro, like Emerson, which was allowed by the federations. But the pros also had additional contracts with cigarette firms, hotels, resorts, oil companies like BP, racket and sports companies like Dunlop or Slazenger and other companies, which were all not included in the prize money. Bellamy names correctly several of reasons, why Santana did not turn pro. Amateur tennis was a lot easier than the strenuous rigor of the pro tour with the elite competition every day.
There was no "under-the-table" money, it was money given as "non-contractual" or "golden handshake", the same kind of money which most people get paid as "bonus". There was nothing wrong or illegal about it. That money is not even regarded as taxable as earned income. That lack of income tax gave a further benefit to the registered players over the pros, the pros had to pay income tax.
The fact that the top registered players like Emerson and Santana were turning down $100,000 contract offers shows us where the big money was, it was not in the pro ranks. The pro managers could not afford to sign Emmo or Santana, who wanted more money to turn pro than a $100,000 offer.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Look i posted this article myself, after Santanas death. Nowhere in the article is the sum of $ 75.000 per year mentioned. There was a 200 days per year or 7 months rule intact for the amateurs, made by the ILTF to control shamateurism. Only then, in this time span, they were allowed to play for own money. In the other time, they were under the control of the national federations, to play Davis Cup etc. without any money. Santana made some 1000- 1500$ a week, but only in the weeks in smaller events, which gave some under the table appearance money. Santana did not play every week of those 7 months for smaller events. In many prime years, he focussed on Davis Cup play, not on the money. He even skipped some Roland Garros events in his prime. He had however a contract with a cigarette firm, Marlboro, like Emerson, which was allowed by the federations. But the pros also had additional contracts with cigarette firms, hotels, resorts, oil companies like BP, racket and sports companies like Dunlop or Slazenger and other companies, which were all not included in the prize money. Bellamy names correctly several of reasons, why Santana did not turn pro. Amateur tennis was a lot easier than the strenuous rigor of the pro tour with the elite competition every day.
Krishnan turned down a record offer from Kramer of $150,000 made in 1959 after Krishnan won the Queens Club tournament, beating both Olmedo and Fraser. Krishnan was registered with his national tennis association and had some sort of office job with the Indian government. The fact that Krishnan turned down such a huge guarantee shows how much money was available for the registered players.
 

urban

Legend
The term registered players only came up since 1968, when amateurs like Ashe and registered players like Okker wer separated from the contract pros. Ashe could not take the prize money at Forest Hills in 1968, while Okker could. Krishnans offer, which is reminded only by the living memory of Krishnan himself, was over 3 years, while Hoads and Lavers offers were over 2 years. Krishnan names as reasons, why he turned it down, the possiblity of playing at Wim and Davis Cup. To turn pro had the consequence, to get out of the limelight at the big stages. The amateurs had the big stages with greater publicity, coverage and public attendance. They were hosted and pampered by rich club officials, and had many prominent friends among film stars and politicians. If someone is interested in the great time and high life of amateur tennis, he should read Gordon Forbes book.
The pros had to go to second rate clubs and sports halls. Nobody cared, newspapers and tv had coverage only, when they played Wembley or New York. Some top amateurs could make a good living out of the am tour, like Patty, Drobny, Larsen, Flam or some Aussies, nobody denies that. Laver made some 12000-15000 $ in his Grand Slam year 1962, when he played some 35 tournaments, winning 22. Newcombe the top amateur made 15000$ in 1967. Emmo and Santana played some 25 events overall per year, say at the highest 15 events, where they could get 1000-1500$ appearance money, due to the 7 months rule. Maybe they were in the range of medium pros like Buchholz or Segura, but the top pros like Laver or Rosewall certainly made more money. And at least for their cigarette contracts, the amateurs had to play taxes, too, other than that would be illegal. They were not Al Capone.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The term registered players only came up since 1968, when amateurs like Ashe and registered players like Okker wer separated from the contract pros. Ashe could not take the prize money at Forest Hills in 1968, while Okker could. Krishnans offer, which is reminded only by the living memory of Krishnan himself, was over 3 years, while Hoads and Lavers offers were over 2 years. Krishnan names as reasons, why he turned it down, the possiblity of playing at Wim and Davis Cup. To turn pro had the consequence, to get out of the limelight at the big stages. The amateurs had the big stages with greater publicity, coverage and public attendance. They were hosted and pampered by rich club officials, and had many prominent friends among film stars and politicians. If someone is interested in the great time and high life of amateur tennis, he should read Gordon Forbes book.
The pros had to go to second rate clubs and sports halls. Nobody cared, newspapers and tv had coverage only, when they played Wembley or New York. Some top amateurs could make a good living out of the am tour, like Patty, Drobny, Larsen, Flam or some Aussies, nobody denies that. Laver made some 12000-15000 $ in his Grand Slam year 1962, when he played some 35 tournaments, winning 22. Newcombe the top amateur made 15000$ in 1967. Emmo and Santana played some 25 events overall per year, say at the highest 15 events, where they could get 1000-1500$ appearance money, due to the 7 months rule. Maybe they were in the range of medium pros like Buchholz or Segura, but the top pros like Laver or Rosewall certainly made more money. And at least for their cigarette contracts, the amateurs had to play taxes, too, other than that would be illegal. They were not Al Capone.
There is more than meets the eye, though. First, there was no difference between the Emerson and Santana arrangements in the 1963-1967 period and the registered pros of the 1968-72 period. Ashe in 1968 apparently was not given the opportunity to be a registered pro and collect the first prize money at the U.S. Open. The USTA was much stricter about enforcing amateur rules than the national tennis authorities in Europe and Australia or India. Those countries allowed their "amateurs" to accept bonus payments from the tournament directors, and that was enough to keep the top guys Emerson and Santana in enough greenery to turn down $100,000 offers from the pros. That was a lot of money to turn down. That means that they must have been making over $50,000 per year. That is more than the pros. Emerson stated that $100,000 over two years would be a "pay cut" for him.

Furthermore, the USTA and the Australian LTAA did not have the term "amateur" in their title, nowhere did they call themselves "amateur". Emerson claimed that amateur tennis did not even exist, he claimed to be a professional player in some 1963 interviews, and the Australian newspapers backed Emerson up on that. The LTAA did not attempt to stop Emerson and the other Aussies players from collecting bonus money from the tournaments. They accepted it. Emerson claimed that he held a professional contract with the LTAA. That is no different from the registered pros after 1968. Because most of the money that they received was in the form of bonus payments, that was not taxable as earned income, whereas the prize money the pros received was taxable as earned income.

Note that the registered pros after 1968 could play in Davis Cup, even though they collected prize money at tournaments. I presume that Stan Smith and Ile Nastase were registered pros in the 1968-1972 period, when they played for prize money and still played in Davis Cup. No different from Emerson and Santana in the mid-1960's. The era of registered pros really began in 1963, when Laver turning pro brought about a relaxation of rules allowing the Aussie players to keep some money as bonus payments.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
A video and an article on shamateurism pre 1968, which confirm the sums of 1000-1500$ for a week resp. event within the 7 months allowed:

www.facebook.com/tennischannel/videos/234119781068910/

www.wnewsj.com/sports/local-sports-1/48580/with-the-us-open-underway-a-look-at-the-end-of-shamateur-tennis
We do not really know how much Emmo and Santana received as privately paid bonuses, they did not have to report those amounts to anyone, it was private money.
Note that Ken Rosewall received only $45,000 in 1960, which was the top money for any pro that year.
Rosewall had a great year in 1963 and received the exact same amount for 1963 as in 1960, $45,000 for the year, Emmo probably received much more than that, tax-free of course.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
A video and an article on shamateurism pre 1968, which confirm the sums of 1000-1500$ for a week resp. event within the 7 months allowed:

www.facebook.com/tennischannel/videos/234119781068910/

www.wnewsj.com/sports/local-sports-1/48580/with-the-us-open-underway-a-look-at-the-end-of-shamateur-tennis
That 1000-1500 refers only to the money given to the players by the tennis associations, NOT the money given as bonus payments by the tournaments themselves. That is clearly stated in the video.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Of course it refers to the under the table payments of organizers. See also the interview with Laver from 1966, Berlin, whe he talks about sum of 400$ of appearance money.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNVPbcv_hwk
No, in the video it clearly states that the 1,000-1,500 were payments from the national associations to the players. That is separate from the bonus payments paid by the tournament directors to the players, and the bonus payments made by the racquet companies to the players who used their equipment, also referred to in the video. The bonus payments were the principal source of income for the top players like Emerson and Santana.

Laver turned pro just before the big money started rolling in for the "amateurs", as the tennis authorities reacted to Laver's signing by increasing the rewards to the top amateurs, who were not really amateurs.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
In this thread we often discussed the Wimbledon Pro event in 1967. For the significance of this event for the pro and open game see the video of the barnstormers series by Tennis Channel. In this video, in 1967 Laver calls it his biggest win.

www.petersamet.com/portfolio/barnstormers-clip-1/
"This was the biggest tournament win of my professional career." Is this quotation correct? Not clear the date when Laver made this comment.
 
I saw pictures of Kramer in a line with those pros present.


Oooh, I remember that picture...

YxFD7sm.jpg


Jack Kramer at Wembley Arena (then known as The Empire Pool). Photo is dated 15th November 1968 on Getty, but they're frequently incorrect.

If you want to play "name the pros", then going down the line from right to left we have:
Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Butch Bucholz, Fred Stolle, John Newcombe, Marty Riessen, Andres Gimeno, Tony Roche, Ray Moore, Pancho Gonzales, Niki Pilic, Ken Rosewall, and Cliff Drysdale.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Don't want to spoil with the names. Could be the Kramer tournament of Champions from Wembley 1968. One can see from the picture, that Rosewall and Laver were pretty small players, even in their own era, against people like Pilic, Gonzalez or Drysdale.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Of course it refers to the under the table payments of organizers. See also the interview with Laver from 1966, Berlin, whe he talks about sum of 400$ of appearance money.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNVPbcv_hwk
$400 for one tournament, in 1962 before the appearance bonuses began to escalate, and it appears that actual figures were involved in the discussions. And still the amateurs paid no income tax, according to Gimeno in a 1966 newspaper interview.

Laver played in many tournaments in the early 1960's, so that appearance bonus would add up.
The amateurs received much more appearance bonuses after Laver turned pro in 1963, and Emerson and Santana were the prime beneficiaries of that system.

Rosewall stated that amateur tennis was killed by "greed", meaning that the top amateurs priced themselves out of the market, it became cheaper for the tournament organizers to bring in the pros.
The shamateur system collapsed quickly in 1968 when the tournaments turned to the pros instead of continuing with the amateur stars, and Emerson was forced to turn pro to keep in the game.

The turning point was when the Wimbledon officials attended the 1966 Wembley Pro tournament and saw how good the pros were AND what they were getting paid relative to Emerson and Santana.
 
Top