Ken Rosewall had the Pro Grand Slam in 1963?

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
I was reading a Wiki article on the "Pro Grand slams" before the Open Era (Wembley, US Pro Championships, French Pro Championships), and I noticed that Ken Rosewall won all three of these "slams" in 1963. Does that count as a grand slam? If so, I would count that grandslam as more important that that of Laver's, because it was won on three different surfaces (grass at the US Pro, Wood Indoor at Wembly, and Clay at French Pro/RG).

Thoughts?
 

urban

Legend
Certainly it is a sweep of the so called pro majors. Paris however was played at Coubertin stadium on wood that year. Laver in 1967 won the same threesome, and won the only once held Wimbledon pro tournament, too.
 

8F93W5

Rookie
I was reading a Wiki article on the "Pro Grand slams" before the Open Era (Wembley, US Pro Championships, French Pro Championships), and I noticed that Ken Rosewall won all three of these "slams" in 1963. Does that count as a grand slam? If so, I would count that grandslam as more important that that of Laver's, because it was won on three different surfaces (grass at the US Pro, Wood Indoor at Wembly, and Clay at French Pro/RG).

Thoughts?

What was the size of the draw in each of those tournaments?
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Certainly it is a sweep of the so called pro majors. Paris however was played at Coubertin stadium on wood that year. Laver in 1967 won the same threesome, and won the only once held Wimbledon pro tournament, too.

oh didn't see that for that time the french was wood indoor or that Laver won in 1967 (must've skipped over that)

really? I just know what I know of those times from the board here and wiki
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
When Rosewall won the French Pro in 1963 it was also on indoor wood. It was won over Rod Laver. Laver claims in his book that it was one of the finest matches he ever played but he still lost to Rosewall after leading 4-1 in the fifth set.

Rosewall did dominated the French Pro for years when it was played on red clay at Roland Garros. In 1962 Rosewall won the French Pro at Roland Garros on red clay and the next week he won the Wembley tournament on indoor wood, perhaps the fastest of all surfaces. I believe Rosewall did this from 1960 to 1962.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I was reading a Wiki article on the "Pro Grand slams" before the Open Era (Wembley, US Pro Championships, French Pro Championships), and I noticed that Ken Rosewall won all three of these "slams" in 1963. Does that count as a grand slam? If so, I would count that grandslam as more important that that of Laver's, because it was won on three different surfaces (grass at the US Pro, Wood Indoor at Wembly, and Clay at French Pro/RG).

Thoughts?
You could say that about Laver's amateur Grand Slam of 1962, but not I think about the Open Grand Slam of 1969. Laver did the same Pro Grand Slam trick in 1967 (plus he won a Wimbledon grass pro tournament, held that year to test out the concept of pros playing at the Big W).
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I would tend to think Rosewall's Pro Grand Slam in 1963 was more impressive than Laver's Grand Slam in 1962. Incidentally Rosewall only entered two Pro Slam tournaments in 1962 so including 1961 Rosewall won seven straight Pro Majors that he entered from 1961 to 1963. He won the last two of 1961, won his only two played in 1962 and won the Pro Grand Slam in 1963.
 
Last edited:

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
If there were four Pro slams then, Rosewall's slam count would beat Fed's. Wait, he already did...

15 pro slams+everything after start of open era>16

And for a good few years he only didn't win 1 of the pro slams, similar to Federer only not winning FO for a few years
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
If there were four Pro slams then, Rosewall's slam count would beat Fed's. Wait, he already did...

15 pro slams+everything after start of open era>16

And for a good few years he only didn't win 1 of the pro slams, similar to Federer only not winning FO for a few years
And you might add Muscles amateur slam titles from the 50s.

Don't poo-poo the amateur titles too much, becuause the competition was often pretty damn tough. Remember that Hoad almost had a true amateur Grand Slam in 1956--Rosewall stopped him at the very end in the US Championships finals. (Rosewall also stopped Trabert in 1955 from the beginning of a Grand Slam, by beating Trabert in the semis of the Australian Championships. Trabert went on to win the latter three slams of 1955.)
 
Last edited:

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
And you might add Muscles amateur slam titles from the 50s.

Don't poo-poo the amateur titles too much, becuause the competition was often pretty damn tough. Remember that Hoad almost had a true amateur Grand Slam in 1956--Rosewall stopped him at the very end in the US Championships finals. (Rosewall also stopped Trabert in 1955 from the beginning of a Grand Slam, by beating Trabert in the semis of the Australian Championships. Trabert went on to win the lstter three slams of 1955.)

he'd be GOAT in any debate purely of slam titles if you count those also you know

which is good, just something most people wouldn't accept
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
he'd be GOAT in any debate purely of slam titles if you count those also you know

which is good, just something most people wouldn't accept

Just because people don't accept things doesn't mean it's not true but Pro Majors I now believe aren't as big as classic majors.
 
Last edited:

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Agreed. So Rosewall has the record of slams now with (just counting pro-slams and open-era because pre-open era non-pro are too risky to say yay or nay to): 19 slams. would have more if counted the slams before he turned pro

that's quite a number to beat! :eek:
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
I am not counting the AO, RG, or USO before the open era, which he won 4 of, so he has 19. Those are not givens, considering the competition excluded the best players of the day.
 

8F93W5

Rookie
What was the size of the draws?


Was this a little Kramer style invitational tour with just a few people (maybe four). Pre paid pro's with a contract to tour and play certain places. Was it at least 32 draw? I dont know much about these pro tournaments. I know a little about kind of events Kramer ran. Events with Riggs, Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, etc. How big were these pro tournaments? Was there a qualifying a event? How did one get in the pro's? Just be a good amateur and then quit? Is that how you qualified? Did one have to be invited by the tournament director?
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
If you went pro, you gave up playing amateur slams and played the big-boy slams. Only the best of the best did this, because it was far riskier to win. I mean, you go up against Pancho Gonzalez and you are Roy Emerson? Emerson got crushed. He probably thought he was a hotshot till he actually went head to head with Pancho

The difference between a pro and an amateur was large. Rosewall had to learn to play S&V and attack the net and not hang back at baseline (completely redefining his style of play) to compete with the pros
 

timnz

Legend
Can't agree

If you went pro, you gave up playing amateur slams and played the big-boy slams. Only the best of the best did this, because it was far riskier to win. I mean, you go up against Pancho Gonzalez and you are Roy Emerson? Emerson got crushed. He probably thought he was a hotshot till he actually went head to head with Pancho

The difference between a pro and an amateur was large. Rosewall had to learn to play S&V and attack the net and not hang back at baseline (completely redefining his style of play) to compete with the pros

Emerson was 31 when he went pro at the beginning of 1968. That year he had 10 matches against a peak Rod Laver who was the clear and dominant number 1 of the Pro's having completed the Pro Grand Slam + Pro Wimbledon the year before. Emerson beat laver that year 5 times in straight sets. Yes he did also lose to Laver 5 times - but anyone who can beat a player who some regard as the greatest of all time at their peak 5 times in one year in straight sets. Well, they can play! Emerson's problem is that he, unlike Laver and Rosewall, basically faded from form after the age of 30 (age affects all of us in different ways). That doesn't take away from how good he was before that age.

Hence, we have someone who at 31 who could beat the best player in the world 5 times in one year in straight sets. What that tells me is that amateur play was severly under-rated in the 60's.

Emerson did have wins against Pancho as well.... they are not well known though.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Emerson was 31 when he went pro at the beginning of 1968. That year he had 10 matches against a peak Rod Laver who was the clear and dominant number 1 of the Pro's having completed the Pro Grand Slam + Pro Wimbledon the year before. Emerson beat laver that year 5 times in straight sets. Yes he did also lose to Laver 5 times - but anyone who can beat a player who some regard as the greatest of all time at their peak 5 times in one year in straight sets. Well, they can play! Emerson's problem is that he, unlike Laver and Rosewall, basically faded from form after the age of 30 (age affects all of us in different ways). That doesn't take away from how good he was before that age.

Hence, we have someone who at 31 who could beat the best player in the world 5 times in one year in straight sets. What that tells me is that amateur play was severly under-rated in the 60's.

Emerson did have wins against Pancho as well.... they are not well known though.

Pancho was in his 40s and beat Emerson far more than Emerson beat Pancho
 

urban

Legend
On Roy Emerson, there is a good new interview by Steve Flink on tennis channel.com. Remember: Roy, who was always chasing the amateur GS, was one major away from winning four in a row in 1964/65, coming in at RG. Won 5 out of 8 in 1964/65. I think he lost the RG quarters to Nicola Pietrangeli in 1965. Many forget, that Sampras also had the chance to win four in a row at RG 1994.
 

DMan

Professional
I was reading a Wiki article on the "Pro Grand slams" before the Open Era (Wembley, US Pro Championships, French Pro Championships), and I noticed that Ken Rosewall won all three of these "slams" in 1963. Does that count as a grand slam?

NO!!!

Especially not if you are trying to equate it with the Grand Slam, which is, for the one millionth time, winning the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open in the same year!


If so, I would count that grandslam as more important that that of Laver's, because it was won on three different surfaces (grass at the US Pro, Wood Indoor at Wembly, and Clay at French Pro/RG).

Thoughts?

Those pro events were not much more than glorified exos. Nice wins. But they didn't mean much, other than the few pennies awarded the winners.
 

timnz

Legend
Emerson/Pancho

Pancho was in his 40s and beat Emerson far more than Emerson beat Pancho

Pancho was amazing in terms of his ability into his 40's. Emerson didn't have longevity. However, given his impressive matches against Laver in 1968 it establishes that Emerson wasn't as far behind the Pros' 1963 to 1967 as many think.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
NO!!!

Especially not if you are trying to equate it with the Grand Slam, which is, for the one millionth time, winning the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open in the same year!

I was asking if it would be the Pro Grand Slam, not if it was the conventional Grand Slam. had he completed it in 1962, it would have been more prestigous than the Grand Slam today imo, because super-slow, high-bouncing clay to indoor wood with its low and fastest bounce to grass with the slipping and falling is far harder than 4 radically similar surfaces

plus, for a long time, very few players felt the AO was worth playing. Most just skipped it


Those pro events were not much more than glorified exos. Nice wins. But they didn't mean much, other than the few pennies awarded the winners.

that was how the pros made their living. They were the most prestigious tourneys of their days, it seems. It was the amateur slams that were glorified; the top players didn't even play in them and they didn't offer money.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Pancho was amazing in terms of his ability into his 40's. Emerson didn't have longevity. However, given his impressive matches against Laver in 1968 it establishes that Emerson wasn't as far behind the Pros' 1963 to 1967 as many think.

still, the fact that Emerson would have played Pancho on the pro tour says something about the comparison of amateur slams to pro slams
 

SgtJohn

Rookie
NO!!!

Those pro events were not much more than glorified exos. Nice wins. But they didn't mean much, other than the few pennies awarded the winners.

This is ignorant. The defining characteristic of an exo is that it's not meaningful. These events were meaningful in that everybody knew who was the REAL #1 by looking at their outcome...even though the events themselves were hardly publicized.

On another note, we should really try to do a kind of FAQ post so these questions don't have to appear in a new thread time and again.

Jonathan
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
The defining characteristic of an exo is that it's not meaningful. These events were meaningful in that everybody knew who was the REAL #1 by looking at their outcome...even though the events themselves were hardly publicized.

On another note, we should really try to do a kind of FAQ post so these questions don't have to appear in a new thread time and again.

Jonathan
Jonathan, I have no doubt that the events discussed were of great importance to the players. These players were great champions with a great will to compete and win.
However I don't think a FAQ will not prevent people from asking these questions.

I think it's interesting to note how the amateur champions usually got beaten up by the Pro Champions when they first enter the Pro Ranks. If the Amateur Champion or Pro Champion lost it would often mean the end of them as a top draw so in many ways it was far more important to the players than a normal amateur major. They were literally fighting for their professional lives. Of course I'm writing about the head to head tours here.

Players like Laver, who was a super champion in the amateurs were initially beaten by Rosewall and Lew Hoad when he entered the Pros. In order to compete Laver had to raise his game to much higher levels of play. The Pro Majors were legitimate very strong tournaments with the top players in the world. The Rod Laver who won the Open Grand Slam in 1969 was in my opinion probably a stronger player than the Laver who won the Amateur Grand Slam in 1962. I believe the reason for this is because Laver had to face legends like Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez and Gimeno. Rosewall himself had in so many words mentioned how the level of play on the old Pro Tour was higher than Open tennis.

People who won Wimbledon and the US Champions like Ashley Cooper and Mal Anderson lost by a combined scored of 0-34 against Pancho Gonzalez in the late 1950's. Cooper and Anderson were dominant amateur champions and yet couldn't win one match against Gonzalez.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
he'd be GOAT in any debate purely of slam titles if you count those also you know

which is good, just something most people wouldn't accept
True. Once you say to those who state that Fed's 16 are the only metric, that Rosewall had 23, then . . . "But, but, but" as a last defense they say "Oh, but today's era is so much more competitive and tougher, ands so many more players from so many more countries are competing."

I say crapola. You're just pulling excuses outta your back pocket as fast as you can manufacture them.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
well, depends how you count them. Because 4 of the 23 were in amateur slams, I would give him 19 as those were against the real big guns, and maybe 1 or two so 21 at most
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
True. Once you say to those who state that Fed's 16 are the only metric, that Rosewall had 23, then . . . "But, but, but" as a last defense they say "Oh, but today's era is so much more competitive and tougher, ands so many more players from so many more countries are competing."

I say crapola. You're just pulling excuses outta your back pocket as fast as you can manufacture them.

Honestly while 16 majors is an excellent number, it's really very breakable considering Open Tennis has been around for only 40 plus years. The majors record if Open Tennis had been around all these years probably should be around 23.

Look at the Women's side. Court has 24 majors and Graf has 22. Court played all the major tournaments in her day unlike the men.

Federer's career record now is 67 tournaments won and 16 majors.

Federer's career isn't over yet by a long shot so I would expect him to add to his fantastic numbers.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Those pro events were not much more than glorified exos. Nice wins. But they didn't mean much, other than the few pennies awarded the winners.
This is absolutely wrong. The Pro tournies of the 60s were the highest competition on the planet. These tournaments were where the big boys played.

As proof, look at Laver's record in 1962 when he won the amateur Grand Slam and compare it to 1963 when he made the transition to the pros: he got trounced repeatedly in the beginning.

There is not doubt by anyone that he had to raise the level of his game to compete with the pros. None!
 

SgtJohn

Rookie
Ok. So they were MM tournaments by today standard.

The small draw is a negative, I won't contest that...but the quality easily outweighs that.

Let's put it this way:
-on one side, an 8-men tournament including Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, etc.

-on the other side, a 128-draw tournament with the top seed being David Ferrer. Let's say Roddick wins it.

The winner of which tournament is the best player in the world for you?
 

DMan

Professional
I was asking if it would be the Pro Grand Slam, not if it was the conventional Grand Slam. had he completed it in 1962, it would have been more prestigous than the Grand Slam today imo, because super-slow, high-bouncing clay to indoor wood with its low and fastest bounce to grass with the slipping and falling is far harder than 4 radically similar surfaces

plus, for a long time, very few players felt the AO was worth playing. Most just skipped it




that was how the pros made their living. They were the most prestigious tourneys of their days, it seems. It was the amateur slams that were glorified; the top players didn't even play in them and they didn't offer money.

Hopefully you know that just because you put in your signature that Rosewall has the 'most number of Slams', it doesn't make it so.

Grand Slam was a very specific term, to denote winning the 4 major tennis championships of the first 4 nations to win the Davis Cup. They were, and still are, considered to be the most prestigious tournaments. That's why they are "majors."

It's true that pre-1968, only amateurs were allowed to play in them. And winning a major was what got you into playing professional tournaments. And winning majors in the modern era of tennis (since 1968) is still what gets you recognized.

Look at the Australian Open. Every year they talk about the last Australian man to win the Australian Open, a major. It was back in 1976, when Mark Edmondson won it. Even if Connors and Borg skipped the tournament (both had played before), it was still a major. The winner of the Austrian Open (or the Swiss or Canadian Open for that matter), even if that event offered more prize money, had stronger draws, etc. is not the winner of one of tennis four major tournaments.

It's a very, very simple concept.

There was no "pro Grand Slam". Some of those pro tournaments were considered high profile. But there was never a designation, as was made for the amateur game, that 4 specific tournaments were the professional majors. And even if there were, it would in no way shape or form be equivalent to winning any of the four major tennis championships. It's really like apples and oranges. They may both be fruits. But not the same thing at all.
 

timnz

Legend
Laver 1967

I would tend to think Rosewall's Pro Grand Slam in 1963 was more impressive than Laver's Grand Slam in 1962. Incidentally Rosewall only entered two Pro Slam tournaments in 1962 so including 1961 Rosewall won seven straight Pro Majors that he entered from 1961 to 1963. He won the last two of 1961, won his only two played in 1962 and won the Pro Grand Slam in 1963.

How would you rate Laver's 1967 Pro Grand Slam + Pro Wimbledon?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
When Rosewall won the French Pro in 1963 it was also on indoor wood. It was won over Rod Laver. Laver claims in his book that it was one of the finest matches he ever played but he still lost to Rosewall after leading 4-1 in the fifth set.

Rosewall did dominated the French Pro for years when it was played on red clay at Roland Garros. In 1962 Rosewall won the French Pro at Roland Garros on red clay and the next week he won the Wembley tournament on indoor wood, perhaps the fastest of all surfaces. I believe Rosewall did this from 1960 to 1962.
And they were unable to draw enough flies to hold the event at Roland Garros in 1963....no, not a true grand slam, you need a variety of surfaces. No Wimbledon (apart from 1967), no Forest Hills (apart from 1963 and 1966), no nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

thrust

Legend
Can't agree



Emerson was 31 when he went pro at the beginning of 1968. That year he had 10 matches against a peak Rod Laver who was the clear and dominant number 1 of the Pro's having completed the Pro Grand Slam + Pro Wimbledon the year before. Emerson beat laver that year 5 times in straight sets. Yes he did also lose to Laver 5 times - but anyone who can beat a player who some regard as the greatest of all time at their peak 5 times in one year in straight sets. Well, they can play! Emerson's problem is that he, unlike Laver and Rosewall, basically faded from form after the age of 30 (age affects all of us in different ways). That doesn't take away from how good he was before that age.

Hence, we have someone who at 31 who could beat the best player in the world 5 times in one year in straight sets. What that tells me is that amateur play was severly under-rated in the 60's.

Emerson did have wins against Pancho as well.... they are not well known though.
Congrats to Roy for beating Rod and Pancho at 31,
And they were unable to draw enough flies to hold the event at Roland Garros in 1963....no, not a true grand slam, you need a variety of surfaces. No Wimbledon (apart from 1967), no Forest Hills (apart from 1963 and 1966), no nothing.
From 63 on, the US Pro was played on grass, either at FH or Longwood Cricket Club. Rosewall beat Laver in the 63-65 US Pro finals. He won 4 French Pro titles on clay at RG, beating: Hoad twice in the finals, Gimeno once and Gonzalez in one final. He then beat Laver in 4 other French Pro finals, 63-66, on wood. Rosewall did not compete in the US Pro 58-62 because he was visiting his family in Australia when the US Pro was played in Cleveland. Until 63, the weakest pro major was the US in Cleveland, smaller draws and best 2 of 3 some years. IMO, there is no doubt that if Ken, Rod or Pancho had not joined the pro tour each would have many more official slams than they do now.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Congrats to Roy for beating Rod and Pancho at 31,

From 63 on, the US Pro was played on grass, either at FH or Longwood Cricket Club. Rosewall beat Laver in the 63-65 US Pro finals. He won 4 French Pro titles on clay at RG, beating: Hoad twice in the finals, Gimeno once and Gonzalez in one final. He then beat Laver in 4 other French Pro finals, 63-66, on wood. Rosewall did not compete in the US Pro 58-62 because he was visiting his family in Australia when the US Pro was played in Cleveland. Until 63, the weakest pro major was the US in Cleveland, smaller draws and best 2 of 3 some years. IMO, there is no doubt that if Ken, Rod or Pancho had not joined the pro tour each would have many more official slams than they do now.
The U.S. Pro was not played in Cleveland in the later fifties...in fact, it was not played anywhere, as the contemporary evidence makes clear.
In 1963, there was no pro major on clay, so no chance of a pro grand slam.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
thrust, Emerson
Congrats to Roy for beating Rod and Pancho at 31,

From 63 on, the US Pro was played on grass, either at FH or Longwood Cricket Club. Rosewall beat Laver in the 63-65 US Pro finals. He won 4 French Pro titles on clay at RG, beating: Hoad twice in the finals, Gimeno once and Gonzalez in one final. He then beat Laver in 4 other French Pro finals, 63-66, on wood. Rosewall did not compete in the US Pro 58-62 because he was visiting his family in Australia when the US Pro was played in Cleveland. Until 63, the weakest pro major was the US in Cleveland, smaller draws and best 2 of 3 some years. IMO, there is no doubt that if Ken, Rod or Pancho had not joined the pro tour each would have many more official slams than they do now.

thrust, Emerson had good wins in 1968 but no great win in open era at all. His best performance was reaching the 1970 Wimbledon's QF losing to winner, Newcombe, in five sets.

He lost to 40 years old Gonzalez twice in 1968 on clay and beat Laver 5 times in smaller events. I rate Emerson the most overrated player in history.

You are totally right about Ken, Rod and Pancho winning many additional GS tournaments. You might not know that I once was treated as an idiot by a few fellow posters, among them Limpinhitter, when I claimed that Rosewall, if he had not turned pro and the other players had turned pro as they really did (Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver and so on), would probably had a resume of 40 GS titles or even more (1953 to 1972). Similar amount would be right for Pancho. Not for Rod because he did not have such an expended long career as a top player. Reason is that Rosewall would have been seeded No.1 and the strongest player at almost all GS tournaments (amateurs) from 1957 to 1968, exactly to the 1968 Australian Championships.

Limpinhitter and a certain other poster changed my claim to a totally different claim, i. e. that Rosewall would have won 40 or more "open" GS tournaments which is of course nonsense. But I believe that Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzalez and maybe Laver would have won more than 20 GS tournaments if open era would have come already in 1920.

I'm still waiting for Limpin's apology for his claim which he made in order to make me look an idiot...
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
The U.S. Pro was not played in Cleveland in the later fifties...in fact, it was not played anywhere, as the contemporary evidence makes clear.
In 1963, there was no pro major on clay, so no chance of a pro grand slam.

Dan, Logic? If there is no clay event we should consider the pro majors as they were. Yet a pro GS for Rosewall and Laver.
 

thrust

Legend
well, depends how you count them. Because 4 of the 23 were in amateur slams, I would give him 19 as those were against the real big guns, and maybe 1 or two so 21 at most
I do think Ken would be thrilled to be credited with 19 slams! In that scenario, Laver would have 13, as 6 of his slams were as an amateur. Gonzalez would have 14, if the Cleveland events are counted, which I think should be
 

thrust

Legend
thrust, Emerson


thrust, Emerson had good wins in 1968 but no great win in open era at all. His best performance was reaching the 1970 Wimbledon's QF losing to winner, Newcombe, in five sets.

He lost to 40 years old Gonzalez twice in 1968 on clay and beat Laver 5 times in smaller events. I rate Emerson the most overrated player in history.

You are totally right about Ken, Rod and Pancho winning many additional GS tournaments. You might not know that I once was treated as an idiot by a few fellow posters, among them Limpinhitter, when I claimed that Rosewall, if he had not turned pro and the other players had turned pro as they really did (Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver and so on), would probably had a resume of 40 GS titles or even more (1953 to 1972). Similar amount would be right for Pancho. Not for Rod because he did not have such an expended long career as a top player. Reason is that Rosewall would have been seeded No.1 and the strongest player at almost all GS tournaments (amateurs) from 1957 to 1968, exactly to the 1968 Australian Championships.

Limpinhitter and a certain other poster changed my claim to a totally different claim, i. e. that Rosewall would have won 40 or more "open" GS tournaments which is of course nonsense. But I believe that Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzalez and maybe Laver would have won more than 20 GS tournaments if open era would have come already in 1920.

I'm still waiting for Limpin's apology for his claim which he made in order to make me look an idiot...
Emerson also lost to Ken in the quarters of the 71 AO in straight sets. Laver lost in an earlier round, but I can't recall who he lost to. Ken was 36 and won that AO, that had all top players competing, without losing a set. Had Emerson joined the pro tour when Laver did, chances are he would have become a better player as Ken and Rod did soon after they joined the pros. I heard Newcombe say that if Rosewall had been able to compete at Wimbledon the 11 years he was banned, he probably would have won at least 4 titles there. John barely beat Ken in the 70 final, when Ken was 35
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan, Logic? If there is no clay event we should consider the pro majors as they were. Yet a pro GS for Rosewall and Laver.
The concept of a grand slam encompasses both grass and clay...nothing special about indoor wood for every event.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I do think Ken would be thrilled to be credited with 19 slams! In that scenario, Laver would have 13, as 6 of his slams were as an amateur. Gonzalez would have 14, if the Cleveland events are counted, which I think should be

thrust, I agree.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Emerson also lost to Ken in the quarters of the 71 AO in straight sets. Laver lost in an earlier round, but I can't recall who he lost to. Ken was 36 and won that AO, that had all top players competing, without losing a set. Had Emerson joined the pro tour when Laver did, chances are he would have become a better player as Ken and Rod did soon after they joined the pros. I heard Newcombe say that if Rosewall had been able to compete at Wimbledon the 11 years he was banned, he probably would have won at least 4 titles there. John barely beat Ken in the 70 final, when Ken was 35

thrust, Interesting thoughts.

Laver lost to Mark Cox in four sets.

AO 1971 did not have the top amateurs like Smith and Nastase.

I doubt that Emerson would have improved significantly after turning pro earlier because he was not a genius like Rod and Ken, and he was already 26 when Laver turned pro. Probably too late to improve. He was not a touch player, rather an older sort of a Thomas Muster. An exception was Segura who improved significantly after turning pro, finally at 29.

Jack Kramer (never a Rosewall admirer) said the same as Newk said. He also gives Muscles four Wimbledons in his book "The Game".

Newcombe beat Rosewall in 1970 and 1971 at Wimbledon when the latter was tired: In 1970 because of a tough schedule in singles and doubles, in 1971 because of a very long five-setter between Rosewall and Richey in the round before (one of the all-time great Wimbledon matches!).

It might be of interest that Rosewall leads Newcombe in major matches 4:3 if we include the 1971 Dallas WCT Finals even though Rosewall was almost ten years older than Newk and met the latter at 33 for the first time. Their hth is 15:10 in Ken's favour.
 
Top