Ken Rosewall had the Pro Grand Slam in 1963?

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, there are limits to our imagination as historians, we should respect proper historical methodology. We have no authority to reshape history according to our personal desires.
I hold degrees in both economics and history, and in our studies, we were not allowed to reinvent the past.

Dan, You are the most illogical poster in this forum (Former PPT). Even my friend Limpinhitter cannot cope with you in this department. And you are one of the most stubborn ones, along with Limpin and a few others. I never saw a post of yourself where you concede at least a little bit that you were wrong in a point. That means you are ALWAYS right.That's unique!! But I stress that you very seldom are nasty, unlike to some other posters here. I just remember your nasty distorting of one of my posts regarding US Pro 1944 and your lie about McCauley/Cleveland/US Pro.

The most annoying thing was that you claimed McCauley did not use the term "US Pro" for the Cleveland event even though I had informed you several times that Joe has written that term on several pages in his marvellous book. You still wrote that nonsense even though I had given you the numbers of the deciding pages!!!! At that time I even hated you, and not much has changed since as your new posts testify...

I have a request: Please don't reply to this post because I fear that you again would write wrong things and I could be tempted to insult you. You know: danger to be banned again...

 

[BobbyOne]

So what evidence DO we have? Where did this idea of pro majors come from?

Charles, The first person who referred to the big pro events (Wembley, US Pro, French Pro) as "major championship tournaments" was the honourable Peter Rowley in his 1975 first Rosewall biography (much later followed Rosewall biographies written by Robert Geist and Richard Naughton).

Rowley wrote: "They (the pros) held their own major championship tournaments, three in number every year, recognized among themselves as the truest test of ability and superiority, and known by tennis cognoscenti and some of the press as the most important events in professional tennis, deciding who was the "king of the pack"- in other words, who was the world's top professional tennis player"

Rowley then backs his own claim by quoting the New York Times of September 18, 1961 (about French Pro) and Butch Buchholz from 1963 (about Wembley and French Pro). Peter (he died a few years ago) has the outstanding merit of having been the first expert who summarized what had been (at least partly) state of knowledge at players and journalists long before. Only since Rowley we have an about correct picture of tennis history because prior to him, and largely even after his book, tennis books only referred to the amateur events and open era events, ignoring totally the rich pro scene which existed since the late 1800's and especially since 1927 (first US tour)! Till Rowley an Ashley Cooper or Vic Seixas got more place in the books than a Segura or even a Gonzalez even though Segura and Gonzalez were better players than Seixas, Cooper and most other Wimbledon winners. In case that Tilden or Kramer or Rosewall or Laver were described the author only referred to their amateur feats!

By the way, Rowley as first one also considered the WCT Finals and the GP Masters as majors.

Other experts picked up Rowley's concept many years later, perhaps influenced by Robert Geist's book (1999) and surely by Joe McCauley's so important book upon the old professionals (2000). I believe that Geist was the man who created the terms "Pro Grand Slam tournaments" and "Pro Grand Slam". I also want to mention Carlo Colussi's important contribution on Wikipedia (alas, Carlo is too busy now to post here) and that of a few others, in recent years especially of Andrew Tasiopoulos, Elegos and krosero.

Please don't believe those (Dan and so on) who still doubt that there were three big pro events or Pro majors or pro Grand Slam tournaments!

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, You are the most illogical poster in this forum (Former PPT). Even my friend Limpinhitter cannot cope with you in this department. And you are one of the most stubborn ones, along with Limpin and a few others. I never saw a post of yourself where you concede at least a little bit that you were wrong in a point. That means you are ALWAYS right.That's unique!! But I stress that you very seldom are nasty, unlike to some other posters here. I just remember your nasty distorting of one of my posts regarding US Pro 1944 and your lie about McCauley/Cleveland/US Pro.

The most annoying thing was that you claimed McCauley did not use the term "US Pro" for the Cleveland event even though I had informed you several times that Joe has written that term on several pages in his marvellous book. You still wrote that nonsense even though I had given you the numbers of the deciding pages!!!! At that time I even hated you, and not much has changed since as your new posts testify...

I have a request: Please don't reply to this post because I fear that you again would write wrong things and I could be tempted to insult you. You know: danger to be banned again...

Bobby, the "Cleveland" issue has moved on since that day, I have presented new evidence which is irrefutable...so I will not bother to respond to your post, as you wish.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Charles, The first person who referred to the big pro events (Wembley, US Pro, French Pro) as "major championship tournaments" was the honourable Peter Rowley in his 1975 first Rosewall biography (much later followed Rosewall biographies written by Robert Geist and Richard Naughton).

Rowley wrote: "They (the pros) held their own major championship tournaments, three in number every year, recognized among themselves as the truest test of ability and superiority, and known by tennis cognoscenti and some of the press as the most important events in professional tennis, deciding who was the "king of the pack"- in other words, who was the world's top professional tennis player"

Rowley then backs his own claim by quoting the New York Times of September 18, 1961 (about French Pro) and Butch Buchholz from 1963 (about Wembley and French Pro). Peter (he died a few years ago) has the outstanding merit of having been the first expert who summarized what had been (at least partly) state of knowledge at players and journalists long before. Only since Rowley we have an about correct picture of tennis history because prior to him, and largely even after his book, tennis books only referred to the amateur events and open era events, ignoring totally the rich pro scene which existed since the late 1800's and especially since 1927 (first US tour)! Till Rowley an Ashley Cooper or Vic Seixas got more place in the books than a Segura or even a Gonzalez even though Segura and Gonzalez were better players than Seixas, Cooper and most other Wimbledon winners. In case that Tilden or Kramer or Rosewall or Laver were described the author only referred to their amateur feats!

By the way, Rowley as first one also considered the WCT Finals and the GP Masters as majors.

Other experts picked up Rowley's concept many years later, perhaps influenced by Robert Geist's book (1999) and surely by Joe McCauley's so important book upon the old professionals (2000). I believe that Geist was the man who created the terms "Pro Grand Slam tournaments2 and "Pro Grand Slam". I also want to mention Carlo Colussi's important contribution on Wikipedia (alas, Carlo is too busy now to post here) and that of a few others, in recent years especially of Andrew Tasiopoulos, Elegos and krosero.

Please don't believe those (Dan and so on) who still doubt that there were three big pro events or Pro majors or pro Grand Slam tournaments!

Bobby, I believe that I have presented sufficient new evidence here to refute the idea that there was any "U.S. Pro" at Cleveland from 1954 to 1964, that tournament was actually not the U.S. Pro at all, but rather the Pepsi-Cola World Professional Championship.
The idea that Cleveland was the U.S. Pro appears to have been suggested well after the event no longer existed, perhaps as an attempt to create a "pro grand slam" similar to the well-established amateur grand slam. That does violence to historical fact.

 

[pc1]

Stronger for one match doesn't mean stronger across a year. If Pancho doesn't play as many events he could well be ranked lower. Emmo did score wins over Rosewall and Laver in those early years of the Open Era anyway. Emerson could have well improved if exposed to the Pro level earlier - I know you believe otherwise.

Like many things we'll never know the answer. I don't think Emerson is an ATG but I don't want to be too harsh either.

I've of the opinion nowadays that Emerson most likely would have improved greatly if he turned pro let's say about 1960 or so. He may have been beaten badly at the beginning but Emerson was not an untalented player. He was extremely fast, with splinter speed having been a schoolboy track star. He had great reflexes and stamina with a super backhand and great volley. Emerson was very talented. I believe Emerson won 10 of the 20 matches in the Open Era against Rosewall. He was a great athlete with top tennis skills. He was just not as versatile as some but you could say the same about a number of great players.

We all play to the level of our competition. Emerson played the inferior amateur circuit but he did have fantastic years as an amateur. I don't think he would have any problems adjusting to the Old Pro Tour eventually. Would he have been as great as Laver? Well very few if any have been so I doubt it but Emerson was capable in my opinion of reaching greater heights than he reached if he played the Old Pro Tour.

I'm sure all of us have competed against lower competition and have done well and moved on to a higher level of competition, did badly at first but adapted and was competitive. I think Emerson would have done the same.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, the "Cleveland" issue has moved on since that day, I have presented new evidence which is irrefutable...so I will not bother to respond to your post, as you wish.

Dan, Nothings has changed, neither re Cleveland nor re your personality...

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, I believe that I have presented sufficient new evidence here to refute the idea that there was any "U.S. Pro" at Cleveland from 1954 to 1964, that tournament was actually not the U.S. Pro at all, but rather the Pepsi-Cola World Professional Championship.
The idea that Cleveland was the U.S. Pro appears to have been suggested well after the event no longer existed, perhaps as an attempt to create a "pro grand slam" similar to the well-established amateur grand slam. That does violence to historical fact.

Dan, Again wrong: The US Pro in Cleveland lasted only till 1962. Then Forest Hills and Brookline near Boston (Longwood Cricket Club).

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Nothings has changed, neither re Cleveland nor re your peronality...

While you were away, I presented new evidence to show that the "U.S. Pro" was not held at Cleveland in the late fifties...it was the Pepsi-Cola World Professional Championships, nothing to do with a mythical "U.S. Pro"...I am interested in genuine history, not fiction.
If you still think that the U.S. Pro was held at Cleveland in the late fifties, you should present some evidence to us, otherwise it is nothing more than a sad fantasy.

 

[pc1]

While you were away, I presented new evidence to show that the "U.S. Pro" was not held at Cleveland in the late fifties...it was the Pepsi-Cola World Professional Championships, nothing to do with a mythical "U.S. Pro"...I am interested in genuine history, not fiction.
If you still think that the U.S. Pro was held at Cleveland in the late fifties, you should present some evidence to us, otherwise it is nothing more than a sad fantasy.

I'm pretty much convinced now there were important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour but not really set schedule of "Pro Majors" like we have now with the classic majors. There were major pro tournaments but not the way we have it now. The French Pro wasn't played as was Wembley for many years as were some other so called Pro Majors. Some were big when they were played but it often depended on the year.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I'm pretty much convinced now there were important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour but not really set schedule of "Pro Majors" like we have now with the classic majors. There were major pro tournaments but not the way we have it now. The French Pro wasn't played as was Wembley for many years as were some other so called Pro Majors. Some were big when they were played but it often depended on the year.

Having spent some time looking over the records, from McCauley and from Krosero's research in newspapers, it seems clear to me that you are right, PC1.
We have to look at each year individually and see which tournaments were major for that particular year.
I am convinced that Gonzales' record should be re-evaluated substantially, the eight Cleveland wins downgraded, and some of Gonzales' other tournament wins acknowledged as pro major wins., especially the Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor in 1950 and 1952, the L.A. U.S. Pro Hardcourt of 1954, the Sydney White City Tournament of Champions in 1959, the White Plains U.S. Pro Indoor of 1964.

Similarly, for Hoad the Kooyong Pro in 1958 and 1960.

For Rosewall, the Kooyong Pro of 1962.

Many others.

 

[pc1]

Having spent some time looking over the records, from McCauley and from Krosero's research in newspapers, it seems clear to me that you are right, PC1.
We have to look at each year individually and see which tournaments were major for that particular year.
I am convinced that Gonzales' record should be re-evaluated substantially, the eight Cleveland wins downgraded, and some of Gonzales' other tournament wins acknowledged as pro major wins., especially the Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor in 1950 and 1952, the L.A. U.S. Pro Hardcourt of 1954, the Sydney White City Tournament of Champions in 1959, the White Plains U.S. Pro Indoor of 1964.

Similarly, for Hoad the Kooyong Pro in 1958 and 1960.

For Rosewall, the Kooyong Pro of 1962.

Many others.

Agreed Dan. I think we have to reevaluate some of the Old Pro Tours history. There seems to be a lot of inaccurate information. This is really big imo.

 

[BobbyOne]

Having spent some time looking over the records, from McCauley and from Krosero's research in newspapers, it seems clear to me that you are right, PC1.
We have to look at each year individually and see which tournaments were major for that particular year.
I am convinced that Gonzales' record should be re-evaluated substantially, the eight Cleveland wins downgraded, and some of Gonzales' other tournament wins acknowledged as pro major wins., especially the Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor in 1950 and 1952, the L.A. U.S. Pro Hardcourt of 1954, the Sydney White City Tournament of Champions in 1959, the White Plains U.S. Pro Indoor of 1964.

Similarly, for Hoad the Kooyong Pro in 1958 and 1960.

For Rosewall, the Kooyong Pro of 1962.

Many others.

Dan, You and your buddy are wrong.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, You and your buddy are wrong.

You mean McCauley and Krosero? I think that you should look at their research again, Bobby.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Minor correction Djokovic hasn't won a channel slam.



Emerson is both overrated and underrated, I probably consider him around a Jim Courier, worth a few majors. I don't think he's quite Becker/Edberg/Wilander level and certainly not in the conversation with the likes of Connors/Mac/Lendl and Agassi.

I think Emmo had the talent and the game to be at the Agassi, Connors, Lendl and Mac level if he had turned pro in, say, 59' or 60'.

 

[NatF]

I think Emmo had the talent and the game to be at the Agassi, Connors, Lendl and Mac level if he had turned pro in, say, 59' or 60'.

Potentially, I haven't seen enough of Emmo to judge. I think he would have been an outside contender in the Pro ranks at list.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Potentially, I haven't seen enough of Emmo to judge. I think he would have been an outside contender in the Pro ranks at list.

I've seen him play. He was a great player as it was. His backhand and net game were top of the food chain. Had he joined the pro circuit early on, I think that he could have been top 3, if not better.

 

[BobbyOne]

I've seen him play. He was a great player as it was. His backhand and net game were top of the food chain. Had he joined the pro circuit early on, I think that he could have been top 3, if not better.

Yes, even better than No.1!!

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes, even better than No.1!!

Emmo needed a wheel cart to tote all of his income from tennis...not like the pros of that day.

 

[timnz]

I've seen him play. He was a great player as it was. His backhand and net game were top of the food chain. Had he joined the pro circuit early on, I think that he could have been top 3, if not better.

I agree , no one who beats peak laver 5 times all in straight sets like Emerson did in 1968 at the age of 32/33 - can be ignored as a potential top player.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I agree , no one who beats peak laver 5 times all in straight sets like Emerson did in 1968 at the age of 32/33 - can be ignored as a potential top player.

In addition, to my recollection, Andrew Tasiopoulos dug up Emerson's 15-6 H2H winning record against Newcombe.

PS: Correction, Tasiopoulos reported that it was 17-6 in Emerson's favor (but that his research might not be complete), and, interestingly enough, you were a participant in the discussion.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...laver-newcombe-laver-newcombe-emerson.244375/

From Feb. 26, 2009:

Emerson vs Newcombe 17-6 in Emerson's favour!

Thanks very much Andrew. Wow match up to Newcombe 17-6 in Emersons favour! (understood that you don't have all the results yet). Generally you hear people rating Newcombe higher than him because Newcombe won Majors in the Open era and Emerson didn't. However, the main reason is that Emerson was 31 or 32 at the beginning of the Open era.

If people say that Emerson won more against Newcombe because they first played when Newcombe was a teenager (Emerson is 7 1/2 years older), that can be balanced by the fact that Newcombe played Emerson at his peak 20's age range when Emerson was in his Mid-30's at the end of the rivalry. One balances off the other.

So my main point is that Emerson is largely underrated by the simplistic statement 'oh he won all his majors during the amateur era'. But we just don't know how a peak Emerson would have performed if he had been a professional or if the Open era had started say at the beginning of the 60's (which was considered, but that is another story). His record against Newcombe suggests he would have done at least as well as Newcombe if not better.

 

[BobbyOne]

I agree , no one who beats peak laver 5 times all in straight sets like Emerson did in 1968 at the age of 32/33 - can be ignored as a potential top player.[/QUOTE

Deleted post

 

[BobbyOne]

In addition, to my recollection, Andrew Tasiopoulos dug up Emerson's 15-6 H2H winning record against Newcombe.

PS: Correction, Tasiopoulos reported that it was 17-6 in Emerson's favor (but that his research might not be complete), and, interestingly enough, you were a participant in the discussion.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...laver-newcombe-laver-newcombe-emerson.244375/

From Feb. 26, 2009:

Limpin, You "forget" that Emerson mostly beat Newcombe in amateur times when Emmo was at his peak and Newk far before it...

 

[Dan Lobb]

There are problems with this concept, that Rosewall won the pro GS in 1963 and Laver in 1967...did these players even know that they had won the pro GS, did

they celebrate it, publicize it at the time? That is what would happen in the amateur GS, and did happen in 1938 and 1962 for Budge and Laver.

We will see in Laver's new book if he mentions that 1967 pro GS, if he was actually aware of it at the time.

Also, why did Rosewall and Gonzales skip chances to win the pro GS, Rosewall skipped the U.S. Pro in 1960, 1961, 1962 which would have given him the chance

of a pro GS. Gonzales skipped the French Pro and Wembley in 1959 which would supposedly have given him the chance at a pro GS that year.

Did the pros aim for the pro GS or even plan for it? If not, it was a non-factor in the pro game.

 

[KG1965]

Of course the Pro Grand Slam concept does not exist.
The media and experts (hahahaha .... the experts) gave importance to GS amateurs which was worth zero and did not give importance to the big Pro tournaments.
Rosewall and company did not prepare adequately for what were called Pro majors, what were called Pro majors were probably the biggest tournaments but this concept is not always true either.

Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall were not aware that these tournaments were so important and that the GS could be carried out so the comparison with the current slams does not make logical sense.

We continue to make the mistake of equating the two eras when on some basic aspects it does not make sense to proceed with an equation.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Of course the Pro Grand Slam concept does not exist.
The media and experts (hahahaha .... the experts) gave importance to GS amateurs which was worth zero and did not give importance to the big Pro tournaments.
Rosewall and company did not prepare adequately for what were called Pro majors, what were called Pro majors were probably the biggest tournaments but this concept is not always true either.

Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall were not aware that these tournaments were so important and that the GS could be carried out so the comparison with the current slams does not make logical sense.

We continue to make the mistake of equating the two eras when on some basic aspects it does not make sense to proceed with an equation.

Right on. Unfortunately, tennis "historians" have a bad habit of creating fictional concepts and of interpreting tennis history through the prism of current ideas.

The old pros never thought in terms of "pro grand slam", this is just an armchair idea for tennis fans with time to kill.

 

[thrust]

The French Pro, Wembley and US Pro were the three biggest pro tournaments, most of the years, from the thirties till 67. The French as Wembley were usually more competitive than the US, perhaps they were usually played a week apart. From 63-67 the US Pro was equally competitive as the other two tournaments. True, there were other big tournaments throughout the years but none lasted more than 4 years or so, therefore, the big three are considered the near equivalent of the amateur slams. Those pro tournaments should be considered important towards the pro players legacy, especially of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver. Otherwise these big 3 would most likely have won many more amateur slams had they not joined the pro tour.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The French Pro, Wembley and US Pro were the three biggest pro tournaments, most of the years, from the thirties till 67. The French as Wembley were usually more competitive than the US, perhaps they were usually played a week apart. From 63-67 the US Pro was equally competitive as the other two tournaments. True, there were other big tournaments throughout the years but none lasted more than 4 years or so, therefore, the big three are considered the near equivalent of the amateur slams. Those pro tournaments should be considered important towards the pro players legacy, especially of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver. Otherwise these big 3 would most likely have won many more amateur slams had they not joined the pro tour.

Thrust, I agree that from 1963 to 1967 those were, in fact, the big three events, although I would add the 1967 Wimbledon Pro to them, but do we have any evidence that the pros actually thought of them as a Pro Grand Slam? I see none. No one aimed to win them as a GS concept.

That makes the GS concept there a non-factor on the pro scene.

 

[thrust]

Thrust, I agree that from 1963 to 1967 those were, in fact, the big three events, although I would add the 1967 Wimbledon Pro to them, but do we have any evidence that the pros actually thought of them as a Pro Grand Slam? I see none. No one aimed to win them as a GS concept.

That makes the GS concept there a non-factor on the pro scene.

You are probably right concerning the players, but I think it was tennis historians like Collins and others who called them slams to give the pro players a better place in the ATG category rather than those who only played on the amateur tour like Emerson.

 

[Dan Lobb]

You are probably right concerning the players, but I think it was tennis historians like Collins and others who called them slams to give the pro players a better place in the ATG category rather than those who only played on the amateur tour like Emerson.

I agree, this was a construct of the tennis historians, not the players, and did not factor into the players' perceptions at the time these events were held.

I see nothing wrong with giving the players credit for major or important tournament wins for these events, regardless of whether or not there was a perceived GS set.

 

[GuyForget]

pls bring back indoor wood ... Isner would be the GOAT

 

[urban]

I think, without getting into a nomenclatura debate, those tradtional pro champs like Wembley, which was the preeminent pro event through the years, and since 1951 was officially organzed and sanctioned by the BLTA and the ILTF, the US pro, especially when scheduled on grass at Forest Hills or Boston, and Paris, especially when played on clay as World Hard Court pro champs at RG, were big pro events through the years. But in the pro game the hierarchy of events was flatter than today, and other events had de facto similar status. It is very helpful, what KG tried for 1967 and the following years, to get a picture of the big pro events with the most prize money. In the thread "The structure of the old pro tour", No Mercy and Scott Tennis gave very precise informations about the prize money situation in the 1960s. The by a distance most lucrative tournaments of the 1960s were the Wimbledon World Pro in 1967 with 45000$ (including doubles) and the Forest Hills Pro in 1966 with 30.500$. Since the mid 1960s, the pros had a series of big events in the range of 15000$ to 25000$ with a first prize of 3000$ and more, in the US (US indoor pro at New Armory New York, Madison Square Garden pro at New York, LA Masters, Boston US grass pro, Binghamton Don Budge Masters, Newport Invitational and others), in Europe (Wembley, Paris and maybe Cannes) and South Africa, especially Johannesburg pro. If we regard and evaluate those important pro events year by year, we get a better overall view on the old pro game.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think, without getting into a nomenclatura debate, those tradtional pro champs like Wembley, which was the preeminent pro event through the years, and since 1951 was officially organzed and sanctioned by the BLTA and the ILTF, the US pro, especially when scheduled on grass at Forest Hills or Boston, and Paris, especially when played on clay as World Hard Court pro champs at RG, were big pro events through the years. But in the pro game the hierarchy of events was flatter than today, and other events had de facto similar status. It is very helpful, what KG tried for 1967 and the following years, to get a picture of the big pro events with the most prize money. In the thread "The structure of the old pro tour", No Mercy and Scott Tennis gave very precise informations about the prize money situation in the 1960s. The by a distance most lucrative tournaments of the 1960s were the Wimbledon World Pro in 1967 with 45000$ (including doubles) and the Forest Hills Pro in 1966 with 30.500$. Since the mid 1960s, the pros had a series of big events in the range of 15000$ to 25000$ with a first prize of 3000$ and more, in the US (US indoor pro at New Armory New York, Madison Square Garden pro at New York, LA Masters, Boston US grass pro, Binghamton Don Budge Masters, Newport Invitational and others), in Europe (Wembley, Paris and maybe Cannes) and South Africa, especially Johannesburg pro. If we regard and evaluate those important pro events year by year, we get a better overall view on the old pro game.

It is interesting from your review that even in the old pro tour era, the biggest money events were held at Wimbledon and Forest Hills, which were also venues

with the most prestige. The pro players would probably aim to win these premier events above all others.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think, without getting into a nomenclatura debate, those tradtional pro champs like Wembley, which was the preeminent pro event through the years, and since 1951 was officially organzed and sanctioned by the BLTA and the ILTF, the US pro, especially when scheduled on grass at Forest Hills or Boston, and Paris, especially when played on clay as World Hard Court pro champs at RG, were big pro events through the years. But in the pro game the hierarchy of events was flatter than today, and other events had de facto similar status. It is very helpful, what KG tried for 1967 and the following years, to get a picture of the big pro events with the most prize money. In the thread "The structure of the old pro tour", No Mercy and Scott Tennis gave very precise informations about the prize money situation in the 1960s. The by a distance most lucrative tournaments of the 1960s were the Wimbledon World Pro in 1967 with 45000$ (including doubles) and the Forest Hills Pro in 1966 with 30.500$. Since the mid 1960s, the pros had a series of big events in the range of 15000$ to 25000$ with a first prize of 3000$ and more, in the US (US indoor pro at New Armory New York, Madison Square Garden pro at New York, LA Masters, Boston US grass pro, Binghamton Don Budge Masters, Newport Invitational and others), in Europe (Wembley, Paris and maybe Cannes) and South Africa, especially Johannesburg pro. If we regard and evaluate those important pro events year by year, we get a better overall view on the old pro game.

Strangely, the least money offered for a pro major were at the U.S. Pro in 1963 and following.

In 1963, there was no television contract, and the costs of renting Forest Hills meant that the players did not get paid.

In 1964, the purse was only $10,000 and first prize was small, $2,200.

 

[thrust]

Strangely, the least money offered for a pro major were at the U.S. Pro in 1963 and following.

In 1963, there was no television contract, and the costs of renting Forest Hills meant that the players did not get paid.

In 1964, the purse was only $10,000 and first prize was small, $2,200.

I believe that Gonzalez was guaranteed a good sum to play the 63 US Pro, due to his drawing power. It is true though that none of the other players, including the winner, received any prize money.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I believe that Gonzalez was guaranteed a good sum to play the 63 US Pro, due to his drawing power. It is true though that none of the other players, including the winner, received any prize money.

Yes, it was a financial bust. An indication that the pro tour was running down in drawing power. They needed a television contract to turn a profit at Forest Hills.

And a surprise that they offered only the $2,200 first prize at Longwood in 1964, and only $1,400 to Gonzales for second place. Very low for a major event.

They almost did not have an American tour in 1964. They did not have an American tour in 1962.