Ken Rosewall had the Pro Grand Slam in 1963?

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
How do you call a clear sweep through all pro majors? The pros could only win tournaments that were held.
Right, so maybe there was NO (repeat ZERO) opportunity for the pros to win anything like a "Grand Slam"...those are the breaks.
As was pointed out by another poster here, the pros themselves did not even talk about, let alone publicize, the concept of a "Pro Grand Slam", a term which could only have been invented many years AFTER the pro tour was defunct.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Right, so maybe there was NO (repeat ZERO) opportunity for the pros to win anything like a "Grand Slam"...those are the breaks.
As was pointed out by another poster here, the pros themselves did not even talk about, let alone publicize, the concept of a "Pro Grand Slam", a term which could only have been invented many years AFTER the pro tour was defunct.

Dan, You never (= NEVER!!!) have ever changed your opinion and conceded that another poster is right in a given point. That's a shame.

There is the term Channel Slam, also decades after it was achieved but you never critisized that. Double standard.

One reason for my next possible pause is your terrible stubborness!
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
The Channel Slam is a term in use now. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have achieved it in recent years and obviously it was to point out how difficult it is to win the French and Wimbledon within a period of a few weeks. Commentators refer to it all the time when necessary.

It is far tougher imo to win a True Channel Slam because the change from slow clay with relatively decent bounces to in the past bad bounces on Wimbledon grass is tough aside of course from the great change in the speed of the different court surfaces. It has never been a term for the change from the Old French Pro at Roland Garros to Wembley with the wood courts. At least the wood courts have decent bounces.

In the past only Budge, Laver, Borg have won the Channel Slam of the French and Wimbledon. I do think a case could be made for Bill Tilden in 1921 who won the World Hardcourt, which was the clay championship then and Wimbledon later. However the World Hardcourt was played in early May of 1921 with Wimbledon being played for Tilden in July 1921. The other thing is that Tilden only played one round to win Wimbledon since the challenge round was still active. It was clearly not nearly as tough as the Channel Slams of Budge, Laver and Borg. Borg in winning the Channel Slam for three straight years in the late 1970s was amazing.
 

Limpinhitter

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.

In my view, Roy Emerson was one of the greatest and best conditioned athletes in tennis history, and, his greatness as a player is sorely underrated on this forum.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The Channel Slam is a term in use now. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have achieved it in recent years and obviously it was to point out how difficult it is to win the French and Wimbledon within a period of a few weeks. Commentators refer to it all the time when necessary.

It is far tougher imo to win a True Channel Slam because the change from slow clay with relatively decent bounces to in the past bad bounces on Wimbledon grass is tough aside of course from the great change in the speed of the different court surfaces. It has never been a term for the change from the Old French Pro at Roland Garros to Wembley with the wood courts. At least the wood courts have decent bounces.

In the past only Budge, Laver, Borg have won the Channel Slam of the French and Wimbledon. I do think a case could be made for Bill Tilden in 1921 who won the World Hardcourt, which was the clay championship then and Wimbledon later. However the World Hardcourt was played in early May of 1921 with Wimbledon being played for Tilden in July 1921. The other thing is that Tilden only played one round to win Wimbledon since the challenge round was still active. It was clearly not nearly as tough as the Channel Slams of Budge, Laver and Borg. Borg in winning the Channel Slam for three straight years in the late 1970s was amazing.

Minor correction Djokovic hasn't won a channel slam.

In my view, Roy Emerson was one of the greatest and best conditioned athletes in tennis history, and, his greatness as a player is sorely underrated on this forum.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
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.
You're right. I was thinking that he won 4 straight majors and forgot he lost Wimbledon.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The Channel Slam is a term in use now. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have achieved it in recent years and obviously it was to point out how difficult it is to win the French and Wimbledon within a period of a few weeks. Commentators refer to it all the time when necessary.

It is far tougher imo to win a True Channel Slam because the change from slow clay with relatively decent bounces to in the past bad bounces on Wimbledon grass is tough aside of course from the great change in the speed of the different court surfaces. It has never been a term for the change from the Old French Pro at Roland Garros to Wembley with the wood courts. At least the wood courts have decent bounces.

In the past only Budge, Laver, Borg have won the Channel Slam of the French and Wimbledon. I do think a case could be made for Bill Tilden in 1921 who won the World Hardcourt, which was the clay championship then and Wimbledon later. However the World Hardcourt was played in early May of 1921 with Wimbledon being played for Tilden in July 1921. The other thing is that Tilden only played one round to win Wimbledon since the challenge round was still active. It was clearly not nearly as tough as the Channel Slams of Budge, Laver and Borg. Borg in winning the Channel Slam for three straight years in the late 1970s was amazing.
There were a some players in the fifties who did it...Patty, Trabert, and some blond guy from Australia. Fred Perry?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
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.

NatF, You are wrong: Courier was No.1 of the world, Emerson was never No.1 or 2 or 3 (and hardly No.4)...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, You are wrong: Courier was No.1 of the world, Emerson was never No.1 or 2 or 3 (and hardly No.4)...

In always open tennis I think he would have spent time at #3 and won majors. Perhaps lower than Courier due to likely missing number 1.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
In always open tennis I think he would have spent time at #3 and won majors. Perhaps lower than Courier due to likely missing number 1.

NatF, No.3 behind Laver and Rosewall and ahead of Pancho, Lew and Gimeno? Not possible.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
So let's see...
Laver won an amateur slam, a pro slam, and an open slam.
Pretty darn impressive!

Charles, Of course, but on the other hand we should consider that Rosewall and Gonzalez were handicapped by their age of life. Look at Rosewall: Ken turned pro at 22, Laver only at 24. Laver achieved his amateur GS when being 24.Almost every player is stronger at 24 than at 22. By the way, very few experts are aware that Rosewall was the best amateur in the world when he turned pro. After Wimbledon 1956 he was clearly stronger than Hoad.

Rosewall, like Laver won a pro Grand Slam (winning the three majors).

Laver won his open Grand Slam at 31. Rosewall at that age of life was not allowed to enter the GS tournaments. At 31 Rosewall won two of the three pro majors but lost at Wembley in five sets to strong Gimeno.

Laver did the three Slams. If Rosewall would have done the same we don't know but there is the possibility for that.
 
I take it you don't agree. I'm all ears, or eyes, actually.

Lol!
Hi Limpin. I'm liking your sense of humour!
I agree that Emmo was (by all accounts) tremendously fit. But to throw out there that he is sorely underrated on this forum was just delightful! I mean, to some extent he is, but he is not exactly top of list in the GOAT debate, and with some posters so fiercely defending their favourites, it was bound to be inflammatory and made me laugh out loud. I guess that you like to goad and prod, and it amuses me, that's all. I'd like to be sitting beside you in the back of the class. ;)
 
No one knows about the pro slam...it is one of the best kept secrets in the world.
I think knowledge of the pro slams is increasing out there. Thanks to this interweb thingy ;)
I even heard reference to the pro slams in an ESPN broadcast (don't remember who), so the knowledge is slowly percolating its way out there. A very good thing!
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Lol!
Hi Limpin. I'm liking your sense of humour!
I agree that Emmo was (by all accounts) tremendously fit. But to throw out there that he is sorely underrated on this forum was just delightful! I mean, to some extent he is, but he is not exactly top of list in the GOAT debate, and with some posters so fiercely defending their favourites, it was bound to be inflammatory and made me laugh out loud. I guess that you like to goad and prod, and it amuses me, that's all. I'd like to be sitting beside you in the back of the class. ;)

It wasn't my intent to goad at all. I'm not very good at being coy. I said exactly what I meant. In my view, Emerson was a great athlete, a great player, and is very much underrated on this board.

BTW, I always sat in the front row.
 
It wasn't my intent to goad at all. I'm not very good at being coy. I said exactly what I meant. In my view, Emerson was a great athlete, a great player, and is very much underrated on this board.

BTW, I always sat in the front row.
My apologies for mis-reading you. It still made me laugh, though.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I think knowledge of the pro slams is increasing out there. Thanks to this interweb thingy ;)
I even heard reference to the pro slams in an ESPN broadcast (don't remember who), so the knowledge is slowly percolating its way out there. A very good thing!
I mean, the fact that everyone knew about it in the sixties and fifties, is a well-kept secret, which even now no one knows about.
In fact, I still have not seen any reference to it in the sports literature from the old pro tour.
 
I mean, the fact that everyone knew about it in the sixties and fifties, is a well-kept secret, which even now no one knows about.
In fact, I still have not seen any reference to it in the sports literature from the old pro tour.
Hi Dan Lobb,
Are you suggesting that our whole 'pro-slam' schtick is a modern lens we are reading into the past?
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
My apologies for mis-reading you. It still made me laugh, though.
But it's fair to look at Emerson's early career, at the time he was still playing Laver and others as an amateur, and conclude he was an incredible athlete already.

It is unfortunate for us that he decided to stay an amateur. As at least one person has pointed out he had the talent and all other qualities necessary to be a dominant pro long before the open era, and he is about 1.5 years older than Laver. By 1968 he would have been in his 30s, and I believe he was injured not long before that.

We can't use Rosewall as the norm because he had about 10 years extra playing time due to his incredible longetivity and miracle genes. As it is Laver just barely squeezed in his grand slam by the age of 31.

I agree that Emerson gets too little credit, but he also has to live with the fact that he refused to turn pro and in that way really ducked going up against the best in the world.

That said, he also probably made more money (under the table, as all amateurs did) and perhaps had a much more normal life.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, No.3 behind Laver and Rosewall and ahead of Pancho, Lew and Gimeno? Not possible.

Pancho was old and Hoad suffered from injuries. Gimeno often spent time at #3, it's certainly possible for Emerson to rank over Gimeno some of the time...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Lol!
Hi Limpin. I'm liking your sense of humour!
I agree that Emmo was (by all accounts) tremendously fit. But to throw out there that he is sorely underrated on this forum was just delightful! I mean, to some extent he is, but he is not exactly top of list in the GOAT debate, and with some posters so fiercely defending their favourites, it was bound to be inflammatory and made me laugh out loud. I guess that you like to goad and prod, and it amuses me, that's all. I'd like to be sitting beside you in the back of the class. ;)

Charles, I must contradict: Emerson is nowhere underrated, neither in this forum nor elsewhere. Mostly he is totally overrated.

I fear you don't know Limpinhitter enough: Limpin does not want to provoke or goad or prod. No, he actually really believes all that weird stuff he is posting...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I think knowledge of the pro slams is increasing out there. Thanks to this interweb thingy ;)
I even heard reference to the pro slams in an ESPN broadcast (don't remember who), so the knowledge is slowly percolating its way out there. A very good thing!

Charles, Thanks. You are right.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
It wasn't my intent to goad at all. I'm not very good at being coy. I said exactly what I meant. In my view, Emerson was a great athlete, a great player, and is very much underrated on this board.

BTW, I always sat in the front row.

Limpin, Thanks that you confirm my words. You really believe what you write!!!!!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I mean, the fact that everyone knew about it in the sixties and fifties, is a well-kept secret, which even now no one knows about.
In fact, I still have not seen any reference to it in the sports literature from the old pro tour.

Dan, As always you err: There are at least a few experts (including myself) who refer to Pro GSs and Pro Grand Slam.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Hi Dan Lobb,
Are you suggesting that our whole 'pro-slam' schtick is a modern lens we are reading into the past?

Charles, Yes he suggests but he is wrong. Even back in the 1960s players and experts mentioned the three pro majors, without calling them the "Pro Grand Slams" though. Rosewall in "World Tennis" wrote that way and C.M.Jones, an acknowledged author, referred to Wembley and French Pro as the "two major pro tournaments".
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
But it's fair to look at Emerson's early career, at the time he was still playing Laver and others as an amateur, and conclude he was an incredible athlete already.

It is unfortunate for us that he decided to stay an amateur. As at least one person has pointed out he had the talent and all other qualities necessary to be a dominant pro long before the open era, and he is about 1.5 years older than Laver. By 1968 he would have been in his 30s, and I believe he was injured not long before that.

We can't use Rosewall as the norm because he had about 10 years extra playing time due to his incredible longetivity and miracle genes. As it is Laver just barely squeezed in his grand slam by the age of 31.

I agree that Emerson gets too little credit, but he also has to live with the fact that he refused to turn pro and in that way really ducked going up against the best in the world.

That said, he also probably made more money (under the table, as all amateurs did) and perhaps had a much more normal life.

Gary, I must contradict. Never heard Emerson was injured (apart from his accident at Wimbledon in 1966).

Emerson did NOT have the talent of a Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, Federer, probably even not of a Gimeno who was stronger than Emmo.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Pancho was old and Hoad suffered from injuries. Gimeno often spent time at #3, it's certainly possible for Emerson to rank over Gimeno some of the time...

NatF, Even old Pancho was much stronger than Emerson and even Hoad was stronger than him. Remmeber that 40 years old Gonzalez beat Emerson (the holder) at te 1968 French Open plus at the French Pro, also on clay which was Pancho's weakest surface.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, Even old Pancho was much stronger than Emerson and even Hoad was stronger than him. Remmeber that 40 years old Gonzalez beat Emerson (the holder) at te 1968 French Open plus at the French Pro, also on clay which was Pancho's weakest surface.

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.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Charles, Yes he suggests but he is wrong. Even back in the 1960s players and experts mentioned the three pro majors, without calling them the "Pro Grand Slams" though. Rosewall in "World Tennis" wrote that way and C.M.Jones, an acknowledged author, referred to Wembley and French Pro as the "two major pro tournaments".
There was no hype along those lines comparable to the media expectations surrounding the Grand Slam efforts of Budge in 1938, Hoad in 1956, or Laver in 1962 and 1969. Nothing like it.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
There was no hype along those lines comparable to the media expectations surrounding the Grand Slam efforts of Budge in 1938, Hoad in 1956, or Laver in 1962 and 1969. Nothing like it.

Dan, If I would write what I think about your posts, your stubborness and your intelligence, I would maybe be banned again...
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan, If I would write what I think about your posts, your stubborness and your intelligence, I would maybe be banned again...
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.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
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.

NatF, Gonzalez was ranked by both Tingay and Collins No.10 in 1968, Emerson was not ranked. I rank him about No.12.

In 1969 Collins ranked Gonzalez No.6, again Emerson not ranked. Pancho was 41.

Pancho also had wins over Laver and Rosewall in that period!

When will you ever trust my expertise, NatF? You know much more than me about current and recent tennis.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
There was no hype along those lines comparable to the media expectations surrounding the Grand Slam efforts of Budge in 1938, Hoad in 1956, or Laver in 1962 and 1969. Nothing like it.

Dan Lobb, At last you are right with one of your claims. Hurray! But no one on earth has ever claimed the opposite!!!! Get real, old fellow!
 
Top