Calling the US Pro, Wembley and French the Three Most Prestigious Tournaments of That Era, is pretty much the same as calling the a Major, especially as they were played nearly every year from the mid fifties on. Other important tournaments were usually just played for a year or two. Even the TOC only lasted 4 years. Wikipedia, I believe does refer to these tournaments as Majors or something similar. That is why they credit Rosewall with 23 Majors won and Laver with 19, along with Federer.
Men's Season with the most achievement
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's a bit different but I can see your viewpoint. Problem is what do you do with tournaments like the Wimbledon Pro, perhaps the most prestigious tournament of the old Pro Tour era or the Tournament of Champions etc? Prestige tends to vary each year. Was the 1979 Australian Open prestigious? Not really. Was it technically a major? Yes but not in reality because the top players no longer wanted to go play there.
So many questions on the Old Pro Tour on how to evaluate!
Last edited:
No, it doesn't upset me over Hoad, he won many undoubted majors....but it upsets Rosewall and Gonzales supporters that I question the origin of the "pro slam" list...you seem to suggest that it originated a long time after open tennis arrived, therefore, it seems that my suggestion of this list as anachronistic and unhistorical is probably true.
If Collins. a Laver supporter, created the list after 1969, then the list would add further support to Laver's legend.
But I find it hard to believe that this would be the only motivation for the list.
A certain Austrian "historian", or rather "writer", or should we say "Rosewall guy"?
I was not aware that he held a degree in history....
However, Krosero found Kramer designating 4 others as the most important, and with good reason.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Ken Rosewall beat an apparently injured Lew Hoad in the 1958 French Pro final. Injuries are nothing new in tennis, it seems.
Ken only had to beat three opponents to win the French Pro that year, Kramer, Sedgman and Hoad. High quality name opposition, but it's not on the same level as a modern day Slam event at all.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall
Ken only had to beat three opponents to win the French Pro that year, Kramer, Sedgman and Hoad. High quality name opposition, but it's not on the same level as a modern day Slam event at all.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall
NatF
Bionic Poster
Should post that in the Top 10 thread and quote Bobby.
I won't quote Bobby, but I've now reposted it in the Top 10 thread...adds a little bit of enlightenment and context to the subject, I feel.
1983, It's a shame that you continue to insult me.
Lobb, Note: You don't need to hold a degree to be an expert and a tennis historian. Some of the greatest historians did not hold any degree. You just are ugly. For this you also don't need a degree...
Last edited:
In that 1958 RG tournament, Hoad had to win long, tough matches against Trabert and Gonzales to reach the final, where he actually led Rosewall when he wrenched his back reaching for a ball.
Hoad missed the remainder of 1958 recovering.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Do you have a source for this ?
Is that right? I had read somewhere earlier a long time ago that Hoad was injured in that final. You say he injured himself in the final itself?..Ok... I've looked for more info about it myself, just as a matter of interest, but it's quite hard to find any more than in the Citizendium Rosewall feature I brought up yesterday.
thrust, Collins wrote "the highest regarded tournaments". By the way, he never contradicted me when I used the term "pro majors".
You underrate the old Kramer. He finished ahead of strong Segura in the 1957 European and Asian tour.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Kramer in 58 played only 12 matches, going 5-7.
So he's absolutely right.
----
In 57, Kramer was 34-51 and Segura was 119-73
Which tour in 57 are you referring to -- European-African one ?
TennisBase has for European-Africa one :
Kramer with 9 wins and 17 losses
Segura with 14 wins and 15 losses
they were tied 3 all in h2h
So how did Kramer end up ahead ?
For Asia Tour :
Kramer has 4 wins and 5 losses
Segura has 5 wins and 4 losses
They were tied 3 all in the h2h.
So how did Kramer end up ahead ?
Last edited:
ARFED, If you read here: Please send many diapers to Vienna. I need them!
Drob
Hall of Fame
Very strange. Why does McCauley list separately and apart from all other pro activities the yearly results of the U.S. Pro, The London Pro Indoor and The French Pro? Because other tournaments were really the pro majors? Anybody who has read McCauley's book knows he does not stray an inch from orthodoxy.
And so Collins is just a PR man for Rod Laver? Collins has no journalistic integrity? Bud Collins? Not to mention, pick any set of pro tournaments out of hat and Laver will have won the majority of them during his pro career.
Also, in another post, you mentioned that Krosero suggests other tournaments were the real pro Majors? Can you point me to that post?
abmk, never mind Bobby One, he's totally lost the plot. I know he's a biased and blinkered cherry-picker of tennis history now.
The fact that it seems like it's a personal crusade of his to bash 35 year old Federer for winning an eighth Wimbledon without dropping a set makes you wonder what his agenda is. He takes it too far.
As if no one else than Cilic had ever had a blister on a foot! We all said it was a disappointing final and that some of Federer's rivals had form and injury issues this year, everyone knew that, but it's excuses, alibis and more excuses with Bobby One...if a player takes the court, you win or lose and accept the result.
The guy's not a reliable poster and when you make such a big deal about 1 tournament as BobbyOne did, (Wimbledon 2017), then tennis history can come back to bite you and so...
So as for Kramer, in 1958 he was 36/37 when the French Pro was played and by then was suffering from arthritis! So in Rosewall's three matches to win the 1958 French Pro, he beat a 36/37 year old arthritis sufferer in Kramer (and so of course, it was a past-prime Kramer), Sedgman and an injured Hoad in the final!
Imagine the fuss Bobby One would make if it was the other way around!!
BobbyOne, you DEFINITELY need something, but I can't tell you what!
P.S. You're not to be seen as a reliable poster any more, as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited:
I believe that I read that information in the London Times for 1958.
McCauley may have followed Collins on the list...which is why I was wondering where exactly that list originated from.
You should remember that Collins became central to the pro game in 1964, when the Longwood event in Boston (Collins' home turf) kicked off, and this was a time when the pro tour almost disintegrated and disappeared. The pro box office was generating poor returns, and Collins and his broadcasting partner Jack Kramer attempted to inject some much needed interest into the public appreciation of the pro game.
Creating a "history" for the pro game was part of that. This meant puffing the history of "Cleveland U.S. Pro", in reality the "Cleveland World Pro", which was still operating in 1964, and just how that could be reconciled with Longwood is still a mystery.
I am not sure what reference you mean about Krosero. I presume you mean the quote from Kramer in 1958, where Kramer designates the four top tournaments as Forest Hills, LA Masters, Kooyong , and White City.
That quote is obviously buried in the back pages somewhere on this forum....you could use the search engine to find it, or ask Krosero, who did the digging to get the quote.
abmk, You can doubt all I say even that Rosewall won the 1970 US Open and the 1977 Hongkong tournament. Note: I'm not an idiot!
Kramer finished ahead of Segura in the European/African/Asian tour according to World Tennis.
Best, your visionary.
Last edited:
Please, Xavier, leave me in peace. It's not worth to answer such a hater as you are.
Last edited:
Dan Lobb: Collins followed McCauley!
You misinterpret krosero so much that it's a shame.
BobbyOne, do you ALWAYS call someone who disagrees with you a "hater"? It's only sport, after all.
Fact is, you took your criticism of Federer winning Wimbledon 2017 a little too far too often and you've been taken to task for it.
Your hero Ken Rosewall also won a final against an injured opponent, it seems. Glad we cleared that up.
Discussion with you about it is over.
I have not heard a peep out of Bobby for quite some time now...I hope he is all right.
Trying to engage in productive discussion with Bobby is like trying to squeeze water out of a stone....not worth the effort.
I'm getting that impression when trying to have a discussion with BobbyOne.
Bobby's probably alright when he's asleep...
Thanks a lot!!!
I'm getting that impression when trying to have a discussion with BobbyOne.
Bobby's probably alright when he's asleep...
And you claim you are not a hater? LOL!!
PC1, what was the date of Bud's book?It never says Pro Majors in Bud's book. Let me quote the first paragraph-Prior to the start of the Open era in 1968, mainstream tournaments were limited only to amateurs, which left minimal playing opportunities for players who wanted to be paid for playing tennis. Head-to-head tours-barnstorming from city to city-started in 1926 when Suzanne Lenglen took her show on the road alongside Mary K. Browne, Vinnie Richards and Howard Kinsey, Harvey Snodgrass and Paul Feret. Bill Tilden, Ellsworth Vines, Fred Perry, Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Bobby Riggs, Pancho Gonzalez and other tennis greats also later joined the "play for pay" group after conquering the amateur game. Professional tournaments, starting with the U.S. Pro Championships in 1927, also came into existence with the U.S., French Pro and the London Pro Indoor Championships being the three most prestigious events during this era.
There has been some dispute on this Pro Major term of course on this forum and I tire of the argument but I don't see mention of it in Bud's book. That to me seems to be clear. Why doesn't the greatest tennis historian call these three tournaments Pro Majors in his book?
To be honest I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other. Rosewall, Laver and Gonzalez all have won a ton of prestigious tournaments over the years and they probably would be at or near the top no matter what tournaments are included. I found Rosewall using Tennis Base as my guide to be at the top or near the top in what I called Important Tournaments. Some argue Pro Majors but I am skeptical whether that was ever a term truly used in the way people seem to define it now. I know Krosero and others would disagree and they very well could be correct but it's really not a big deal to me. It's just another way of bookkeeping the tennis stats. Incidentally did you know that bookkeeping is the only word in the English Language that has three consecutive double letters?
In the meantime I'm trying to work out the schedule for my seasonals starting next week.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's from the most recent edition, the third edition that just came out last year.
https://www.amazon.com/Bud-Collins-...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=QJWNJC8YGJQ04VWS5PHX
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Now in the same book he has in Chapter 5 "The Majors and the Grand Slam" which does discuss the classic majors and the records. No mention of Pro Majors in any chapter.
Now I repeat that there could be Pro Majors but I see no indisputable evidence of it.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
The problem with calling the top pro-tour tennis events majors is that, as I understand it, the term "major" (and "Grand Slam"), originated with golf, and the major golf championships have been open to amateurs and professionals since almost the very beginning. If an event is only open to a few players, or if it excludes the best players, it can't be much of a major, in my view.
Certainly, a major usually has over 100 players, the pro "majors" had four or eight.
Forest Hills 1959 had 10 pros.
Lobb, Please tell us all pro majors that had only 4 players! Some pro majors (1959 to 1962) had 16 players.
Funny that you mention only a pro major with more than 8 players: that one where your darling succeeded...
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
I am going back to the beginning of this thread. A question was asked and we got off-topic. To offer a possible answer to the question of years of "greatest accomplishment," I put "accomplishment" in a vacuum, not allowing questions of relative level of competition to enter into my evaluation.
Using this simple approach, and also leaving out the obvious calendar Grand Slams (traditional) of Budge and Laver, here, chronologically, are the years of greatest "accomplishment" - greatest accomplishment w/o a calendar-year Grand Slam.
Tilden ’21: Wimbledon and U.S. again and world clay-court champ by winning World Hard Courts Championship, led successful Davis Cup defense;
Tilden '25: Credited with a 78-1 record en route to 15 titles, sixth straight U.S. Championship and sixth straight Davis Cup triumph, with a final round hat-trick;
Budge ‘39: beat pro Champ Vines in WCS, and convincingly in ancillary tour, and thumped Perry in another tour; won both Pro Slams entered (London and Paris).
Trabert '55: Three of four amateur Majors, 106-7 record and 18 titles.
Gonzalez ’56: Beat Tony Trabert 76-25 on WCS tour; won three of four Pro Slams (counting TOC), and finalist in fourth.
Gonzalez ‘57: Beat Ken Rosewall by 2-1 margin in WCS tour; won two of three Pro Majors played that year, plus Masters Pro Round Robin.
Rosewall ’63: Won the Pro Grand Slam, plus a six-man WCS tour.
Laver ‘67: Pro Grand Slam plus Wimbledon Pro, a fourth Major according to many, and 19 total titles;
Connors 1974: 99-4, three Majors out of three he played, 15 titles.
Vilas '77: Not sure about this one, but an 80-Plus consecutive match winning streak when we (rightly) throw out the ridiculous Nastase spaghetti-racket caper.
Borg ‘79: 16 titles (13 official ATP tournaments plus three non-sanctioned events against his top rivals) on 84-6 official record (but more like 95-6), including two of three Majors entered, four Grand Prix events and the YEC.
McEnroe ‘84: 82-3, 14 ATP titles (plus two non-sanctioned titles, which improves his record to 88-3), better than 22-1 versus top-10 players; two Majors out of three entered and fifth-set loss in the third Major, plus titles at both WCT and YEC.
Pick what you like of Federer, I'll take:
Federer 06’: 92-5; 12 titles, including three of four Majors and finalist at French Open, four Masters 1000s, including coast-to-coast double and YEC. Lost only to Nadal (4) and Murray
Nadal ’10: This one sneaks up on you. Only 71-10 record, but won three Slams on three surfaces, clay, grass and hardcourt.
Djokovic ’15: 82-6, 11 titles, including three of four Majors and finalist at French (and played very good match), a record six Masters 1000s, including his third coast-to-coast double and a fourth Italian championship, and the YEC.
Thinking purely accomplishment, without regard to level of competition, I would have to say Nole's 2015 (I actually think his 2011 is more impressive when competition factored in), followed by Mac's '84, Tilden's '25, Gorgo's '56 and Connors' '74 as top five on paper. When you drill down, you will get a different result. But the way I understood the question it was just objective accomplishment.
There are other great years out there: Tilden '20 and '30; Cochet '28, Perry '34, Kramer '47; Hoad '56; Rosewall '62; another three for Laver; Borg '80; Lendl '86 or '87; others for Fed; Nole's 2011, as mentioned. But none of them are quite so dominating as those I put up, IMO.
Interested in your thoughts - these are just ideas.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
A couple of minor things. There was no such thing as a Pro Grand Slam. Rosewall and Laver did very well in winning perhaps three of the most prestigious tournaments in 1963 and 1967 respectively but they weren't Pro Grand Slams. Laver's most important tournament victory in 1967 was perhaps the 1967 Wimbledon Pro which was an 8 man tournament that paved the way to Open Tennis the next year. The 1967 Wimbledon Pro obviously was not Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro but it arguably was more important.
Borg actually won 21 tournaments in 1979, not 16. It was a year under some metrics that you could argue is up there with some of Federer's best years, Laver's 1969 and McEnroe's 1984 for the Open Era.
One year you should examine closely is Sedgman in 1952 for accomplishments. He arguably could have been up there with anyone considering the battle he gave Kramer the next year.
Riggs in 1946 or 1947 in the Pros had a super year. I think he won 14 tournaments out of the scheduled 31 tournaments. Budge was a very distance second on points.
I like your pick of Gonzalez in 1956. It was a super year and one of the best ever.
The problem I have is whether we go by accomplishments here or level of play? I know you want to go by accomplishments but to me it's hard to separate it. For example, Trabert was a super player and he had an unbelievable year in 1955 but when he faced the great Gonzalez the next year he was punished by losing 74 of 101 matches. Can we truly say his year in 1955 was so great if Gonzalez was so far superior to him? Perhaps others like Sedgman and Segura were superior also. Yet I am reluctant to eliminate Trabert's great year in 1955 as nothing because Trabert was such a player of great ability and he defeated some superb players in Rosewall and Hoad. It is arguably the best amateur year of all time.
So if we go by strictly accomplishments I agree about Trabert. It may even be a better year than Budge's 1938 Grand Slam and Laver's 1962 Grand Slam. By strict accomplishments Laver's best year would be 1962 but no one really picked 1962 because people know it wasn't against a top field.
The years are very good. Excellent choices. If you go further back I'm sure the Doherty brothers and Anthony Wilding had some incredible years also.
One way maybe to eliminate some of the years is to look at some of the greats and just pick one year that was their best like Nadal in 2010 for example for some, Federer in 2006, Laver in 1967, McEnroe in 1984, Connors in 1978, Vilas in 1977, Gonzalez in 1956, Rosewall in 1962, Hoad in 1959, Nastase in 1973, Sampras in 1994 etc.
Last edited:
pc1, The three pro majors were not "perhaps" the most prestigious tournaments. In fact they were the most prestigious ones.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Here's a question for all of you as far as achievement is concerned. Clearly the 1967 Wimbledon Pro was more prestigious than Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro in 1967 and no doubt the most important Old Pro Tour Tournament of them all because of the significant of playing at Wimbledon with the possible result of Open Tennis in the future. At the same time it was an eight man tournament that relatively speaking is not nearly as strong as a Masters 1000 tournament or a major of today with all the top players playing but with a larger field and all best of five. Yet at the same time I would venture to say the 1967 Wimbledon Pro could be more prestigious than some classic majors because of the significance of history.
However when I examine the greatness of a player (this is just me) I tend to look at how tough the tournaments they played in were which shows me their level of play. So to me a victory by a Michael Chang or a Jim Courier in a Masters 1000. Chang won 7 Masters 1000 tournaments which is to me at least a far greater accomplishment than winning Wembley, the US Pro or the French Pro. How much more, I'm not sure. Maybe it's the same as 12 of those tournaments, 10 or more.
So while the 1967 Wimbledon Pro was a prestigious tournament, any of Michael Chang's Masters 1000 tournaments to me at least is a more significant achievement. Now of course it shouldn't take away from what Laver had done but at the same time it was not a herculean feat. Laver of course won many tournaments that were the equivalent or perhaps greater than some Masters 1000 tournaments but I don't think his Pro Majors were at that level. Laver's Open Grand Slam was perhaps the ultimate achievement of the Open Era for a year yet statistically is it superior to Djokovic winning four majors in a row? I don't think so.
Do I think the Pancho Gonzalez winning the 1969 Howard Hughes was at least equal to any Pro Major? I would say yes. Look at the field. It was also prestigious immediately considering the monetary reward.
http://www.tennisarchives.com/voorloopfiche.php?wedstrijdvoorloopid=7697
Here's Gonzalez in a film during that tournament. You can see a little of him playing Newcombe, Rosewall and Ashe. Note how smooth Gonzalez is as a player at over age 40. His footwork and movement is wonderful to watch.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks. Needless to say don't understand this resistance to the consensus pro slams or pro majors.
Wish one of the naysayers would offer a reasoned, historically supported basis for their "revisionist" view of what is already "critical" critique of lazy commentator/sportswriter/Pete. Sampras history of tennis.
I am all ears. But seems like We are trying to get the tennis world to recognize the general superiority of pre-open pro game, but. people on "our side" are saying we have our statistics and tournaments all wrong.
The pros of the old pro tour did not have "majors" as we understand them today..
If you had asked them about "pro majors" they would not have understood what you were talking about.
The formats were different on the old tour.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Appreciate your first post but strongly disagree with this second post.
You are basically right about Sedgman 1952. Maybe should have been in my first tier and at the least in my "others". Was it 15 or 13 tourney titles? Tore up the grass and played Drib even in clay. Maybe not that year but he win a couple of cement-based championships at PSW. Based on fact Sedge completely held his own as rookie pro in '53,we cannot name a No 1 for 1952 - it is a 3-way toss-up. And Sedge easily top-10 all-time Davis Cup player. I am big on Sedgman.
You read his recent autobiography? Is it any good?
NatF
Bionic Poster
My issue is not whether or not those events were the biggest but how they're weighted in comparison to modern events.
Lobb, Wrong as mostly...
Drob, Sedgman won 15 tournaments in 1952. For that year we have four candidates for No.1 place: Kramer, Gonzalez, Segura and Sedgman.
