What are / were the Majors for Men?

[timnz]

PLEASE VOTE BY CLICKING MULTIPLE BOXES FOR ALL THE EVENTS THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE COUNTED AS A MAJOR

Like Golf tennis has changed what has been regarded as it's majors over time. Some of the events have a stronger case and others a weaker case for being a major.

Our current majors are: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon & the US Open

Prior to the mid-1920's the official majors were: World Hardcourt Championship (played on clay), Wimbledon and the World Covered Court Championship (played on indoor wood) Note: The US open was regarded as an 'unofficial major' then.

There have also been what have been regarded as Pro Majors. The most commonly asserted for that title were: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro. But over and above those 3 a number of events, at the time they were played, were regarded as majors eg World Pro Championships in Berlin in 1932, 1933; the 'Tournament of Championships played from 1956 to 1959 inclusive (the last 3 at Forest Hills (1 prior at LA). How about the most important tournament in the 1920's for Professionals - the Bristol Cup played in France? Wimbledon Professional Championship 1967 - anyone? To add to this, should the acheivement of being the winner of the World Professional Champion based on head to head tours be regarded as a Major ? eg Gonzales won 7 of those. These were played from 1931 to 1963. The Final category in the old professional tours could be the events that were big in the day but are somewhat forgotten today ie

Australian Pro - 1954 to 1966 - Rosewall won 3 times, Laver 4 times

- Forest Hills Pro - 1966 - Laver won

- Masters Pro in Los Angeles - 1957 to 1965 - Gonzales won twice, Rosewall and Laver won once each

- Madison Square Garden Pro - 1954 & 1966 to 1967 - Gonzales won once (1954), Laver and Rosewall won once each (1967 and 1966 respectively)

- Philadelphia Indoor Pro - 1950 to 1952 - Gonzales won it twice.

- Tennis Champions Classic - 1970 & 1971 - Laver won both of these

Another seperate category are the various season end titles in the open era ie World Tour Finals (ATP), WCT Finals in Dallas (WCT) and the Grand Slam Cup (ITF). Should those be regarded as Majors.

The last two: Davis Cup - a Major? Olympics singles gold - a major?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Looks like the Tournament of Champions was the winner.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think that I would add a vote for the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, which was the most remunerative pro tournament ever for professional tennis players in the old split era.

 

[thrust]

I think that I would add a vote for the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, which was the most remunerative pro tournament ever for professional tennis players in the old split era.

A tournament played only once should not count as a career major win.. The same of the TOC which was only played 3 or 4 years.

 

[Dan Lobb]

A tournament played only once should not count as a career major win.. The same of the TOC which was only played 3 or 4 years.

And why is that? These were the most important pro tournaments ever held.

 

[thrust]

And why is that? These were the most important pro tournaments ever held.

Because I say so-LOL!

 

[nolefam_2024]

Can someone please explain the formats for these events. Because I hear they had first to 10 sets and draw size of just 12 to 16.
That doesn't look very good now.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Because I say so-LOL!

Many of the old pro tournaments either had weak fields or were intermittent, so that simply goes with the territory.

The criteria I use to determine a great pro event is
1) a major venue
2) a major field

These two criteria cut down the field to a small number of events.

I would include the three national pro majors (US Pro, Wembley, French Pro) in most years, plus other important events such as the 1952 Roland Garros Pro, the 1957-1959 Forest Hills Tournment of Champions, the Australian Tournament of Champions at Kooyong in 1958 (the biggest paycheques of the era) and 1957, 1959 (at White City in Sydney), the 1958 Masters Pro at Sydney White City, the 1960 Qantas International at Kooyong, the 1967 Wimbledon Pro (which was regarded as the most important event of the season).

I would be less dogmatic about these titles than most, and not include the weak field years of the three national pro titles.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Can someone please explain the formats for these events. Because I hear they had first to 10 sets and draw size of just 12 to 16.
That doesn't look very good now.

The draws of 12 to 16 were good for the old pro era, and in most years the top 3 to 8 players in a season would be in the pro ranks.

In the late 1950s Kramer referred to the amateur ranks as the feeder system for his pro tour.