Talk:Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era

Wembley

There was no Wembley tournament from 1940 to 1948.

The tournament at Wembley has been called the "London Indoor Professional Champs" from only 1951 (and not 1934) to 1967. In 1968 it was called "Kramer Tournament of Champions". From 1969 to 1971 it was called the "British Covered Court Champs". It was not held from 1972 to 1975 (Richey has won a tournament in London at the Royal Albert Hall in 1972). Finally it was called the "Benson & Hedges Tournament" since 1976.

Carlo Colussi 10:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Changements

I've changed some names : for instance there were 1936 and 1937 French pro editions (won respectively by Cochet and Nusslein) and the 1938 French pro edition hasn't been won by Cochet but by Nusslein, see different Ray Bowers's articles.

McCauley hasn't traced any Wembley tournaments in 1946 and in 1947, the last year he has only listed tour matches.

Carlo Colussi 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think, here is many ridiculous redirections to this article - for example MaliVai Washington or Paul Haarhuis; finalist of Wimbledon and winner of many doubles titles - I believe - should have theres owns articles. Those two are only examples. 62.108.183.131 19:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the author doesn't like red links. I have already posted a message on his talk page. —Cantus…☎ 03:27, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, MaliVai Washington has now been rectified. --Iceager 05:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Table

I've added a table (about the Bristol Cup and the Deauville tournament) in the paragraph "French Pro Championship " but knowing almost anything about form if anyone can reduce the width of the table it would be good. Thanks. Carlo Colussi (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not played?

Do you know why Wembley wasn't held in 54-55 neither French Pro in 57? Thank you. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lucio, very probably because the organisers failed to gather enough money. Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

sourcing problem

We have a big problem with the sourcing of this article. Recent additions of three tournaments as pro majors/pro grand slams is not tenable. There are only a few good sources that I could find for calling them Pro Grand Slams and they all point to the big three, not only because they were the most important but because of their longevity. Plus the other mentioned tournaments were just as big as the three additions (world pro, toc, and wimpro) and also just as fleet an existence. We need this to be a table for the big 3 as sourced but perhaps another table that includes all the other important pro events.... not just those 3 new additions. We can't go by what we think is a pro slam... it's what is sourced as a grand slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal:-

What are these 'Sources'? You have to quote the sources. Why do they carry any more weight than Ray Bowers who says that the World Pro was the most prestigious event? What makes these 'Sources' more authoritative? My problem with your change back is that it ignores the fact that these tournaments were regarded as Majors at the time.

See this link

http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/VV12245/hans-nusslein-holding-his-trophy

This is Nusslien with his 1934 US Pro Trophy. He is referred to as the 'World Champion' (referring to his win the previous September at the World Pro. Championships at Berlin). There is no sense that the World Pro is a lesser event than the US Pro. there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.76.197 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources are there. Almost everyone of the pro tournaments listed on the page has some historian saying they were the greatest tournament of the year. I believe them. But there have been times when the year end championship or Miami Masters is the best event of the year... or the olympics. That doesn't make them a Major. That also takes many years of existence and why a couple of writers have dubbed the French Pro, US pro and Wembley the pro slams. Certainly the the 1934 World pro was as big as it gets that particular year. But the International Pro Championship of Britain was big too in its day, as was the Bonnardel Cup. They are just as important and short lived as the World Pro. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Response:-

You obviously are very knowledgeable about tennis history, so I mean no dis-respect by the following challenges. You will have to quote your sources. It simply isn't enough to discard these tournaments quoting unnamed sources. In these sources you will have to establish their credibility over other sources and also establish the fact that these Sources did not consider the Wimbledon Pro, the Tournament of Champions or the World Pro - as Pro Majors.

Also, what credible tennis commentator has ever said that the Year end Championship or Miami or the Olympics event was the most important event of the year. There isn't anybody. So I am sorry - I can't at all agree with your point. The tournaments I am talking about did have credibility at the time as the tournaments of the year. In fact I wouldn't even have to establish that - just that they were equal to Wembley, the French Pro and the US Pro. But it is clear to all concerned that the World Pro of 1932, 1933 was regarded by all concerned eg Bill Tilden as the top event of the year. Tilden in early 1933 rated Plaa (in disagreement with other commentators - and I would disagree with Tilden but that's not the point here) as the Number 1 for 1932 - largely because of his win at the World Pro. Now if it was the top event of the year how can it not be a Pro Major? Tmartin prof (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources are quoted in the actual article. The sources certainly do not need to say one thing about WP, ToC or WP. You don't need to source what isn't there. And remember the Wikipedia Mantra "verifiability, not truth." Also John McEnroe was saying on tv just a month ago, in front of millions of viewers, that the Olympics was as big or bigger than the Majors. Now lets make sure we are talking the same thing so I don't make any wrong assumptions: Major=Grand Slam Tournament. So not a a whole bunch of major tournaments, but three long term prestigious Pro Grand Slams. That's what the sources were talking about. Without those sources we can pretty much throw this article away because very few sports sources today would say anything at all about the Pro Majors. I've read every square inch of that Ray Bower report and it's great. I love the old stuff and far too many on wikipedia disregard it as trivial. Look how many open era record type pages we have as opposed to all-time record articles. Shameful.

But sources are sources and that World Pro, though a "major event" for two years only, was not listed as a Pro Grand Slam. Two years does not a grand slam make. The US pro, Wembley pro and French Pro were not talked and sourced as Pro Slams because in any given year they were better... they were labeled as such because over 30-40 years they were still there, were usually the biggest, they still payed and had long term prestige (or at least as much prestige as the pros could get). That's what made them the Pro Slams. Now those other 13 tournaments listed in the article, at one time or another, were also as big as pro tournaments got, and that's why they are also listed. If someone also wants to make a chart with those 13 or even those 13 plus the pro slams I have no problem with it (though it might be way too large and unwieldy). Just don't call the chart Pro Majors or Pro Grand Slams because we have no sources for it. Now if Bud Collins writes another book, or Australian Tennis Magazine writes a huge spread on including perhaps the Australian Pro as one of the Pro Grand Slams.... then we need to re-evaluate, resource and rewrite this article to include it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Masters Round Robin

The Los Angeles pro tournament in 1956 was the first Los Angeles Masters and not the first Tournament of Champions!

I found many sources in Newspaper archive!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.81.211 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have seen sources that call it the Tournament of Champions Los Angeles. Maybe they were unsure what to call it the first year, like the Superbowl wasn't called the Superbowl in year one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It was NEVER the Tournament of Champions, the 1956 edition was the inaugural L.A. Masters, and it was billed and reported this way every year from 1956 to 1959. This is not even an issue.Tennisedu (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

World Pro Championship Series

Hi can someone explain what the World Pro Championship Series events were won by the likes of Gonzales, Krammer, Vines, Rosewall, Tilden and Budge etc.--Navops47 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The events are listed on tennisbase here:WORLD PRO CH. SERIES I (CURRENTLY WORLD PRO CH. SERIES ) Roll of Honour https://app.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=tournament&accion=honour&pais=&nomTorneo=WORLD+PRO+CH.+SERIES+I&descPais=&codpais=#datosDraw that they have seperate from the Pro Tours.--Navops47 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

More information I think TB are referring to this section of Gonzales statistics Pancho_Gonzales_career_statistics#Professional_tours if you look at that section it mentions World Pro Tour was a series of matches probably why TB called it World Pro Champ Series in that section e.g. 1957 his 76 matches against Rosewall tally up with the TB stats for that year if you look at this https://app.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=playern&player1=GONZALES,%20PANCHO&sub=6&apartado=6&player2_head=ROSEWALL,%20KEN#aSubmenu they appear to be 1 match each time but the TB site is listing more than 1 set played anything from 3 to 5 sets per match. In Mazaks book he lists a Pro tour alongside the Pro Slams (excluding the French) for some reason, for that year on page 85 I thinks he's talking about this World Pro Tour series he says the Tour kicks of against Rosewall in Melbourne 14/01/1957 and ends in 28/05/1957 in Bakersfield they played in 4 countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA with Gonzales ahead of Rosewall 50 to 26. BTW he also lists the Aussie pro and TC pro at Forest Hills that year. This discussion on tennis forums explains it further https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/1957-four-man-tours-rosewall-hoad-kramer-segura.506986/ the World Pro Championship series involved a head to head tour between the challenger and the holder from the previous year in 1957 Rosewall won the 1956 four man world tour in order to play Gonzales as the challenger in the first half of 1957 to determine the World Pro Tour Champion the forum discussions explain this a bit further the 57 tour that starts in August in France ends in December in Australia Rosewall wins again and will face Gonzales again in 1958. The breakdown of the 57 WPCS is here: https://app.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=tournament&accion=draw&torneoSearch=WORLD%20PRO%20CH.%20SERIES&year=1957 there is however no mention of these 4 man world tours to determine a challenger against the the Winner of the the previous years World Pro Championship (tour) series in this article.--Navops47 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Another older discussion arguing that this is the 4th Pro Slam here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/pro-championship-draws-1930s-to-1968.276259/.--Navops47 (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Australian Pro

Why do you consider these tournaments as Australian Pro? What are the sources? Simply there were no Australian Pro tourneys. The best and most important were the Tournaments of Champions of Sydney and Kooyong !!!! Maybe also Kooyong 1960 as season ending event of the 1959 season .

No Australian Pro, please !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.83.162 (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There's an entire article on the Australian Pro with two separate sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wimbledon Pro 1967

In my view this should not be classed as an "other significant event" but should be regarded as a pro major in its own right. A hugely important event in many respects. Huge prize money, BBC TV coverage, the only big pro event held at Wimbledon prior to the open era and paved the way for Wimbledon becoming open. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree considering there was one event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

One event that was an extremely important event. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

True, but the major slams also had a history behind them. There are years in the Open Era where the four majors had weaker fields than other events, but they are still the only four majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is partly because of the tradition of Wimbledon, and the prestige of hosting a major pro event there for the first time that set this event apart from others. This was not just a one-off pro event with big prize money, it was much more significant than that. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In order to take this idea of the Pro Grand Slam seriously, we have to show from the reminiscences of the players themselves, either at the time, or even in retrospect, that they actually were aware of such a concept when they played the pro game. Laver shows no awareness of the pro GS in his published books. For each year, Laver gives a list of tournaments which he regarded as "important", usually about seven or more events, but he never says, okay, I played the Big Three majors, and then four or five other significant tournaments. He appears to have been unaware of such a concept as the Pro Grand Slam. Same for Rosewall, same for Gonzales, same for Hoad, same for Buchholz, it looks like same for everybody. I think that we have some work to do in order to establish this concept, like starting with statements from the players themselves. Because if the players were not even aware of the Pro GS, the concept has no significance for anyone, the players did not plan their season around winning Pro GS events. And they did not even think about winning a Pro Grand Slam in one season. Let's get to work on sourcing this concept. Otherwise it remains a fantasy without any real basis in the play of the time.Tennisedu (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The major pro events were the three major pro events most often held and were prestigious events. McCauley lists these in a seperate section at the back of his book making clear he considers these the major pro events. I have no problem with that. However, the concept of winning the "pro slam" like you would win a Grand Slam, (ie Laver winning the US Open to complete the Grand Slam) did not exist. Also certainly in some years there were other events that could be considered majors, particularly 1967 Wimbledon Pro, which was clearly the most important pro event of 1967. I would be open to the idea of listing the existing 3 pro majors as majors plus added extras based on set criterea, but each added event would have to prove its worth in each year to be considered a major. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

McCauley was writing about the year 2000, and was not himself a pro player in the old pro era. To be considered a major "pro slam" event, part of a regular series of GS events, there has to be some awareness by the players who participated in them that these were "Pro Majors", and that is where we have a problem here. It means nothing to designate an event as a "major" today, many years later, if the players who played in those events did not regard them as special major tournaments. It seems clear from Laver's biographies that he was unaware of the Big Three, he only mentions a group of events which changed for each year as being the most important. Same for Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, Buchholz. We need to put some substance onto this concept, to show that the players bothered to gear their games for a major pro event. I am not sure that they did, it appears that Laver geared himself for about seven to ten important events each year, none more important than the others. Tennisedu (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wembley from the early 50s was authorised by the Lawn Tennis Association. The LTA is not one of these little pro organisations, they are the national governing body of tennis in Great Britain. It is clear reading articles that Wembley was considered an important pro event. US Pro was the big pro event in America. It is clear from everything I have read that this was regarded as an important pro event for many years. It did decline in the later years at Cleveland, but this was quite a short period of time. French Pro of later years was often described as one of the big two events towards the end of the season, along with Wembley. Both US Pro and French Pro are the pro championships of US and France and Wembley was considered the top event in Britain for many years. Other events could also be regarded as majors in certain years, but McCauley was not plucking tournaments out of the air to create his major list. He researched the pro tour and read the reports the same as I have. If you think that other tournaments should be regarded as pro majors in certain years then bring forth your evidence and state your case. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not proposing any case for pro majors, so I have no need to try and find evidence in a certain direction. But let's take a look at McCauley and his view of the pro majors. In 1963 Rosewall won the U.S. Pro at Forest Hills, the French Pro at Stade Coubertin, and the Wembley Indoor Pro title, and that should give him the "Pro Grand Slam" if that concept means anything at all. Right? But what do we read in McCauley? "Rosewall confirmed his status as the world's top star" by winning Wembley....not a peep about "Pro Grand Slam". Not by McCauley, not later by Rosewall (who supposedly won the pro GS that year), not by any player. How about 1967, when Laver won the proposed Pro GS? Well, that's a little better for your case. McCauley states that Laver's win at Wembley "confirmed once more the supremacy of Laver" by giving him a "clean sweep" of all the major pro titles for 1967. Well, "clean sweep" is not exactly the "Pro Grand Slam", not the same language or terminology. No champagne celebrations for winning the Grand Slam. Laver? He never mentioned the Pro Grand Slam which he supposedly won in 1967. To be faithful to the source, we should be using the term "Pro Clean Sweep". That does not quite have the nice ring of Pro Grand Slam. Sorry, but the sources are weak for this idea.Tennisedu (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"My" case? You obviously haven't read what I said. There can be major pro events without there being a calendar year pro-Slam. The concept of the amateur Grand Slam only came into existence in the 1930s. But there were major amateur events long before that. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Pro 1951 and 1954

ForzaUV, we have discussed this issue many times and this is the result of our discussions. Please do not change the table without discussing the content on this issue. There were two claimed U.S. Pro tournaments in 1951 and two claimed U.S. Pro events in 1954, although we do not have any references to the Cleveland World Pro of 1954 as the U.S. Pro. However, Tennishistory1877 and other editors insist on using the term U.S. Pro for the Cleveland events, and this is how we classify them for the purposes of this article. These are two separate events for each year, these are not split titles. Each event needs its own line.Tennisedu (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tennisedu, you linked Kovacs's title but we don't have the draw for 1951 Cleveland. Can you add it to the relevant article or no draw available for the event? ForzaUV (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

ForzaUV, we are currently in discussion regarding the scope of my editing for these articles, including this article. I will probably not be able to edit this article going further, as part of an agreement.Tennisedu (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV 1951 Cleveland. June 1951. Round 1 - W. Tilden d. E. Copeland 6-3,6-4 G. Lyttleton Rogers d. J. Hendrix 6-2,6-4 Round 2 - F. Kovacs d. M. Buxby 6-0,6-2 W. Tilden d. W. Sabin 7-5,6-3 V. Rurac d. J. March 6-2,7-5 D. Budge d. A. Doyle 6-4,6-3 C. Earn d. R. McFarland 6-3,6-1 F. Parker d. R. Rogers 8-6,6-0 E. Cooke d. G. Lyttleton Rogers 6-1,6-1 P. Segura d. G. Richey 6-3,6-3 Quarter finals - F. Kovacs d. W. Tilden 6-4,6-3,6-3 D. Budge d. V. Rurac 6-2,6-1,7-5 C. Earn d. F. Parker 6-2,9-7,6-3 P. Segura d. E. Cooke 6-1,6-1,6-4 Semi finals - F. Kovacs d. D. Budge 19-17,6-2,6-1 P. Segura d. C. Earn 3-6,6-3,6-2,6-2 Final - F. Kovacs d. P. Segura 6-2,3-6,6-3,1-6,9-7 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

British Pro Championships 1930

Letcord, you claim that the 1930 British Pro Championships were held at Wimbledon, but McCauley claims that they were held at Eastbourne. Is McCauley wrong again?Tennisedu (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've no idea of the truth, but the book I referenced by Barrett has:

This crucial decision by the LTA [to allow open tennis in Britain] came in the wake of another momentous occasion, the staging of the first major professional tournament on the sacred lawns of the All England Club in August 1967 involving the eight leading professionals of the day [...] However, this was not Wimbledon's first professional tournament. Few people know that in July 1930 the British Professional Championships were played there. The singles was won by Dan Maskell, the resident professional, who beat the Melbury Club professional Tom Jeffery 6–1 6–0 6–2 in the final on No. 2 Court.

Letcord (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that McCauley got it wrong again....this is sounding like a broken record. Tennisedu (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary newspaper reports confirm it was played at Wimbledon. Books with (tens of) thousands of individual facts—player names, dates, locations, scores—researched in isolation are bound to have many mistakes, no matter how meticulous the author was. Is there anyone keeping track of all the known errors in McCauley? Letcord (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)