PDA

View Full Version : World Hard Court Championships was a Grand Slam event?


Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:06 AM
Just wondering what everyone thinks of this. For me, the Grand Slam in tennis is:

Australian (Open) Championships (Past winners (http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/hall_of_fame.html))
French (Open) Championships (Past winners (http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html))
Wimbledon (Past winners (http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/index.html))
US (Open) Championships (Past winners (http://2008.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/mschamps.html))

There's been a disturbing number of posters who are counting World Hard Court Championships from 1912-1923 as a Grand Slam event most likely due to sources like Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Lenglen#Grand_Slam_singles_finals

For example:

The 'additional' four slams were not National Championships. They were the World Hardcourt Championships where all the worlds best players competed until 1925 when the French was opened to non-French nationals.

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=16050909&postcount=5

This is what happens when people rely on Wikipedia for knowledge.

I just wanted to clarify that most people are still on the same page with regard to the Grand Slam events. I mean if we're going to include events like World Hard Court Championships then before we know it, events like Lipton International Players Championships (Miami) or World Team Tennis from 1970s will be included.

I just want to make sure that the idea that a Grand Slam event is a Grand Slam event because USA, France, Great Britain and Australia dominated Davis Cup for decades from its inception and thus the Championships of those four nations became the cornerstone events of the sport is still alive.

If you look at the past winners list for the French (Open) Championships it does not talk about World Hard Court Champions at all. Nor does it talk about the World Hard Court Championships, which was a separate event.

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:07 AM
From Wiki

1Until 1923, the French Championships were open only to French nationals. The World Hard Court Championships (WHCC), actually played on clay in Paris or Brussels, began in 1912 and were open to all nationalities. The results from that tournament are shown here for 1914 and from 1920 through 1923. The Olympics replaced the WHCC in 1924, as the Olympics were held in Paris. Beginning in 1925, the French Championships were open to all nationalities, with the results shown here beginning with that year.

And Lenglen's major haul would be the same even if you exclude WHCC and swap in the closed French championships--12. There's no double dipping involved. I don't see what the problem is. The WHCC was a much bigger event, open to anyone, and tennis historians credit that as France's "major" during the time frame before the french championships were open.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 07:50 AM
From Wiki

1Until 1923, the French Championships were open only to French nationals. The World Hard Court Championships (WHCC), actually played on clay in Paris or Brussels, began in 1912 and were open to all nationalities. The results from that tournament are shown here for 1914 and from 1920 through 1923. The Olympics replaced the WHCC in 1924, as the Olympics were held in Paris. Beginning in 1925, the French Championships were open to all nationalities, with the results shown here beginning with that year.

And Lenglen's major haul would be the same even if you exclude WHCC and swap in the closed French championships--12. There's no double dipping involved. I don't see what the problem is. The WHCC was a much bigger event, open to anyone, and tennis historians credit that as France's "major" during the time frame before the french championships were open.
Which tennis historians credit it as France's "major"? Please give me some names?

So are you actually answering "Yes, it was a Grand Slam event"?

:confused:

AnomyBC
Jul 12th, 2009, 07:54 AM
From Wiki

1Until 1923, the French Championships were open only to French nationals. The World Hard Court Championships (WHCC), actually played on clay in Paris or Brussels, began in 1912 and were open to all nationalities. The results from that tournament are shown here for 1914 and from 1920 through 1923. The Olympics replaced the WHCC in 1924, as the Olympics were held in Paris. Beginning in 1925, the French Championships were open to all nationalities, with the results shown here beginning with that year.

And Lenglen's major haul would be the same even if you exclude WHCC and swap in the closed French championships--12. There's no double dipping involved. I don't see what the problem is. The WHCC was a much bigger event, open to anyone, and tennis historians credit that as France's "major" during the time frame before the french championships were open.

I, like the original poster and Tennis Hall of Fame, put Lenglen's major total at 8, because certainly the French Championships should not count as a major during the time when it was only open to French nationals and I've seen little evidence to support the idea that the WHCC was ever considered to be a major. I think this idea comes primarily from Lenglen supporters who are trying to inflate her total to better reflect her dominance as a player.

Anyway, what tennis historians credit the WHCC as having been a major? Do you have quotes? And has the WHCC ever been used as part of the major total of any player besides Lenglen?

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:23 AM
I, like the original poster and Tennis Hall of Fame, put Lenglen's major total at 8, because certainly the French Championships should not count as a major during the time when it was only open to French nationals and I've seen little evidence to support the idea that the WHCC was ever considered to be a major. I think this idea comes primarily from Lenglen supporters who are trying to inflate her total to better reflect her dominance as a player.

Anyway, what tennis historians credit the WHCC as having been a major? Do you have quotes? And has the WHCC ever been used as part of the major total of any player besides Lenglen?

:spit: Lenglen supporters. :lol: Aren't they all long dead?
So not only will you eliminate the WHCC but also SL's French nationals as majors? So basically she only had one opportunity to win a major per year-- Wimbledon (and even that opportunity was significantly compromised due to war).

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:38 AM
:spit: Lenglen supporters. :lol: Aren't they all long dead?
So not only will you eliminate the WHCC but also SL's French nationals as majors? So basically she only had one opportunity to win a major per year-- Wimbledon (and even that opportunity was significantly compromised due to war).
No he has a great point because Bill Tilden also won the 1921 World Hard Court Championships but on the same source (Wikipedia) his page doesn't say he won a French Championship or a Grand Slam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Tilden#Grand_Slam_record

His Grand Slam record is as it should be: 10 Grand Slam singles (3 Wimbledons and 7 US Championships).

So maybe it's Lenglen supporters, maybe it's people who do not know or understand the concept of "Grand Slam" tennis. Who knows.. either way it is wrong.

And I won't even go there about opportunities because that's not the point of this discussion.

I actually happen to think Lenglen as one of the Greatest players of all time. She doesn't need numbers to back up her greatness. But that's another thread. I'm a purist. This is about getting the truth, not just fudging numbers to make a point.

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2009, 09:26 AM
http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/info.htm

bwahahahahaha
Jul 12th, 2009, 09:26 AM
World hard court championships on clay? :spit:

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 09:29 AM
http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/info.htm
http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/FRE%20WOMENS%20CHAMPIONS.htm

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 09:34 AM
http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/info.htm

http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/index.html

TOP 10 GRAND SLAM WOMEN'S SINGLES CHAMPIONS

1. Margaret Smith Court 24
2. Steffi Graf 22
3. Helen Wills Moody 19
4. Chris Evert Lloyd 18
4. Martina Navratilova 18
6. Billie-Jean Moffitt King 12
7. Serena Williams 11
8. Maureen Connolly 9
8. Monica Seles 9
10. Suzanne Lenglen 8

Game, set and match Sam L!!

Damn! Thank you, thank you... :kiss:

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2009, 09:39 AM
http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/lenglen.htm

Hm, I don't know why, but I've always remembered SL as being mentioned as having 12 majors. Maybe it's just the number fudging.

Although I don't see that much of a problem in counting France's big open tournament as a major while there was a closed national event, especially considering the big open event was no longer held once the national event became open.

They didn't even have anything near a concept of grand slam tennis back then, anyway. The big tournaments for women were Wimbledon, and US Open, and WHCC, which was homologous to the tournaments that are counted as a "major."

die_wahrheit
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:04 AM
Wimbledon is the only one, others come and go.
Even this US Open thing hasn't really some tradition. Changed their surface every 2 years in the 70ies.
Navratilova refused to play French Open for a lot of years.

AnomyBC
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:25 AM
:spit: Lenglen supporters. :lol: Aren't they all long dead?
So not only will you eliminate the WHCC but also SL's French nationals as majors? So basically she only had one opportunity to win a major per year-- Wimbledon (and even that opportunity was significantly compromised due to war).

Well Bud Collins is still alive :) But yes, what you're saying is true. For 4 years of her career she didn't get to play any majors and if you don't count the French before 1925 or the WHCC as majors, then that means for 7 years of her career she was only able to play 1 major and then in the remaining 2 years of her career she was only able to play 2. That's why her slam total is hugely misleading. But that really has nothing to do with whether or not the WHCC was a major. Either it was considered a major at the time or it wasn't. It may be that evidence can be produced that would support the argument that it was indeed considered to be a major, but it shouldn't be elevated to a major just to benefit Lenglen's stats.

PS - One argument for it being a major that no one has mentioned---It was apparently a bigger tournament at the time than the Australian Championships and yet we do consider that to have been a major.

Inktrailer
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:28 AM
http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/index.html



Game, set and match Sam L!!

Damn! Thank you, thank you... :kiss:

I'm finding this all interesting, but not sure why you're posting this link, it's just some guy's website, nothing remotely official about it:confused:

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:34 AM
I'm finding this all interesting, but not sure why you're posting this link, it's just some guy's website, nothing remotely official about it:confused:
You should take that up with the poster that posted it in the first place.

Inktrailer
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:42 AM
You should take that up with the poster that posted it in the first place.

Good point:lol:

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:34 PM
http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/lenglen.htm

Hm, I don't know why, but I've always remembered SL as being mentioned as having 12 majors. Maybe it's just the number fudging.

Although I don't see that much of a problem in counting France's big open tournament as a major while there was a closed national event, especially considering the big open event was no longer held once the national event became open.

They didn't even have anything near a concept of grand slam tennis back then, anyway. The big tournaments for women were Wimbledon, and US Open, and WHCC, which was homologous to the tournaments that are counted as a "major."

I've been pretty oblivious to this new little trend. Over on BFTP, some are acknowledging this as a Grand Slam too. :help: I don't know if this is just fascination with Lenglen but anyone who knows why the concept of "Grand Slam" even exists will not even debate whether Lenglen has 8 or 12 Grand Slam singles titles.

I have seriously not heard of any former tennis greats or commentators refer to her as having 12 nor the WHCC as a Grand Slam.

The French Championships began in 1891 for the men. They became open to Internationals in 1925. When the term "Grand Slam" was coined, it is reference to this even which has been continuous existence since 1891. Not the SEPARATE event that existed between 1912-1923.

The World Championships idea was made with having World Hard Court Championships, World Championships on Grass and World Covered Court Championships in mind.

It has NOTHING to do with the Championships event of France which is what the idea of Grand Slam is about.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:40 PM
I, like the original poster and Tennis Hall of Fame, put Lenglen's major total at 8, because certainly the French Championships should not count as a major during the time when it was only open to French nationals and I've seen little evidence to support the idea that the WHCC was ever considered to be a major.

Whether or not people accept the WHCC as "counting" for a grand slam or not let's be clear about a few things. It WAS a major. In fact it was the the world's #2 event at a time when the US Championships counted for much less.The best evidence for that is simply to go back and read tennis magazines or newspapers from that era.

The other reason the WHCC deserves respect is the fact that it was the parent of the French Open. When the ITF was formed in 1913 it designated the event at St. Cloud in Paris the World's Championships on clay and Wimbledon the World's Championships on grass. Things went along just fine until a couple of events changed the status of the WHCC.

First of all the United States got all in a snit because it resented the status of Wimbledon. The second was the Olympic Games, which happened to be held in Antwerp (1920) and Paris (1924). Due to Paris also being the regular site of the WHCC it was not held in 1924. When the United States decided not to join the ITF in 1913 it was no big deal. Things had changed by 1924. The US had Bill Tilden. It had won the Davis Cup. Molla Mallory had beaten Lenglen at Forest Hills in 1921. The up and coming champion was Helen Wills of the US.

The end result was the ITF gave in to American pressure and dropped the "World Championships" titles from BOTH Wimbledon and the French event. Wimbledon went on. The French went on, except now it was titled the French Open.

So in 1925 the French Open was played in the same place (St Cloud) and the same time as the World Hard Court Championships. It wasn't suddenly hyped in the press as being more or less of a "major" than the WHCC. It existed as it had up to that point, as the World's #2 event (behind Wimbledon) with the US rapidly catching up in prestiege.

A new site (Roland Garros) came into being in 1928.

The Grand Slam didn't exist until Allison Danzig coined the phrase and Donald Budge accomplished the feat in 1938. Up until then the Aussie was a minor event compared to the other 3 slams.

Hopefully that provides a bit of background.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:46 PM
Whether or not people accept the WHCC as "counting" for a grand slam or not let's be clear about a few things. It WAS a major. In fact it was the the world's #2 event at a time when the US Championships counted for much less.The best evidence for that is simply to go back and read tennis magazines or newspapers from that era.

The other reason the WHCC deserves respect is the fact that it was the parent of the French Open. When the ITF was formed in 1913 it designated the event at St. Cloud in Paris the World's Championships on clay and Wimbledon the World's Championships on grass. Things went along just fine until a couple of events changed the status of the WHCC.

First of all the United States got all in a snit because it resented the status of Wimbledon. The second was the Olympic Games, which happened to be held in Antwerp (1920) and Paris (1924). Due to Paris also being the regular site of the WHCC it was not held in 1924. When the United States decided not to join the ITF in 1913 it was no big deal. Things had changed by 1924. The US had Bill Tilden. It had won the Davis Cup. Molla Mallory had beaten Lenglen at Forest Hills in 1921. The up and coming champion was Helen Wills of the US.

The end result was the ITF gave in to American pressure and dropped the "World Championships" titles from BOTH Wimbledon and the French event. Wimbledon went on. The French went on, except now it was titled the French Open.

So in 1925 the French Open was played in the same place (St Cloud) and the same time as the World Hard Court Championships. It wasn't suddenly hyped in the press as being more or less of a "major" than the WHCC. It existed as it had up to that point, as the World's #2 event (behind Wimbledon) with the US rapidly catching up in prestiege.

A new site (Roland Garros) came into being in 1928.

The Grand Slam didn't exist until Allison Danzig coined the phrase and Donald Budge accomplished the feat in 1938. Up until then the Aussie was a minor event compared to the other 3 slams.

Hopefully that provides a bit of background.

How was the phrase "Grand Slam" coined? Is it not based on the idea of the four nations that have dominated Davis Cup?

Yes, it was the #2 event. Yes, it deserves respect. I'm not doubting that. But here's a question for you Rollo. Was it the National Championship of France?

Isn't the idea of "Grand Slam" based on the Championship event of the Four nations that dominated Davis Cup?

Australasia - Australasian Championships
France - French Championships
Great Britain - Wimbledon
USA - United States Championships

You only mentioned Grand Slam towards the end of your post. Your missing the point.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:47 PM
The French Championships began in 1891 for the men. They became open to Internationals in 1925. When the term "Grand Slam" was coined, it is reference to this event which has been continuous existence since 1891. Not the SEPARATE event that existed between 1912-1923.

Ok, so if this is the case then shouldn't Lenglen's French Championships be "counted"?

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:51 PM
Ok, so if this is the case then shouldn't Lenglen's French Championships be "counted"?
I would rather you count those than the World Hard Court Championships.

All records of all time Grand Slam winners always show a footnote next to Lenglen denoting the fact that she also won 4 French Championships prior to 1925 that were closed to foreigners.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:55 PM
World hard court championships on clay?

Sounds funny, doesn't it? :lol:The British (and I guess other Europeans) traditionally called clay "hard courts". What we call hard courts today didn't exist then except in the west part of the United States. Even indoor events were usually on wood!

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:01 PM
I would rather you count those than the World Hard Court Championships.

All records of all time Grand Slam winners always show a footnote next to Lenglen denoting the fact that she also won 4 French Championships prior to 1925 that were closed to foreigners.

That's fine. I've seen lists like that by the way. I think there should also be a footnote about the WHCC. The French wasn't born out of thin air.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:05 PM
That's fine. I've seen lists like that by the way. I think there should also be a footnote about the WHCC. The French wasn't born out of thin air.
Rollo, French Championships began in 1891. It has a continuous history. It owes absolutely nothing to the WHCC. It is Tennis Championships of the nation of France. That is what is important in defining a "Grand Slam" event.

If the WHCC predates the French Championships, you might have an argument. If the WHCC was held in place of the French Championships, you might have an argument. As it is, you don't because the French Championships began earlier and continued every single year that the WHCC was also held AS A SEPARATE EVENT!

I don't care how prestigious it was. I don't care how high it was ranked. It is not a Grand Slam event!

Heck, the Australian Open wasn't even worth a lot in 1970s as evidenced how often the top players skipped it. It was STILL a Grand Slam event.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:10 PM
Writer (and tennis historian) Lance Tingay on the WHCC. From the 1973 Encyclopedia of Tennis.

page 34. "A Booming game in France was reflected when in 1925 the French Champs was thrown open as an intenrational championships for all comers. Hitherto it had been restricted to French nationals and there had been little incentive to make it open while Paris staged the World Hard Court Chmps. in effect, if not in name, the French meeting became the world hard-court championship, a stauts maintained over the years. For the first three years the event was staged at its old venue, the Racing Club at St Cloud, but it moved tot he Stade Roland Garros....

Uranium
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:16 PM
Rollo voted yes....I'd like to change my vote:p
Anyways, Wikipedia also gives Lenglen credit for 8 slam wins under Tennis statistics.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:19 PM
Writer (and tennis historian) Lance Tingay on the WHCC. From the 1973 Encyclopedia of Tennis.

page 34. "A Booming game in France was reflected when in 1925 the French Champs was thrown open as an intenrational championships for all comers. Hitherto it had been restricted to French nationals and there had been little incentive to make it open while Paris staged the World Hard Court Chmps. in effect, if not in name, the French meeting became the world hard-court championship, a stauts maintained over the years. For the first three years the event was staged at its old venue, the Racing Club at St Cloud, but it moved tot he Stade Roland Garros....
Rollo, you're still not addressing the Davis Cup issue. The whole idea is based on the winning the Championships of the four nations that dominated Davis Cup.

France had the French Championships from 1891 not the World Hard Court Championships. In fact, in the name itself you can see that they were NOT the Championships of France!! Can you not see that??

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:31 PM
Rollo, French Championships began in 1891. It has a continuous history. It owes absolutely nothing to the WHCC. It is Tennis Championships of the nation of France. That is what is important in defining a "Grand Slam" event.

Huh? As I've demonstrated today's French Chmps (the open one-not the closed event that may still exist) owes it's very existence to the WHCC.

Clearly Grand slam events are supposed to have status as majors. If they wern't we'd hardly have endless threads on the subject.

If the WHCC predates the French Championships, you might have an argument. If the WHCC was held in place of the French Championships, you might have an argument. As it is, you don't because the French Championships began earlier and continued every single year that the WHCC was also held AS A SEPARATE EVENT!

I've established it was what you call the French Open that replaced the WHCC. That's a strong linkage. If the connection to 1891 was so ironclad why don't we count French cclosed championships winners after 1925?

What suddenly happened in 1925? It was the death and rebirth of a new event, that's what.

I don't care how prestigious it was. I don't care how high it was ranked. It is not a Grand Slam event!

That's your right Sam:)

Heck, the Australian Open wasn't even worth a lot in 1970s as evidenced how often the top players skipped it. It was STILL a Grand Slam event.

Ah, yes it was. Just barely though. People tend to look at events through a current lens. We are lucky that from 1988 the Grand Slam has become a permanent fixture (unless the Chinese happen to buy it from Australia) of four national events of the highest prestiege. During much of the 70s there was talk of making Rome or even the YEC the fourth slam. Now I see some are wanting to make money-rich indoor event into a "5th slam".

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:37 PM
Huh? As I've demonstrated today's French Chmps (the open one-not the closed event that may still exist) owes it's very existence to the WHCC.

Clearly Grand slam events are supposed to have status as majors. If they wern't we'd hardly have endless threads on the subject.



I've established it was what you call the French Open that replaced the WHCC. That's a strong linkage. If the connection to 1891 was so ironclad why don't we count French cclosed championships winners after 1925?

What suddenly happened in 1925? It was the death and rebirth of a new event, that's what.

The Open one is directly continued from the closed one. That's why on the Roland Garros official website they have winners listed from 1891-2009.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html

Or are you saying that Roland Garros itself is wrong? That FFT is wrong?

Sorry Rollo, but it's come to the point where I've got quite a few sources that suggest that I'm right and you are quite wrong in this matter.

Unless if you can show me any credible sources that recognize winners of WHCC as Grand Slam event winners, you are proven wrong. It doesn't matter how prestigious the event was, it was not a Grand Slam event.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:41 PM
USTA:

Although the French Championships began in 1891, the tournament
was limited to French players and players enrolled in French
clubs until 1925. It was played at St. Cloud's Stade Français in 1925,
at Paris's Croix-Catelan in 1926, and back at the Stade Français in
1927 before moving to its permanent home, Roland Garros, in Paris.
In 1968, the French Championships became the first Grand
Slam event to become an “Open” championship, but it was closed
to contract professionals in 1972.

No mention of the World Hard Court Championships.

http://www.usta.com/presentations/USTAYearBook/25.pdf

USTA also agrees with me.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:43 PM
The Open one is directly continued from the closed one. That's why on the Roland Garros official website they have winners listed from 1891-2009.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/ab...stwinners.html (http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html)

Or are you saying that Roland Garros itself is wrong? That FFT is wrong?

Sorry Rollo, but it's come to the point where I've got quite a few sources that suggest that I'm right and you are quite wrong in this matter.

Unless if you can show me any credible sources that recognize winners of WHCC as Grand Slam event winners, you are proven wrong. It doesn't matter how prestigious the event was, it was not a Grand Slam event.


Why are you so adamant to be "right" or for me to be proven "wrong"? The thread started by asking for the opinions of others. Well, you got mine. As I wrote earlier, it's fine by me if the French counts it's winners from 1891. Count them then. I suspect that the French went with 1891 precisely because it makes the event seem older and lends it tradition-after all they didn't want to be seen as coming later than the Aussie!

But do without the asterisk you are suggesting if you are so gung-ho about the slams being national championships and not "majors". You're trying to have it both ways Sam, and I wonder why. Could it be that Lenglen being credited with 12 slams bothers you because Serena is so close to that total?

As for credible sources, the ITF declared Martina the winner of THE Grand Slam in 1984-so I suppose that makes it so? I'm not discrediting the ITF or Roland Garros, just pointing out that sources (and history) reflect their own time and bias. There's a lot of gray in there.

thrust
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:44 PM
World hard court championships on clay? :spit:

Correct. In England clay courts are called hard courts. At that time The World Hard Court Championships were considered the world clay court championships and one of the most important tournaments of that time. Whatever, Lenglin won every tournament she entered then and deserves to be credited with 12 Majors primarily because she won the WHHC and French so easily. Wikipedia credits Lenglin with 12 Slams.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:47 PM
Why are you so adamant to be "righ" or for me to be "wrong"

It's nothing personal. I'm just anal when it comes to these things.

Correct. In England clay courts are called hard courts. At that time The World Hard Court Championships were considered the world clay court championships and one of the most important tournaments of that time. Whatever, Lenglin won every tournament she entered then and deserves to be credited with 12 Majors primarily because she won the WHHC and French so easily. Wikipedia credits Lenglin with 12 Slams.

Wikipedia also didn't credit Bill Tilden with 11 Slams even though he won the exact same event that Lenglen won. :spit:

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:08 PM
Correct. In England clay courts are called hard courts.

Hi Thrust:wavey: Are they still called Hard Courts in England?

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:14 PM
It's nothing personal. I'm just anal when it comes to these things.


I get anal too Sam. You debate on the merits, which why I've always liked you as a poster even when we sit on opposite sides of the fence.
There are certainly no hard feelings on my end. We're cool :cool:

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:14 PM
Why are you so adamant to be "right" or for me to be proven "wrong"? The thread started by asking for the opinions of others. Well, you got mine. As I wrote earlier, it's fine by me if the French counts it's winners from 1891. Count them then. I suspect that the French went with 1891 precisely because it makes the event seem older and lends it tradition-after all they didn't want to be seen as coming later than the Aussie!

Okay that's fine. You are right to give your opinion. But I'm also telling you that you are wrong.

Your argument that they didn't want to seen as coming later than the Aussie is pretty ludicrous however as sources such as Tennis Hall of Fame (not French), World of Tennis Annuals (not French) and USTA (not French) all recognize 1891 start and continuous existence. AND none of the acknowledge WHCC.

But do without the asterisk you are suggesting if you are so gung-ho about the slams being national championships and not "majors". You're trying to have it both ways Sam, and I wonder why. Could it be that Lenglen being credited with 12 slams bothers you because Serena is so close to that total?

LOL! Don't even go there Rollo. You know I don't love any tennis player more than the sport itself. I thought we've talked enough in the past to at least acknowledge this fact.

As for credible sources, the ITF declared Martina the winner of THE Grand Slam in 1984-so I suppose that makes it so? I'm not discrediting the ITF or Roland Garros, just pointing out that sources (and history) reflect their own time and bias. There's a lot of gray in there.

All the ITF did was give her the money in recognition of her non-calendar Grand Slam. It doesn't change the fact that the Grand Slam means a calendar year Grand Slam. I know the point you're trying to make but surely you need at least one credible source for your argument?

AnomyBC
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:18 PM
Huh? As I've demonstrated today's French Chmps (the open one-not the closed event that may still exist) owes it's very existence to the WHCC.

Clearly Grand slam events are supposed to have status as majors. If they wern't we'd hardly have endless threads on the subject.

I've established it was what you call the French Open that replaced the WHCC. That's a strong linkage. If the connection to 1891 was so ironclad why don't we count French cclosed championships winners after 1925?

What suddenly happened in 1925? It was the death and rebirth of a new event, that's what.

No offense, but all of that is complete nonsense. The French Championships existed both before and after the WHCC, so they don't owe there existence to it in any way. The only thing that changed in 1925 was that the French Championships were opened up to international players. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the WHCC and it would have happened even if the WHCC had never existed.

And the French Open did not replace the WHCC---it replaced the French Championships. The French Championships also did not replace the WHCC---they couldn't have, because they predated it. And you can look at any history of the French Open/French Championships and you'll see that they follow the history from the closed version of the French Championships to the post-1925 open version without making any mention of the WHCC. For instance, here's how the early history of the French Championships is described on the Roland Garros website:

"Way back when...
The stadium that stages one of the world's four major tennis tournaments was built in 1928, but the French men's singles championship goes back much further than that. Originally reserved for members of French clubs, it was first held on the courts of Stade Français club in Paris in 1891. The women's singles were added six years later, it was not until 1925 that the French Tennis Federation decided to open the event to the best foreign players. Thus, the French Internationals were born, and staged alternately at Stade Français and Racing Club de France until the Roland-Garros stadium came into being in 1928."

As you can see, they talk about the closed version of the French Championships, but make no mention of the WHCC. Hence, the French Open clearly does not see itself as having originated from that tournament.

And finally, if there was a consensus that the WHCC should be counted as major that would be fine, but there isn't. Most people don't count it at all and the ones that do count it only count it for Lenglen, which makes no sense.

Donny
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:50 PM
A substantive debate using actual facts and civility? Wow. When's the last time we've had one of these threads on GM?

I know nothing about the subject matter so I'll keep silent, but I must say this is an interesting thread to read.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Posted by AnomyBC And the French Open did not replace the WHCC---it replaced the French Championships.

If the French championshiops merely replaced the closed event then why didn't they drop the closed event? Instead the closed event went on at least through the 1960s.

As for citing the history from the French site, if they were being totally transparent the least they could do was explain WHY the event was made "Open" in 1925. It reads a lot like "that's my story [the event "counting" from 1891] and we're sticking to it".

Posted by Sam Your argument that they didn't want to seen as coming later than the Aussie is pretty ludicrous however as sources such as Tennis Hall of Fame (not French), World of Tennis Annuals (not French) and USTA (not French) all recognize 1891 start and continuous existence. AND none of the acknowledge WHCC.


It's not ludicrous at all Sam. Want to talk about sources? Let's talk. ALL the sources you've just cited are later than 1928. Any historian worth his salt will tell you that often history gets distorted when one bad source gets repeated by later sources down the line until it becomes unchallenfgd "fact."

That's how we got Pope Joan as "fact".

That's how the ancient Egyptians wrote King Tut and Akhenaten out of history.

I could go on and on. So what you are citing is actually a decision by the French, BEFORE the notion of the Grand Salm, having to decide between choosing between 1891 and 1912. It isn't hard to see why they went with 1891. All the other sources you cite simply followed along as the Hard Courts became a distant memory.

If you want real sources you need to go back to 1925. Those sources make the connection quite clear.

As I say I'm fine with accepting the list from 1891. No asteriks needed though. And we don't have to bury or ignore the hard court championships. After all, they gave birth to the French Opeb as we know it today. Slam or no slam that's something no one can deny:)

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:11 PM
All the ITF did was give her the money in recognition of her non-calendar Grand Slam. It doesn't change the fact that the Grand Slam means a calendar year Grand Slam. I know the point you're trying to make but surely you need at least one credible source for your argument?

I could be wrong on this, but it was clearly about more than the money. The ITF changed the definition of the Grand Slam in 1982 to four in a row, awarded it to Martina when she won the French in 1984, and then [presumably in the face of oppostion from purists] reversed themselves.

That's obviously at least one source that's changed the definition of the Grand Slam, or we would be celebrating the Serena Slam as equal to what Connolly, Court, and Graf did.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:43 PM
This guy knows the answer -->http://multimedia.boston.com/m/22431..._bcom-ep&q=cut (http://multimedia.boston.com/m/22431420/roger-gentilhomme-100-year-old-tennis-champion.htm?col=en-vid-pod_bcom-ep&q=cut) :eek:


LOL. The was so cool. I want to reach that age and play tennis every day too!

thrust
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:37 PM
Hi Thrust:wavey: Are they still called Hard Courts in England?

I am not sure, but until fairly recently the British Hard Court(Clay) Championships were played every year in Bournmouth. They may still be, but I really don't think so.

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 12:58 AM
It's not ludicrous at all Sam. Want to talk about sources? Let's talk. ALL the sources you've just cited are later than 1928. Any historian worth his salt will tell you that often history gets distorted when one bad source gets repeated by later sources down the line until it becomes unchallenfgd "fact."

The concept of "Grand Slam" only came into being after 1928. I don't see a problem with this at all. Furthermore, the concept of "Grand Slam" clearly is about winning the Championships of the nation of France. Was the World Hard Court Championships the Championship of the nation of France when they already had the "French Championships" running.

So here's a question Rollo. There are two events "World Hard Court Championships" and "French Championships". Which one is the Tenniss Championship event of France? Really? You are still debating?

As for the rest, I understand what you're saying but Rollo, you need evidence.

What you are doing right now is speculating. You are speculating that WHCC was the actual precursor to the French Championships when quite a number of sources say that they were a separate event. Not that this even matters because like I said above concepts...

I've asked you for one credible source to back your argument that the French Championships replaced them. You have not given any.

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 01:02 AM
From SI by Frank Deford http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067682/index.htm

On a warm, windy day 55 Septembers ago, Jack Crawford took the court against Fred Perry in the finals of the U.S. Nationals at Forest Hills. Before the match New York Times columnist John Kieran wrote. "If Crawford wins, that would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable." Earlier in the year Crawford had won Wimbledon and the championships of Australia and France and thus stood on the verge of winning the titles of the only four nations—the U.S., Britain, Australia and France—ever to have won the Davis Cup.

THE CHAMPIONSHIPS OF FRANCE.

That to me is French Championships from 1891 to 1924 (closed) 1925-now (open).

World Hard Court Championships was/is not the Championships of France. It was a SEPARATE event to the Championships of France.

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 01:04 AM
If the French championshiops merely replaced the closed event then why didn't they drop the closed event? Instead the closed event went on at least through the 1960s.

As for citing the history from the French site, if they were being totally transparent the least they could do was explain WHY the event was made "Open" in 1925. It reads a lot like "that's my story [the event "counting" from 1891] and we're sticking to it".


Come on Rollo, the United States Championships continued to have the US Amateur Championships when Open era came along. You know this is a weak argument.

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 01:13 AM
Also, we're not talking about the Holocaust here. We talking about a few tennis tournaments.

What ulterior motive would the following collectively have to distort history?

Tennis Hall of Fame
World of Tennis (John Barrett)
USTA
FFT

:confused:

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 01:23 AM
From Federation Francaise de Tennis (http://www.fft.fr/rolandgarros/default_en.asp?id=1575) (FFT) website:

Roland Garros may be one of the four pillars of international tennis today, but when it was first held way back in 1891 it was a strictly domestic event. Even when Stade Français launched the paradoxically-named World Clay Court Championship in 1912 on their courts at la Faisanderie in Saint-Cloud park, it was only open to French players and foreign members of French clubs. But in the '20s, with the Musketeers flying the French flag so successfully at major tournaments around the world, particularly at Wimbledon, the French Championships had to move with the times. Ironically, the last "French-only" French Championships in 1924 boasted a final quartet worthy of any major world event: Borotra took on Brugnon in one semi-final and Lacoste faced Cochet in the other on the Racing Club courts that year. But the French Tennis Federation knew they had to organise a tournament that befitted the status of their great international stars, and so in 1925 the French Championships were opened up to the best foreign players and renamed the French Internationals, with Stade Français and Racing Club de France taking turns to stage the event.
This from an organization set up in 1920. So one would think they know their history more than other people? This reminds of me an episode in Seinfeld.

Kramer: Hey! George.....Lily..
Susan: No. Susan.
Kramer: No. No It's Lily
Susan: I think I know my own name.

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 01:27 AM
It was an American patron of tennis called Duane Williams that first had the idea to sponsor a World Clay Court Championship in France. Duane travelled extensively and was a passionate follower of the game. He saw that Wimbledon was the only tournament that was recognised internationally. This gave a great advantage to those players who normally played on grass, in other words the British and Americans from the East Coast. The European climate lent itself far more to courts on hard ground. Hard or clay courts had therefore become predominant on the Continent. In 1911, Duane approached the UFSPA in France (l’Union des Sociétés Française de Sports Athlétiques), a business federation acting as governing body for all athletic sports, including tennis. His offer of sponsorship was enthusiastically received and the Stade Français opened the doors of its renowned sporting facility to the new championship at Saint Cloud, just cmose to Paris.
http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/avant14/E-champ.html

So it was really a tournament created by a person and NOT the Championships of France. I thought the idea of Grand Slam was to win the event that was the Championship of a Nation like USA, France, Britain, Australia. :shrug:

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:01 AM
Sorry Rollo but I've found a post of yours right here: http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=9530279&postcount=383

The World Hard Courts were just as "Open" as the French open was. It's a real shame IMO that they are not considered as part of the French open results-as some people use this to discount Suzanne Lenglen's great acheivements.

... That suggests that you knew that WHCC were not considered as part of the French Open and thus not part of the Grand Slams. Or have you now changed your mind from this stance?

From that post, it seems as if you think they were just as good and therefore should be counted even though you know that they weren't and you're worried about Lenglen's legacy.

Seems to me that you're motivated by factors other than the real truth of the matter at hand. I know where you're coming from, I wish more people knew about the World Championships tournaments and other lesser known tournaments from this era and earlier eras. But is fudging facts the way to really deal with this?

Rollo
Jul 13th, 2009, 02:44 PM
So here's a question Rollo. There are two events "World Hard Court Championships" and "French Championships". Which one is the Tenniss Championship event of France? Really? You are still debating?

You've been debating yourself on that topic Sam. As I've repeatedly stated, I'm fine with counting the event dating back to 1891-just count it.

As for the rest, I understand what you're saying but Rollo, you need evidence.

What you are doing right now is speculating. You are speculating that WHCC was the actual precursor to the French Championships when quite a number of sources say that they were a separate event. Not that this even matters because like I said above concepts...

I've asked you for one credible source to back your argument that the French Championships replaced them. You have not given any.

How about using one of YOUR credible sources Sam? Thanks for providing this..

http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/avant14/E-champ.html

These championships were, arguably, of equal prestige to Wimbledon at that time and were the direct equivalent of Roland-Garros today. They have however largely been passed over by tennis historians.

Rollo
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:03 PM
Sorry Rollo but I've found a post of yours right here: http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost....&postcount=383 (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=9530279&postcount=383)


Quote:
The World Hard Courts were just as "Open" as the French open (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=16061385&posted=1#) was. It's a real shame IMO that they are not considered as part of the French open results-as some people use this to discount Suzanne Lenglen's great acheivements.
... That suggests that you knew that WHCC were not considered as part of the French Open and thus not part of the Grand Slams. Or have you now changed your mind from this stance?

From that post, it seems as if you think they were just as good and therefore should be counted even though you know that they weren't and you're worried about Lenglen's legacy.

Seems to me that you're motivated by factors other than the real truth of the matter at hand. I know where you're coming from, I wish more people knew about the World Championships tournaments and other lesser known tournaments from this era and earlier eras. But is fudging facts the way to really deal with this?

Exactly where have I "fudged facts"?

Well?

I've hardly been inconsistent. Clearly the WHCC was a major event AND the reason the French Open came into being in 1925. Does that make the WHCC chmps a slam? No. That doesn't mean it should be swept under the carpet either.

My post regarding Lenglen is accurate. I'v eseen lots of lists crediting her with only 8 slams. You yourself suggested that there should be an asterisk next to the French nationals. Why is that when the "official" site (your words-not mine) of Roland Garros has no asterisk?

If you are going to put an asterisk next to 1924 then lets keep going.

An asterisk next to all US Amateur events before 1967.
An asterisk next to Steffi Graf's wins in 1993.
An asterisk next to Jan Kodes in 1973 at Wimbledon.
An asterisk next to slams Serena missed.

I could on, but I think you get my point.

All I've asked for in the counting of slams is consistency. Count the nationals before 1925 fully, or, if not, be honest and admit that there was a major event that led to it's birth.

Rollo
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:34 PM
And let me post the rest of the what you quoted


Quote:
My understanding is that foreigners who were members of French tennis clubs were allowed to enter this event.
That's valuable information Austinrunner-it explains the odd English man and woman in the draws.

The World Hard Courts were just as "Open" as the French open was. It's a real shame IMO that they are not considered as part of the French open results-as some people use this to discount Suzanne Lenglen's great acheivements.

The ONLY reason the "French Open" was born was the American demand to get rid of the "World Championships" tag. The US threatened not to join the ITF until it was dropped. Added to that was decision not to hold the Hard Courts in 1924 because of the Paris Olympic games.

Put it all together and the French did the only thing they could do-continue with their grand internation event and relabel it as "The French Open".

That's an accurate description of how we got to the birth of the French Open in 1925. If you have another I'd like to hear it.

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Does that make the WHCC chmps a slam? No.

Then why did you vote 'Yes'? :confused:

I don't want ANY historical tennis tournament to be swept under the carpet. I don't even want exhibition matches to be swept under the carpet.

I asked a simple question: Was the WHCC a Grand Slam event?

I find it more surprising that you are comfortable with people misunderstanding the concept of a Grand Slam event in the first place. Why are you comfortable with this?

Rollo
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:53 PM
Then why did you vote 'Yes'? :confused:

I asked a simple question: Was the WHCC a Grand Slam event?

Simply put: the answer to your question isn't simple. Your first post links to another that says Suzanne has 8 slams. Clearly at that point you were NOT counting the French Nationals back to 1891 as Roland Garros does. History is more messy than cut and dry, or there would be no difference, n'est pas?

I find it more surprising that you are comfortable with people misunderstanding the concept of a Grand Slam event in the first place. Why are you comfortable with this?

Maybe I'm more comfortable with a relative definition than you are Sam. If Grand Slam events and THE Grand Slam were set in stone it would be simple.

Court 24--everyone else behind.
Federer-15--everyone else behind.

We both know it's not that simple.

For me it's only in talking, reading, and debating that the details about our sports rich history come out.

Olórin
Jul 13th, 2009, 07:16 PM
The concept of a 'Grand Slam' didn't even exist at the point the WHCCs were played. It's clumbsy to ask if the WHCC were considered a Grand Slam event, because nothing was considered a 'Grand Slam' at that point. The term 'Grand Slam' referring to one of the four majors is a corruption of an antique piece of tennis-journalism. 'The Grand Slam' - see LDVtennis' signature for Bud Collins opinion on this. The WHCC most certainly is a special case and should be treated as such, with deft and eloquent handling, not a sweeping, heavy-handed dismissal.

The WHCCs had fields which included all the best players in the world (that could be expected to given travel limitations), and it was clearly the premier claycourt tournament on the planet from 1912-1924. In that sense it was clearly a 'Major' tournament. Therefore it seems accurate to consider it a 'Major' in retrospect. Not considering it a Major is imo an expression of ignorance regarding the complex evolution of the French Championships and an unncessary disparagement of the great achievements of Suzanne Lenglen, who is certainly among the best players to ever play the game of tennis.

Nicolás89
Jul 13th, 2009, 08:48 PM
Was the Grand Slam Cup even a tour event?

Olórin
Jul 13th, 2009, 08:53 PM
What has the Grand Slam Cup got to do with anything?

Nicolás89
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:02 PM
What has the Grand Slam Cup got to do with anything?

It hasn't got to do with anything you are replying to.

Olórin
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:05 PM
It hasn't got to do with anything you are replying to.

Oh ok, I must have missed that bit.

Nicolás89
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:08 PM
If anyone is saying that the WHCC should be considered as a slam event because the best players constantly played the event should take the Grand Slam Cup for example, from the period it was held the whole Top 16 played the event a feat that Indian Wells a mandatory event can't even manage to do so, yet the GSC is only considered as an exhibition.

Olórin
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:12 PM
If anyone is saying that the WHCC should be considered as a slam event because the best players constantly played the event should take the Grand Slam Cup for example, from the period it was held the whole Top 16 played the event a feat that Indian Wells a mandatory event can't even manage to do so, yet the GSC is only considered as an exhibition.

I don't agree with this because the format of the GS cup was different to a slam event and it wasn't replacing a major tournament that players weren't allowed to go to, which the WHCCs were. To be honest, I think introducing the GS Cup into this discussion is a bit of a red herring.

The GS isn't only considered an exhibition because the WTA include it in Serena's title count. It, of course, isn't considered a 'major' title, just like the YEC isn't considered a major, despite it featuring the top players. These events are held in addition to the majors. The WHCCs came about because there was a need for a major championship that was played on clay.

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:19 PM
The entire idea of four big 'slam' tournaments is a post-WHCC idea. I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't agree with either answer. The WHCC was the big French event for a couple years. Imagine if for some insane reason the USTA decided that only Americans could play in the US Open, but everybody coud play Miami. You could call the US chanpionships whatever you wanted, but it wouldn't be the most important event.

thrust
Jul 14th, 2009, 12:22 AM
The entire idea of four big 'slam' tournaments is a post-WHCC idea. I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't agree with either answer. The WHCC was the big French event for a couple years. Imagine if for some insane reason the USTA decided that only Americans could play in the US Open, but everybody coud play Miami. You could call the US chanpionships whatever you wanted, but it wouldn't be the most important event.

The WHCC was considered the world clay court championships until the French allowed foreign players to compete. It was, at least, the major clay court tournament at that time.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:17 AM
Simply put: the answer to your question isn't simple. Your first post links to another that says Suzanne has 8 slams. Clearly at that point you were NOT counting the French Nationals back to 1891 as Roland Garros does. History is more messy than cut and dry, or there would be no difference, n'est pas?



Maybe I'm more comfortable with a relative definition than you are Sam. If Grand Slam events and THE Grand Slam were set in stone it would be simple.

Court 24--everyone else behind.
Federer-15--everyone else behind.

We both know it's not that simple.

For me it's only in talking, reading, and debating that the details about our sports rich history come out.

Rollo, you're beating around the bush. I quote and these are your exact words:

Does that make the WHCC chmps a slam? No.

I'm comfortable with the WHCC being the most prestigious event in the entire universe and all time prestigious event. It still doesn't make it a Grand Slam event under the definition of Grand Slams being the Championships of the Four Nations that won the Davis Cup. - Why is no one talking about this. Is this fact forgotten? Brushed under the carpet? :confused:


The entire idea of four big 'slam' tournaments is a post-WHCC idea. I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't agree with either answer. The WHCC was the big French event for a couple years. Imagine if for some insane reason the USTA decided that only Americans could play in the US Open, but everybody coud play Miami. You could call the US chanpionships whatever you wanted, but it wouldn't be the most important event.

Okay, I can see where we're disagreeing. See USTA could decide only Americans could play in the US Open and that would still be the Grand Slam because it is the Championship of the United States. Just because Miami remains open to the rest of the field and seen as more important because more people turn up doesn't make it a Grand Slam.

For me, it's about strict definitions. I'm not a person who just loosely defines things and lets in an event because it was close but no cigar.

And don't even go there about Grand Slams being post-WHCC idea... Really? Then Lenglen has no slams! Weak argument.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:28 AM
I don't agree with this because the format of the GS cup was different to a slam event and it wasn't replacing a major tournament that players weren't allowed to go to, which the WHCCs were. To be honest, I think introducing the GS Cup into this discussion is a bit of a red herring.

The GS isn't only considered an exhibition because the WTA include it in Serena's title count. It, of course, isn't considered a 'major' title, just like the YEC isn't considered a major, despite it featuring the top players. These events are held in addition to the majors. The WHCCs came about because there was a need for a major championship that was played on clay.

I love it when people have no idea what they're talking about and mixes up concepts.

The idea of "Grand Slam" only came about in the 1930s. When we're talking MAJOR events in this context, we're talking about the four MAJOR events that comprise the Grand Slam. In the 1930s this meant the Championships of the Four nations that had won Davis Cup up to that point.

Australasian Championships
French Championships
Wimbledon
United States Championships

Even thought the concept came about in 1930s. Everyone includes the winners of those Championships as Grand Slam champions in subsequent years.

The MAJOR definition you're talking about has NOTHING to do with the concept of "Grand Slam". The MAJOR you're talking about is the usual definition you'll see in the Dictionary. A prestigious, main event that most top players turn up to.

Under the Dictionary definition of MAJOR, yes WHCC was a major event. It was the major event on clay for many years.

Under the Tennis definition of MAJOR, no WHCC was not a major event as it was not the Championship of France.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:36 AM
The concept of a 'Grand Slam' didn't even exist at the point the WHCCs were played. It's clumbsy to ask if the WHCC were considered a Grand Slam event, because nothing was considered a 'Grand Slam' at that point. The term 'Grand Slam' referring to one of the four majors is a corruption of an antique piece of tennis-journalism. 'The Grand Slam' - see LDVtennis' signature for Bud Collins opinion on this. The WHCC most certainly is a special case and should be treated as such, with deft and eloquent handling, not a sweeping, heavy-handed dismissal.

The WHCCs had fields which included all the best players in the world (that could be expected to given travel limitations), and it was clearly the premier claycourt tournament on the planet from 1912-1924. In that sense it was clearly a 'Major' tournament. Therefore it seems accurate to consider it a 'Major' in retrospect. Not considering it a Major is imo an expression of ignorance regarding the complex evolution of the French Championships and an unncessary disparagement of the great achievements of Suzanne Lenglen, who is certainly among the best players to ever play the game of tennis.

LDVTennis's signature:

“Connecting Grand Slam with anyone else or any one championship is confusing to the public, and makes light of the rarest deeds of the Quintessential Quintet - Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, Graf.” --- Bud Collins, January 2009. Kieran's quote:

"If Crawford wins, that would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable."What happened in 1933:

Earlier in the year Crawford had won Wimbledon and the championships of Australia and France and thus stood on the verge of winning the titles of the only four nations—the U.S., Britain, Australia and France—ever to have won the Davis Cup.

Nice try at word twisting. So you're trying to include WHCC by saying it was a major event. That is a dictionary definition. The idea and anyone can figure this out is to win the Championship of France. World Hard Court Championship was never the Championship of France.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:40 AM
It's also interesting how people have nothing to say about what the FFT has to say. FFT has been in existence since 1920. :lol: You would think they know their event more than posters on a message board.

But the French Tennis Federation knew they had to organise a tournament that befitted the status of their great international stars, and so in 1925 the French Championships were opened up to the best foreign players and renamed the French Internationals, with Stade Français and Racing Club de France taking turns to stage the event.

Does that not mean anything? If the WHCC were the direct ancestors of the French Internationals, surely they would talk about it. But no, of course, there must be some ulterior motive going on. It's the Holocaust!

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:56 AM
I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't agree with either answer.

Yes you do. You said that WHCC was a slam event and counted that towards Lenglen's 12 slams you always talk about. :confused:

Volcana
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:05 AM
Yes you do. You said that WHCC was a slam event and counted that towards Lenglen's 12 slams you always talk about. :confused:That isn't one of the options. Go back and read carefully.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:08 AM
That isn't one of the options.
The question asked:

Was the WHCC a Grand Slam event?

Yes, it was.

Anyway, don't vote. Everyone can see your opinion anyway. Fortunately, most people here and in the world do not agree with you.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:26 AM
Simply put: the answer to your question isn't simple. Your first post links to another that says Suzanne has 8 slams. Clearly at that point you were NOT counting the French Nationals back to 1891 as Roland Garros does. History is more messy than cut and dry, or there would be no difference, n'est pas?

I DO NOT count French Closed Nationals. Lenglen will always have 8 Grand Slam singles titles to her name. I don't mind an asterisk to explain that the French Championships used to be closed and she won 4 of those but I will never count them officially. None of the Grand Slams do, no tennis institution does. But WHCC was a separate event and as such does not figure in Grand Slam event discussions.

Maybe I'm more comfortable with a relative definition than you are Sam. If Grand Slam events and THE Grand Slam were set in stone it would be simple.

Court 24--everyone else behind.
Federer-15--everyone else behind.

We both know it's not that simple.

For me it's only in talking, reading, and debating that the details about our sports rich history come out.

Officially it is:

Court 24--everyone else behind.
Federer-15--everyone else behind.

You can talk, read and debate. I like doing that too but that doesn't change the official standings.

Volcana
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:35 AM
The question asked:The available answer was "Yes it was. So French Championships had two sets of winners."

The French champions did not have two sets of winners. I believe I said 'read carefully'. Is that in your skillset or not?

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:38 AM
The available answer was "Yes it was. So French Championships had two sets of winners."

The French champions did not have two sets of winners. I believe I said 'read carefully'. Is that in your skillset or not?
Like I said. Don't vote. But you agree that it was a slam event. Yes or no?

But if you had the skillset to not only read but understand you'll find my statement was entirely correct. By recognizing the WHCC as a slam event, as you do, you're saying that it was the French Championships. But the French Closed Championships also had its own separate list of winners. So you have two sets of winners for the same French Championships. Because by saying it was a slam, you're saying it was the French Championships - the Grand Slam event.

Seems to me like you want to pretend that the French closed Championships didn't exist at all. :tape:

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:51 AM
If the WHCC were a slam event sources would say that WHCC became the French Internationals.

All sources I've read says that French Championships (closed) became open to foreigners and French Internationals were born.

These sources include:

Tennis Hall of Fame
FFT
USTA
World of Tennis annuals
Various encyclopedias
Various websites on the Internet

But a few posters on Tennisforums says otherwise and we're to believe that? What a load BS.

Please show me ONE credible source that says that WHCC became the French Internationals. Not asking for a lot. Just ONE.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:37 AM
The bottom line is nobody who is anybody in the tennis world, past or present, considers the World Hard Court Championships winners as Grand Slam event winners.

There's a reason why most posters here have voted 'No'. Because they have not seen a good enough argument from you guys who are proposing to include it as a Grand Slam event.

The reason why you don't have a good argument is that you have no evidence except Wikipedia. And that's where I'm going to leave it. Show me evidence. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys on the Internet thinking they know better than the French Tennis Federation.

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 01:46 PM
If the WHCC were the direct ancestors of the French Internationals, surely they would talk about it. But no, of course, there must be some ulterior motive going on. It's the Holocaust!

Why would they "surely talk about it"? I don't see the US Open site celebrating their former sites.

You're the one making it a major issue or conspiracy Sam. Why haven't you addressed the source YOU introduced into the argument, the one that clearly states it it a "direct ancestor"?

Well?

As for why "they" (I assume you mean the French Federation) don't talk about it, there are easy enough explanations. First of all it's a non-issue for most people. Because the WHCC had a short time span and interrupted dates they tend to be forgotten. A nice contemporary example would be the Colgate and Toyota Championships from 1977 to 1982. These were more important of two tour championships in those years, yet they no longer "count" in the YEC totals because the tours merged and in 1983 Madison Square Garden became it's home.

The French are still finding out about the history of their own event. When I visited the Wimbledon library a few years back Alan Little (the head librarian and historian) told me the French Federation was asking him for missing results! for many of the French National titles you discussed we only have a couple of results. In addition there was even an event called the "French Open". This was open to foreigners, but results are sketchy.

Up until the early 1980s the Aussies didn't have the results for some early finals. Tennis history is an ongoing process.

With all that in mind I'm not surprised.

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 01:52 PM
The bottom line is nobody who is anybody in the tennis world, past or present, considers the World Hard Court Championships winners as Grand Slam event winners.

There's a reason why most posters here have voted 'No'. Because they have not seen a good enough argument from you guys who are proposing to include it as a Grand Slam event.

The reason why you don't have a good argument is that you have no evidence except Wikipedia. And that's where I'm going to leave it. Show me evidence. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys on the Internet thinking they know better than the French Tennis Federation.

Uh, Sam, follow you own advice then. YOU are the one thinking you "know better than the Frencgh Federation" by not counting the Nationals as Slams.:p

And funny how you want to lump all of us who disagre with you as "just a bunch of guys on the Internet", then justify your position citing posters on a message board poll!:lol:

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 01:59 PM
If the WHCC were a slam event sources would say that WHCC became the French Internationals.

All sources I've read says that French Championships (closed) became open to foreigners and French Internationals were born.

These sources include:

Tennis Hall of Fame
FFT
USTA
World of Tennis annuals
Various encyclopedias
Various websites on the Internet

But a few posters on Tennisforums says otherwise and we're to believe that? What a load BS.

Please show me ONE credible source that says that WHCC became the French Internationals. Not asking for a lot. Just ONE.

There are two different parts to your post.

1. WHCC not a slam--I'm not arguing that point with you.

2. WHCC became the French Open--the burden here is on you to prove me wrong. Come up with an orginal idea as to why the French suddenly became "Open" in 1925.

As for sources for question #2-I've listed SEVERAL sources. Go back, list them for me, and tell me why you believe they are not credible.

But just for starters-the website YOU provided proves YOUR comment about there being no connection wrong.

Address the question Sam-or admit your wring on that point:)

Olórin
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:05 PM
Most of the posters who voted probably don't know what the WHCC even is.

This entire thread reeks of desperation and need to prove oneself correct. How many posts are there where Sam L is basically just debating with himself :confused: I find it amusing that a poll was even included as if can be part of the 'proof'.

The fact is that this issue is swept under the carpet rather than addressed by most tennis historians, who probably can't be bothered to approach it, because it is such a small but complex issue in the grand scheme. It deserves to be taken the due course on account of Suzanne if nothing else; the first superstar of women's tennis, from whom people are trying to strip four major titles.

I've encountered next to no thorough debate on the issue outside of these forums; I'm inclined to value the discussion of these forums, the various articles and books I have read which serve to paint a picture of the time, above some dry stats from 'various encyclopedias'.

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:18 PM
Since you asked for more sources.

From the New York Times:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=99011557&sid=5&Fmt=10&clientId=4594&RQT=309&VName=HNP

(This clearly states how the US objected to the WHCC)

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=99065295&sid=5&Fmt=10&clientId=4594&RQT=309&VName=HNP

Both the French Tennis Federeation and the ITF (does it get any more official than that?) proposing to "alternate" between Wimbledon and the US Champs.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:54 PM
You're the one making it a major issue or conspiracy Sam. Why haven't you addressed the source YOU introduced into the argument, the one that clearly states it it a "direct ancestor"?


What source I introduced? :confused:

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:54 PM
What source I introduced? :confused:
These do not work or at least I don't have access so you better paste them or else it doesn't mean anything.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:56 PM
1. WHCC not a slam--I'm not arguing that point with you.


WTF? We agree then! :lol:

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:00 PM
This entire thread reeks of desperation and need to prove oneself correct. How many posts are there where Sam L is basically just debating with himself :confused: I find it amusing that a poll was even included as if can be part of the 'proof'.

I know that there are probably few things in life you're good at. And apparently reading isn't one of them either. What I said was:

There's a reason why most posters here have voted 'No'. Because they have not seen a good enough argument from you guys who are proposing to include it as a Grand Slam event. The reason why you don't have a good argument is that you have no evidence except Wikipedia.

That's not saying it's proof of anything. It just proves that you guys haven't made a good argument as you haven't been able to sway anyone's opinions.

Most of the posters who voted probably don't know what the WHCC even is.

All your arguments rely on jumping to conclusions. You've provided no evidence, talked out of arse in another thread, you think you know tennis history because you've read a book on Lenglen. :tape:

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:01 PM
2. WHCC became the French Open--the burden here is on you to prove me wrong. Come up with an orginal idea as to why the French suddenly became "Open" in 1925.

From FFT website:

But the French Tennis Federation knew they had to organise a tournament that befitted the status of their great international stars, and so in 1925 the French Championships were opened up to the best foreign players and renamed the French Internationals, with Stade Français and Racing Club de France taking turns to stage the event.http://www.fft.fr/rolandgarros/default_en.asp?id=1575

Good enough reason? Now can I throw the burden back on you to prove me and the FFT wrong?

Actually, you know what Rollo, I neither agree nor disagree that WHCC became the French Open. Maybe it did, although I don't think it's proven yet. FFT says otherwise. Most importantly, WHCC wasn't a slam. I'm a purist. History and truth are two very important things for me. WHCC being repackaged as French Open doesn't mean that WHCC winners are grand slam winners.

As long as you recognize that WHCC wasn't a Grand Slam, as you have done so a few times I'm willing to be open minded that maybe it was repackaged.

See the below table for all-time Grand Slam winners and see if you agree.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:05 PM
The French are still finding out about the history of their own event. When I visited the Wimbledon library a few years back Alan Little (the head librarian and historian) told me the French Federation was asking him for missing results! for many of the French National titles you discussed we only have a couple of results. In addition there was even an event called the "French Open". This was open to foreigners, but results are sketchy.

Up until the early 1980s the Aussies didn't have the results for some early finals. Tennis history is an ongoing process.


There's a big difference between results which includes many, many matches and the origin of the one tournament. If FFT was a young organization, fine I might agree with you. But you do realize that FFT was born in 1920 and oversaw the whole transition from French Championships to French Internationals in 1925?

What you think there are secret meetings behind closed doors and conspiracies to brush WHCC under the carpet?

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Rollo, you've said before that WHCC wasn't a slam. Why are you still arguing with me? :confused:

Here's a question for you Rollo. Do you agree with this list or not?

Multiple Singles Slams Winners
1. Margaret Smith Court: 11-5-3-5= 24
2. Steffi Graf: 4-6-7-5= 22
3. Helen Wills Moody: 0-4-8-7= 19
4. Martina Navratilova: 3-2-9-4= 18
4. Chris Evert: 2-7-3-6= 18
6. Billie Jean King: 1-1-6-4= 12
7. Serena Williams: 4-1-3-3= 11
8. Monica Seles: 4-3-0-2= 9
8. Maureen Connolly Brinker: 1-2-3-3= 9
10. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory: 0-0-0-8= 8
10. Suzanne Lenglen: 0-2-6-0= 8
12. Venus Williams: 0-0-5-2= 7

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:15 PM
From FFT website:


Quote:
But the French Tennis Federation knew they had to organise a tournament that befitted the status of their great international stars, and so in 1925 the French Championships were opened up to the best foreign players and renamed the French Internationals, with Stade Français and Racing Club de France taking turns to stage the event.
http://www.fft.fr/rolandgarros/default_en.asp?id=1575

Good enough reason?

Thanks for providing your source Sam. Look at this part


Even when Stade Français launched the paradoxically-named World Clay Court Championship in 1912 on their courts at la Faisanderie in Saint-Cloud park, it was only open to French players and foreign members of French clubs.


Thats patently wrong. All one has to do is look at the draws to see that foreigners won the event without being French club members.

Next.

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam L http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=16066242#post16066242)
What source I introduced? :confused:

These do not work or at least I don't have access so you better paste them or else it doesn't mean anything

Your post-your link-post #49

Here you go:
http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/avant14/E-champ.html

And I quote [your source-near bottom off the page]

These championships were, arguably, of equal prestige to Wimbledon at that time and were the direct equivalent of Roland-Garros today

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:23 PM
There's a big difference between results which includes many, many matches and the origin of the one tournament. If FFT was a young organization, fine I might agree with you. But you do realize that FFT was born in 1920 and oversaw the whole transition from French Championships to French Internationals in 1925?

What you think there are secret meetings behind closed doors and conspiracies to brush WHCC under the carpet?

We're talking about the history of the event you're adamant IS a Grand Slam and yet (paradoxically) DON'T want to count.

Make up your mind and be constent Sam.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:23 PM
Thanks for providing your source Sam. Look at this part



Thats patently wrong. All one has to do is look at the draws to see that foreigners won the event without being French club members.

Next.

I'm not saying you're wrong but how do you know they weren't French club members?

Your post-your link-post #49

Here you go:
http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/avant14/E-champ.html

And I quote [your source]

It's still a measure of prestige. Given how the concept of 'Grand Slam' about, it still cannot be considered a Grand Slam event no matter how prestigious. It's like saying the US Pro Championships are the direct equivalent of the US Open, no?

But like you said before, you think WHCC winners shouldn't be considered GS winners anyway. Is that right or not?

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:26 PM
We're talking about the history of the event you're adamant IS a Grand Slam and yet (paradoxically) DON'T want to count.

Make up your mind and be constent Sam.
How am I being inconsistent? :confused:

If you anything you are one who keeps saying WHCC shouldn't be a slam and yet keeps arguing against me?

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Does that make the WHCC chmps a slam? No.

1. WHCC not a slam--I'm not arguing that point with you.

WE AGREE. Why are you arguing with me?

People I disagree with are people like Volcana and Serena~lover who insist it was a slam.

:confused:

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:30 PM
Here's a question for you Rollo. Do you agree with this list or not?


Quote:
Multiple Singles Slams Winners
1. Margaret Smith Court: 11-5-3-5= 24
2. Steffi Graf: 4-6-7-5= 22
3. Helen Wills Moody: 0-4-8-7= 19
4. Martina Navratilova: 3-2-9-4= 18
4. Chris Evert (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=384907&page=6#): 2-7-3-6= 18
6. Billie Jean King (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=384907&page=6#): 1-1-6-4= 12
7. Serena Williams: 4-1-3-3= 11
8. Monica Seles: 4-3-0-2= 9
8. Maureen Connolly Brinker: 1-2-3-3= 9
10. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory: 0-0-0-8= 8
10. Suzanne Lenglen: 0-2-6-0= 8
12. Venus Williams: 0-0-5-2= 7

No I don't. And for clear reasons. Funny how you drug out a post of mine years ago regarding Lenglen a couple pages back-I was right wasn't I?

Count the slams you say count

You're the one jumping up and and down proclaiming:
A. The French Nationals (starting in 1891) have slam status because they were national titles.
B. It doesn't matter how strong or weak the field is, a slam is a slam.
So answer one of my questions for once (your still dodging discrediting ANY of my sources):
Why don't you agree with the French Federation and credit Suzanne for her slams?
By the way, since you dislike wikipedia so much, where is your slam count from? What makes it "official"?

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:35 PM
No I don't. And for clear reasons. Funny how you drug out a post of mine years ago regarding Lenglen a couple pages back-I was right wasn't I?

You're the one jumping up and and down proclaiming:
A. The French Nationals (starting in 1891) have slam status because they were national titles.
B. It doesn't matter how strong or weak the field is, a slam is a slam.
So answer one of my questions for once (your still dodging discrediting ANY of my sources):
Why don't you agree with the French Federation and credit Suzanne for her slams?
By the way, since you dislike wikipedia so much, where is your slam count from? What makes it "official"?

Where does French Federation say that their closed championships should be considered grand slams? It's part of their tournament history. More so than WHCC but at the end of the day it was a closed event.

Actually that list is from BFTP to which you said "I love it". I can also find the same list from World of Tennis annuals.

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:36 PM
WE AGREE. Why are you arguing with me?

We agree only so long as you count the slams you argued count. If the 1891-1924 nationals are slams (and by Sam's definition they are) Lenglen has 12, not 8.


People I disagree with are people like Volcana and Serena~lover who insist it was a slam.

They are more than capable of speaking for themsleves, but they are not insisting that at all. You are insisting something and then contradicting yourself

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:45 PM
We agree only so long as you count the slams you argued count. If the 1891-1924 nationals are slams (and by Sam's definition they are) Lenglen has 12, not 8.

Count them. French Championships were the championships of France. That is what Kieran had in mind when the concept of Grand Slam being the Championships of the Four Davis Cup nations were created. I think early United States Championships only had US citizens also anyway.

I don't have a problem with Lenglen owning 6 French Championships and 6 Wimbledons at all. Because that is the truth.

I do have a problem with people saying Lenglen won 2 French, 6 Wimbledon and 4 WHCC and try to pass WHCC as Grand Slams when it was clearly a separate event.

They are more than capable of speaking for themsleves, but they are not insisting that at all. You are insisting something and then contradicting yourself

If you agree with me in the above, you need to tell them off like you've been telling me off here. You made a statement Rollo that you do not believe WHCC was a slam. If you stand by that statement, as a historian, you need to make it clear to people who are making erroneous statements that they are wrong.

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:46 PM
Actually that list is from BFTP to which you said "I love it". I can also find the same list from World of Tennis annuals.

Direct source please.

Posted by Sam L I'm not saying you're wrong but how do you know they weren't French club members?


Because those were actually the conditions for the national event-not the WHCC. The event was ITF sponsored and open to all nationalities.

It's still a measure of prestige. Given how the concept of 'Grand Slam' about, it still cannot be considered a Grand Slam event no matter how prestigious. It's like saying the US Pro Championships are the direct equivalent of the US Open, no?

But like you said before, you think WHCC winners shouldn't be considered GS winners anyway. Is that right or not? I was refering to the WHCC being the "parent" of the French Open-you questioned that. This source (that you introduced) contracdicts that.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:52 PM
I'm not even going to bother with your last post. See my post #98.

Rollo
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:52 PM
Count them. French Championships were the championships of France. That is what Kieran had in mind when the concept of Grand Slam being the Championships of the Four Davis Cup nations were created. I think early United States Championships only had US citizens also anyway.

I don't have a problem with Lenglen owning 6 French Championships and 6 Wimbledons at all. Because that is the truth.

We agree at last then:)

I do have a problem with people saying Lenglen won 2 French, 6 Wimbledon and 4 WHCC and try to pass WHCC as Grand Slams when it was clearly a separate event.

OK. That's fine.

If you agree with me in the above, you need to tell them off like you've been telling me off here. You made a statement Rollo that you do not believe WHCC was a slam. If you stand by that statement, as a historian, you need to make it clear to people who are making erroneous statements that they are wrong.

I apologize if in the heat of debate I came across as "telling [you or anyone] off". I think one other thing we can agree about is we are both passionate about what we believe!

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:01 PM
We agree at last then:)

OK. That's fine.

I apologize if in the heat of debate I came across as "telling [you or anyone] off". I think one other thing we can agree about is we are both passionate about what we believe!

Great! No that's fine. I apologize likewise if I did too. :) So does that mean you change your vote in the poll? :)

I saw the action to count WHCC as a betrayal to the concept of Grand Slam first mentioned in 1933. To include that would be like to stop having the French Open and replacing it with the German Open or something.

They are the cornerstones and foundations of the sport. If we don't stay true to that, we will pretty lose what is most important about the sport.

But like you said, it is very important to learn about the other big events that were on at the same time. Obviously, the WHCC had a big influence on the French Championships. And you are right, perhaps it wasn't a coincidence that ITF told them to abolish World titles and out came the French Internationals. Understanding this is important. But also understanding that the French Championships began in 1891 and became the French Internationals in 1925 and became the French Open in 1968 and that, that alone stands as a one of the "Grand Slams" is also important. That's what Kieran would've wanted and that's what Budge aspired for. It's all in the names.

faboozadoo15
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:29 PM
I'm finding this all interesting, but not sure why you're posting this link, it's just some guy's website, nothing remotely official about it:confused:

You should take that up with the poster that posted it in the first place.

I posted it as an explanation of why many see the WHCC as a major event of the time and what led to an open French Championships (since that's relevant), and Sam decided to read something else from that website and post that person's slam count to prove whatever point he's trying to make. :weirdo:

PS, Sam: get a fucking life, man. Is a bad rep with name calling, smileys, and other childish crap really necessary for a post I made DAYS ago? :rolleyes: