This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 7-2431 DAVENPORT, Joanna, 1933- THE HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION OF AMATEURISM IN THE UNITED STATES LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1966 Education, physical
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan © Copyright by
Joanna Davenport
1967 THE HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION OF AMATEURISM
'IN THE UNITED STATES LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree Doctor
of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State
U niversity
By
Joanna Davenport, B.S., M.S.
The Ohio State University
1966
Approved by
A dviser
Department of Physical Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to extend her sincere appreciation to
Dr. Bruce Bennett for his encouragement and guidance during the course of this study. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Phebe Scott and Dr. John Hendrix for their helpful advice and their willingness to be on the reading committee.
The author also wishes to extend her appreciation to Mr. Edwin
Baker, Executive Secretary of the United States Lawn Tennis Associa tion, for his kindness and cooperation shown to her while at the USLTA office. His help enabled her to investigate fully the records of the
Association.
It is also necessary that the author mention her appreciation to
Miss Belmar Gunderson, nationally ranked player and physical educa tion instructor at the University of Minnesota, who introduced her to many of the respondents in this study. VITA
January 17, 1933 Born, Salem, Massachusetts
1954...... B.S., Skidmore College Saratoga Springs, New York
1954-1956 . . . Instructor, Mount Holyoke College South Hadley, Massachusetts
1956-1957 , . . Instructor, Flood Junior High School Englewood, Colorado
1958...... M.S., Smith College Northampton, Massachusetts
1959-1962 . . . Instructor, University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont
1962-1963 . . . Instructor, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado
1963-1965 . . . Teaching Assistant and Instructor, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1965 ...... Chairman, University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1
The Problem ...... 4
Statement of the problem ...... 4
Scope of the stu d y ...... 4
Limitations of the study ...... 5
Definitions of Terms Used ...... 5
P ro ced u re ...... 7
Publications and information from the USLTA files* • • 7
Personal interview s ...... 8
Explanation of interview m a t e r i a l ...... 13
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation . . .13
H. THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF TENNIS ...... 14
Origin of the G am e ...... 14
The Wingfield Story ...... 16
Introduction of Tennis to the United States...... 19
Development of the Game in the United S ta te s ...... 22 CHAPTER PAGE
III. UNITED STATES LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION...... 31
Founding of the United States Lawn Tennis
Association ...... 32
Development of the United States Lawn Tennis
Association ...... 34
Growth of affiliated clubs and associations ...... 34
Rules Legislation...... 35
Tournament Legislation...... 37
The Structure of the United States Lawn Tennis
Association ...... 45
O fficers...... 47
Sections and v o tes ...... 53
F i n a n c e s ...... 54
The Association T o d ay ...... 60
IV. FOCUS ON AMATEURISM IN THE UNITED STATES
LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION ...... 63
The Early Years of Tournament P lay ...... 63
The Amateur C ode ...... 67
Sporting goods rule...... 71
Player-writer rule ...... 76
v CHAPTER PAGE
Eight weeks rule • • ...... • • 83
Expense regulations...... 87
Additional regulations...... 92
Penalties for violations ...... 93
V. THE AMATEUR STORY ON THE INTERNATIONAL
SCENE...... 95
International Competitions ...... 96
Davis C u p...... 96
W ightman C u p ...... 110
' Federation Cup...... 112
Olympic games ...... 113
The International Lawn Tennis Federation ...... 120
The effects of the Amateur C ode ...... 129
VI. THE OPEN TOURNAMENT QUESTION...... 134
The Professionals ...... 135
Teaching professionals ...... 135
Touring professionals...... 141
The Open Tournament Controversy ...... 146
Advantages of open tournam ents...... 163
Disadvantages of open tournaments ...... 167 CHAPTER PAGE
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 174
S u m m a r y ...... 174
Purpose of the study...... 174
P ro ced u re...... 175
The history and interpretation of amateurism
in the USLTA ...... 175
Conclusions...... ; 178
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 180 CH A PTER I
INTRODUCTION
Tennis was introduced to the United States in 1874 by Mary Outer- bridge of Staten Island, New York, who brought the game home with her after playing it in Bermuda. For many years the sport was thought of as a leisurely game suitable for the limited number of wealthy people who could afford to construct courts on the expansive lawns adjoining their estates. During the first few years of tennis play in this country, matches were primarily informal social activities rather than organized competi tive events. It was not long, however, before local tournaments were sponsored so that men in different areas could compete against one another. At these tournaments discussions invariably arose in regard to rules and regulations. Since the sport was not under the jurisdiction of a national body, each club or locality had its own playing rules and court dimensions. Due to these differences it was soon apparent that a national association was needed and, therefore, the United States Lawn Tennis
Association was formed in 1881. The primary purpose of this sport
1 federation was to standardize the game so that playing conditions would be the same throughout the country. The USLTA thus became not only one of the first amateur sports governing bodies in the United States but also the oldest lawn tennis association in the world.
The Association not only established rules, court dimensions, and standards for equipment, but it also sponsored tournaments to create further interest in the game. In 1881, one national tournament was con ducted. Since then the Association has expanded its efforts in this direc tion until it now sponsors sixty-one national tournaments annually.
Furthermore, one thousand additional tournaments are sanctioned on a local and sectional basis. The promotion of these many tournaments and the numerous other projects of the Association were responsible to a great degree for the current status of tennis as one of the most popular and easily available sports for adults and children. It has been reported that there are approximately eight million active players in the United
States today.
During the Association's growth it was faced with adherence to one main principle which was that players and officials should not derive financial benefit from engaging in the game. This question of amateur ism arose as early as 1882, the second year of the Association, and it was voted at that time that only amateurs would be allowed in tournaments sponsored by the USLTA. Very few problems occurred in the beginning as tournaments were few and almost all players were definitely amateurs. With the increase in the number of both tournaments and players the question of expenses for playing became an issue. Much legislation was enacted as the Association tried to cope with the problems concerned with its philosophy. It appears that many of the issues treated by the
Association were either directly or indirectly related to the amateurism principle, whether it was in the matter of finances or the playing of the
Davis Cup. The Association has been the target for many adamant attacks by critics who claim the amateur principle is a hypocrisy and a sham. In the past few years there has been renewed discussion and legislation not only in the United States but all over the world concern ing the advisability of allowing open tournaments, i. e. , competition between professionals and amateurs. Feelings are strong on both sides concerning this issue.
With the subject of open tournaments and the loss of United States prestige ever present in the tennis world there have been many written articles assessing the policies of the United States Lawn Tennis Associ ation. Since these issues revolve around the question of amateurism, it seems fitting that an objective study of this controversy as handled by the Association be made. A project of this scope should reveal the trends of feeling on this question for the past eighty-five years and per haps give indications of the course for the future. 4
The Problem
Statement of the problem
It is the purpose of this research project to:
1) Investigate the historical development of the United States
Lawn Tennis Association in terms of its amateurism principle.
2) Investigate the underlying facts behind this issue and point out trends and changes.
3) Show the connection between the amateurism question and
related problems involved in the Association.
4) Compare the interpretation of amateurism by the USLTA with the lawn tennis associations of other countries.
5) Show the relationship of the Association to the International
Lawn Tennis Federation in regard to this question.
6) Gather into one document all material relating to the history and philosophy of amateurism as advocated by the United States Lawn
Tennis Association.
Scope of the study
This research project will deal with the amateurism controversy and related matters that have been faced by the Association for eighty- five years. An attempt will not be made to investigate the entire history of the United States Lawn Tennis Association. Its main emphasis will be on the Association's handling of matters as they relate to amateurism from its inception to the present time.
Limitations of the study
This study will be restricted to events concerning amateurism in the United States Lawn Tennis Association. The delicate nature of this topic in regard to expense money on the amateur circuit is a limiting factor in some respects as the author will have to rely on information obtained in confidential interviews with players and officials. No attempt will be made to include reports of sectional associations except where they have a bearing on the National body. This project will also be con fined to matters pertaining to the tennis situation in this country except where information concerning the international tennis picture affects the
United States Lawn Tennis Association.
Definitions of Terms Used
Challenge Round
The term "challenge round" refers to the final round in the Davis
Cup Championships whereby the current holder of the Cup is challenged by the winning country of the interzone finals. C ircuit
"Circuit" is a term used when referring to the various tournaments on a player's schedule.
Draw
"Draw" is a term used when referring to the placement of the players on an elimination tournament schedule.
F ives
The term "fives" refers to an old English ball game for boys, similar to the present game of handball.
Rackets
The term "rackets" refers to an old French game that is still played today which involves hitting the ball against a wall with a racket within the confines of a court. —
Seed
The term "seed" refers to a method used in making a draw where by the best players are placed at certain positions to eliminate the possi bility of their competing against each other in the early rounds of a tournament. Sphairistike
"Sphairistike" is a term used when referring to an ancient ball game played by the Greeks. The early game of tennis was also known as "Sphairistike. "
Tenez
/ "Tenez" is from the Latin word tenere meaning "to hold" and it is believed that in ancient ball games the word was spoken before a player commenced serving. Most historians believe that the word "tennis" was derived from this term "tenez. "
P rocedure
To accomplish the purpose of this study, it was necessary to obtain factual material concerning the history of the USLTA and the his tory of the game of lawn tennis. The data were acquired by several methods: examination of tennis literature, study of the minutes of
USLTA meetings, examination of USLTA committee reports, and per sonal interviews with tennis players, both amateur and professional, tennis reporters and officials of the USLTA. Description of the data and of the interviews are given below.
Publications and information from the USLTA files
The printed material available was found in books on tennis, Year books of the USLTA, tournament programs, newspapers and periodicals. The books, tennis guides, periodicals and tournament programs provided the greater portion of the information concerning the history of tourna ments and the game of lawn tennis.
The minutes of the USLTA meetings and the USLTA committee reports furnished the pertinent information concerning the USLTA's role both nationally and internationally in relation to its conception of the amateur code.
Research at the USLTA office was conducted for one week in March,
1965, and four days in March, 1966. The USLTA office is presently located at 51 East 42nd Street, New York, New York.
Personal interviews
The majority of the interviews were conducted at three major ten nis tournaments during 1965. These tournaments were the Ladies
Invitational Tournament at the Essex Country Club, Manchester, M assa chusetts, August 16-21; the National Doubles Championship at the Long- wood Cricket Club, Brookline, Massachusetts, August 22-29; and the
National Singles Championship at the West Side Tennis Club, Forest
Hiiis, New York, September 1-12. The interview with Mrs. Wightman, famous tennis player and donor of the Wightman Cup, was conducted at her home in December, 1964; Allison Danzig, renowned tennis reporter for the New York Times, was interviewed at the New York Times Build ing, New York City in March, 1966; and Margaret DuPont and Margaret
Varner, former ranked players, answered the interview questions by mail. The following people were interviewed for the study:
Players (Amateur)
Justina Bricka
Margaret DuPont
Donna Floyd Fales
Carole Graebner
Clark Graebner
Belmar Gunderson
Billie Jean Moffitt King
Gene Scott
Karen Hantze Susman
William Talbert
Margaret Varner
Players (Professional)
Mike Davies — -
Barry MacKay
Officials of the USLTA
William Dollard—Umpires Committee
Donald Hobart—former Chairman of Amateur Rules Committee
Mrs. Monroe Lewis—Women's Advisory Committee (1966)
Robert Malaga—Vice Chairman in charge of Junior Davis Cup
Richard Sorlien—Chairman of Amateur Rule Committee 10
Titus Sparrow—Umpire
Martin Tressel—President
Hazel Wightman—Wightman Cup Committee
Tennis Reporters
Bud Collins—Boston Globe
Allison Danzig—New York Times
Alan Grayson—Christian Science Monitor
The questions were prepared in advance and all subjects were asked the same questions. A portable tape recorder was used for the interviews.
Following is the content and the wording of the questions discussed in the interviews:
For all interviews
1. What is your opinion regarding the amateur principle of the
USLTA?
2. Since the USLTA is a non-commercial organization, do you
think that the majority of its revenue is used to help further
the gam e?
3. How do you feel the policy of expenses for players as regu
lated by the USLTA compares with other countries?
4. It has been reported that leading tennis players receive more
money in certain countries. What is your opinion on this m atter? 11
5. How do you feel concerning the general idea that the bigger
the drawing power of a player, the greater his expenses?
6. Critics claim that many amateur tennis players make a
living playing the game. If this is true, do you feel it
involves both men and women?
7. What is your opinion regarding open tournaments?
8. If open tournaments were allowed, would the revenue to the
USLTA be affected?
9. It has been reported that the ILTF has requested the inclusion
of tennis in the 1968 Olympics. Are you for or against this
move ?
10. For the past few years many of the leading amateur players
have spurned professional offers. Do you have an opinion
on this matter?
11. Why do you believe that the United States has been losing
prestige as the supreme tennis country?
12. Do you feel that the tennis players have any say in USLTA
policy?
13. What would you say has been the most controversial issue
that the USLTA has faced over the years?
For players
1. Do you feel that you received greater expense money in
foreign countries than you do in the United States? 12
2. It has been reported that many foreigners play tennis all year
long while United States players are dual people—have a job
or go to school and play tennis. Does this situation affect
you psychologically when you meet a foreign player in a tourna
m ent?
For reporters
1. Do you find players more cooperative as amateurs or
professionals?
2. Why do you believe that it is rare for tennis players to be
selected as "athlete of the year" when reporters cast their
votes?
For officials
1. Has the Davis Cup been the chief means of revenue for the
USLTA?
2. Why doesn't the USLTA appoint a permanent Davis Cup captain
as Australia has done? Does the Davis Cup captain need to be
of adequate financial means?
3. How does the USLTA compare financially with other lawn
tennis associations?
4. Would you say a person without means could be an officer of
the USLTA? 13
Explanation of interview material
In order to obtain a true picture of the tournament circuit and the amateur code it was necessary to assure many subjects that their answers would be held in confidence. Consequently, certain facts in this study are presented without proper acknowledgment. When this situation occurs, it is notated as "Personal Interview" but does not divulge the respondant. Furthermore, due to the use of a tape recorder, some exact quotes are expressed in imperfect English. The informa tion was inserted exactly as recorded for it was felt that correction of grammar would affect the content.
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation
The organization of the remainder of the dissertation was designed to furnish information about tennis prior to the report of the amateur code both nationally and internationally and the discussion of open tour naments. The origin of tennis and its introduction to the United States are described in Chapter II. Information about the governing body for tennis, the USLTA, is related in Chapter III. The amateur code of the
USLTA is described in Chapter IV. The fifth chapter is devoted to the involvement of the USLTA in international tennis matters. Chapter VI is a description of the open tournament controversy and includes the advantages and disadvantages of open competition. The summary and conclusions are found in Chapter VII. CHAPTER H —
THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF TENNIS
In order to follow the development of the principles of amateurism it was necessary to examine literature pertaining to the history of the sport. A synopsis of tennis in its early years is included in this chapter under the following headings: Origin of the Game, The Wingfield Story,
The Introduction of Tennis to the United States, and Development of the
Game in the United States.
Origin of the Game
Lawn tennis, as we know it today, is a relatively young game hav ing been in existence for only ninety-two years. Nevertheless, varied forms of the sport were known centuries ago. The ancient Greeks engaged in an activity called Sphairistike which undoubtedly was derived from the Greek word Sphairos which means ball. * During the Middle
^Walter Umminger, Supermen, Heroes and Gods (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1963), p. 247.
14 15 2 Ages Italian and French kings played a crude form of tennis. Originally an activity for the privileged it soon became a game for the masses. In
France it was called "jeu de paume" whereas in Italy it was known as o "giuoco della palla. " Tennis was so popular during the 1500's in 4 France that there were over 1800 courts in Paris alone. During the ensuing years the sport reverted back to the wealthy classes as it was played indoors on expensive courts. The original outdoor game consisted of hitting the ball with the bare hand, or the hand covered by a glove; however, when the indoor game became prominent, crude rackets were invented to extend the player's reach.
The origin of the name, "tennis, " is not definitely known but the most generally accepted theory is that it is from the French word tenez which was derived from the Latin word t/nere. It is theorized that tenez was used as the current word "play" is used today. ^
2 Lamont Buchanan, The Story of Tennis (New York: The Vanguard Press, Incorporated, 1951), p. 10.
■*J. Parmly Paret, Lawn Tennis (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1904), pp. 3-4. A "Early History of Tennis, " Lawn Tennis Library Record, No. 10 (April, 1951), p. 2. 5 Parke Cummings, American Tennis (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1957), p. 20; Paret, op. cit., p. 4.
^Walter W. Skeat, An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1935), p. 635. The W ingfield Story-
Most historians agree that Major Walter Clopton Wingfield should be given the credit for inventing the modern game of lawn tennis which he introduced to his friends at a garden party in Nantclwyd, Wales, in
December, 1873. Before this time the only popular outdoor game for men and women was croquet. A lawn for croquet became . . the indispensable adjunct to every country house, parsonage and villa. " ^
Wingfield saw the need for an active outdoor game because the men, especially, enjoyed playing outdoor sports.
The popular individual sports in England at that time were court tennis, rackets, fives, and badminton, all of which were played indoors.
Wingfield's game was a combination of these activities plus some clever innovations of his own. He took the basic principles of court tennis and adapted them to outdoor play where there were not any walls. It was played on grass, the net from badminton was employed, the ball was O borrowed from fives, and the scoring technique was taken from rackets.
In order to make the novelty his own so that it could be of financial bene fit, Wingfield called the invention, "Sphairistike or Lawn Tennis, " from the ancient Greek game, and designed the shape of the court in the form
*7 "The Name of the Game is 'Lawn Tennis, ' " Lawn Tennis Library Record, Number 2 (April, 1949), p. 1.
®E. C. Potter, Jr., Kings of the Court (New York; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), p. 4. of an hourglass with a high net and wings on both sides. ^ In February,
1874, Wingfield received a patent for his game. In the specification for requesting this patent Wingfield claimed the invention to be ". . .a new and improved portable court for playing the ancient game of ten nis. 11 He then hired an agent to manufacture the sets in quantities.
These sets consisted of rackets, balls, and a net, and on them were printed the words, "Dedicated to the party assembled at Nantclwyd in
December, 1873. " The game was an immediate success and soon became the most popular lawn game in English society. ^
Wingfield also published an eight page pamphlet entitled Sphair- is tike or Lawn Tennis. 13 This booklet contained the first rules formu lated for the game. As is true in the case of many new games, the first rules were quite different from the ones of today. The hourglass court was sixty feet in length and at the widest part, the baseline, it was thirty feet in width. The shape of the court can be visualized by noting that even though the baseline was thirty feet in width, the net was
Q Ibid., p. 6; Walter C. Wingfield, Sphairistike or Lawn Tennis (London: Harrison and Sons, 1874), pp. 4-7,
M. Heathcote and others, "Lawn Tennis" in the Duke of Beaufort (ed.) The Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1890), p. 136.
^Potter, op. cit., p. 7.
12Ibid.
^Whitman, op. cit., pp. 106-110. 18 only twenty-one feet wide. The net was low, four feet, eight inches at the center, but was seven feet high at the sides. A small box or crease was marked in the middle of each side of the net. This was the place where the server stood to serve the ball. The object of the server was to send the ball into a space behind this crease in the opposite court.
The receiver was allowed to strike the served ball either on the volley or on the first bounce. The scoring was similar to the method used in badminton today whereby only the server can win points, and a game consisted of fifteen points. 14
In August of 1874, Wingfield published another pamphlet concern ing some new rules. The service crease was no longer included as
court measurements but the shape of the court was still in the form of an hourglass and the game was still called by the difficult name of
"Sphairistike. " ^ This title was a failure as the word was not only diffi
cult to pronounce but could not be remembered by most people. It soon
earned itself the nickname, "Sticky. " Eventually, after much criti
cism of the name, Wingfield published another pamphlet in which
I A United States Lawn Tennis Association, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States (Massachusetts: Plimpton Press, 1931), p. 14; J. Parmly Paret, "How To Play Lawn Tennis, " Spalding’s Athletic Library, XIV (July, 1902), p. 9.
15„ . Potter, op. cit., p. 7.
l6Ibid. 19
"Sphairistike" was omitted and the game was called "lawn tennis. " ^
It is necessary to mention that Major Wingfield received much criticism during his lifetime concerning his invention of lawn tennis.
Many felt that he did not deserve the credit for originating a new game because he had incorporated ideas from so many other sports. Further more, they resented the fact that he made a considerable profit for his ingenuity by the sale of his patented sets. Even though the game he introduced was not completely original, he deserves the same honor that is associated with James Naismith. 18 In the book, The Badminton
Library of Sports and Pastimes, his accomplishment was given this mention:
He was the first to realize that there was, in what he had seen or heard, a capacity of adaptation to the needs of society; and this probably as much as can be said for the claim to originality of any inventor, however distinguished, or any discovery, however valuable. / Sic /
Introduction of Tennis to the United States
A few months after the game of Sphairistike was patented, the
British garrison stationed in Bermuda obtained some sets of equipment.
18°Buchanan, op. cit., p. 11.
^Heathcote, op. cit., pp. 135-136.
^USLTA, op. cit. , p. 13. An American visitor, Mary Ewing Outerbridge of Staten Island, New
York, tried the game and became very interested in it. When she returned home in the spring of 1874, she brought with her a net, some balls, and several rackets that had been given to her by some of the
British officers. Upon arriving at the port of New York, she had diffi
culty in getting the equipment into the country as no one knew what it was and therefore, could not classify it for duty. 21 Miss Outerbridge's older brother, A. Emilius Outerbridge, a prominent business man in shipping circles, used his influence to get her tennis set through customs.
Mr. Outerbridge was an active cricketer and at that time was a director of the Staten Island Cricket and Baseball Club. Through him Miss
Outerbridge obtained permission to set up her net and mark out a court on one corner of the club's grounds. 22 Most historians agree that this
court on Staten Island, which was laid out in 1874, was the first lawn
tennis court in America. However, some accounts claim that prior to
this court at Staten Island, a court was erected at the summer home of
William Appleton in Nahant, Massachusetts. The following evidence
conclusively indicates that the court in Nahant was made following the
event at Staten Island. The earliest account on record concerning Miss
2 1 Whitman, op. c i t ., p. 113. 22 "Tennis in the United States, " Official Program National Lawn Tennis Championship Tournament (1924), p. 49. 21
Outerbridge's introduction of the game to the United States appeared in
1887 in an historical sketch of the Staten Island Cricket and Baseball
Club. It told of Miss Outerbridge's return from Bermuda and stated:
. . .arm ed with a net, a set of rules, rackets and balls, / she / returned to America and paid the United States Customs duties on the first lawn tennis set ever brought into this country. She lost no time in interesting her friends in the pastime, and obtained a ready assent from the members of the club to erect a net on their grounds; for it must be remembered that at this time the famous ladies club had not come into existence. ^
In 1890, three years after this article and approximately fifteen years after the event itself, Richard D. Sears, first tennis champion of the
United States, proclaimed in a published story that a court had been laid out in Nahant in August of 1874 and, thus, this was the first court for lawn tennis in America. Whitman proved that the Nahant court was erected one year later during August of 1875 and since the court in
New York was put up in the spring of 1874, the Staten Island court was therefore the earliest lawn tennis court of any kind, public or private, in the United States.
Even though there is this slight discrepancy on which court was the first one in this country, there is complete agreement that the first two tennis players of any prominence in the country played in Nahant.
23"The Staten Island Cricket and Baseball Club, " Outing II (November, 1887), p. 104.
^W hitman, op. cit. , p. 113.
25Ibid., pp. 112-122. 22
One was James Dwight who some years later became the president of the United States Lawn Tennis Association. The other person was
F. R. Sears, who was the brother of the first United States national tennis champion. ^
Soon courts were constructed at Newport, Rhode Island; Plainfield, 27 New Jersey; and Tuxedo, New York. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the game of tennis was played by relatively small numbers during its first few years in America. Tennis was a sport for wealthy people who either belonged to clubs that had grass areas or who owned estates with suitable lawns so that a court could be laid out on the prem ises. In addition, what little popularity the game acquired was limited to the eastern area of the United States.
Development of the Game in the United States
It is necessary to trace some of the rule developments that took place in England in order to obtain a clear picture of the early game of tennis in the United States. The American players were, at first, com pletely dependent upon England not only for the necessary equipment but also for the regulations of the game.
2 A USLTA, op. cit., p. 13; Deobold B. Van Dalen, Elmer D. Mitchell, and Bruce L. Bennett, A World History of Physical Education (New York; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953), p. 411. 27 John Tunis, Sport for the Fun of It (New York; A. S. Barnes and Company, 1940), p. 300. 23
In 1875 the Marylebone Cricket Club in England published a revi sion of Wingfield's tennis rules. There were still the hourglass court, the racket system of scoring, and the net slightly higher at the edges.
These 1875 rules, however, did have some very important changes, and a few of them are regulation in the world today. The length of the court was established at seventy-eight feet. The server was now required to serve from the back line instead of the middle of the court. Also, the serve could no longer be taken on the volley, and a let in service was 28 counted as good.
As lawn tennis assumed a prominent place in England, rules were altered and new rules were formulated frequently. An important event which had much effect on the history of lawn tennis in America took place in July, 1877, when the All-England Croquet Club, how known as
"Wimbledon, " staged the first All-England Championship tournament.
This occasion was significant because of the new rules that were drawn 29 up at that time. 7 The hourglass court which had not been advantageous to the game was abandoned, and the rectangular shape of the court of today was adopted. The width of the court was also changed to twenty - seven feet, which is the present measurement. A short time after this tournament, the governors of Wimbledon revised the rules again. Pro
28 USL.TA, op. cit. , p. 16.
29Ibid. , p. 18. vision for one fault on a serve was adopted, a let on a serve was still considered legal, and the server was allowed to stand astride the base line.^® The most dramatic rule change was the discarding of the racket system of scoring and adoption of the court tennis method so that the game would be scored . .by fifteens, games, and sets. " JX3 1
Each rule change that was drafted in England soon became tennis law in the United States. As a result, the early rules in America paral lelled those of England. Nevertheless, numerous local variations in the rules and equipment were seen. The rackets were of different sizes, some triangular, some square, and some bent like a shovel. 32 In the book, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, these early rack ets were spoken of as "exaggerated fly-swatters. " ^ The balls were of different weights despite the fact that each tennis dealer stamped his 34 particular brand, "Regulation. " Even court dimensions were not always the same, and the height of the net varied with the locality. The early game, itself, was a somewhat leisurely one for several reasons.
First, the players' dress consisted of regular street clothing and leather
30 Paret, op. cit., p. 8. 31 Whitman, op. cit., p. 105. 32 Buchanan, op. cit., p. 15.
^USLTA, op. cit., p. 18. 34 Buchanan, op. cit., p. 15. 25 shoes. For the women this meant that their apparel was a full, long 35 skirt and many petticoats. As a result, both men and women were hampered in their movement. Another reason for the slow pace of the game was that there were only two strokes employed, a sliced drive and a chop. In addition, the serve was moderate in speed since it was done 36 either underhand or at the shoulder level. It was not uncommon to see eight players in a match standing motionless on the court patting 37 the ball back and forth without its touching the ground.
This novel game, tennis, was not treated with much respect at first. Most looked upon it as a curiosity for very few knew what it was called. Many newspapers sent their reporters to write humerous arti
cles about the gentle pastime and had M. . .artists draw comic sketches of the queer implements and aesthetic postures of the players." 38
People scoffed at the sport, thinking it fit only for women and unathletic 39 men. One author stated that, "no other game was treated with so
Van Dalen, op. cit., p. 413; USLTA, op. cit., p. 18.
^USLTA, op. cit., p. 18. 37 John Durant, Y esterday In Sports (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1956), p. 30. 38 Potter, op. cit., p. 54. 39 H. W. Slocum, Jr., Lawn Tennis in our own Country (New York: A. G. Spalding and Brothers, 1890), p. 110. 26 much indifference and to so many slurs. " An example of this scorn is shown by the following exerpt taken from a letter that appeared in
The Harvard Crimson on April 5, 1878.
Allow me a little space to expostulate, not ill-naturedly I hope, on a kind of athletics that seems to be gaining ground very fast at Harvard. I mean to say Lawn Tennis. There are now four clubs, and perhaps five, that have come into existence here this year. These clubs are generally composed of eight members each; that is, we have now at Harvard from thirty-forty men who devote their leisure hours to Lawn Tennis. Many of these men were formerly seen on the river, forming part of the club fours and sixes; now they have deserted these posts, where as much energy is needed as the College can supply, for a sport that will do themselves little physical good, and can never reflect any credit on the College. Is it not a pity that serious athletics should be set aside by able-bodied men for a game that is at best intended for a seaside pastime? The game is well enough for lazy or weak men, but men who have rowed or taken part in a nobler sport should blush to be seen playing Lawn Tennis. ^
Many historians feel that this early attitude was fostered by use of the word, "love, " in the scoring process. The general public gath ered by the word that there was ", . . something languorous or love sick" to the game. ^ In a short time, however, the growing popularity of tennis in America was shown by an article that appeared in England's
^F rank G. Menke, The Encyclopedia of Sports (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, I960), p. 944.
^^Quoted in Whitman, op. cit., p. 138-39. 42 Ibid., p. 139. 27
Century in 1879. The article stated:
The game is also winning favor in America, and it has so much in it that is commendable that it will, no doubt, super cede croquet as a garden recreation here as it has already done in England. 43
Even so, some of the cricket clubs where tennis played a minor role were beginning to worry that this new game might supplant the old one. The American Cricketer, in the late 1870's, stated under the head line, "Let Us Face The Music":
If the success of lawn tennis gives warrant to anticipate such a result, the matter is indeed a serious one. Frankly, the Cricketer does not deem the thing is even remotely a possibility. 44
Despite the critics and scornful articles the game took a hold and1 stead ily increased in popularity.
With the rapid growth of tennis, competition was stimulated. The first tournament on record in the United States was played on the private court of Mr. William Appleton in Nahant, M assachusetts, in August,
1876. ^ It was a local affair with thirteen contestants. Since James
Dwight and F. R. Sears, Jr. , were decidedly superior to the other con testants, handicaps were given to the players. At that time, fifteen
4-^Quoted in USLTA, op. cit. , p. 19.
44e . C. Potter, Kings of the Court (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, Incorporated, 1963), p. 55.
4 £ > " F i r s t Tournament in the United States, " Lawn Tennis Library Record, VII (July, 1950), p. 3. points constituted a match. Despite the handicapping the tournament was won by James Dwight.46 Soon local matches sprang up between neigh boring clubs. In 1879, the Belmont Cricket Club in Philadelphia issued
a challenge to the neighboring clubs and stated that a tournament would
be played "under such regulations as to size of court,etc., as may be hereafter agreed upon. " 47 Local tournaments were also held at New- 48 port, Boston, Philadelphia, and Staten Island.
In 1880, E. H. Outerbridge was the secretary of the Staten Island
Cricket and Baseball Club. Upon his suggestion, it was decided to hold
a tournament at the Club. 49 The tournament was to be open to any
player in the United States, and the winner was to be called the "Champion
of America. Both singles and doubles matches were to be played.
When the tournament was staged on September 1, 1880, a dilemma arose
owing to the variance in balls, the height of the net, and the scoring
process. Dwight and Sears refused to enter the singles contest because
the balls were different from those which they had been using. ^ The
4^USLTA, pp. cit., p. 19; Slocum, op. cit., p. 108.
47USLTA, ibid.
4®Paret, "How To Play Lawn Tennis, " op. cit. , p. 12.
491'Tennis in the United States, " Official Program National Lawn Tennis Championship Tournament (1924), p. 49.
^Slocum, op. cit., p. 112.
51USLTA, op. cit., p. 20. 29 height of the net was three feet in the middle and three feet, six inches on the sides, though many of the contestants were used to one six inches higher. The matches were conducted under the racket system of scoring
CO though many clubs were already using the present court tennis method.
Despite the confusion the "Champion of America" title went to Oliver
Woodhouse who was visiting from England at the time. Woodhouse demonstrated during his play a stroke Americans had never seen before, an overhead serve.^
Some weeks after this event, a club match was held between the
Staten Island Cricket and Baseball Club and the Young America Cricket 54 Club of Philadelphia. Here again, discussion arose because the clubs had been accustomed to nets of different heights, and balls of different size. These difficulties at the matches caused not only confusion but began to point the way to dissension among the clubs which was not help ing to promote the growth of tennis. Knowing from the experience of
England that tournaments and interclub matches were a necessary fea ture of the game, the leaders in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston decided that if the sport was to grow in popularity, the rules must be standardized. Mr. Outerbridge took the lead in this matter and received
52Ibid., p. 227. 53 "Tennis in the United States, " Official Program National Lawn Tennis Championship Tournament (1924), p. 49.
54USLTA, op. cit., p. 20. permission from the directors of the Staten Island Club to form an asso-
CC ciation in order to regulate the game. The decision to establish such an organization marked the end of the first stage of development of tennis in the United States.
^Official Program (1924), op. cit., p. 50. CHAPTER III
UNITED STATES LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION
In this study of the United States Lawn Tennis Association, it was found that this organization was the most important single influence affecting the growth and development of tennis in this country. Not only has'the Association inaugurated numerous tournaments for adults and children, but it has also legislated important rules and regulations for the well-being of the game and its players. Underlying every move has been the Association's adherence to the ideal that it is an am ateur body giving control to the amateur game. In order to have a clear picture of how this philosophy was developed it is necessary to investigate the overall structure of the United States Lawn Tennis Association. There fore, this chapter is devoted to a description of the United States Lawn
Tennis Association, its formation, ensuing development, and important legislation issued by the Association.
31 32
Founding of the United States Lawn Tennis Association
On May 5, 1881, the American Cricketer printed a proposal which stated that all organized tennis clubs, or clubs playing tennis were invited to send representatives to a convention
. . .for the purpose of adopting a code of rules and designating a standard ball, to govern and be used in all lawn tennis matches or tournaments throughout the United States, with a view of enabling all clubs or individual players to meet under equal advan ta g e s . 1
The leaders behind this idea were representatives of three prom i nent tennis centers in the country. They were Emelius H. Outerbridge of the Staten Island Cricket and Baseball Club, James Dwight from the
Beacon Park Athletic Association in Boston, and Clarence M. Clark 2 from the All Philadelphia Lawn Tennis Commission.
The convention, which was held in New York City on May 21, 1881, was attended by delegates from thirty-four clubs. All of the clubs pres ent were from the East indicating that the game was most popular in 3 that section of the country. The part of the program including the nominations for officers, the proposed constitution, and the definition
*Parke Cummings, American Tennis (Boston; Little, Brown, and Company, 1957), p. 36; USLTA, "A Historical Sketch of the United States Lawn Tennis Association" (1956), p. 1. (Mimeographed.) 2 The Duke of Beaufort (ed.), The Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes (London; Longmans, Green and Company, 1890), p. 318.
^Cummings, op. cit., p. 36. 33 4 of the purpose of the Association had been planned prior to the meeting.
The rules of the Marylebone Cricket Club and the All England Lawn Ten nis Club were adopted for the following year and the prepared constitution was accepted. ® To avoid any suspicion that the large cities were attem pt ing to monopolize control General R. S. Oliver of the Albany Club was elected president and Dwight and Outerbridge were put on the executive committee. The purpose of the organization was read and accepted,
". . . to develop a national scope, to govern the eligibility of clubs and thus to have control over the qualifications of tournament players. " ^
The name decided upon was the "United States National Lawn Tennis
Association." Thus was created one of the first amateur sport govern ing bodies in the United States and the first lawn tennis association in 7 the w o rld .
4 USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States (Mass: Plimpton Press, 1931), p. 229.
^Duke of Beaufort, op. cit., p. 318.
^"United States Lawn Tennis Association, " Official Program National Lawn Tennis Championship Tournament (1924), p. 45. 7 Brigadier J. G. Smyth, Lawn Tennis (London: B. T. Batsford, 1953), p. 19; USLTA, "A Historical Sketch of the United States Lawn Tennis Association, " op. cit. , p. 1. (In 1920 the organization dropped "National" from its title and has been known ever since as the United States Lawn Tennis Association.) 34
Development of the United States Lawn Tennis Association
Growth of affiliated clubs and associations
Thirty-four clubs became members of the Association when itwas formed in 1881. The number of clubs grew every year until by 1890 there were seventy-five clubs and one association on the membership Q rolls of the United States Lawn Tennis Association. An association was a grouping of clubs into a more central body. The United States
Lawn Tennis Association feared that these local associations might become independent and be a threat to the influence of the Association and thus, urged them to join the national organization. Their dues were
based on the number of clubs in the association. ^ Five years later, in
1895, there were 106 clubs and ten associations as members of the
Association. This early growth in membership indicated that tennis was spreading throughout the country. But a great drop in membership occurred after this year and by 1902 there were only forty-four member clubs and tennis associations. ^ This decline was attributed to several causes. For a short period of time many of the best players were serv ing their country in the Spanish-American War and consequently, could
^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, p. 240.
^Ibid., p. 240.
10I b id ., p. 243.
1 hbid. not compete in tournaments or belong to clubs. Furthermore, the sport of golf was spreading rapidly in America, and many tennis players had changed to this game. Some critics felt that the lack of interest was due to the perfunctory re-election of officers in the Association. 12
Due to the interest stimulated by Davis Cup play, which was estab lished in 1900, membership increased again and in 1908 there were 115 clubs and sixteen associations. 13 The Association has steadily grown and on March 17, 1965, it was reported that membership was at an all time high with 2000 clubs affiliated with sixteen geographical associations.
Rules Legislation
One of the main functions of the United States Lawn Tennis A ssoci ation has been to establish or alter rules for the benefit oFthe sport and players. Most of the legislation concerning rules of the game occurred during the early years of the Association.
Beginning with the first meeting, three rules were adopted which have not been changed over the years. The most important decree con cerned the method of keeping score. The present system of countingwas
13 Ibid. 14 Minutes of Meeting of Sports Governing Bodies, M arch 17, 1965, p. 1. (Mimeographed.) 36 chosen and thus, the old system of racquet scoring that was being used by some clubs was outlawed. The present dimension of twenty-one feet between the service line and the net was established as the official m eas urement for a tennis court. Also, to avoid disputes in tournaments, it was ruled that the decision of the umpire was to be final. ^
* In the fall of 1881, the Association published a book of rules with some additional changes. The server was to stand with one foot behind the baseline, although the other foot could be on or over the baseline. A good service delivered when the receiver was not ready was not to count, a "let" on the service was no longer to be in play, the net and posts were not to be touched, and the ball was not to be volleyed before it passed the net. If the umpire wished, he could direct the players to change sides after every game, either throughout the match or in the deciding set.
Court regulations were to the effect that the service court in doubles was to be reduced to the same size as in singles. ^
Other major rule changes occurred in 1891. A rest was provided for in a match, although it was only seven minutes instead of the present
15Cummings, op. cit., p. 37; USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Ten- nis in the United States, p. 232.
^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, pp. 232-233. ——— 37 17 period of ten minutes. There was to be a referee for every tourna- 18 ment and an umpire for every match.
By 1895 most of the rules of tennis were well established and 19 these have lasted through the years. A few minor changes have been made since, which concern the action of the server. In 1898 it was ruled that the server must keep both feet behind the baseline. 20 In 1955 it was
stated that both feet must be behind the baseline during service, although one foot may swing over the line so long as it does not touch the ground 21 before the ball is struck.
Tournament Legislation
The United States Lawn Tennis Association not only formulates standard tennis rules but also sanctions national tournaments and the rules of organization.
The first United States national tournament was held at Newport,
Rhode Island, in 1881. This contest included men's singles and men's
17 Peter Stults Avery, "Evolution of the Rules of Lawn Tennis" (unpublished M aster's Thesis, Springfield College, 1956), p. 60. 18 USLTA,~Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the UnitedStates, p. 241.
^Avery, op. cit., p. 61.
20 USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the U nited States, p. 246. 21 "Changes in Tennis Rules, " Official Tennis-Badminton Guide (June 1956-June 1958), p. 40. 38 doubles. From 1881 to 1965 the Association has inaugurated 105 national tournaments. These national tournaments are classified, at the time of this study, according to age, sex, surface of playing court, 22 and whether the championship is played indoors or outdoors.
As the number of tournaments and players increased, it was neces
sary to make official regulations for the organization of tournaments.
As was the case with the rules of the game, most of the laws were laid
down during the early years of the Association.
The question of amateur status was discussed as early as 1882, and it was voted that only amateurs could enter tournaments sponsored by the Association. J The amateur code will be discussed in detail in
the next chapter.
In 1884, the Bagnall-Wilde system of draw was adopted for tour- 24 naments. This innovation eliminated "byes" after the first round.
Previous to this, a new draw had been made after each round, and byes
had occurred in any round. ^
Also in 1884, a novel step was introduced to make tournaments
^USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1966 (New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1966), pp. 209-244. 23 USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, p. 235.
24 Ibid., p. 237.
2*5 Ibid., p. 28; J. Parmly Paret, Lawn Tennis (New York; The Macmillan Company, 1904), p. 297. 39 fairer and more interesting. It was decided that the present champion of a tournament should not compete in the matches until the last day of the contest. This meant that the champion would "stand out" and defend his title against the winner among the other players. °26 This system was used until 1912, when it was abolished in favor of the present sys- tern by which all contestants play throughout the tournament. '
In 1885, the first official rankings of players were made, whereby the ten most skilled men in the country were rated in order of ability as shown by their tournament records. In 1910, the list grew to include
100 players but this proved to be too large a number and the next year the list was reduced to thirty-five players. ^ These rankings have con tinued to be made each year, and at present approximately thirty-five 30 players in each division and age group are ranked by the USLTA.
The women players in the United States became officially recog nized in 1889. A brief description of the role women played in the
26H. W. Slocum, Jr., Lawn Tennis in our own Country (New York: A. G. Spalding and Brothers, 1890), p. 132; USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, p. 237.
^"A ll Comers, " American Lawn Tennis, VI (April 15, 1912), p. 21; Cummings, op. cit., p. 89. 28 USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, p. 238.
^ Ibid. t p. 248.
30USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, pp. 39-70. 40 development of tennis in this country will help to explain why the women were omitted from the affairs of the Association in its early years.
Even though it was a woman, Mary Outerbridge, who introduced tennis to the United States, the game like most sporting activities was at first taken up by the men. It was not considered proper, ladylike, or too wise for females to indulge in vigorous physical activity prior to the late 1800's. The-courageous women who attempted to defy convention and participate in the same games as men were at first small in number and did so amidst much scorn and ridicule. On June 16, 1877, the New
York Daily Graphic published some sketches of tennis on the lawn at 3 1 the Staten Island Cricket Club. In this same issue of the Graphic there was a prophetic editorial entitled "Athletic Sports" and had for its time some extremely favorable comments concerning women and athletics. Some of its pertinent rem arks are worthy of mention.
. . . A few years ago the delightful game of croquet was welcomed by ladies, and soon became the fashion. It led the way to other out of door sports for ladies, and last week we reported the formation of an athletic club for practice of archery and other field sports by ladies on Staten Island. The tendency is a good one and ought to be heartily encouraged. . . The physical side of life for women as well as for men is beginning to receive the attention which is its due. . .And athletic sports will become fashionable for ladies as well as for men. . . and many sports which a few years ago were considered unwomanly will doubtless be fashionable. . . ^2
31 Malcolm B. Whitman, Tennis Origins and M ysteries (New York: The Derrydale Press, 1932), p. 123.
^Quoted in ibid., pp. 123-124. The writer of this editorial was indeed more foreseeing than the dedicated men who founded the USLTA. It is evident that the founders did not even consider the likelihood of women in the sport as no provi sions for them or mention of them were made in the constitution. By the late 1880's women were not only playing the game in many areas but many clubs had appealed to the USLTA to sponsor tournaments for women as it did for men. Consequently, in 1889, it was stated by the
Association that it was extending ", . . its protecting wing to the Lady
Lawn Tennis players of the country. . . " 33 ^ national women's singles and doubles championship was awarded to the Philadelphia
Cricket Club. ^4 Soon tournaments for women were held with increasing frequency on the local, sectional, and national level. An interesting statement appeared in the July, 1894 issue of the Queen of Fashion in an article concerning the fact that except for putting, golf was not a game for ladies. The writer continued by saying that "it was not as violent as tennis, which had been accepted. " ^
At the annual meeting of the Association in 1899 enthusiastic com ments were given concerning women in the game. The profound interest was felt to be a "natural result of increasing tendency on the part of
^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, p. 240.
34Ibid.
^Quoted in Agnes Rogers, Women are Here to Stay (New York: Harper and B ros., 1949), p. 21. 42 women to enter athletics. "36 A resolution was passed to direct clubs to sponsor events for women during the coming season. ^7
In 1902 the Association reported that one of the outstanding events of the season was the "increased play of women and increase of women's tournaments."38
Today very few tournaments are held without the inclusion of both sexes thus indicating the Association's belief in the equal importance of men and women players. 39 7
As with most new movements certain personalities stand out in the public's mind at the time and years later history credits them as the
"trail blazers. " Authorities give credit to a number of sportswomen for opening up vistas in athletic contests but two tennis players are at the top of the list: Eleanora Sears and May Sutton Bundy. Many histo rians single out Miss Sears as the person who led the way for women in 40 sports. In tennis she was national women's doubles titleholder in 41 1911, 1915, 1916, and 1917. In addition she was also an outstanding
■^Minutes, of Annual Meeting USLTA, February 2, 1899, p. 145.
37Ibid.
3®Minutes of Annual Meeting USL.TA, February 15, 1902, p. 23.
39USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, p. 13.
^®John Durant and Otto Bettmann, Pictorial History of American Sports (New York; A. S. Barnes and Co., 1952), p. 148.
^^Rogers, op. cit., p. 58. 43 athlete in riflery, swimming, golf, and squash. Miss Sears received additional fame for her walking stints between Boston and distant points. 4^
Her contributions are keenly noted by Durant and Bettmann in Pictorial
History of American Sports.
At first the daring young woman horrified New England conserv atives with her tomboyish activities. But she demonstrated that a woman could play men’s games like a man without causing a revolution. She won her cause and was the prime liberator of women in sports... 43
May Sutton Bundy won the United States women's singles champion ship in 1904 and the Wimbledon title in 1905. She proved that a woman could play tennis similar to the men's style of play. Previous women champions had defensive type games and never tarried far from the base line. Mrs. Bundy was an aggressive net player who had a powerful over- head smash. 44
Both Miss Sears and M rs. Bundy also took the prerogative for the ladies of the tennis world in regard to dress. They rolled up their shirt sleeves to not only facilitate their movements but to allow for cooler p lay . 45
Many authorities believe that if it had not been for the game of
42lbid.
4^Durant and Bettmann, op. cit., p. 48. 44 Rogers, op. cit., p. 60.
4^Buchanan, op. cit., p. 27. 44 tennis, the acceptance of women in the sports world would have been delayed for an undetermined number of years. It paved the way for the participation by women in such vigorous sports as basketball and field hockey.
In 1922 the Association inaugurated "seeding a draw" for tourna- AC ments. Previously players had been placed in a draw at random and
consequently, the two best players often had to play against each other before the final round. The principle behind seeding was to place the best players in different sections of the draw so that they would not meet each other in the early rounds. Today seeding is done in all tour naments, whether local or national.
Also, in 1922, after years of negotiations the USLTA joined the
International Lawn Tennis Federation which had been founded in 1913.
Then, as today, this body encompassed all the lawn tennis associations
in the world in an endeavor to provide standard regulations everywhere
for the game of tennis. ^ The ILTF will be discussed in detail in
C h a p te r V.
4 fi "Seeding the Draw, " American Lawn Tennis, XXIV (September 5, 1930), p. 452.
^"International Lawn Tennis Association, " Official Program Lawn Tennis Championships of the U. S. Women's Singles and Doubles (1925), p. 29. 45
The Structure of the United States Lawn Tennis Association
In the beginning years of the Association tennis was a young sport and only engaged in by a very small minority of the population. Conse quently, the structure of the organization was simple and its problems were relatively few. Though a small group it had unchallenged authority as the national body for the game of tennis from its inception. 4ft It undertook projects that had far reaching results, such as, selection of a standard ball, adoption of a common method of scoring, issuance of standard rules, and so forth.
It is important to keep in mind that in its first years the Associa tion did not have on its membership rolls all those clubs playing tennis.
Yet, as the game developed and the functions of the Association became more numerous, it became more of a necessity for a club to belong to the national body in order to receive certain privileges. These early years of the Association received these comments from J. Parm lyParet in his 1904 book on tennis.
The USNLTA is the controlling body, but its membership includes only a small proportion of the tennis clubs of the country. There are many smaller sectional associations through the West, and some also in the East, few of which hold member ship in the USNLTA. The policy of the National Association has not been aggressive, and no attempt is made to outlaw players who compete in tournaments under other auspices, or to insist on the enforcement of its laws outside of its own membership. ^9
*°Paret,4ft op. cit., p. 26. 49 Paret, op. cit., p. 25. 46
However, it should be pointed out that since the very first national tour nament in 1881 many tournaments were open only to those players who belonged to clubs which had membership in the USLTA.
As tennis grew in popularity and the responsibilities of the Associ ation towards the game became more numerous, it is natural that the organization itself became larger and more complex in order to carry out its functions. A brief examination of some of the developments and changes in structure illustrates this point.
The governing body within the USLTA has always been an Execu tive Committee. In 1881 the Executive Committee consisted of six people: President, Vice-President, Secretary-Treasurer, and three delegates. Furthermore, it is recorded in its very first year that there were several committees, notably a Tournament Committee and a Prize CQ Committee. Today the USLTA has an Executive Committee that num bers forty-two people which consists of the officers and delegates. In addition, there are fifty-two national committees. It is important to
keep in mind that all these people who have ever held office in the organ
ization receive no pay and many devote many hours of time to their
respective duties.
The USLTA has been often criticized for its lack of action and the
slowness of its deliberations on policy. Many critics claim it has too
^"Diam ond Jubilee of the USLTA, 11 Lawn Tennis Library Record, XXXII (August, 1956), p. 2. 47 many committees to be able to function efficiently. In 1963 Mr. Edward
Potter, an historian of tennis, commented about the situation.
In 1952 there were 40 USLTA Committees manned by 252 mem bers. This year there are 59 Committees with 315 members listed in the Guide. Yet during this decade we have won the Davis Cup only twice and promptly lost it again. In two of the last three years our team did not even reach the Challenge Round and in 1962 we even failed to win the American Zone. We have won the Wightman Cup nine out of eleven times, but our male players have woti only two Wimbledon singles, one and a half doubles, three American singles, and three and a half doubles. It may well be asked whether the proliferation of USLTA committees with their more than 300 members has really accomplished anything.
Further on he refers to the fact that it is questionable why some commit tees have twenty to forty members when others seem to operate effec- tively with a membership of five. 52
For a full understanding of the organization of the USLTA it is necessary to examine some of its policies over the years in regard to its structure. A close examination of some of its traditions in this respect may help to explain why this national body has been open to attack prac tically since its inception.
O ffic e rs
Since tennis was introduced in the East and for many years was played mostly by Easterners, it is not surprising that in the Association's early years all the officers were also from the eastern section of the
^N ed Potter, "Passing Shots, 11 World Tennis XI(July, 1963), p. 35.
52Ibid. 48 country. But as the game spread throughout the United States there was no change in pattern and the offices were still held by men from the East.
Criticism concerning this practice developed early and in 1904 the fol lowing statement appeared in Lawn Tennis.
The USNLTA is made up of associations and clubs, each entitled to delegates at the annual convention in New York; but as a m atter of fact and history, its actions are all governed by a certain clique of men mostly in Boston and New York who reelect them selves or choose their successors each year. ^
When the records of the Association are examined, this charge was justified in part not only in 1904 but practically every year thereafter.
In 1958, Victor Denny of Seattle, Washington was elected President of the USLTA. Also elected were officers from the Midwest and the South and key positions were given to several men from the West Coast.
Sports Illustrated commented on these events with these rem arks.
Like US politics, the national game of lawn tennis was once the exclusive property of the East Coast. Even 30 years ago, just before the arrival of the great Californians—-Vines, Budge, K ram er—tennis clubs east of the Alleghenies outnumbered those from all the rest of the country put together. But tennis, like politics, was too'Vital and virile a game to remain the property of the exclusive few. The South and West grew in tennis magnitude, until by last year California alone boosted almost as many member clubs (193) as the eastern division (213). Nevertheless, until this year control has remained firmly in eastern hands. ^
53 Paret, op. cit., pp. 25-26.
^"Com es the Tennis Revolution,11 Sports Illustrated (February 24, 1958), p. 23. 49
Another procedure over the years that has caused criticism is the self perpetuation of the officers as mentioned in the 1904 article referred to previously. It appears evident over the years that politics has played a major role in obtaining office in the USLTA. Consequently, some major issues in regard to tennis seemed to have been interwoven with this political situation. A former member of several national com mittees of the USLTA claimed that the political situation that existed in the organization prevented it from accomplishing all it could. He also stated some other pertinent rem arks.
We don't have the job seeking the man—we have the man seeking the job. This is true all over the place. And it has been this way for years and years. You get people in there and it is a prestigeous thing, the left hand feeds the right and things like this, and they just propagate. This is not good. I think one of the greatest faults of the USLTA and I think one of the reasons it falters and does not run smoothly and does not accomplish what it could or should—is the fact that there is far far too much politics behind it. The way to get ahead in the USLTA is to have some friends and get in on something and you go up the ladder by being a nice guy. That is why we get a succession of nice guys and there is nothing done in depth, and there is nothing done over long range planning. It is a power organization—a power structure. You play one against the other. The best man does not always get to the top by any means at all. The politics that goes on is worse than the politics of anyinajor political party. It is a cancerous situation. Instead of getting the guy best for tennis, you have this one playing against this one, etc. They perpetuate themselves in office and it is a bad situation. We are never going to get anywhere under the present set-up. What you need is a commissioner or an executive director.
^Personal interview. 50
Mr. Potter also referred to this situation in an article in 1962.
The USLTA, as it exists today, is largely a self-perpetuating organization. While top officers rotate with some frequency, junior officers, members of the Executive Committee and Committee Chairmen hold their jobs for years on end. . . there are too many Committees and too many members on the Committees. Often the number is unwieldy, and while we talk of the fine volunteer spirit of the Association, the fact is that most Committees are run by one or two men. The other members are mere figureheads who are generally appointed for partisan or sectional reasons. ®6
Other indications of the politics involved often seem evident when
the Association is confronted with major issues. The open tennis ques
tion has been one of controversy for many years. It reached a peak in
1962 when the Association voted on a proposal for open tennis. The proposal was defeated but questions arose whether those voting were con
cerned with open tennis or other matters. World Tennis Magazine
referred to this proposal in one of its editorials.
With the exception only of the Western section, which polled its member clubs, each of the 15 sections of the U.S. was represented by the opinions of between one to three men. The Eastern section, which has 18,000 votes, threw its entire 18,000 against the Open motion! . . . six sections, with more member clubs and therefore a larger vote than the other nine sections, defeated the Open proposal.
At the same time that the Open was given a kick in the teeth by the six Sectional delegates, one of the best presidents in USLTA history was thrown out of office. The two events were actually linked. Dele gates were told at the Annual Meeting that a 'vote against the Open isn't really a vote against the Open, it is a vote against EdTurville.' No one has ever discovered the logic of the link. . . ^7
^N ed Potter, "Passing Shots, " World Tennis IX (January, 1962), pp. 20-21.
'■'^"Schism in the USLTA, " World Tennis XII (March, 1965), p. 14. 51
The editorial undoubtedly indicates the disappointment of the writer for the Open Tennis proposal and consequently, the statements may be overly dramatic ones. Nevertheless, this article is just one of many that mentions the politics that seems to be involved in the organization.
There is a definite developmental trend of the power structure that is worthy of mention. The top officers for many years were also the top tennis players of that time. Until 1916 every former President of the USLTA except in its first year of existence had earned the title of
CQ either National Men's Singles Champion or Runner-Up. From 1916 to 1966 the President has not been a national champion except for 1923 when Dwight F. Davis was President and 1937 to 1947 when Holcombe
Ward was the chief executive. This situation is not mentioned to indicate in any way that the officers who were not top players were not just as capable and as dedicated to the game. But the trend that has developed is important to notice considering that for many years now the top execu tives are not or ever have been former top players. The Association has many critics in regard to this issue especially when policies are made that create disfavor. Attacks are leveled at the USLTA which claim that the people running the game do not know anything about it.
58USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, pp. 209-210, 258-259. 52
Bill Talbert, well known player and former Davis Cup captain, made the following allegations in 1962.
Tennis has undergone tremendous change in the last half century, but the machinery for running it is essentially the same as that used in 1910. It is archaic, rusty, cumbersome, and sluggish. Many of the men in responsible positions are well- meaning, but their only excuse for holding office is that they have held it for years. Some are business and professional men who gained official rank as reward for their fatherly interest in the game. Others rose to "brass button" status through service as umpires and linesmen. Too few have had experience in tourna ment play. As a result, no matter how pure their motives, the scope of their vision is limited. They don't know enough about the inner workings of the game to help it.
Another trend that has carried through the years ever since tennis was a game exclusively for the wealthy, is that the top officers of the
Association have always been successful business men. It was unani mously stated by the respondents in this study whether they be players, officials or reporters that a man had to have financial means to be a top officer of the USLTA. In conjunction with this fact is that until last year the headquarters of the USLTA had been located in the center of the financial district in New York City.
The different officers of the national body have not been unaware of the criticisms leveled against them and the Association. Many have
^^Bill Talbert, "An Open Letter to the USLTA, " Sports Illustrated (February 5, 1962), p. 46.
Personal interviews. 53
tried sincerely to make changes for the good of tennis and the organiza
tion. In 1962 Mr. Edward Turville made some pertinent remarks when he was elected President of the USLTA as follows:
It is incumbent upon us to take a searching look at ourselves, our constitution, the way we handle our committees, and the selection of our officers and executive committee. Membership in our organization has grown to the extent that some of our present procedures are no longer adequate. . . the length of service in any one office should be limited. . .continued encour agement should be given to new blood to participate in the admin istration of our organization.
Sections and votes
The very structure of the USLTA has created some problems
through the years. The work of the Association is carried out by six
teen sectional member associations. The voting power in the USLTA is
based on the number of member clubs in each section. Consequently,
some sections, especially in the East, have dominated certain Associa
tion policies by the strength of its votes. Even in 1917 the Association was concerned with this matter and it was discussed at length ■art the
Annual Meeting. A motion was passed "to review the Constitution to
make an amendment to equalize the voting power between the East and
W est. 1,62
^^Ned Potter, "Passing Shots, 11 World Tennis IX (April, 1962), p. 30. 62 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting USLTA, December 7, 1917, p. 132. 54
In 1955, the Eastern section was still ahead in strength with
13,250 votes compared to the 9, 775 votes of the Western section which was in second place. Since the East is more densely populated than other sections, it is not too surprising that it encompasses more mem ber clubs within its respective sections. The difference in the voting
strength will be noticable in Chapter VI in the discussion of the Open
Tennis Question.
Finances
Since the USLTA is a non-profit organization, the procurement and disbursement of its finances is an interesting study. Its treasury
since its inception has been dependent on its membership enrollment and its tournaments. After the Davis Cup was inaugurated, the United
States being a winner was of extreme economic importance to the USLTA.
The organization in its early years continually adopted policies in
order to increase revenue. Money was necessary in order that the
affairs of the Association could be expanded. In 1885 it was recorded
for the first time in the minutes of the Association meeting the beginning
of the established practice of a club guaranteeing the Association a cer
tain sum of money for the privilege of holding one of its tournaments.
63 UA Report on the Annual Meeting, " World Tennis II (March, 1955), pp. 35-36. 55
Newport paid $200 for the privilege of holding the national Championship of that year. ^4 jn 1889 two new policies were adopted that have also been regulation since that time. Beginning with the tournaments of 1889 entry fees were no longer paid by the clubs as had been the former
custom but were paid by the individual player. The fees were $3. 00 for
singles and $5. 00 for a doubles team. Furthermore, the USLTA increased its revenue by having associations as paying members of the
national body. 65
As more tournaments were inaugurated and the Davis Cup compe tition grew in size and importance, the treasury of the USLTA changed from one of hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars. In 1916 it was
reported that the Association had a healthy balance of more than
$35, 000.^ At the annual meeting a year prior to this report, pertinent
remarks were made by the treasurer, Mr. Richard Stevens, concerning
the Association's money.
I would like to offer a motion that the President appoint a committee who, with the advice of, and under the guidance of the Executive Committee, shall report to the next annual meeting ways and means of popularizing and encouraging lawn tennis in the United States. We have a large surplus. . .our income is greater than our expenses. It seems to me we are custodians of that money for some purpose, not to roll up a big surplus. . . consider
k^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, p. 238.
65Ibid., p. 240.
k^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the UnitedStates, p. 250. 56
a recommendation of the employment of a paid field secretary and having a bureau which would be the clearing house of tennis and tennis could be pushed all over and pushed in the way we want it pushed. . . '
Yet, six years later, in 1922, the Treasurer, Abner Leech, Jr.,
reported to the Association that the finances were not too secure. The precariousness of its year to year income and disbursements was indi
cated in his report.
Our Association is on a queer financial basis. We do not receive large dues and initiation fees as most organizations of our character do but we are depending on gate receipts from matches to pay the expenses of the Association.®®
He recommended that this situation be changed if the Association wanted financial security. ®9
These contrasting examples of prosperity and meager funds illus
trate how dependent the Association has always been on the financial
success of its tournaments and on how well the United States players do
in international competition, mainly in the Davis Cup. Furthermore, it
is well to keep in mind that the USLTA has always contributed financially, whenever possible, to the respective sectional associations. For exam
ple, in 1927, it was reported that $45, 000 was distributed to the thirteen
®^Minutes of Annual Meeting USLTA, February 5, 1915, p. 150.
®®Minutes of Executive Com m ittee M eeting USLTA, F eb ru ary 4, 1922, p. 5.
69Ibid. 57 sectional associations by the national body. These sectional associations 70 used this revenue for development of tennis in their respective areas.
However, the Association has always incurred great expenses just in operating its affairs. Such items as maintenance of office and staff, sanctioning and holding tournaments, annual meetings, and similar busi ness have always been expensive but necessary costs.
The USLTA has been aware of its peculiar financial structure for years and has seriously tried to establish a more permanent means of income. It has been a circular process whereby money is needed to promote tennis and if the promotion is successful, usually more revenue is secured. Furthermore, the Association soon realized that it could no longer depend on the income from the Davis Cup. This fact was not only practical but realistic especially in view of how the United States has done in Davis Cup competition in the past decade.
A great financial step forward was made when the Registration
Program was instituted in 1958 whereby all players were supposed to pay a fee to the USLTA in order to play in tournaments. Fortunately, after the first few years of the project it was decided to change the name to the Enrollment Program. Consequently, all people interested in ten nis, whether they be players or not, could help the USLTA by enrolling for a small fee in its organization. This practice has greatly increased
^^Helen Wills, "Organized Tennis,11 Saturday Evening Post CCII (December 14, 1929), p. 198. 58 the yearly income of the USLTA. Furthermore it has financially helped the sections as one-half of each enrollment fee is returned to the respec tive section in which it was collected. 7* The Enrollment Program is briefly outlined in the 1966 Tennis Guide with the following statements.
All players, officials, committee members, patrons, specta tors, and commentators regardless of age or degree of skill are to become a part of this nationwide organization through the Enrollment Program. Each receives a numbered Identification Card which entitles him to apply for entry in USLTA sanctioned tournaments anywhere, to have his record considered for ranking and to be placed on the Official Mailing List. It is a positive requirement for participants under USLTA tournament regulations; a privilege for enthusiasts. The fees are $4.00. . .for adults and $2. 00 for Juniors.
Mr. Robert B. Colwell, Chairman of the Enrollment Committee, reported at the Administration Committee meeting of the USLTA on
D ecem ber 4, 1965 that the program "was at an all-tim e high of 36, 763 enrollees at the end of November. " ^
In 1961 the USLTA also adopted another policy in order to increase the revenue to its treasury. Under this program the Association receives a small-percentage of the gate at all tournaments. ^ Previously, it only received partial income from several major tournaments.
71USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, p. 380.
72Ibid.
^M inutes of Meeting of Administrative Committee of USLTA, December 4, 1965, p. 5. (Mimeographed.)
7^George Barnes, "1961 In Review and A Look Ahead, " The Official USLTA News (January-February, 1962), p. 2. 59
One major tournament that for many years has not been producing expected financial gain is the National Singles Championship at Forest
Hills. At the same time there has been concerted effort on the part of other clubs throughout the country who wish to hold this championship with the guarantee of more profit. Consequently, Forest Hills has been awarded the championship on a limited basis in order to assess whether a change of site might be more desirable. Prior to the 1965 champion ships the president of the West Side Tennis Club, Donald McNamara, stated his concern over this matter.
I view the next two years as a period of probation for us at West Side. Our contract with the USLTA expires this year but the franchise has been renewed for 1966 and 1967. Martin Tressel has made clear to me repeatedly, in writing and in conversation, that unless we show a real increase in revenue for the USLTA from the tournament in 1965, the chances are that the Executive Committee will not renew our contract after 1967. The committee has had offers of a big guarantee from Los Angeles and other cities which may prove irresistible unless we can do the job here. So we have got to produce this year—or else. ^5
The change from the traditional setting of Forest Hills does not seem likely if the pattern continues that occurred in 1965. For that year,
1965, the largest crowds in history attended the National Singles Cham- 76 pionship. The estimated figure of 94, 000 people for the ten day event
^George McGann, "Don McNamara Wins Sept. Marlboro Award, " World Tennis XIII (Sept., 1965), p. 39.
76nAround The World, ** World Tennis XIII (November, 1965), p. 58. 60 was nearly double the old record of 43, 000 set in 1963. Furthermore, it earned the largest gross revenue in history with nearly $300, 000.
The USLTA received $75, 000 as its percentage compared to only
$21, 000 from Forest Hills in 1964. ^
The USLTA seems to have finally found sound methods to insure financial security. An indication of the Association’s current prosperity was shown by the remarks made by the Treasurer, Harold Lebair, when he gave the 1965 financial report.
We had a very successful year financially for USLTA income and expenditures. We are in the best financial position over all that the USLTA has ever found itself. We are $10, 000 ahead of last years figures. We have $248, 000 total balance as of December 31,^®
The Association Today
Tennis, similar to so many sports, is being played by more people than ever before. The USLTA continues to work extensively in promo tion of tennis for younger players through its many programs. These include Junior Davis Cup and Junior Wightman Cup programs, Junior
^"Santana Wins Record-Smashing U. S. Singles, " Tennis, USA XXVIII (November, 1965), p. 4. 78 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, February 4, 1966, p. 10. 61
Development programs, and clinics. Furthermore, in 1965, 9,422' tournaments were held throughout the United States under the auspices of the Association. ^
In 1945 the USLTA adopted a resolution to have a Players Commit- 80 tee within the body of the organization. The Association hoped that by having players within its group two functions could be accomplished.
Rules and regulations would be better understood and players' criticism of the rules could be discussed more constructively. Unfortunately, the
Players Committee does not appear to have been very active. Many of the players questioned for this study were not aware that such a commit-
O 1 tee even existed. Nevertheless, the Committee has been functioning and some reforms have been accomplished due to its efforts. Before
1965 the American players, except for the ones seeded, had to provide their own housing at the National Singles Championship at Forest Hills.
At the insistence of the Players Committee all American competitors were given free housing for the 1965 championships. 82
In 1965 the Association took a step that had been discussed for many years. It appointed Robert Malaga, the promoter of the Davis Cup
^USLTA, "A Message from the President, " The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, p. 2.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, August 31, 1945, p. 74.
81Personal interviews. 62 matches for Cleveland, to a new post entitled "Assistant to the Presi-
dent. " It is expected that the appointment of Mr. Malaga to this paid position whereby he gets a per diem salary will make the organization more efficient as he will carry out many of the functions previously done by the President.
The USLTA continues its work on many projects, some old and
some new, for the good of the game. A few of these are the following:
consideration of the new scoring system, VASSS; inauguration of new national tournaments, such as, a National Mother and Daughter Cham pionship; cooperation with the American Association of Health, Physical
Education and Recreation; closer cooperation with the touring and teach
ing professionals; and other such projects. Furthermore, the Associa
tion continues its constant evaluation of the amateur code in an attempt
to propagate its principles within a realistic frame work.
^"Robert S. Malaga Now Assistant to President, " Tennis, USA XXVIII (June, 1965), p. 6. CH A PTER IV
FOCUS ON AMATEURISM IN THE UNITED STATES LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION
The chief purpose of this study is to examine the amateur principle as advocated by the USLTA. The Association from its inception, was designed as a governing body managed by amateurs for amateurs and an amateur game. At the same time the dedicated men of the USLTA inau gurated many events and policies in order to promote and expand the game of tennis. Yet, as the game spread to more and more people, the complexities of this expansion opened the door to commercialism and professionalism.
This chapter is devoted to the development of tournament tennis and how it affected the amateur code.
The Early Years of Tournament Play
As mentioned previously, club and local tournaments had been held prior to the founding of the USLTA. For the most part these were informal affairs where the social aspects outweighed the earnestness of competition. Tennis was strictly a game for the socially wealthy and
63 64 prominent who engaged in such for fan and enjoyment. The early leaders
of the Association were naturally of this class and managed tennis affairs with a social viewpoint. Consequently, the first national tournament
sponsored by the USLTA in 1881 was held at Newport, Rhode Island which was the society center of the East. Since all the early players were from the Eastern area, it was logical that such a place was selected.
The competitors were a part of this society and as mentioned before, the
social activities held in conjunction with the matches were almost more
important than the tournament. In 1931 Mr. Outerbridge spoke at the annual meeting of the Association and related the story behind the first
national tournament.
I insisted that the first tournament be at Newport. The thought was to make the game fashionable would aid its spread faster than anything I knew of. / Sic7 The Casino people were rather snippy and thought it was an attempt by outsiders to break into social circle of the Casino. But a man from Staten Island who had connections at Newport "got" it on the way. *
During the ensuing years more and more tournaments were held but the traditional atmosphere remained the same. The competitions took
place at private clubs and the players were still of the upper class. In
1883 Wheelman had an article on tennis in which it "assured its feminine
readers that this was far too refined a game to offer any attractions for
the lower orders of society.11 The article also stated that "a lady who
^Minutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, 1931, p. 6. 65 took part in a tennis match would find herself in the company of persons in whose society she is accustom ed to move. In 1886 The Tribune
Book of Open Air Sports stated that "lawn tennis remained the game of polite society essentially one for ladies and gentlemen. " ^ Even in 1904 the following paragraph appeared in a book on tennis:
As a rule, tennis players are men of comparative refinement, for it is an expensive luxury to play through a summer of tournament tennis. There are no professionals, for there is no money-making side to the sport, and most of the regular tournament players are collegians who spend their summer vacations in this way, or men of leisure. There are others who have clerical positions that kept them busy most of the time, and they play in local tournaments after office hours until their vacations come, and then spend their two weeks1 holiday at some of the bigger tournaments. Because of the class of men that they are pretty sure to meet, the summer resi dents of the seaside resorts, where most of the tournaments are held, welcome the tennis players each year, where they mix on terms of social equality. ^
Truly, the author not only describes true amateurism but also the social level of the players.
The game continued to spread throughout all sections of the United
States and tournaments flourished on the local, sectional and national level. By 1913 tennis was no longer a game exclusively for the upper classes and competition took on a new meaning of importance. The Davis
^"Lawn Tennis in America, " The Wheelman II (September, 1883), p. 468. 3 Foster Rhea Dulles, America Learns to Play (New York: D. Apple ton-Century Co., 1940), p. 240.
4 Parmly J. ^ Paret, Lawn Tennis (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1904), p. 35. Cup also had become fantastically prestigious as countries vied to be the winner. Many of the new tournament players were not people of means and yet had to play tennis a great deal of the time in order to be success ful. The interpretation of a true amateur, i.e., playing solely for the love of the game, began to be subject to attack. Top players seemed able to indulge in months of competitive tennis without visible means of
support. Their expenses were paid from one tournament to another and
they were given room and board while on the circuit. Tournaments, it was discovered, were profitable money making affairs as spectators paid to see the matches. Naturally, top flight tennis was guaranteed and
the players had to be in condition to provide the best. The USLTA, unknowingly, had fostered the aspects of commercialism that threatened
the principles of amateurism. Top players were needed for Davis Cup and tournament play, and concurrently players had to devote considerable
time to the game to be in their best form. Not only were the tournaments making money but there was evidence that the top players were not just receiving expenses but were realizing a profit as they capitalized on their fame in tennis. The USLTA, undoubtedly never foreseeing its importance, had designed an amateur code in the early years of the Association which did not cover the situation in later years. 67
The Amateur Code
The question of amateur status was discussed at the first annual
meeting of the USLTA in 1882 and it was voted at that time that "No one but amateurs shall be allowed to enter for any match played by this
Association."® Unfortunately, the important facts of that meeting were notated and the original minutes were destroyed as it would be interesting
to discover why the question was introduced at the meeting. It seems obvious from an historical point of view that in 1882 the distinction between an amateur and a professional in tennis must have been a social one in contrast with the amateurs and professionals of today. Only the very wealthy engaged in tennis and it is doubtful if there was anyone who was earning money by playing or teaching tennis. Perhaps, the ruling was a carry over from the English interpretation of amateurs and pro fessionals. Briefly, the situation in England developed in the following way. In the 1700's horse racing had gentlemen and professional riders.
It is theorized that this is the probable origin of the term "professional"
in relation to sports.® These professionals were men who rode the horses of others for a fee. In addition, cricket was played by "gentle men, " amateurs who had "Mr. " in front of their names on published lists
®USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, p. 235.
®Frank G. Menke, The Encyclopedia of Sports (Illinois: Progress Research Corp. I960), p. 44. 68 and by "players, " professionals who did not merit that prefix. Even in
1871, a crew was prohibited from rowing in the Henley races because
the members were laborers. There was no question of their having rowed for money but they were excluded because they were not "gentle men amateurs. "
As mentioned before, since there is no evidence of anybody play ing tennis for money in the early 1880's, it appears that the USLTA wanted to keep control of the game by having only "gentlemen" in its ranks. It is important to include here one other item concerning the minutes of the first meeting. In the early 1900's the USLTA summa
rized the minutes of its meetings held in the 1800's. When the original minutes were discarded and the items of importance recorded the defi- nition of an amateur was not included. But in 1889 an amateur defini
tion was added to the bylaws of the Constitution. It read, "an amateur
is one who has never played or taught any sport as one of his ordinary means of livelihood or in connection therewith, and any given case is to be decided by the Executive Committee of the National Association.
In 1891 a number of professionals must have been engaged in the game as the following mandate was adopted by the USLTA.
^Minutes of Annual Meeting of USNLTA, May 6, 1882, p. 9.
^Minutes of Annual Meeting of USNLTA, February 15, 1889, p. 48. 69
An amateur is one who has never violated any of the following conditions:
1) Never entered competition open to professionals nor played for a stake, public, or admission money or entrance fee.
2) Never competed with or against a professional for a prize.
3) Not played, instructed, pursued or assisted in pursuit of tennis or other athletic exercise as means of livelihood or for gain or any emolument.
4) His membership in any Athletic Club or Tennis Club of any kind was not brought about, or does not continue because of any mutual understanding, expressed or implied, whereby his continuing a member of any such club would be of any pecuniary benefit to him or his club.
5) If connected with any sporting house, such connection was not brought about or does not continue because of his pro ficiency in Tennis or any form of athletic exercise. ^
It also was recorded that the Executive Committee would be the tribunal to decide whether a player was a professional or an amateur.
The amateurism problem in tennis continued to be a small one even when professionalism started to enter some of the other sports in the early 1900’s. The men of the USLTA were aware of the possibilities of professionalism in tennis and made sincere efforts to keep the amateur game and its players simon-pure amateurs. In 1913 the USLTA, at its annual gathering, discussed the question of amateurism for the better part of its meeting. Some of the discussion is worthy of mention as it not
^Minutes of Annual Meeting of USNLTA, Feb. 13, 1891, p. 63.
10Ibid. 70 only shows how the men directing the organization were trying to adhere to their principle of amateurism but it indicates their philosophy not only towards the game but towards their control of the game. Mr. H.
W. Slocum, Jr., former National Champion and the then Vice-President of the USLTA, felt that the bylaws concerning an amateur should be stated in more specific terms. He made these other pertinent remarks.
We have worked hard on this. We don't think there have been serious breaches but we are afraid that as time goes on, the finger of suspicion may be pointed at some of our athletes just as in other sports and we think it best to make a stringent and extreme law instead of one that may gloss over the question.
I have heard statements that these rules would prevent a poor man from playing tennis. I am out of sympathy with any statement like that. The aim of it is entirely in the interests of warning a man who is not so richly endowed with worldly goods so that he may know exactly what standard he should adopt in his play, that it should be a standard which should be in keeping with the high place that our game occupies among games which are played by athletes of the world. We have always guarded it very carefully and should continue to do so. As a matter of fact, the regulations are made to protect the poor man. You must remember that the question of professionalism is one in which a rich man is never tempted. It is the poor man, the man who is not able to spend- his money with freedom, he is the man who may be tempted to violate such a rule. We say he shouldn't and we set for him a certain standard we expect him to conform to and let him know the line beyond which he may not go. *1
Dictates, policies and alterations of the amateur rules now seemed to be an issue at almost every annual meeting as the game grew to larger proportions and became immersed in aspects of commercialism.
^M inutes of Annual Meeting of USNLTA, Feb. 14, 1913, pp. 140-142. 71
A comprehensive description of some of the major issues will illus trate how the USLTA attempted to eliminate violations of the amateur principle by either inaugurating new additions to the code or by altera tions of current regulations.
Sporting goods rule
It was natural that the growth of tennis and other sports was of considerable value to the manufacturers of sporting equipment. It also became apparent that it was an asset to business when a top ranking player was employed by the firm. As more and more players became associated with sporting goods companies, the question of their amateur status in doing such business came up for discussion.
As early as 1891 the amateur code had a section that stipulated that a player who worked for a sporting house must not have obtained the job nor be continued as an employee due to his excellence in tennis or any other sport. ^ This rule, as one can imagine, allowed tremendous leeway and it was almost ineffectual.
In the early 1900's the rule was redefined in order to make its provisions more definite. In essence, the player employed by a sport ing goods firm could sell tennis goods to "no greater extent than with
^M inutes of Annual Meeting of USNLTA, Feb. 13, 1891, p. 63. 72 1 ^ any other line of goods. " In other words, if his sales of tennis equip ment averaged 49% he was an amateur but if the sales averaged 50% he was not. As one author stated, the general vagueness of the rule was masterly. *4
By 1919 the USLTA was faced with a serious situation in regard to its amateur players and sporting goods companies. . Some facts facing the Association over this matter were the following: (1) ten of the best thirty men players in the country were employed by sporting good firms,
(2) it was obvious that these tennis player-sporting good agents were given extended vacations to play the circuit—and often still on salary,
(3) more and more companies were trying to employ tennis players. ^
Critics were leveling attacks at the Association for allowing these so called amateurs to make a business out of their fame on the courts.
Therefore, the USLTA tried to cope with the situation by having these players file annual reports with the Association on their activities while on the job and on the circuit. The form was lengthy and had such ques tions as these: (1) number of tournaments played in, (2) number of days absent from business for the purpose of playing tennis, (3) value of goods
^W illiam Henry Wright, "Making Tennis Pay, " Outing LXX (April, 1917), p. 64.
14Ibid.
l^Ibid., pp. 61-62; "Vincent Richards is Suspended, " American Lawn Tennis, XIII (May 15, 1919), p. 44. sold in each sport, (4) salary while on the circuit, and other such ques
tions. ^ This checking system helped the problem somewhat but still flagrant violations seemed evident as it was difficult to gather concrete evidence.
Sometime later the USLTA decided to be really firm on the matter and passed a resolution whereby a man who worked for a sporting goods company could not engage in tournament play unless he was at least
thirty-five years of age and had worked for the company for at least ten years. As was expected, this rule discouraged many tennis players from entering the sporting goods business. It is important to keep in mind on this question that again, as with some of the other restrictions,
the USLTA was the only country that prevented its tennis players from having this type of employment. It was a well known fact that Australia
encouraged sporting good companies to put the top players on its list of em ployees. 17
Finally after years of discussions and many revisions the rule was
realistically amended in 1954 and is still on the books today. Now an amateur may work for a sporting goods firm and compete in tournaments.
16 American Lawn Tennis, XIII (May 15, 1919), p. 44.
^"Amateur Tennis Realism, " Newsweek, XLI (February 9, 1953), p. 71.
^USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1966, (New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1966), p. 318. 74
Furthermore, he may be associated primarily with tennis goods. The only restriction is that the sporting goods player must be at least twenty-
1 Q one years of age to be eligible to compete in sanctioned tournaments. 7
The sporting goods firms also presented another problem to the
USLTA. Naturally, if the top players were noticed either in pictures or on the courts using a certain make of racket, people buying equipment might be influenced to purchase the same type of racket. Consequently, the firms began giving the players clothing, shoes and rackets free of charge. Unfortunately, the system reached unbelievable proportions and the USLTA felt it necessary to put some additional restrictions on the amateur code. One example of how ludicrous the competition for rackets had become was the fact that in 1941 one player received forty-two free rackets. 20 At first the Association was going to prohibit a player from receiving any equipment whatsoever from a sporting goods firm, but the sporting goods dealers were most upset at this prospect. Therefore, a compromise was agreed upon in 1941. The rule stated that the dealers would not give gifts of clothing or shoes and the distribution of rackets 2 1 would be under the control of the USLTA. The original number of
l^Exerpt from USLTA By-Laws Article III, Amateur Regulations — 1966. (Mimeographed.) 20 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Jan. 18, 1946, p. 19.
21 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Sept. 3, 1943, p. 5. 75 2p rackets allowed was four and in 1946 the maximum was raised to six.
It is important to note here that although the players received the frames free, they paid for the strings and the stringing job.
The racket situation has been pretty well controlled since the new restrictions were put on the books but another type of commercialism is entering the picture. Previous to 1965 the companies seemed satisfied to have certain players on their rolls that received new rackets each year.
The players received no compensation for using the rackets and the system seemed satisfactory to both the companies and the players. It is evident that one company felt its competitors had more of the top players on its list. Consequently, this firm has been soliciting players to switch racket brands for a reported $1400 per year. As of August 1965, two top ranking players had made the switch. 24 It is also reported that the other firms have also offered the same price for the players to keep using their accustomed brand. Interestingly enough, when certain offi cials were questioned about this practice, they stated that they knew of
7 5 no such dealings. Perhaps, the Association is unaware of this new threat to the Amateur Code but undoubtedly, if the situation continues, prohibitive measures will have to be adopted.
22Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Jan. 18, 1946, pp. 19-47.
2^Personal interview.
24Ibid.
25Ibid. 76
Player-writer rule
For a complete understanding of the Player-W riter Rule and its later ramifications it is necessary to briefly mention the career of
Bill Tilden.
Many authorities feel that no one has dominated a game such as
William Tatum Tilden II dominated tennis, especially in the 1920's.
He was the number one ranking player for ten consecutive years, 1920
to 1929, and he was the first American to win the men's singles cham- 26 pionship at Wimbledon. 0 He was a member of the Davis Cup team
for eleven years and during his amateur career won seventy American 27 and International titles. Not only is he still referred to by many in
tennis circles as the greatest player who ever lived but he is also still
referred to as the player who gave the USLTA the most difficulty. In
almost every instance the differences between Tilden and the USLTA
concerned the Amateur Code. As expressed by one writer, "no player
has ever flouted the amateur rule with the persistence—and success —
of Bill Tilden. " 28
^USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, op. cit. , p. 139; John Durant and Otto Bettmann, Pictorial History of American Sports (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1952), p. 186. 27 Durant and Bettmann, op. cit. , p. 186. 28 George McGann, "75 Years With the USLTA, " American Lawn Tennis (Jan. 1956), p. 12. 77
In the middle twenties it became apparent that Tilden was making considerable profit by being a tennis writer for several newspapers.
The USLTA felt that these writings were a violation of the Amateur
Code which stated that a player was prohibited "from profiting directly or indirectly from the game. " ^
In 1924 the USLTA, on the recommendation of its Amateur Rule
Committee, issued the order that it was no longer permissable for a player to write about tennis for any publication if he received compensa tion for doing so. This new application of the Amateur Code was quite a shock to the players who were also writers, especially to Tilden. He contended that he had been a writer before he achieved fame as a tennis
‘2 1 player. Previously most interpreted the amateur rule to mean that no player could receive money for teaching or playing tennis. Furthermore, until this edict of 1924, most of the best writings on lawn tennis were by the players and had been credited with considerably helping the growth of the game. ^ After the pronouncement of this rule, there was such a
^George Trevor, "The Tennis Racket, " Outlook and Independent, CLV (August 6, 1930), p. 555.
"Decided: That Champion Tennis-Players May Write About the Game, " The Literary Digest, LXXXIV (Jan. 3, 1925), p. 56. 31 Trevor, op. cit., p. 555. 32 Vincent Richards, "Netting Results—-My Career as a Jr. Champion, " The Saturday Evening Post, CXCVIII(June 5, 1926), p. 94. 78 bitter protest raised by not only the players but also by the press and some tennis officials that an important committee of seven was appointed on February 7, 1925, for the purpose of revising the Amateur Code with
"special reference to the player-writer controversy."^ Grantland Rice, a member of the committee, commented on the meeting in his book,
The Tumult and the Shouting. He mentioned that another member of the committee, Devereux Milburn, the polo star, stated that he had turned down a $5000 offer to write on the international polo matches. He felt it was not within the Amateur Code. It was a well known fact that Tilden made about $25, 000 one year for writing about tennis for the Philadelphia
Public Ledger Syndicate. His reply to Milburn's statement was, "Its a matter of taste, not amateurism. " ^
The committee's recommendations were accepted and again, as has been evident with other revisions of the Code, the new ruling was a compromise whereby the player was still allowed to profit financially by using his name as a by-line for newspaper articles with some added restrictions. The ruling was stated in two sections:
(1) A player was not allowed, "after February 1925, the use of his titles or statement of his reputation won on the tennis courts in connec-
^Trevor, pp. cit., p. 555,
^Grantland Rice, The Tumult and the Shouting (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1954), p. 161. 79 tion with books, newspaper, magazine or other written articles, motion pictures of himself, lectures or radio talks, for which he is to receive any payment or compensation.11
(2) A player is not allowed to write "for pay or for a consideration, current newspaper articles covering a tournament or match in which he is entered as a competitor. " 33
Furthermore, again on the recommendation of the committee, the
USLTA indicated its leniency towards the rule by stating that a violation of this edict would not make the violator a professional but would only lead to his suspension for a certain length of time from the tournaments.
The sincerity and effort of the committee is indicated by the following from its report.
In all the discussions your Committee has been mindful of the abso lute necessity of maintaining the game of tennis upon a high plane of Amateurism, and also of the desirability of not unduly curtailing the concurrent or outside activities of individual tennis players.3^
Consequently, the controversy seemed settled and all was relatively calm although Tilden did write an article on a tournament he was in dur ing the matches in the summer of 1925. The Executive Committee of the Association held a special meeting in New York City onAugust 1, 1925, and discussed whether Tilden should be suspended for violating the rule.
33Helen Wills, "Organized Tennis, " Saturday Evening Post (D ecem ber 14, 1929), p. 198.
3^The Literary Digest (Jan. 3, 1925), op. cit. , p. 57. 80
The minutes of this meeting total 117 pages and it was decided to warn
Tilden that the next time he violated the rule he would be suspended.
In 1928 an incident occurred that resulted in unfavorable publicity
internationally for both the USLTA and Bill Tilden. During June of that
year the Davis Cup team with Tilden as captain was competing in the
championships at Wimbledon. While there, Tilden filed daily reports of
the matches for the press. Naturally, the USLTA heard of these reports and felt compelled to take action. Two special meetings of the Executive
Committee were held on July 17 and August 24 to discuss the latest vio lation by Tilden. It was the culminating point of all his apparent disre
gard over the years for the amateur bylaws. The decision to suspend
him was not lightly made and the Association was aware of the tremen
dous step it was taking in defense of its amateur principle.
Adding weight to the case was the fact that not only had Tilden
been on the committee of seven which drew up the rule but had also
signed a statement with the USLTA agreeing to the player-writer provi
sions,^® The USLTA's position is noted by the statements of Julian
Myrick, former President of the USLTA, at the August 24th meeting.
If Tilden is removed, it is going to be one of the biggest things that has ever happened in tennis in almost a generation and we must have reasons so that everybody will understand our actions. We
®?Minutes °* Special Meeting of the Executive Committee of the USLTA, August 1, 1925.
®®Minutes of Special Meeting of the Executive Committee of the USLTA, August 24, 1928, p. 43. 81
have got to treat Tilden not as Tilden but as anybody else. We can't win the Davis Cup, then prefer charges and convict him after we have won it. Neither can we prefer charges after we lose the cup. . . .It is not a question of whether the rule is right or wrong but a question of person in highest possible position as captain of Davis Cup team breaking the rule. 39
Tilden's suspension was announced as the United States Davis Cup was enroute to play Italy for the right to challenge the cup holder,
France. According to the historian, Preston Slosson, the news of
Tilden "drove election news, the assassination of Mexico's president elect and a search for lost aviators in the Arctic off the front pages of the evening newspapers. " 40
Even without Tilden the United States was able to defeat Italy in the matches. In view of the ensuing damage which was done to the dignity and reputation of the USLTA, it was unfortunate that the team did not lose to Italy.
As can be imagined the press had a heyday with the announcement and many attacks were leveled at the USLTA. But the USLTA was deter mined to stick by its decision and remained adamant that its course of action was sound and just. Its intentions were sincere in trying to show that no one, not even the great Tilden, was above the rules or the spirit behind them. But, unfortunately, the USLTA was forced to change its
^9jbid., pp. 29-30.
^Preston William Slos son, The Great Crusade and After 1914-1928 (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1930), p. 271. 82 mind and the resulting image was not too complimentary. A brief resume of why it vacillated in its stand is necessary.
France had never had the honor of being the host country for the challenge round of the Davis Cup until 1928. In honor of the occasion a new stadium had been erected. Not only was Tilden a great favorite with the French, but it was obvious that gate receipts would be effected if Tilden did not participate. International tension over the matter reached such proportions that the United States Ambassador, Myron T.
Herrick, appealed to the USLTA through the United States State Depart ment for reconsideration of its ruling until after the Davis Cup matches 41 in France. On the force of this diplomatic pressure the USLTA rescinded its ruling and allowed Tilden to play in the matches which we lost, and then suspended him again when he returned home. Even though his suspension lasted six months the USLTA as a governing body was severely criticized over this matter for a long time.
Tilden was granted reinstatem ent on F eb ru ary 8, 1929, a fte r the
USLTA was reassured by him that he would abide by the rules. ^ He turned professional after the 1930 season but not without once more causing a furor with the USLTA before he did so. To avoid another inci-
^^George Lott, "William Tatum Tilden, " World Tennis XIII (Dec. 1965), p. 17. 42 Minutes of Executive Committee of the USLTA, Dec. 8, 1928, pp. 16-17, 62-65; Minutes of Executive Committee of the USLTA, Feb. 8, 1929, p. 5. 83 dent like the one that occurred in 1928 the USLTA had further stipulated that a member of a team could not write about matches. Tilden negotiated
43 a contract for $3000 to write about the 1930 Davis Cup matches.
Finally, after much discussion between the Association and Tilden, he was allowed a dispensation whereby he could write reflective comments about the matches after they were completed. 44
Today the situation concerning player-writers is strictly stated in the Amateur Code by provision K under International Lawn Tennis Feder ation Rule 32 of the USLTA bylaws which states that an amateur lawn tennis player is specifically prohibited from
contributing under his own name to the Press, Broadcast or Television, in regard to and during the time of any tournament, match or competition in which he is entered as or is a competitor, except with the general previous consent of the National Association of, the country concerned and under the direct control of the Chair man of the Committee or other authorized management of the event, to which the contribution relates. In no case may a player receive any pecuniary advantage. 4^
Eight weeks rule
In the thirties not only the United States but the entire tennis world was concerned with the mounting evidence that many players were liter-
4^Trevor, op. cit., p. 555.
44Ibid.
45USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, pp. 316-317. 84 ally not only living off the game but gaining financial profit by the amount of expense money received annually as they went from tournament to tournament. Consequently, at a general meeting of the ILTF on
March 17, 1933, a Committee on Amateurism was appointed for the pur pose of studying the amateur rules and for making recommendations on possible revisions of the Amateur Code in order that flagrant violations could be halted. The committee consisted of delegates from Switzerland,
Germany, France, Great Britain and Mr. Lawrence A. Baker of the
United States who was Secretary of the USLTA. Two additional dele- gates who were exofficio members were the secretaries of the ILTF. 47
The committee recommended among many proposals what came to be known as the "eight weeks rule. " It stated:
Except when officially selected or authorized by his Associ ation. . .a player may only receive travelling and/or living expenses for a period of eight weeks in all in any one year, including the time spent in travelling. ^
The object of this rule was to
take action against those so-called amateurs who manage to live at someone else's expense from January 1st to December 31st and who go round the world without putting their hands
into their p o c k e t s . 49
^ Ibid. t p. 258.
^R eport of the Committee on Amateurism for the Annual General Meeting of the ILTF. March 16, 1934, p. 1. (Mimeographed.)
4**Ibid., p. 5.
49lbid. 85
The ruling was adopted by the USLTA in 1935. It never was very effective for several reasons. First of all, too many tournaments were exempt from the eight week classification so that a player could play longer than the specified time and still receive expenses. Secondly, the
USLTA was lenient from the beginning on enforcement of the rule. The exempted tournaments referred to above were approved by the Associa tion which only made it easier for the players to continue as they had been doing prior to the rule. Furthermore, an indication of the USLTA's lenient attitude toward the matter occurred at the Executive Committee meeting of the Association on February 5, 1937. One of the delegates asked what the penalty was for exceeding the number of weeks for receiving expenses. The former President, Louis J. Curruthers, made this reply: "There is no penalty as yet as it is new and until players are familiar with it they shouldn't be treated too harshly for violation. " ^
However, it was agreed at that meeting that some action should be taken 51 in the future. Even at the 1937 Annual Meeting of the ILTF it was reported with regret that there did seem to be "slackness in some cases" 52 with regard to the "Eight Weeks" Rule. It is important to also men tion here that the USLTA had another difficulty concerning this matter as
^Meeting of Executive Committee of USLTA, Feb. 5, 1937, p. 14.
^*Ibid. , p. 15.
52 Onlooker's Notes on IF Annual Meeting, 1937, p. 1. (Mimeo graphed. ) 86
too many clubs did not cooperate in enforcing the rule. If a player had
exceeded the eight week limit and the club wanted the player in its
tournament, it took care of the player in its own way, i. e. , the player's 53 expenses were paid but it was never reported to the USLTA.
In 1938 the USLTA finally took a stand against violators of the rule.
It suspended Wayne Sabin, Bobby Riggs and Elwood Cooke from amateur
tournaments for a certain length of time for receiving expenses for 54 longer than eight weeks. However, even when the USLTA took deci
sive action after being criticized for no action, it was attacked by critics for being unfair in its judgments. For example, in 1941, it again sus
pended Wayne Sabin and also Gene Mako for violating the eight weeks
rule. The report of the suspensions received the following comments in
a tennis magazine.
. . .Mako played in twenty tournaments and Sabin in twenty-five. Many other players, however, played almost as much or more but were not penalized. They were John Doeg (24 tourneys), Elwood Cooke (23), Gardner Mulloy (19), Frankie Parker (16), and Bobby Riggs (15). 55
Again, in 1951, the USLTA suspended three other violators of the
rule: Irving Dorfman, Fred Kovaleski and Dorothy Head who had been
^George Lott, "Tennis Money, " Colliers CII (Sept. 3, 1938), p. 28. 54 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, June 25, 1938, pp. 12-15.
55ii25 Y ears Ago, " W orld Tennis XII (Dec. 1964), p. 28. 87 playing most of the year in foreign tournaments. Nevertheless, again the Association's lenient attitude toward enforcement was indicated when the Chairman of the Amateur Rules Committee, Donald McNeil, reported the suspensions to the press. He stated that the "Association did not demand strict adherence to eight week rule from players participating in foreign tournaments but that Dorfman, Kovaleski and Head had taken
cz. advantage of Association's leniency. " °
Finally, country after country abolished the rule as it was obvious that it had been ineffective from the beginning. The USLTA was the last country to rescind the edict and similar to other important decisions that the national body made it took much discussion at many meetings to finally reach that stage. Finally, in 1953, the "eight weeks rule" was
57 removed from the Amateur Code of the USLTA.
Expense regulations
As tournaments changed from casual affairs to top flight competi tive events, many players began to receive expenses in order that their appearance would be assured at each match. By 1914 there was evidence that some players were receiving more than sufficient expense money.
The annual meeting of that year was the setting for a concerted effort by
^ A m e r i c a n Lawn Tennis XLV (May 1951), p. 15.
^M inutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, Jan. 17, 1953, pp. 50-52. 88 the delegates from the East to persuade the Association to completely alter the amateur rules by forbidding the players to accept any expenses
CO what-so-ever whether they be for traveling, living or incidentals. °
It was a noble gesture and the supporters of the proposal urged its accept ance "as the only means of protecting amateur status of players.
The motion was defeated by a vote of 79 to 68 by the combined forces of the delegates from the West and California. As the majority of the tournaments were in the East, it was natural that the aforementioned delegates wanted reasonable expense money for their players as they traveled eastward for the tournaments. The defeat of the valiant effort to forbid expenses opened the door to years of new rulings as the Associ ation attempted to curb excessive expenses and under the table payments.
An examination of these regulations will indicate how a permissive policy of expenses paved the way for the terms "shamateurism" and "tennis bum" that are still associated with the tennis players of today.
Before discussing the expense regulations it is important to keep in mind that the violations were and are comitted by a very small per centage of the tournament competitors. It is reasonable to state that
^®USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the US, p. 249.
^ " A n n u a l Meeting of the USNLTA, " Official Lawn Tennis Annual 1913 (New York: American Sports Publishing Co., 1913), p. 193.
^John William Hendrix, "Factors Influencing Playing Styles in Tennis" (unpublished ED. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1955), p. 116. 89 approximately ninety-eight percent of the circuit players are completely within the spirit of the Amateur Code as they travel from one tournament to another, usually at their own expense. They may receive room and board at the tournament but that is all. It is the other one or two per cent of the tournament population that causes the problems. They are the drawing cards and receive attractive bonuses to be in tournaments.
In 1919 the Association established a checking system in an effort to control expenses paid to players. A stern mandate was issued from the USLTA office which stated that
any Club or Association directly or indirectly paying the expenses, board or lodging of any tennis player must send a detailed memo randum of such expenses to Edwin F. Torrey, Secretary, for the information of the Executive Committee, or further sanction may be refused.
Again, it was a noble gesture and is still today a part of the amateur regu lations. However, the rule has been often flouted as excessive payments 62 are made but not included in the reports to the USLTA.
The following year, 1920, the Amateur Rule Committee attempted another informal check system whereby a questionnaire was sent to clubs and the players
. . . to find out what players were getting their expenses paid by Clubs as an inducement to play in various tournaments and if any
^"M eeting of Executive Committee, " American Lawn Tennis, Xin (April 15, 1919), p. 14.
''‘•Personal interviews.. 90
player or group of players were making it a business of going from tournament to tournament. . . 63
The situation in 1920 must have been relatively healthy as the Associa
tion was pleased with the returns. 64 jn 1922, also, it was reported that Mthe clubs and players are cooperating in a very fine way to uphold the best traditions of the game. 11 65
In 1938 the Association again sent a stern order to its member clubs to the effect that it should not pay lump sums to the players in its tournaments. 66 The ruling received this comment from a player. "If a tournament wants a headliner badly enough it will resort to undercover methods and pay him in such a manner that the transaction will not appear in his expense account. " 6?
It is obvious that enforcement of the amateur rules was and is impossible without the complete cooperation of the member clubs. Yet, the Amateur Rule Committee had a difficult task checking on the clubs as it was not a police power. 68 In order to alleviate violations the com-
" M a n y Committees Make Reports, " American Lawn Tennis XIII (Feb. 15, 1920), p. 548.
64 Ibid.
^ American Lawn Tennis XV (Feb. 15, 1922), p. 596.
^Lott, op. cit. , p. 28.
67 Ibid.
6®Minutes of ExecutiveCommittee of USLTA, Sept. 15, 1939, p. 57. 91 mittee instituted the "Eight Weeks Rule" which has been discussed previously. As pointed out, the rule was practically ineffectual from
the start. The Annual Meeting of 1954 was concerned with the problem of the clubs and the players. Pertinent remarks were made by Mr.
Renville McMann, the first vice-president of the Association.
Things are not good. Amateur Rule Committee knows of many startling things. I repeat what I said three years ago. You can't have a crooked tennis player before you have a crooked tennis official. The tennis official hands out the dough and creates the crooked deals. It isn't the tennis player.
We are not going to break this thing and bring it back to real amateurism until some of the officials, our own tournament officials, have got guts to stand up and be counted in this situa tion. If they want to tolerate it and play along the way the players are playing at present time / sic /. . . .Let's change our rules but let's not be hypocrites about it.
An uninformed person may wonder why the clubs and tournament officials would not always follow the rules. It stems from the fact that
the growth of tournament tennis created a vicious economic circle. A description of an hypothetical situation will illustrate this point. A tour nament, to be financially successful, must have leading players as partic ipants for spectators are drawn to watch the renowned in action. The players are well aware of this fact and are able to negotiate certain
sums of money for their appearance. It is important to remember what was stated previously, i.e., a small percentage of the players are in
this category. In brief, amateur rules are slyly "winked at" by the
69Minutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, Feb. 15, 1954, pp. 72-73. 92 officials and players as the officials, on one hand, need profitable tour naments and the players, on the other, know they are the reason for the profits.
In the early fifties a maximum expense allowance plan was enacted to cover daily living costs in the tournaments. First it was $12 per day and has steadily increased until it is now $28 per day. Again, it helps curb some excessive demands but there is evidence that the top players 70 get way above $28 per day.
Additional regulations
There are other policies under the amateur code that need to be mentioned. It is evident that the USL.TA has tried to amend the code when conditions merited change.
In 1955, three major policies were adopted that reversed some traditional rules of the Amateur Code. Previous to that year a physical education teacher lost his amateur status by teaching or coaching tennis.
The new rule stated that "any member of a college faculty or school, even though he might be employed as a member of the physical education department with the duties of coaching tennis would no longer be con sidered a professional if he had regular faculty status. " Secondly, college students and younger players could accept tennis teaching jobs in the summer and remain amateurs as long as they received a salary
70 Personal interviews. 93 and were not paid by the hour. Lastly, the rule that a professional in any other sport was a professional in tennis was abolished. 71
In 1965, the second rule above was considerably expanded whereby any player may maintain his amateur status and teach tennis provided he is a student, or the position is not his primary employment or source of income, and he is paid a stated salary. 72
The USLTA has also permitted some leniency in regard to players working for commercial concerns while on the circuit. At the present time Arthur Ashe and Dennis Ralston work for Coca-Cola as "market 70 consultants. " They receive a small fee for publicizing Coca-Cola by toting a "Coca-Cola" bag onto the court. ^
Penalties for violations
The overseer for the Amateur Code is the Amateur Rules Committee
of the USLTA. The committee is charged with investigating any violations of the Code and interpreting the spirit of the Code. The members of the committee constantly assess the rules in order to make the regulations
71"An Interview With Colonel James H. Bishop, " World Tennis III (Oct., 1955), p. 16.
"^"Proposed Changes, " Article III, Page 274 of the Official USLTA Yearbook for 1965. (Mimeographed.)
Frank Deford, "An Understudy Takes Charge, " Sports Illustrated XXIII (Aug. 9, 1965), p. 19.
^Personal interview. 94 realistic and workable. When violations do occur, this committee recommends to the Executive Committee the punishment that should be im posed.
Through the years the usual punishment for a violator has either been a warning or an extended suspension from amateur play. There have been a few instances when the player's actions merited probation which allowed him to compete in tournaments with the warning that one more transgression would lead to suspension. For a major violation, such as, openly playing for money, the committee has often recom mended that the player be declared a professional. It is important to note here that a player is offered the opportunity to refute any charge made against him and the committee tries to make its decisions based on the facts offered in the case. CHAPTER V
THE AMATEUR STORY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE
Few sports are as international in character and uniformity as the game of lawn tennis. Not only is it played in practically every country of the world but numerous international competitions have brought many players to foreign shores. Fortunately for the game, a controlling body, the International Lawn Tennis Federation, was formed in the early 1900's which encompasses all the world tennis associations. This Federation provides standards and policies for the players of the world. Interna tional play and negotiations have brought about a close relationship between the USLTA and the ILTF. Similarly, the other lawn tennis associations are in close touch as they cooperate together in the Federa tion. The most important and difficult problem that the Federation has faced over the years has been, similar to the USLTA, the preservation of true amateurism. Even though the countries of the Federation have the same Amateur Code, the interpretation of such varies considerably in the respective lawn tennis associations.
This chapter deals with the international tennis situation as it
95 96 involves the USLTA. The international competitions and the historical development of the ILTF are included in an attempt to analyze the many problems in regard to the USLTA1 s involvement in foreign play.
International Competitions
Davis Cup
The installation of the Davis Cup and all of its ramifications had a profound effect not only on the tennis picture both nationally and inter nationally but posed new problems in terms of the Amateur Code.
In the summer of 1899, four leading tennis players from the East gave exhibition matches on the West Coast. The players, Dwight F.
Davis, Holcombe Ward, Malcolm D. Whitman and Beals C. Wright were received with enthusiasm and helped to stimulate interest in the game. *
While they were returning home, the newspapers were reporting the progress of the International Cup sailing races that were taking place at the time. The satisfactory results of the tennis exhibitions, plus the accounts of the sailing competition gave Davis the idea of holding inter national tennis matches. He consulted with James Dwight, the USLTA president, who was actively engaged in tennis affairs in this country and
^Edward C. Potter, "The Davis Cup, " World Tennis II (June, 1963), p. 60.
2 USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the U. S. (Massachusetts; Plim pton P re s s , 1931), p. 70. 97 in England. ^ Mr. Dwight in turn discussed the matter with English officials and officials of the USLTA. After much correspondence and deliberation, President Dwight notified Mr. Davis that the USLTA would be glad to accept his offer. On February 21, 1900, the Executive
Committee of the USLTA formally accepted the cup labeled "Interna
tional Lawn Tennis Challenge Trophy" and placed it in competition. ^
However, since the beginning, the cup has always been known as the
"Davis Cup" as an acknowledgment to the donor.
Since its onset, the International Lawn Tennis Championship has been open to any country in the world. ^ The original conditions of the
cup matches have been changed somewhat over the years but the under lying principles are the same. ^ Some of the current regulations drawn
up to govern this championship of international supremacy are as fol lows:
1. The competition shall be open to full members of the International Lawn Tennis Federation.
2. The championship shall be held in the country of the present holder of the cup.
3 Ibid.
^E. C. Potter, Jr., Kings of the Court (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), p. 78.
^Ibid. p. 72.
A. Wallis Myers, The Story of the Davis Cup (London: Methuen and Co., 1913), p. 9. 98
3. If for any time five years shall elapse without a challenge, the cup is to be returned to the donor.
4. When gate money shall be taken, one half of the profit shall belong to the visiting nation.
5. A player shall be qualified to represent a Nation if he shall have been born in that Nation, or shall have resided there in for at least two years. . .provided he be a bona fide A m ateur.
6 . The tournament shall consist of 4 singles matches and *7 1 doubles match.
The first International Lawn Tennis Championship was held at The
Longwood Cricket Club, Boston, Massachusetts on August 8 through 10, Q 1900. The only challenger was the British Isles and the United States q won by a score of 3 to 0. 7 According to the aforementioned conditions, five matches should have been played. Five matches were scheduled but one was not completed and the other was canceled.
In 1901 no challenge was received so the United States retained the championship. In this year, at the annual meeting of the USLTA, it
n Ibid., p. 98; Regulations for the International Lawn Tennis Cham- pionship/Davis Cup (London; The Lawn Tennis Association, October, 1965), pp. 3, 13, 26, 28. O Brigadier J. G. Smyth, Lawn Tennis (London; B. T. Batsford, 1953), p. 153. q D. C. Coombe, A History of the Davis Cup (London; Hennel Loche Limited, 1949), p. 9.
l^USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1966 (New York; H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1966), p. 145. was stated that the International Challenge Cup had . .put lawn ten nis on a higher plane and assured its permanency as a sport.11 ** 1 The first time the Davis Cup left its home base was 1903, when the British Isles defeated America 4 to 1. The loss of the cup by
America was influential in the development of the international purpose of the tournament. Previously, the only country that could raise the money to send a team was the British Isles. When the tournament was staged in England, participation was financially possible by more countries. 12 In 1904, the number of challenging countries was increased
1 ^ to three with the addition of Belgium, Austria and France. The
United States, however, did not compete due to lack of finances.
It is important to note how the tournament was organized when there was more than one challenger. The challenging countries com peted with each other and the eventual winner earned the right to play with the current title holder. ^ In 1923, with sixteen nations desiring to compete in the tournament, it was necessary to introduce a major change into the organization of the matches. A system of zoning was
**USLTA, Fifty Years of JLawn Tennis in the U. S., p. 245.
^Potter, op. cit., p. 71 13-, Ibid.
14Ibid., p. 84.
^Coombe, op. cit., p. 9. established to make it easier for countries to play without large expenses incurred in travel. The two zones decided upon were an American
Zone and a European Zone. The number of competing nations has steadily increased until today the competition is divided into three geo graphical zones: European, American and Eastern. The present cham pion country does not compete in the zone matches and the eventual winner challenges the country holding the cup. 1 7
This famous cup, one of the oldest in sports history, has achieved such importance that it is now insured for $85, 000. 18 It is a thirteen inch high sterling silver bowl to which Mr. Davis added a tray in 1921 and a base in 1934. These additions were necessary because from the beginning the names of the players and the teams in the challenge round have been inscribed on the cup. ^ It is estimated that by 1970 another addition will be necessary to insure the engraving of names. 20
The Davis Cup matches have been held annually with the exception of the years 1901 and 1910 when no challenge was received, and 1915
^Smyth, op. cit. , p. 153. 17 Parke Cummings, American Tennis (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1957), p. 99.
18USLTA, Tennis USA, XXVII (May, 1964), p. 12. 101 to 1918 and 1940 to 1945 when the W orld W ars led to suspension of play. 2* During these sixty-six years there have been only four winners:
England, France, United States and Australia. The two countries that have accumulated the most victories are the United States with nineteen 22 years as champion and Australia with twenty wins. However, since
1946 when the Davis Cup matches were resumed following World War II, the United States has won only seven times to Australia's thirteen.
F u rth erm o re, from I960 to 1962 and again in 1965, the A m erican team failed to make the challenge round.
Not only is the competition one of the largest in the field of sports but its system of management is quite unique. Even though countries wishing to compete for the Davis Cup must be members of the ILTF, the ILTF does not in essence regulate the competition. The champion
ship is managed by a committee made up of Davis Cup nations. An
example of the inter-relationship is shown by the following regulations.
An ILTF rule states that one of the Federation objects shall be "to
recognize and uphold the Regulations for the time being in force for the
International Lawn Tennis Championship (Davis Cup). " ^3 jn the Consti-
21USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, p. 145.
22Ibid. , pp. 145-150.
Rules and Standing Orders of the International Lawn Tennis Federation (London: International Lawn Tennis Federation, July 8, 1964), p. 5. 102 tution of the International Lawn Tennis Championship (Davis Cup) one of the regulations reads as follows: "The Competition shall take place in accordance with the following Regulations and the Rules of Lawn
Tennis adopted by the ILTF and subject to such modifications thereof as may be mutually agreed. . ."24
From a small idea the Davis Cup matches have developed into one 2 c of the greatest international sports contests in modern times. 3 Fifty- seven nations fielded teams for the 1964 competition. The 1966 draw has forty-six countries and amazingly enough, despite its internal strug gles, Viet Nam is one of the entrants. 26 Furthermore, the Davis Cup matches fostered ". . .a more rapid and far-reaching development of tennis than would have come about without it. " 27 ' Yet, at the same time, the competition has developed into such a big business proposition that it is reasonable to question whether it is truly still an amateur tourna ment for amateur players.
Countries go to unbelievable lengths in their quest to be a Davis
Cup winner and expend considerable sums in doing so. The finances
^ Regulations for the International Lawn Tennis Championship (Davis Cup), op. cit., p. 3.
^Smyth, op. cit., p. 153. 26 °"The Lawn Tennis Association of Australia Davis Cup Draw 1966 ,'! (Mimeographed.)
^Potter, Kings of the Court, p. 72. 103 involved have steadily mounted and today "the cost of sending a six
man team overseas for several months can run anywhere from $30, 000 up. 28 The financial aspect is also heavily involved in being the title holder and having the privilege of staging the challenge round. For example, the 1964 challenge round in Cleveland had gross receipts of over $250, 000. ^ Consequently, the USLTA received approximately
$90, 000 of that money. This is indeed proportionately larger than the
$20, 000 the Association received in 1963 when it was the challenger 30 instead of the defender. This past year, 1965, the receipts from the
Davis Cup competition to the USLTA treasury were minimal due to the fact that the United States did not make the challenge round having been defeated by Spain. Another way teams increase revenue is to play exhibition and enter tournaments in the country of the title holder. Gate receipts are usually larger due to the presence of the foreign attraction.
The Spanish team did not follow this custom and came to Australia for one purpose and one purpose only, i. e ., to challenge for the Davis Cup.
The Australian authorities were miffed over this matter and as one
28 "Davis Cup, Age 64, In Spring Checkup" Tennis USA, XXVII (May, 1964), p. 12. 29 7Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Feb. 5, 1965, p. 7.
30 3U"A New Man at the Helm, " Tennis USA, XXVII(March, 1964), p. 5. 104
Australian official remarked, "All the Spaniards want to do is play the
Challenge Round, pocket around $45, 000 (Spain's sharre of the Davis
Cup gate) and go home immediately. “ ^ *
There are also many political aspects involved in the Davis Cup.
For the USLTA the main issues are site of the matches and choice of
Davis Cup captain. When the United States is the current title holder, the location of the challenge round is an extremely important matter.
Cities and clubs vie for the honor by deals and proposals as they seek approval from the USLTA. Until recently the challenge round matches were always held in the East. Before 1964 the United States had been host to nineteen challenge rounds of which ten were at the West Side
Tennis Club in New York, five at the Germantown Cricket Club in
Philadelphia, two at Longwood Cricket Club in Boston, and one each at the Merion Cricket Club in Haverford, Pennsylvania and the Crescent
Athletic Club in Brooklyn. ^2 These facts are not to imply that clubs outside of the East had not wanted the matches. Many other geograph ical areas had often enthusiastically submitted a bid but had always lost when the vote was taken. In 1964 the Executive Committee of the USLTA awarded the challenge round for that year to Cleveland, Ohio. Robert
Malaga was the representative of that area who presented the case suc-
^ ^"Scorecard, " Sports Illustrated, XXIII (Dec. 6, 1965), p. 33.
32ma New Man at the Helm, " op. cit., p. 5. 105
cessfully in Cleveland's favor. He stated that the city's industrial leaders had pledged $60, 000 in contributions; Cleveland would erect a
special stadium of 8000 seats for the matches; and that the Midwest
33 section would donate their share of the profits to the USLTA. Not
only was it the first time a challenge round was played in a Midwestern
city, but it was the most successful challenge round financially speak
ing ever held in the world. 3^ It seems foreseeable that based on these
results other non-Eastern cities will have a more equal chance of secur
ing the bid when the United States is the host country again. Perhaps,
the results also demonstrate that the USLTA has been remiss in not
giving more thought to other geographical locations in past years.
The Davis Cup captaincy is another issue that poses problems for
the USLTA. As with other offices in the Association, there is often
discussion that this post is enmeshed in the politics of the organization.
Some critics state that the captain is chosen from a certain section as a 35 "thank you" for favors in the past. Regardless of whether these allega
tions are ture or not, finding the right man for the job is a difficult task.
He must possess certain unique credentials. First of all, he must,
naturally be somewhat talented in tennis and have interest in the Davis
33Ibid.
3^USLTA, "A Message from the President, " The Official USLTA Yearbook and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1965 (New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1966), p. 10. 35 Personal interview. Cup competition. Secondly, if the United States is not the current title holder, he must be able to take many months off from his regular job in order to travel with the team. Lastly, since the captaincy is a non-paid position, he must be a man with substantial income to not only fulfill the requirement of not being employed for many months but also to be able to incur great personal expense as the Davis Cup leader. Even in
1931 it was reported that the captain of that year, Mr. Dixon, spent
$2000 of his own money to fulfill his responsibilities. 36 Today, with the increase in the cost of living plus the greater distances the team travels, 37 the captain spends many thousands of dollars to do the job. Therefore, even when a man with these qualifications is found, it is rare that he can undertake such a task for more than a year or two. In 1962 the new
USLTA President, Ed Turville, remarked that he thought the Davis Cup
captaincy was "too great a sacrifice for any one person. " 3ft He sug gested that there should be a different captain for every tie but the plan was never acted upon. ^ j^r> Turville's suggestion seems ludicrous because even the current situation is not considered effective as the men
on the team continually make adjustments to the views and coaching of
3 6 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, March 20, 1931, p. 87.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Sept. 7, 1962, p. 99.
^®World Tennis, IX (March, 1962), p. 58. 107 each new captain. The Australian contingents have had the same captain,
Harry Hopman, for many, many years. Mr. Hopman is a strict disci plinarian who demands and receives hard work from his squad. Some authorities claim that the reason for Australia's success in the Davis
Cup quest is due to the fact that they have a permanent captain.
Other reasons suggested for America's poor showing of late has to do with the Amateur Code and the United States emphasis on education.
It seems evident that the USLTA has a stricter interpretation of the principles of amateurism than do many of the other countries. Conse quently, the United States team in international play is often at a disad vantage as it competes with state supported athletes and professional players masking as amateurs. This situation, unfortunately, is not realized by much of the American public who cannot understand it when we lose to such countries as Mexico and Spain. The press does not help in this matter as articles appear bewailing the showing of the United
States without extensive explanation.
The American public for the most part is also unaware of the contrasting differences in the educational background of the players on
the United States team and other nation's teams. It is not considered unusual or out of line for a promising Australian boy to be taken out of school before high school graduation to devote full time to the game of
tennis. He is coached and tutored for the future by many around the 108 world tours and constant tournament play. By the time many Australian players are twenty-one years of age they have been around the world four or five times and naturally, have received invaluable experience in
tennis competition. It is unlikely that one American player has had a
comparable experience. The United States culture puts a premium on education and fruitful employment. Therefore, the American boys attempt to engage in tournament play and Davis Cup competition while
enrolled as college students. Practice is obviously limited while school is in session and yet, the team is expected to defeat another squad who has not had any interruptions in its tennis play. It is not an exaggeration
to state that the top twenty American players are either pursuing higher
education or have completed such whereas not one leading Australian player has attended college.
The USLTA is also unwilling to sacrifice principle in order to attain a victory. There have been many cases of late where key players have been suspended prior to Davis Cup competition due to improper behavior. A recent incident occurred in 1965 concerning Dennis Ralston.
The United States was scheduled to play Canada in the interzone tie and
Bakersfield, California, was chosen as the place for the matches. The
choice of Bakersfield was to honor Davis Cupper Ralston as it is his 40 home town. Before the tie, Ralston competed in the River Oaks Tour-
40World Tennis, XII (May, 1965), p. 77. 109 nament at Houston, Texas. He was defeated in the quarter-finals of the singles and shortly thereafter defaulted the doubles. The USLTA found his behavior unnecessary and inexcusable and thus, he was not allowed to play when the matches were held in Bakersfield.4* The USLTA
President, Mr. Martin Tressel, expressed the Association's philosophy concerning these m atters in an interview in Denver in 1965. He remarked,
"I am as interested as any American in bringing the Davis Cup back to the United States, but I am even more interested in what becomes of the
Dennis Ralstons and Chuck McKinleys as sound citizens. " 4^
For the 1966 Davis Cup quest the United States has adopted a com pletely new plan. The team was named in early February and immedi ately embarked on a concentrated program of tournament play abroad.
Furthermore, the squad will remain intact during the summer circuit of
1966. 43 The captain, George McCall, indicated optimism for the team in an interview in February, 1966. "Our chances of winning the Cup are the best in years. We feel these can be furthered by forming a team now and working together throughout the year. " 44
4*World Tennis, XIII (June, 1965), pp. 76-77.
4^Harry Farrar, "Tennis King A Courtly Gent, " Denver Post, Feb. 5, 1965, p. 47.
43"We Have the Horses, " Tennis USA, XXIX (March, 1966), p. 14.
44New York Herald Tribune, February 10, 1966, p. 24. 110
Wightman Cup
The Wightman Cup was donated to the USLTA by Hazel Hotchkiss
Wightman with the intention that the trophy be for the women of the ten nis world what the Davis Cup was for the men. ^5 -phe twenty-four inch high sterling silver vase was inscribed as the "International Ladies
Trophy" but through the years it has always been referred to as the
"Wightman Cup. " ^6 Unfortunately, the only country initially interested in engaging in this competition was England. ^
The first international ladies tennis match in history took place
on August 11, 1923 at Forest Hills, New York. This was a memorable
event as it was the first major tennis match to be played at Forest Hills after the completion of the new stadium. 48 Three thousand spectators were present as the United States defeated England 7 to 0. 49 The next
year the match was played in England and the English team won 6 to 1. 50
45Smyth, op. cit., p. 153.
^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the U .S., p. 180; M argaret Osborne DuPont, "International Tennis," 1965. (Mimeographed.)
^Potter, Kings of the Court, p. 191.
48Helen Hull Jacobs, "The Case for a Woman’s Davis Cup Team, " World Tennis, IV (July, 1956), p. 12.
^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the U .S., p. 180.
50"Wightman Cup, " Official Program Lawn Tennis Championship of the United States Women’s Singles and Doubles (1925), p. 24. I l l
Each year, with the exception of the war years 1940 through 1945, the championship is held alternately in America and England.
On February 6 , 1926, the championship was officially relabeled by the USLTA as the "Women's Lawn Tennis Team Championship between Great Britain and the United States. " ^ This meant that no effort would be made to increase the number of competing countries.
Also in 1926, it was stated that all regulations for the Wightman Cup would follow those governing Davis Cup play. ^
Unfortunately, the championship play has been a one-sided affair.
Since the competition began, the United States has won thirty-two times to England's six. ^4
The scope of the Wightman Cup tournament has been small but it serves as an inspiration to young tournament players in both countries.
No greater honor can be achieved by a woman player than being a mem ber of her country's Wightman Cup team. M rs. Wightman, commenting about the matches, once said, "It is my sincere hope that the matches
^*USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1950 (New York: Tennis Publications, Inc.), pp. 138, __
52 Ibid.
5 ^Ibid. 54 Columbus Dispatch, June 12, 1966, p, 5B. 112 in years to come will continue to serve the useful purpose of bringing
the two countries closer together on and off the courts. " ^5
Federation Cup
The Federation Cup competition was established in 1963 to com
memorate the Fiftieth Anniversary of the ILTF. It is the feminine
counterpart of the Davis Cup championship administered by the ILTF and is open to all member nations of the Federation. The first ladies
international team competition was held in London with sixteen nations 56 represented. The American girls defeated Australia in the finals.
Its importance is illustrated by the fact that the 1964 draw was
held at the United Nations with Secretary-General U. Thant in attendance 57 along with the ambassadors of the twenty competing countries. The
matches were held at the Germantown Cricket Club with Australia
emerging as victor. In 1965 Australia was again the winner and in
1966 the United States regained the Federation Cup.
The competition is organized somewhat differently than the Davis
Cup as the girls play two singles and one doubles match.
^^USLTA, Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the U .S., p. 182.
^R os Greenwood, "1964 Federation Cup Competition, " Tennis USA XXVII (Dec., 1964), p. 8.
57 Ibid.
58Ibid. 113
It is a m atter of conjecture whether the Federation Cup will ever gain the stature and significance that the Davis Cup has attained. Never theless, the ILTF has made an admirable attempt in inaugurating such competition for the women tennis players of the world.
Olympic games
Many people are surprised when they discover that tennis is not an established event in the modern Olympic games. There are many reasons for the fact and it involves many issues. The underlying causes are varied and complicated and have resulted in much controversy between tennis associations and the Olympic Committee over the years.
For a full understanding of the major issues it is necessary to examine not only the tennis side of the question but also the structure of the
Olympic games.
When the games were revived in 1896, tennis was not one of the events on the program. It is apparent that this was of no concern to the
USLTA for no reference to the early games is found when one examines the records of the Association. The Olympic events were first mentioned in the records of 1908 when a resolution was passed that the Association
"should take no part in the Olympic Games. " However, the USLTA did enter some players in the 1904 games at St. Louis. An editorial
^M inutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, March 1, 1908, p. 111. concerning this event stated that since tennis was on the St. Louis pro
gram, there was no other course but for the USLTA to enter the contest.
St. Louis had strong tennis interests and "to have abstained from partici
pation would have damned contest—and perhaps ourselves. " In other words, the Association would not have participated had it not seemed
best in the interests of propriety. Tennis was not on the games program
in 1908 and the USLTA did not send players in 1912, although it approved
the entry of a United States player who competed on his own. The 1916
games were cancelled due to World War I. The 1920 games were the
beginning of friction between the USLTA and the Olympic Committee.
Before describing the incident of 1920 a mention should be made of the
Olympic structure.
The games are under the control of the International Olympic
Committee which was organized in 1894. This was and still is an all
powerful body that is self-appointing and self-perpetuating. The Inter
national Olympic Committee has jurisdiction over the National Olympic
Committees of each country who in cooperation with the sports governing
body of each activity select the teams for the games. ^2
^"Law n Tennis at the Olympic Games, " American Lawn Tennis, XIV (Oct. 15, 1920), p. 480.
6 *"Olympic Games, 11 C o llie r s 1 Encyclopedia, XV (1958), p. 156. 115
On November 28, 1919 the USLTA accepted an invitation by the
American Olympic Committee to participate in the seventh Olympiad at
Antwerp, Belgium. ^ Shortly thereafter, the dates for the tennis events were announced as being scheduled for August. As these dates were at the same time as the United States National Championships, the USLTA issued a request to the Belgian authorities to change the Olympic events to July. The Belgian Committee replied that they were unable to make such a change and consequently, the USLTA withdrew from the games. L C However, thirteen tennis nations did enter teams in the 1920 games.
It is important to keep in mind before discussing the 1924 games that the USLTA did not officially join the ILTF until 1922. When the
American Olympic Committee again asked the USLTA to join its group for the games in Paris, much discussion over the matter occurred at
Association meetings. Again, the inclination towards the games was lukewarm and some officials were heartily against the participation of the United States. Mr. Julian Myrick remarked that ". . .by getting tied up with this Olympic Organization you are going to lessen interest
63 - Report of the American Olympic Committee-Seventh Olympic Games, Antwerp, Belgium, 1920 (Connecticut: The Conde-Nast Press, 1920), p. 107.
64 Ibid.
American Lawn Tennis, XIV (October 15, 1920), p. 480. in the Davis Cup contest. " ^ However, we did join and did send a team to P a r is . ^ But these games were the last ones to have tennis events on the program. There were troubles before the games even got under way. The crux of the matter was that the USLTA felt that the tennis events should be run by tennis people and not by the Olympic Committee.
The Olympic Committee would not give in to the tennis associations and
"disturbances'* and "rows" marked the tournament. When the Executive
Committee of the USLTA met approximately a month later it adopted the following resolution to be presented to the ILTF:
That anything that will put a representative of the ILTF on the International Olympic Committee be approved and seconded; that if tennis is to be a sport in the Olympic Games in the future that full control of the tennis events be delegates to the ILTF in the country in which the games are to be held. ^
Another aspect of the games that distressed the USLTA was that the
Olympics had a different view. of the Amateur Code than did the A ssocia tion. The USLTA felt strongly that "broken time" payments allowed for the Olympic athletes were completely against the principle of amateur
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Sept. 16, 1921, p. 10.
^^American Lawn Tennis XVI (Dec. 15, 1922), p. 542.
^"Reviving the Olympic Games, " American Lawn Tennis XXXIX (Sept. 15, 1945), p. 15.
^^Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Aug. 28, 1924, p. 16.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Dec. 10, 1927, p. 31. 117
In 1926 the ILTF reported to the Olympic Committee that tennis was withdrawing from future games unless these four demands by the
Federation were met:
1) The ILTF to be granted one representative at least on the International Olympic Committee.
2) The ILTF to be allowed to cooperate in the technical and m aterial organization of lawn tennis at the Olympic Games.
3) The definition of an amateur as adopted by the ILTF to be accepted so far as lawn tennis is concerned.
4) The holding the Olympic Games in any one year not to cancel or supersede the holding during that year of any officially recognized lawn tennis championships or competitions and the Olympic Games not to be regarded as "a championship of the world in lawn tennis. "
The Olympic Committee would not accept the demands and tennis was eliminated from the program of events. In the ensuing years differ ent countries suggested to the ILTF that perhaps a compromise could be reached but the proposals were always turned down by the Federation. ^
Recently, the tide has turned and the USLTA and the ILTF have made enthusiastic pleas to be once again on the Olympic program. How ever, the Olympic Committee evidently is reluctant to have tennis as an event. The latest developments are perplexing and contradictory but as
^"Olym pic Tennis Demands," ILTF Annual Meeting March, 1931. (Mimeographed.)
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Dec. 9, 1933, pp. 6 6 -6 7 . anyone fam iliar with the International Olympic Committee knows, the
International Olympic Committee is not prone to explaining its actions.
On Ju ly 8, 1964, the USLTA along with Russia and several other nations presented at the ILTF Annual Meeting the following proposal:
. . . that the ILTF apply to the International Olympic Committee to have tennis recognized as an official sport and if this were approved, that the ILTF apply for Lawn Tennis to be included in the Olympic Games. ^
The USLTA felt the proposal was justified as the Olympic policy had been changed and is now in line with the Association's beliefs. In other words, each sport in the games must be conducted by the International Federa tion of that sport. ^ The motion was passed by a vote of thirty-five to five and the appeal was sent to the International Olympic Committee.
At its 1964 meeting in Tokyo the International Olympic Committee voted tennis "back officially into the Olympic organization. " The decision on whether the sport would be in the 1968 Olympics at Mexico City was delayed until the International Olympic Committee meeting in Madrid in the fall of 1965. ^ The arguments for the inclusion of tennis seemed
^M emo to Tressel, Denny and Baker from Lebair (USLTA Officials), June 8, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Sept. 6 , 1963, p. 199.
75Memo, op. ext.
^ P e r s o n a l letter from Harold Lebair to Georgio de Stefani of Italian Tennis Federation, May 27, 1965. 119 favorable as not only did the Mexican Olympic Committee approve of the
idea but also the United States Olympic Board of Directors "passed a
resolution favoring tennis as one of the competitive sports at the Mexico
Olympics. " It was indeed a blow when the International Olympic Com mittee announced that tennis would not be taken into either the 1968 nor
the 1972 Olympics. ^ Even the request to be an exhibition sport on the
schedule was denied. It seems probable that the USLTA will recommend
to the ILTF at the Annual Meeting in the summer of 1966 that the ILTF withdraw from the Olympic movement. 88
iris a m atter of speculation why the application of the ILTF was denied for as mentioned above, the International Olympic Committee did not explain its ruling. One reason could be the same one that has caused
controversy for years, i. e ., the ILTF would have to give up some of its authority and the International Olympic Committee felt that this situ ation would cause many difficulties. One answer that is feasible in one respect but not in another is that the schedule for the Olympics is too crowded to allow for another sport. This may be true but does not explain why other activities are being permitted as exhibition sports in
Mexico City. Another theory is that the International Olympic Committee
^Memo, op. cit.
^ L e tte r to Asa Bushnell from Harold Lebair, Oct. 28, 1965.
80Ibid. 120 disapproves of the excessive expenses received by the top tennis players and consequently, the committee feels that they are not as amateur as the other Olympic competitors. In this regard there is strong feeling that the top tennis players are the best paid amateurs of any sport.
Undoubtedly, the tennis world will not be affected by the Interna tional Olympic Committee ruling. Many tennis followers are pleased that the sport will not be in the games for several reasons. First of all, the Davis Cup for men and the Federation Cup for women is the epitome of the Olympics in tennis. Secondly, it would appear that any time ten nis was permitted in the Olympics the tournament schedule for that year would be drastically affected as countries prepared to go to the games.
Many authorities feel tennis has enough international competitions at present and there is no need for other encounters.
The matter of tennis in the Olympic games seems to be at an impasse. It is a m atter of conjecture whether there will ever be a compromise between the interested groups.
The International Lawn Tennis Federation
In 1913 delegates from the major tennis nations of the world, except for the United States, met in Paris and founded the International
Lawn Tennis Federation. Interestingly enough, the idea was suggested by an American, Mr. Duane Williams, who was the father of R. N. Williams, 121 former United States National Champion and Davis Cup player. He felt that since tennis was bound to spread throughout the world, it was neces sary "for the National Associations to unite so that there would be O 1 uniformity in administration as well as ih the Rules of the Game." He first spoke to the Secretary of the Swiss Lawn Tennis Association who in turn spoke to Mr. Henry Wallet, President of the French Lawn Tennis
Federation. Mr. Wallet was heartily in favor of the idea and convinced 82 other nations of its feasibility.
It is necessary to trace the early development of the Federation as it compared with the tennis picture in the United States to understand why the USLTA would not join this international body for nine years. The purpose of the Federation was to increase international tennis, to make the laws of the game uniform throughout the world, and to hold world 83 championships. At the first meeting the constitution and bylaws were established and a world's championships grass tournament to be held 84 annually was awarded to the British Isles. The USLTA declined mem bership for several reasons. First of all, the Association felt that the
Q 1 Charles Barde, "The ILTF, " A Report submitted to the Annual Meeting of the ILTF, July 7, 1953, p. 1. (Mimeographed.)
82Ibid.
8^Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Feb. 7, 1919, p. 23.
®^Ibid. 122
Davis Cup matches were the epitome of international tennis supremacy and it did not wish to back any move that might take the place of Davis
Cup play. Secondly, although the picture is very different in 1966, the constitution of the ILTF had a slightly stricter Amateur Code than did the 85 USLTA. This difference of opinion on the interpretation of an amateur was a minor problem however; the point of controversy centered on
England holding an annual tournament entitled "W orld's Championships on Grass. " Negotiations between the USLTA and the ILTF were held yearly on this question of membership. The results were nearly always the same. The USLTA would not affiliate as long as the Federation's
constitution gave perpetual award of W orld's Championships to any one country. The position of the USLTA is illustrated by the following
remarks in a letter from Watson Washburn, Chairman of the Committee on Constitution, Rules and International Relations of the USLTA to
Major McNair, an officer of the English LTA.
We are ready at anytime to give our fullest support to ILTF or to any other international tennis association provided there are no underlying special privileges of an unjust nature. The USLTA does not want the W orld's Championship to any one country because we believe it is not conducive to the best interests of the sport. 87
^ M i n u t e s of Executive Committee of USLTA, Feb. 7, 1919, p. 24.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Sept. 3, 1920, p. 6 .
®7»a Letter to Major McNair, 11 American Lawn Tennis, XVI (June 15, 1922), p. 115. 123
The USLTA was adhering to a resolution passed at its annual meeting in
1914 which stated "that the Davis Cup contest should be the sole interna
tional team contest of the World. 1188 In 1923, it was resolved at the annual meeting of the USLTA that if the awarding of a W orld's cham
pionship by the ILTF was nullified from its constitution, the Association would become a member of this international group. 8^ In March of that
same year the ILTF met and made some noteworthy decisions: It
abolished the W orld's Championship from the constitution; it adopted
international playing rules; and it recognized the National Championships
of England, France, United States and Australia. Consequently, the
USLTA became a member and, thus, with the Association in the ranks,
the Federation was indeed the international body for tennis.
The importance and functions of the ILTF have been invaluable in
its fifty-three years of existence. Rules of the game are uniform through
out the world for no changes are made except by mutual agreement of the
member nations of the Federation. Similar to the USLTA, the most
important and difficult problem that the Federation has faced over the
years has been the preservation of true amateurism. It is important to
keep in mind one very important fact before examining the amateur ques-
88Minutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, Feb. 13, 1914, p. 107. go Minutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, Feb. 3, 1923, p. 106.
^"ILTF" American Lawn Tennis, XVI (March 15, 1923), p. 656. 124 tion as handled by the Federation. Each member nation of the ILTF has sim ilar rules and regulations concerning tournament players, i.e., the constitutions of the respective Associations and the Federation are, in essence, the same in regard to amateur rules. For example, the Ama teur Regulations of the USLTA are specifically classified as being under
ILTF Rule 32 and 37. 91
In the early years of the Federation there was virtually no question of any tournament player not being a true amateur. The competitors paid their own traveling expenses and if not given room and board, were often given reduced rates at the hotels.
The Olympic games situation brought forth some discussion in the early twenties concerning "broken time" payments. However, since tennis was dropped from the games after 1924, the question was virtually abandoned.
In 1926 the ILTF formulated some precise rules concerning the qualifications of tournament tennis players. These rules covered two main points: clarification of the definition of an amateur and perm issi ble allowances for traveling and expenses. 92 mentioned previously, the same regulations were adopted by the member nations. One addi tional point is necessary to mention in regard to the Federation rules.
91USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, pp. 316-319.
9^Charles Barde, A Report Submitted to the ILTF Special Com mittee on Amateurism, January, 1958, p. 1. (Typewritten.) Any Association that belongs to the Federation, even though the regula tions are similar has never been prohibited from having more stringent rules than the Federation has on its books. An Association, however, is not allowed to have more lenient regulations. The rules of 1926 have been amended and modified throughout the years but the basic principles behind them have remained unchanged. 93
In the thirties the Federation was faced with a very serious prob lem. Lawn tennis around the world had attained great popularity and it was evident that there were many violations of the Amateur Code. Con sequently, in 1933, the Federation appointed a Special Committee of
Amateurism to study the problems and hopefully to find solutions. 9^
This special committee gave its report at the Annual General Meeting of the Federation in March, 1934. 93 The fifty page report was indeed comprehensive and a special meeting was called for July 30, 1934 in order to make new rules on amateurism. Mr. Barde's report indicated that "the importance of the problem to be solved and the need for speedy action were so obvious that twenty-four Associations, including all the most important, sent delegates. . ."to the meeting. 9^ The USLTA
93Ibid.
9 4Barde, "The ILTF, " p. 4.
9^Barde, 1958 report, p. 2. 126 was represented by the President, Mr. Walter M. Hall, and Mr. Dwight 97 F . D av is. 7 At this meeting it was decided to retain the Amateurism
Committee in order that the question could be studied on a yearly basis.
The committee was in force for many years which is some indica tion of the difficulties it had in dealing with the true spirit of the sport as visualized by the early leaders of the Federation, i. e ., an amateur game for amateur players. In 1946, new amendments were adopted which gave "national Associations some liberty regarding the payment 98 of traveling and hotel expenses. " The Federation stressed, however, that the national Associations should be composed "entirely of amateur players. "99 This new policy was given different interpretations by many of the Associations and opened the door to more than the usual leniency by some of these national bodies.
The committee was disbanded in 1947 but a sub-committee on amateurism was appointed for one year in 1950. Since then, the
Federation at various intervals has had committees to study the problem with attempts to solve a most difficult situation. Again, in I960, the
Federation appointed a Special Committee on Amateurism which gave
9 7 Ibid.
9 8Barde, "The ILTF, " p. 2.
" i b i d .
100 Barde, 1958 report, p. 3. its report at the Annual General Meeting in July, 1962. The report contained some most significant and pertinent statements concerning the amateur question throughout the tennis world. A few are worthy of men
tion. The committee did not deny the fact that "the days have long since gone when any outstanding amateur lawn tennis player, without private means, could maintain his position in the game without looking to the
game for financial assistance. " 102 The committee also offered the following reasons for the change in the conception of an amateur:
. . .The principal / changes/appear to be the tremendous improvement in travel facilities, and the clamour of the sports loving public of the world to see the best sportsmen and athletes in ac tio n .
The jet airliner now perm its lawn tennis players to cover thou sands of miles in hours, with the result that both Northern and Southern Hemisphere National Tournaments, and International events over the whole world call for their appearance, and conse quently the constant travel of the leading players over the best part of the year. This obviously cannot be done without the chal lenge of "shamateurism" and of "living on the game. "
It offered many conclusions and four in particular, are noteworthy as an
indication of the committee's honest assessm ent of the Amateur Code on
the international level.
(a) It seems to the majority of the Committee no longer possible to devise one set of rules regarding an amateur which would
^*ILTF, Report of the Special Committee on Amateurism, October, 1962. be accepted and operated by the majority of National Associ ations throughout the world.
(b)It is obviously impracticable for the ILTF itself as at present organized to police regulations governing the receipt and payment of expenses and the general rules on amateurism.
(c)That it is useless to attempt to make any new regulations that obviously cannot be enforced.
(f) That the ILTF must legislate for a world where, in many countries at least, amateurism is by no means a sacred moral code and is tending to mean less and less. *04
It is well to consider in detail the second conclusion mentioned ab o v e.
Over the years the crux of the m atter has been the fact that even though the ILTF is a controlling body which advises and directs, it is not empowered with investigating forces. At the special meeting in 1934 a rule was adopted entitled "Powers of Committee on Am ateurism ."
In the main it stated that the Federation would have the power to "call upon any association to investigate and deal with breaches of the amateur definition alleged to have been committed in its country by its own players or by foreign players. " The rule also provided the Federation with power to handle the m atter if the respective Associations did not respond to the Federation's charge. The rule is still on the books today under a
*^ I b id . , pp. 4 -5 .
105 "Rules of ILTF Relating to Amateur Definition, " July 30, 1934, p. 6 . (Mimeographed.) 129
107 new title, "Application of Amateur Rules and Penalties. " ' This man date sounds most impressive and implies encompassing control but has been for the most part ineffective from the start. In 1962, George E.
Barnes, President of the USLTA, made the following Comments concern ing the m atter in his report of the 1961 y e a r .
A number of the principal tennis nations making up the m em ber ship of our controlling body, the International Lawn Tennis Federa tion, appear to have little or no interest in the enforcement of the Amateur Code. As presently constituted, the ILTF has neither the funds nor the staff to effectively compel nations or players to com ply with rules of conduct. While I was in Europe this past year attending the international meetings, I pleaded with the heads of other tennis nations to support the United States in preserving the amateur traditions and in setting up enforcement machinery at the ILTF level. I was discouraged to find a strong movement either to discontinue the present amateur regulations and allow each nation to make its own rules or to delete from the rules all reference to "Amateurs" and make everyone a "player". . .
The idea of calling everyone a "player" will be discussed at length in the next chapter.
The effects of the Amateur Code
It is obvious that unless all nations adhere to the same Amateur
Code, the tournament players affected by the code will vary considerably in regard to financial profit gained from the game. Even with the regu latory actions there was and is considerable evidence that the top players
10^Rules and Standing Orders of the ILTF, 1965, pp. 20-21.
*®®George E. Barnes, "1961 in Review and A Look Ahead, " Feb. 2, 1962, p. 3. (Mimeographed.) are not amateurs in the true sense of the word. In 1965, Mr. D. J.
Erlebach, a delegate to the Lawn Tennis Association of Great Britain,
spoke with vehemence at the annual meeting in regard to this m atter.
He stated that it had been known for years that "the leading amateur players in the world are not amateurs at all. " He also referred to another known fact that "the bigger the drawing power of a player, the greater his expenses. " The different interpretations given to the
Code by certain nations have resulted in many ramifications.
First of all, most authorities agree that the USLTA adheres closer
to the rules of the Amateur Code than any other lawn tennis association of the world. It is well known that players can "make more money" by playing in Europe than competing in United States tournaments. This fact makes it difficult for directors of American competitions to procure foreign entrants for the tournaments. In 1955, the following paragraph appeared in Newsweek magazine and is one example of the situation.
. . .The Italian approach to amateur tennis. . .has the firm stride of big business. While US amateurs must be content with $15 a day for living expenses, the Italians ask for—and get — expense accounts in Europe that total four million lire ($6 , 450) a year for each player. Gardini, for example, looks upon glamorous Davis Cup competition as an irritating and costly interruption of his money-making tournament touring. When invited by the US Lawn Tennis Association to enter the National Championship at Forest Hills September 2-11 (and told he would get the customary $15), Gardini frankly refused.
*^Ned Potter, American Lawn Tennis (March, 1956), p. 20. 131
"I have promised to play in four European tournaments, 11 he said. "I get about $500 for each. It would cost me money to accept your invitation. "H I
In 1963 Mr. Edward Turville, President of the USLTA, stated at a meeting of the Delaware Lawn Tennis Association the difficulties in having the foreign players in the United States grass court circuit as
"they prefer to play where they obtain greater benefits than are possible under our amateur regulations. " H2
Secondly, the USLTA feels it competes under a disadvantage in international competition due to its adherence to the amateur principle.
In 1961 the United States failed again in its attempt to make the challenge round for the Davis Cup, and the President of the USLTA, Mr. George
Barnes, was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times following the defeat.
The US stands alone in its fight to maintain am ateurism in tennis. The ILTF is not enforcing the Amateur Code and until it does we are not going to be able to compete on equal term s with other countries.
The state athlete has become quite the thing everywhere but in the US—a player subsidized because of his proficiency in sports, permitting him to live off his game rather than employment.
More and more emphasis is being placed on tennis and the Davis Cup all over the world. We can expect sterner and sterner competition, but we are not going to lower our amateur standards to meet it.
11 liiThe Continentals, " Newsweek XLVI (August 29, 1955), p. 46.
112h u s l t A President Addresses Delaware LTA Meeting, " The Official USLTA News, CCCXIV (November, 1963), p. 4. 132
Actually, everytime we go into international competition we are meeting professionals. But that is the way it will have to be, at least until we can develop amateurs good enough to beat pro fessionals.
The close interpretation of the Amateur Code may be one reason for the
United States' lack of success in the last few years in international play.
But there are also some other possible explanations with regard to the
United States losing prestige in the tennis world.
Within the last ten or fifteen years as soon as an American amateur reached the top, he joined the professional ranks. Each departure not only left the USLTA with lesser known players for Davis Cup play but created a situation whereby the top seeded in many a tournament were virtually unkown by the spectators. Consequently, gate receipts were also affected negatively by the exodus of players to the "play for pay" group. The whole aspect of the professionals, both teaching and play ing, will be discussed in the next chapter. The other countries, mainly
Australia, also lost some top players when they turned professional but it didn't seem to have affected the tennis scene as in the United States.
It may be that the United States has really not declined as an international tennis power but that other countries are continually coming up and are an equal match for what the United States has to offer. In other words, the United States is not getting any worse but the other
countries are getting better.
**^Dick Hackenberg, "Barnes: We Won't Buy Davis Cup, " Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 22, 1961. (Mimeographed.) 133
Mr. Allison Danzig, noted tennis reporter of the New York Times, summarized the scope of the problem in respect to the European circuit, the USLTA and the Amateur Code with these pertinent rem arks.
The USLTA has tried to enforce the amateur rules and to prevent players from getting more than the rules specify. But in Europe particularly, some of the top players get as much as $500 to $700 a week and these are supposed to be expenses. It has been getting worse over the years. I am not saying our association is lily white, but if they try to enforce the rules strictly and not allow any player to pick up an extra penny here and there, they would just force the players into professional tennis, or they would just go abroad and never play in this country. Our policy is much stricter than most countries, and it would be stricter if we could get some of the other countries, particularly in Europe, to cooperate with us, but they are not interested in the rules. They just want to get the top players for their tournaments, so they just go ahead and violate the rules and they are not interested in keeping the game amateur.
From twelve member nations in 1913, the Federation is now com posed of eighty-two countries. Even though this international body has been unable to find encompassing solutions to the amateur question, it has been cognizant of the problem and has at least provided some measures which have served as a deterrent to players and associations.
It has certainly upheld one of its main objectives which is stated in its constitution as follows: "To uphold the Rules of Lawn Tennis as at pres ent adopted and to make and maintain such alterations and additions thereto from time to time as may appear necessary or desirable. " 116
**^Interview with Allison Danzig, April 1, 1966.
llSt'Around the World, " World Tennis, XIII(Sept. , 1963), p. 6 8 .
**^Rules and Standing Orders of the ILTF, 1965, p. 4. CH A PTER V I
THE OPEN TOURNAMENT QUESTION
The most controversial issues that the leaders of the USLTA have had to face over the years have been preservation of the amateur princi
ple and the question of open tournaments. It is undoubtedly true that the
appearance of the professional players who exhibited their skill for
money raised the issue of competition between amateur and professional
players. Consequently, an examination of the open tournament question
is closely intermingled with the development of professional tennis.
Since the open tournament issue has been one of controversy for many
years, it is necessary to present both sides of the question.
This chapter is devoted to the development and growth of profes
sionals in tennis and the related topic of open tournaments. An exami
nation of the advantages and disadvantages for open competition is also
p re se n te d .
134 135
The Professionals
Teaching professionals
It was beyond imagination in the early years of tennis in the United
States that any aspect of professionals or professionalism would ever enter the game. The activity flourished in its traditional setting of exclu
sive estates and private clubs. It was strictly a game for the wealthy
class who had not only the leisure time for sporty but had access to courts.
Even those who engaged in the limited number of tournaments considered
it more of a joyful social event compared to the businesslike manner of later competition. Instruction for the most part was obtained through personal conversations and from printed tips in books and magazines.
When professionalism began to appear in some other sports, ten nis still was an avocation participated in by simon-pure amateurs. But
soon some professional players began to appear who were employed by
clubs to provide practice for the members. In fact, even a 1910 book
on tennis mentioned that there were no teaching professionals in the
game. * However, slowly as the game grew and its strokes and play became more intricate, professional teachers were needed. The lack
of teachers was noted in a 1921 article which stated that it was doubtful
"if there are twenty-five professional players and instructors of lawn
^Edward B. Dewhurst, The Science of Lawn Tennis (Philadelphia: Innes and Sons, 1910), p. 4. 136 tennis in the whole country. " The need was increased with not only the addition of more member clubs in the USLTA but clubs that had been exclusively for golf began to install tennis facilities. J As the number of professional teachers increased, some unification seemed necessary by many of the early tennis instructors. Consequently, in 1927, a group met in New York and formed the Professional Lawn Tennis Associ ation. ^ The following notice was sent to all those who taught tennis.
For some time past there has been a very strong feeling among lawn tennis professionals that there is a need for some organization to protect and promote their interests and to assist them in obtaining a proper and recognized status in the tennis world. A meeting was accordingly held Sept. 23 and it was decided to form an Association. This meeting was followed by others at which the following regulations were agreed upon:
An initiation fee of $10 will be charged all new members. Dues are to be $5 annually.
An executive committee has been elected and a constitution adopted. It is the desire of this executive committee to have all tennis professionals of accepted standards become members of the Association. . . . ®
It is important to note the phrase "to assist them in obtaining a proper and recognized status in the tennis world. " Even though it was
^"Tennis as the National Amateur Game," The Literary Digest LXIX (April 9, 1921), p. 60.
^Charles M. Wood, "Professional Progress, " in William P. Jacobs (ed.), Tennis Builder of Citizenship (South Carolina: Jacobs Press, 1943), p. 200.
4Ibid.
^Ibid., pp. 200-201. 137
recognized that these instructors were helping to promote the game, it
was evident that they were considered as "outsiders" by those of the
inner tennis circle. ^ There is also substantial evidence that the PLTA
might have been formed at this time to establish a definite differentia
tion between the professional teacher and the professional player as
touring professionals had just begun to emerge on the scene. Perhaps
since feeling towards professional players was not too favorable from
officials of the USLTA, the teachers wanted to be sure that there was
no question of where they stood as a group. It appears that the USLTA
sensed the good faith and sound purpose of the PLTA but were wary that
the professional player might detract from the amateur game. The
Association attempted to assist the organization in its early years by
giving it official recognition, but issued firm resolutions concerning
certain aspects of professional tennis. On March 17, 1928 the Executive
Committee of the USLTA held lengthy discussions concerning professionals
playing tournaments at member clubs. The matter had been brought to
its attention because the Palm Beach Tennis Club had recently held a
Journament just for professionals.^ Furthermore, the LongwoodCricket
Club had requested permission to have pro-amateur exhibitions in con-
^E. C. Potter, Jr., Kings of the Court (New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1963), p. 303.
^Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, March 17, 1928, p. 53. 138 junction with the forthcoming national championships. The previous year, 1927, the USLTA had passed a three part resolution which in brief — stated the following: it approved the PLTA, it frowned on recognizing individual promoters of professional matches and of professional and amateur matches, and it ruled that clubs must ask permission to hold g matches open to professionals only or to both amateurs and professionals.
Mr. George Wightman made the following remarks during the meeting:
If we let pros have exhibitions at amateur tournaments, we take away from / the / fundamental purpose for which all tourna ments are run—namely, to develop tennis. Our Association is formed to develop amateur tennis players. That is our job and the minute we sidle in pros with amateurs we take away from prestige of Association. We take away stimulus to young fellows to come and play in tournaments and I think we tend to break down whole structure. . . 9
Consequently, permission was denied to the Longwood Cricket Club and a motion concerning exhibitions between professionals and amateurs at
USLTA tournaments was tabled until a future meeting. The motion was eventually acted upon and on February 13, 1931, the Executive Com mittee stated that "no exhibition matches between amateurs and profes sionals would be authorized. 11 H Later on a compromise was reached
^Ibid., p. 58.
%bid. , p. 60.
^Ibid., pp. 65-66.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, February 13, 1931, p. 121. 139 whereby it would be allowed under certain restrictions. The ruling is now covered by Article III of the USLTA, ILTF Rule 32, whereby an amateur is prohibited from
. . , demonstrating the game in public or playing in a match, with or against any person other than an Amateur without previous permission in writing of his own Association, who shall send immediate notification thereof to the Committee of Management of the International Federation.
Permission will not be given: —
(i) In the case of professionals travelling outside their own country, but only in the case of local professionals or foreign professionals engaged for a period of not less than 3 months
(ii) For any such matches to be played in connection with any amateur tournament or other competition confined to amateurs. ^
Accordingly, it is usually rare that an exhibition match takes place between an amateur and a professional.
Even though the Association gave its approval to the formation of
the PLTA, there has never been a close relationship between the two
groups. The PLTA influence on the promotion of tennis has been rather negligible for several reasons. First of all, it has been a loose-knit
organization with rather casual standards and policies. Secondly, it has
been somewhat ineffective as many of the leading teachers and few of the
playing professionals secured membership, evidently because it did not
seem necessary. Yet, the ever increasing growth of the game demanded
^USLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1966 (New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1966), p. 316. 140 more and more instructors who were qualified to teach effectively.
Both the USLTA and the PLTA have been concerned over this matter and just recently, banded together to set up the United States Professional
Tennis Registry. ^ This Registry is a listing of all registered tennis teaching professionals in America. It was established "in order to improve the teaching standards of the game among the professionals and to make it possible for member clubs of the USLTA to deal with teaching professionals of recognized standing." ^ Membership is based on meeting certain minimum requirements and successfully passing written and practical tests. The USLTA has urged all its member clubs to coop erate in this matter by hiring its teachers from the Registry. All the sections of the USLTA are furnished with the listing of teachers. Its initial success is demonstrated by the fact that in its second year of operation over 1000 registered professionals are listed in the 1966
Tennis Guide. ^ The following pertinent paragraph appeared in the
Guide concerning this new program:
It is a most natural and happy partnership, this of the USLTA and the teaching professionals. It has been many, many years too long in coming. Both need one another, now more than ever, and tennis in general deserves the best this combination can produce. ^
f^Ibid. , p. 367.
^ Ibid., p. 367.
15Ibid., pp. 369-379.
l 6 Ibid., p. 369. 141
Touring professionals
The type of professionals that created the most concern for the
USLTA was the touring professional players. For a full understanding of the situation it is necessary to examine the historical development of players who openly played for monetary benefit.
In 1926, Mr. Charles C. Pyle, an ingenious promotor, felt that there could be substantial financial returns from staging exhibition ten nis matches between well known players. He first convinced Suzanne
Lenglen from France, the leading drawing card in the female ranks, to turn professional and join his troupe. Mary K. Browne, American champion~from 1912 to 1914, was signed on as her opponent. He tried to enlist Tilden and William Johnston but they declined. However, he was able to persuade Vincent Richards to sign a contract. Richards was one of the top players in the United States at the time and his defec tion from the amateur ranks was a blow to the USLTA. Not only had it lost one of the leading gate attractions of the tournament circuit, but he was also one of the mainstays of the Davis Cup team. Perhaps, fearing repeat performance in the future by the leading amateur stars, the Associ ation omitted Richards from the 1926 rankings. Furthermore, it passed a resolution whereby "none who had accepted a professional contract could be ranked as an amateur. " ^ Pyle also contracted Paul Feret, a
^Potter, op. cit., p. 301. 142 well known player in France; Howard Kinsey, United States doubles titleholder in 1924; and Harvey Snodgrass, a teaching professional who had been a ranked amateur, The first in a long series of exhibitions was held at Madison Square Garden on October 9. 1926. *9 This was the beginning of professional exhibition tennis in the United States which as time went on had far reaching effects on amateur tennis.
This first professional tour, although a novelty, was not too suc cessful. Both Lenglen and Richards were so superior to their opponents that interest waned for lack of competition. The following statements appeared in American Lawn Tennis concerning the tour;
As to the future of professional tennis, it does seem that the outlook is dark. Unless the competitive element can be intro duced into the professional game—by open tournaments or in some other way—the idea is sure to fail. Exhibition tennis is never much fun from the spectator's point of view and can even be a pretty boring business . ^ 9
The writer was rather prophetic for Pyle's troupe split after the first year because Lenglen refused to tour any more. Consequently,
Richards and Kinsey tried to instill interest by staging a professional championship. It was not too successful for Richards won easily and the teaching professionals were not any match for the exhibition p layers.
19Ibid., p. 300.
20 Quoted in ibid. , p. 302. However, professional tours received new impetus in 1930 when
Bill Tilden joined the professional ranks. He organized Tilden's Tennis
Tours, Inc., and had some very successful years. He first toured the
United States competing against Karel Koseluh and then had some fruit ful matches in Europe. When he repeated his tour in the United States, the venture was not as successful. Similar to Pyle’s first attempt, the public lost interest as Tilden had no opposition. He needed new oppo nents and thus, a new trend began to enter the professional picture.
The object was to lure the top amateur players into the professional ranks. It had to be the top named players for attempts at lesser known competitors had not proved successful. From 1937 on when Fred Perry of England and Ellsworth Vines of the United States turned professional,
there was a succession of stars who made the switch to the "play for pay" ranks, such as Don Budge, Alice Marble, Mary Hardwick, Bobby
Riggs, Frank Kovacs, Pauline Betz and Guzzie Moran. But the player who really changed the professional picture was Jack Kramer who turned professional in the late 1940’s. He not only was the best in the professional class but he was also a fantastic promoter. He expanded to greater proportions what Tilden had started when he began to lure the top amateurs for his tours. Furthermore, Kramer did not just deal with American players but attracted foreigners as well. In succession he signed Pancho Gonzales, Frank Sedgman, Ken McGregor, Pancho
Segura, Tony Trabert, Rex Hartwig, Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Alex 144
Olmedo and others. An interesting contrast is pointed out by AlLaney, famous tennis writer for the New York Herald Tribune:
In the period between World War I and the market crash, a period to which we usually apply the name Golden Age of Sport, no player who won either the Wimbledon or the US title, became a professional. In the decade which followed World War II, 5 of the 7 winners of the US title and 3 others who won at Wimbledon turned professional. ^
As can be expected, this aspect of professionalism has caused great consternation in the USLTA. The Association does not deny that the loss of the big stars has had its effects. The situation is briefly summarized by remarks in a letter to Julian S. Myrick from the USLTA
President in 1961, George Barnes:
I am convinced that in the days when there were no touring pros we were able to keep amateur players in the game long enough for them to become name players and draw large paying audiences. Gradually over the years the top amateurs are turning pro sooner and sooner and as a result, we have less and less opportunity to build up name players. This hurts the gate which has been used over the years to send our Davis and Wightman cup teams around the world and to build players and the game from the grass roots up.
The income from our National Singles Championships has been gradually diminishing until the USLTA income in I960, as you know, was nil. To rebuild our name players we need money, to get money we need more spectators, and to get more spectators we need name players. So it is ring-around-the rosie! Which comes first, the spectators, the name players, or the money? . . . ^
2*A1 Laney, "Greats of Previous Era Established Selves on Circuit, " Davis Cup Challenge Round USLTA Championships Magazine (1964), (no pagination.) 22 Letter from George E. Barnes to Julian S. Myrick, July 27, 1961 (M im eographed.) 145
The defection of so many top players from the amateur camp brought forth much discussion concerning the amateur code and in par
ticular, the possibilities of having open tburnaments. Before discussing
the open tournament proposals some mention should be made of the status
of the touring professional players in 1966.
Even though the amateurs have of late spurned offers to turn pro fessional, the professional group is working towards a firmer founda
tion and larger financial rewards. Instead of the previous system of
one night exhibitions the group has inaugurated a tournament schedule
throughout the country. The professionals have hired a promoter,
Mr. Wally Dill, who has had notable success in promoting professional
golfers. 23 The prize money for this year will be the largest in history
at a record figure of $150, 000.^ If the touring professionals become
better organized, perhaps more amateur players will be willing to accept
offers to become professionals. Perhaps, also, if the professional organ
ization achieves a firm er foundation, it will not have to lure the amateurs
with tempting offers to join its group. In other words, after achieving
prominence in the amateur ranks, many players will not have to be per
suaded to turn professional but will join the professional group as a logi
cal step in their tennis career.
^F rank Deford, "A Man to Lead the Pros Out of the Darkness, " Sports Illustrated XXIV (June 20, 1966), p. 60.
^Ibid.) p, 58. 146
The Open Tournament Controversy
The beginning of professional exhibition matches was the beginning of consideration by the USLTA of open tournaments. Even though the very first exhibition was held at Madison Square Garden it was natural that requests were made to hold some of the other matches at member clubs of the USLTA. The Association did not disapprove of these exhibi tions but did want to have control over them. Consequently, in 1927, it passed a resolution whereby clubs wishing to have matches or tourna ments open to professionals only or to both amateurs and professionals had to get permission from the USLTA. ^ The resolution was a definite step to prevent any club from holding an open tournament until the Asso- ciation decided the time was right to have one. 26 However, during this era the leaders of the USLTA were in favor of this type of tournament but were just being very cautious concerning its introduction. The resolution was discussed at the annual meeting of 1928 by the President,
Samuel H. Collom, and indicates the attitude of the governing body:
The intention of the resolution was to recognize the same principle, in tennis, as does exist in golf. You have Amateur championships and professional championships and eventually, as that develops, you will have open championships.^
^M inutes of the Annual Meeting of the USLTA, February 11, 1928, p. 10.
26 Ibid. , p. 14.
^Ibid., p. 16. 147
He also mentioned that he had discussed the matter of an open with Mr.
Ramsay who was Secretary of the Golf Association. He commented on their meeting with these remarks:
I think if the Association is to profit by the condition that exists in golf at the present time, it would be well to let time adjust this matter. In open golf today the golf pro is not particularly keen to have amateurs play in it. If the Association is going to foster and encourage pro tennis, it would be well to contact Professional Association and see if they want it. With the condition pro tennis is in today, they may not want an open. It does not help a pro to be beaten by an amateur and that generally is their attitude in golf. . . . 28
In 1930 the Germantown Cricket Club which had suffered severe financial losses appealed to the USLTA for permission to hold an open tournament in order to help its treasury. The Association gave its approval provided the ILTF had no objection. 29 Accordingly, the USLTA proposed an amendment to Federation Rule 23 which at that time permitted amateur-professional matches when approved by a member association. ^0
The Association proposed adding the words "and tournaments" after the word "matches" in order that member nations could hold open competi- 3 1 tions. A When the proposal came before the ILTF Meeting, it received strong objections from Chevalier de Borman of Belgiupa, who was one of
28lb id ., p. 15.
29 Potter, op. cit., p. 304.
30Ibid. 148 the founders of the Federation, with these words, "The day we open our 32 gates to tiie professionals, all our points of view will change. " The proposal was soundly defeated with only the United States and Great
Britain casting favorable votes. Consequently, permission was denied the Germantown Cricket Club and the Association adopted a new resolu tion whereby "no further action be considered toward holding Open Tour naments until different and more cooperative attitude on this proposal is adopted by ILT F. " ^
It is interesting to note the comments made by Mr. Washburn, a member of the Executive Committee, concerning the ILTF decision.
Even though these remarks were made in 1930, the views are remarkably similar to the feelings of some officials towards an open in the 1960 's.
1 know of no demand for an open except the desire to give an adequate championship to Philadelphia. I would rather see a singles or doubles championship go to Philadelphia than see amateur sport injured. Every section might want "open" so the question is the number of opens, not just one. Let's say it's a success. It will probably be supported by the press. They will emphasize it to the detriment of amateur championships, so it will overshadow amateur championships. And no doubt every open will be won by a pro. So the public won't want to see amateur championships. So pros will enjoy all privileges now enjoyed by amateurs. All players will want to be pros with the result that it will be a pro game run by this amateur association. So this is where we're headed, I think, if we encourage pro championship. If we do this, we will do more to kill amateurism than any of the amateur infractions of the past 20 y ears. ^4
•^Ibid., p. 305.
■^Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, Sept. 11, 1931, p. 30.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, May 10, 1930, pp. 18-19. In 1933 the Germantown Cricket Club again requested permission from the USLTA to hold an open championship. The president at the time, Louis J. Carruthers, was a lawyer by profession and he had studied the Federation ruling very carefully. It is obvious that the
Association did not wish to jeopardize its membership in the ILTF by violating the rules but it did want to hold an open tournament. Carruthers said that it was possible to have these types of championships for ''there was nothing in Rule 23 which forbade the holding of an open tournament if the member nation wished to hold one. Therefore, again, German town Cricket Club was granted its request. Several months prior to the scheduled open event, the annual Federation meeting was held in England.
The USLTA was represented by John Mac Veagh who was not a tennis official but the second secretary of the American Embassy in London.
With such an important step being taken by the USLTA it is difficult to understand why the Association did not send one of its officers to the meeting. An examination of the records provides no explanation for this course of action. Due to the publicity given by the press to the proposed open by the USLTA, the subject was debated at the Federation meeting.
With no one to forcefully defend the Association's stand persuasive arguments were presented against the position of the USLTA. A resolu tion was adopted whereby "neither Rule 23 nor any other Rule permits
^Potter, pp. cit., p. 306. 150
•a / the holding of such tournaments. " The subject was closed for the time being but some interesting remarks were made by Mr. Potter on his rep o rt of this m eeting.
The unfortunate part of the whole affair is not that the decision was adverse but that, having taken a step which it knew, or should have known, would lead to controversy, the United States Associa tion did not see fit to have its case presented by an advocate who might, by his force and earnestness, have brought about at least confirmation of the American interpretation of the rules or, at least, an amendment to the rules which would have definitely *J 7 permitted the holding of such a tournament.
The next year, the USLTA again wanted to hold an open tournament.
Mr. Carruthers attended the Federation meeting in Paris in March, 1934 as the delegate from the USLTA. He presented the case for the United
States by declaring that "the United States believed that each Association should be its own judge and that permission should not devolve upon the
International Federation but upon the governing body of each nation as to whether it should or should not hold an open tournament. . . "38
Federation appointed a special committee to study the problem and asked for its recommendations to be presented at a special meeting of the Federation in July of that year. The USLTA President, Mr. Walter
M. Hall, attended and argued the case for the United States. However,
36 Ibid., p. 307.
3 7 Ned Potter, "Open Squelched by Federation, " American Lawn Tennis XXVII (April 20, 1933), p. 5.
3®Ned Potter, "The Old Question of the Open Tournament, " W orld Tennis III (January 1956), p. 17. 151 he pointed out that the demand for an open in the United States was not as pressing as it had been in the past, and consequently the Associa tion's request was not one of urgency. Nonetheless, the Association wanted the Federation rules to be flexible enough to allow such an event if future developments showed merit of one. Mr. Hall stood alone in his feelings and the Federation adopted a new law which is still in the rules today. The rule
. . .prohibits any amateur player from participating in a tour nament with players other than amateurs, but permits matches or exhibitions between amateur and professional players, subject to consent having first been obtained from the International body by the amateur's own Association.^^
In 1937, the USLTA was faced with a new problem. Without re questing permission the Greenbrier Golf and Tennis Club held what it described as the "First U. S. Open Tennis Championship. " Many professionals and six amateurs participated in the tournament. This situation was specifically prohibited by the Federation rule as listed above. The Association took drastic steps in order to prevent the stag
ing of other such tournaments. It suspended the six amateurs and with
drew the membership of the Greenbrier Club in the USLTA.
40 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, January 14, 1938, p. 37; C. Heldman and J. Joubert, "25 Years Ago, " World Tennis X (O ctober, 1962), p. 56. The subject of open tournaments was revived in 1938 when the
Lawn Tennis Association of India submitted a proposal to the ILTF whereby each Association would be allowed to hold one open tournament annually. ^ The USLTA submitted an amendment to the Indian proposal which was a repetition of the Association's earlier resolution, namely,
"that each nation should have the right to decide for itself if it wanted
to hold an open tournament. " 42 However, the attitude of the Association
towards the prospect of an open had definitely changed as evidenced by
an attachment to the amendment. It stated that the USLTA "neither
favors or disapproves of such a tournament at this time. The pro
posal was defeated by a 118 to 51 vote at the Federation meeting. ^
During World War II permission was granted by the Federation
for the USLTA to hold exhibition matches between amateurs and profes
sionals for the benefit of the Red Cross and other war charities. ^
Otherwise, there were no more discussions or proposals concerning the
possibility of open championships.
“^Minutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, January 15, 1938, p. 76.
^Potter, Kings of the Court, p. 312.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, January 14, 1938, p . 92.
^Potter, Kings of the Court, p. 312. 153
However, by 1957, the situation was ripe again for renewal of discussion concerning tournaments open to both amateurs and profes sional players. Most of the top players in the world had joined Kramer's professional group, there was increasing evidence that the remaining top amateurs were making more money than ever from the game, and the press and the public were asking for open competition. At the sug gestion of the Lawn Tennis Association of Florida it was proposed at the
1957 annual meeting of the USLTA that the Association resubmit its amendment of 1938 as discussed above to the Federation. ^ The sug gestion created substantial discussion and resulted in the appointment of a special committee by the President, Renville McMann, to study the question and submit a report. President McMann made these remarks concerning the committee.
There has been a lot of talk on the Open. The time has come when we must take a good look-see on this question. 1 don't feel if we have one, we'll lose control of the game but if we don't give it thought, we may lose control. Let's call a spade a spade, particularly with the under-cover payments and hypocrisy that exists recently in some quarters of the globe in our game. But there are dangers connected with an Open. What would happen to the Davis Cup? . . . ^
The committee gathered a mass of data and its report was unani mously in favor of an open tournament with the recommendation that
^Ned Potter, "Passing Shots , 11 World Tennis X (December, 1962), p . 28.
^M inutes of Annual Meeting of USLTA, January 19, 1957, p. 33. 154 farther study be made before taking any action. The reaction of the
Executive Committee is shown by the fact that the report was tabled by a vote that was twenty to eight "against the report as received." ^
However, the Executive Committee recommended that the special com- 50 mittee resubmit its report.
By 1959, the ILTF was so concerned with the problems connected with the Amateur Code in the tennis world that a special committee was chosen to study the entire question of amateurism. The recommenda tions of the committee were greeted with both dismay and ectasy by the
Lawn Tennis Associations for there were extreme proposals in contrast to the traditional philosophy of amateur tennis. The recommendation that created the most discussion was a proposal offered by the Lawn
Tennis Association of France to create a new class of player called
"authorized" or "registered. " Any amateur player over the age of six teen could register as an "authorized player" whereby he could compete in amateur tournaments for cash prizes. The following explanation for
48potter, Kings of the Court, p. 321.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, September 6, 1957, p. 147; Ned Potter, "Passing Shots, " World Tennis X (December, 1962), p. 28. 50 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, September 6, 1957, p. 159. C 1 Report on Amateurism, January, I960 (Mimeographed.) 155 the system was given by Jean Borotra of the French Lawn Tennis Asso ciation:
The National Associations and the International Federation would control two categories of players: the amateurs, . . . the registered players. . . . Both would be expected to respect the written and unwritten rules of the game, but only the former would observe its disinterested side. There would be no actual barrier between these categories, and the players could all take part in the same tournaments.
This formula would completely solve the problem, because all the players so wishing would be allowed to "cash in" openly on their talent, the public would be able to see championships in which the best players could participate without exception, and the amateurs would remain as such and still not be cut off CO from first-class tennis.
The committee's other recommendation was to experiment with a limited number of open tennis championships in 1961 .
The USLTA unanimously rejected the "authorized player" proposal feeling it was just another name for professionals. Moreover, it threatened to withdraw the Davis Cup from competition if the Federation gave it sanction. The other proposal was approved by the Association with an amendment which gave each lawn tennis association the principle C C of self determination.
52"How Can We Save Tennis and The Amateur Status?" An inter view with Jean Borotra by "Tennis De France" (1959), Lawn Tennis Library Record (February, I960), p. 3.
53(3opy of le tte r sent to various m em ber nations of ILTA in M arch, I960 (Mimeographed.)
^Potter, Kings of the Court, p. 326.
^N ed Potter, "Passing Shots", World Tennis X (December, 1962), p. 28. 156
The ILTA meeting was held in Paris in July, I960 and action was taken on the two proposals. The "authorized player" motion received so much opposition that it was not even brought to a vote. As an alter native, another Special Committee of Amateurism was appointed and commanded to make a report at the annual meeting in 1962. The open tournament proposal was rejected by the close margin of five votes out of a total of 209.
Since approval of the motion appeared to be a foregone conclusion, the results of the voting demand some explanation. Even though the big tennis nations, such as United States, Australia, France and Great
Britain, were all in favor of open competition, it was the small nations whose total vote cast the die. As a group, they were not in favor of open tournaments fearing that such events would detract from their amateur competitions. These small countries were doubtful that they could raise the finances necessary to attract players if open tournaments were allowed. ^8
At the annual meeting of the USLTA in 1961 it was decided again to press the issue with the ILTF for an open. It submitted an amendment
^Potter, Kings of the Court, p. 326.
57 Ibid. , p. 327.
CO Martin Kane, "Open the Door, Stockholm, " Sports Illustrated XX (July 10, 1961), p. 16. 157 to the amateur rules to be voted upon at the 1961 Federation whereby
a Member Nation, in its own discretion, may sanction tourna ments to be held within its jurisdiction open to both amateurs and professionals without loss of their amateur status to any amateurs competing therein with the consent of their own National Associations. ^
Although worded somewhat differently, the proposal was similar to every other United States recommendation, namely, that nations should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they wished to hold open tournaments. Furthermore, the Open Tennis Committee of the USLTA was instructed to formulate plans for the management of open tennis
that "will be in the interest of amateur tennis." The Federation was also presented with a proposal from the British Lawn Tennis Association
that Wimbledon be an open tournament in 1962 as an experiment.
The Federation meeting of 1961 was held in Stockholm, Sweden and again the issue of open tournaments was the main topic on the agenda.
This time no vote was taken but the question was postponed for another y e a r . ^ However, the delegates were asked to consider three possible
^Letter from George E. Barnes, President USLTA, to Mr. S. B. Reay, Secretary ILTF, February 6 , 1961. (Mimeographed.)
6 ®Report of Open Tennis Committee, February 3, 1961. (Mimeographed.)
6 *Ned Potter, "Passing Shots, " World Tennis VIII (May, 1961), p. 19.
62nrphe President's Column, " The Official USLTA News (August, 1961), p. 1. 158 proposals as a solution to the amateur problem. These proposals were recommended by the Special Committee on Amateurism and were as follows:
1. To abolish from the ILTF rules any references to "Amateurs'* and "Professionals" as such, leaving to national associations* local autonomy to make their own rules.
2. To retain the present rules and organize a central ILTF "control" to insure compliance throughout the world.
3. To retain the present rules but to delegate to each national association the responsibility of defining allowable expenses and enforcing of the rules.
The vote on the proposals would be taken at the Federation meeting in
1962.
At the Executive Committee meeting of the USLTA on February 2,
1962, President George Barnes commented on the above proposals.
The situation internationally is not too encouraging. A number of principal tennis nations in our controlling body, ILTF, appear to have little or no interest in enforcement of the Amateur Code. The ILTF has no funds or staff to compel compliance. I pleaded with heads of other tennis nations to support US in preserving am a teur traditions and in setting up enforcement machinery at ILTF level. I was discouraged to find strong movement either to discon tinue present amateur regulations and allow each nation to make its own rules or call everyone a "player. " We must guard against this or could end up with a "Players Union. " To save and strengthen / the / amateur game we must continue to recognize 2 classes of players—amateurs and professionals—those who wish to play for mere expenses or pleasure of the game and those who wish to make their livelihood from the game. . .. .^4
63 Ibid.
^M inutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, February 2, 1962, pp. 7, 9. 159
The ILTF meeting of 1962 was held in Paris in July. The main topics on the agenda were the aforementioned proposals and the open tournament resolution. The proposal concerning elimination of the terms "amateur" and "professional" was defeated as was the proposal concerning each
Association establishing its own expense regulations . ^ 8 The third pro posal concerning Federation control of the amateur rules received much discussion and it was decided that further study was necessary before voting for or against its adoption. 66 The request to have experimental open tournaments received 120 votes in favor and 100 votes were cast against the resolution. Since a two-thirds majority vote is necessary for implementation, the proposal was defeated. Furthermore, it was 67 resolved that the open question could not be discussed again until 1964.
Three of the leading tennis nations, Great Britain, France and United
States voted for the motion. 88 Joining Australia against the motion was
Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union and its satellites. 89
^"IL T F Annual Meeting, " The Official USLTA News (August, 1962 ), p. 2.
66 Ibid.
67 Ned Potter, "Passing Shots, " World Tennis X (September 1962), p. 34.
68 Ibid.
69Ibid. 160
Mr. Potter expressed his reaction to the outcome of the meeting:
It is interesting to note that most of the nations which voted against open tournaments are not, as might be supposed, staunch up-holders of amateur standards. The Australian method of permitting its leading players to travel around the world on expenses derived solely from the game and measured according to their playing skill, is certainly not true amateurism. The Italian players have never concealed the fact that they demand pay for playing in tournaments or the Davis Cup. Russia and its satellites claim they have no professionals. Nevertheless, all their athletes are subsidized and are no more amateurs than mem bers of Kramer's troupe.
It is a sad commentary on the state of tennis throughout the world today that these nations which harbor semi-professionals under the guise of amateurism should have the deciding voice in a question which had been before the ILTF in one form or another for more than 30 years. 70
The~ USLTA annual meeting of 1963 proved to be not only one of
great controversy but the results of the meeting negated years of sincere
efforts on the part of the Association to consider open tournaments. The
cause of the controversy was a proposal by the Lawn Tennis Association
of Texaa and the Middle States Association which "would commit the
USLTA and its officers to oppose open tournaments. " 7* Great debate
ensued and there were many speeches for and against the resolution. An
attempt was made to table the motion but this was defeated when a vote
was taken. When the ballots were counted on the resolution itself, it
70 Ibid.
71 Edward C. Potter, Jr., "1963 USLTA Annual Meeting, " The Official USLTA News (January-February, 1963), p. 2. 161
72 passed by a vote of 49, 856 to 36, 481. It is interesting to note that more sections (9) voted against the proposal but were outnumbered by the greater number of votes of the other sections ( 6 ). Therefore, the following resolution was adopted by the USLTA:
Resolved, that the USLTA declares of record its opposition to the principle of Open Tennis and instructs its officers and its delegates to the ILTF to oppose any change in the Rules of the ILTF which would permit the holding of open events and be it
Further Resolved, that such officers and delegates are hereby instructed to oppose any action by the ILTF through committees or otherwise to act in furtherance of such open tennis until other- 70 4 wise instructed.
In short, the USLTA was going on record as not only opposed to the principle of open competition but also opposed even to the consider ation of the matter by a committee. The majority of the tennis world was shocked by this turn of events as no country had seemingly been more sincere in its proposals for open tournaments than the United
States. The Association's action received extensive publicity by the press here and throughout the world.
Meanwhile, the Lawn Tennis Association of Great Britain was also involved in lengthy discussion and controversy at its annual meeting.
Ted A v e ry , Chairman of the Association, stated to the delegates that
^ Ib id ., p. 5.
^"Open Tennis Resolution, " The Official USLTA News (January- February, 1963), p. 5. 162
"he personally was in favor of breaking away from the ILTF and staging
an Open Wimbledon. " 7^ A motion concerning the action was never sub
mitted but the Britain Lawn Tennis Association drew up two proposals
for the ILTF meeting of 1964. The first one was just a revival of the
motion formerly presented by the USLTA, namely, that member associ
ations be allowed to hold open tournaments. In the event the Federation
voted down this proposal Great Britain was requesting permission for
the Wimbledon Tournament to be open on an experimental basis in 1965
and 1 9 6 6 .75
Due to the resolution passed at the 1963 USLTA meeting, the United
States delegates to the Federation meeting had no choice but to vote
against both proposals submitted by Great Britain. Mr. James Dickey,
the USLTA President, was one of the delegates to the meeting and
reported to the Executive Committee of the USLTA the outcome of the
Federation voting.
The first resolution was beaten conclusively. Wimbledon lost too. There are certain countries, particularly those behind the "iron curtain" who violently oppose an open. Australia was opposed and this year, for the first time, your delegates voted against an open. Heretofore, they had voted in favor of open because instruc tions from the National Association were to vote for self-autonomy — that if a nation wished to have an open, they might. So much for that. ^
74"Around the World, " World Tennis X(February, 1963), p. 56.
^M inutes of the Meeting of the Administrative Committee of the USLTA, June 13, 1964, p. 2. (Mimeographed.)
Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, September 11, 1965, pp. 8 -9 .
/ 163
Proposals for open tennis have not been submitted to the Federa tion since 1964. It is a matter of conjecture whether the open tournament question will be revived again in Association and Federation circles in the near future. Nevertheless, the issue is still there and is still dis cussed informally by the players, the officials, the press and the public.
It is obvious that the subject is a controversial one for it has covered approximately a thirty-six year span of history.
This study would be incomplete without presenting the advantages and disadvantages of open tournaments. The presentation of the pros and cons of open tennis will help to give the reader an understanding of the proponents and opponents of tournaments open to both amateur and professional players.
Advantages of open tournaments
One of the strongest arguments offered for having open tournaments is that the highest calibre of tennis would be on display. As it is now and has been for some years, the top players in the world have been profes sional and as a group, supposedly outclass by far the amateur talent.
Since there have been no open competitions, there has been no test to prove the above allegation. However, it has been true that the top ama teurs upon first becoming professionals have been soundly defeated when first on tour. In 1959 John Lardner reported in Newsweek that tennis was in a peculiar condition. He continued by saying, "One half of it — 164 the professional half—has a monopoly on talent. The other half—the amateur, or semi-pro half—monopolizes such excitement as there is in
the sport. " ^
Another advantage proposed for adoption of open tournaments is
that the step would eliminate criticism by the press and the public.
There is no doubt that the press have been all for open tournaments for many years. In 1961 the President of the USLTA, Victor Denny, had a
sports editor conduct an opinion poll for him throughout the country. It was found that ninety-eight per cent of the sports writers wanted open
tennis. 78 These reporters, especially when the United States fares
badly in international competition, stress in their articles and columns
that the only solution for tennis is to have open tournaments. They
elaborate profusely on the advantages of such meetings but either know
ingly or not, often omit the disadvantages. Many of the sports writers
seem to feel that the panacea for all the ills in the governing tennis
bodies will be corrected by holding open tournaments.
Many people feel that open tournaments would more clearly define
the line between the terms "amateur" and "professional. " The public
is not unaware that the top amateurs must "be gaining some financial
benefit by playing the game. Many articles have appeared charging the
77John Lardner, "Simon-Pure Psychoses, " Newsweek LIV (August3, 1959), p. 75. 78 Minutes of Executive Committee of USLTA, February 3, 1961, p. 87. 165
USLTA with not only governing "shamateurs" but encouraging hypocrisy by the allowance of expense money. The professionals, also, direct critical attacks at the amateurs when professional offers are declined. In
1965 the Professional Tennis group held a tournament at the Longwood
Cricket Club in Boston. The professionals were lamenting that the ama
teurs were not coming into their ranks. One professional expressed
their feelings by commenting, "Why should an amateur turn pro when he makes a better living as an amateur?" ^9 closely connected with this argument is the feeling that open tournaments would make the game more honest. The amateurs would be playing just for love of the game and the professionals would be playing for prize money.
Before 1963 it was suggested that open competition would possibly prevent the top players from abandoning the amateur ranks for the pro fessional tour. However, for the last three years, the argument has lost its force as none of the best players have turned professional.
Many of the present day amateur players would like to see open
competition for several reasons. The first is more a matter of pride
in that they are curious how they would fare against the professionals in a match. The second reason is involved with expense allowances. It is a known fact that the top ranked players get their expenses whether they
do well in the tournament or not. At times, it is felt that certain players
^B ill Kipouras, "Pro Tennis Needs New Blood, " Boston Herald, April 15, 1965, p. 29. 166
do not give forth their best effort and lose in early rounds. Many ama
teurs feel the expenses in open tournaments would be based on the player's performance, i. e ., the longer he remained in the tournament, the greater his expense money. Consequently, an open might create more incentive for these players to do well in every match. 80
Increase in spectator interest and better TV and press coverage
is also presented by the proponents of open tournaments. The feeling
now is that the professionals have the name players but not the stimulus
of true competition whereas the amateurs have the traditional tournament
circuit. It is stated that if the two aspects, the names and the circuit,
were put together, the spectators would increase by an overwhelming
number. Hence, more publicity would be forthcoming from TV and the
p re ss .
The final argument offered by those in favor of open competition is
that no one knows whether such tournaments would be favorable or unfa
vorable. Consequently, the only way to assess the situation is to try it
and then make an evaluation.
Furthermore, the critics offer several more arguments for the
event: (1) it would provide a setting to reap the benefits of all the years
spent in developing the players who now "play for pay, " (2) it would alle
viate criticism against the USLTA, and (3) the public wants it and the
Association owes it to the public.
80personal interviews. 167
Disadvantages of open tournaments
It is not too surprising that the disadvantages for having open tournaments seemingly outweigh the advantages as otherwise such competition would probably have been staged long before now. First and foremost, it is important to keep in mind that the USLTA, the ILTF and the lawn tennis associations throughout the world were founded to give leadership to amateur tennis. Consequently, these associations are bounded by history and tradition to the amateur concept. Even when
the amateur code began to be violated by the aspects of commercialism,
the tennis leaders sought remedies within the framework of amateur ideals. The leaders of the Association have not denied that the solutions have been far from perfect but at the same time, feeling has been strong
to keep giving it a try. Moreover, it has been doubted by many that
open tournaments would provide the answers to the Association's many problem s.
One of the leading arguments offered against open tournaments is
that the amateur game would be destroyed. As mentioned before, evi
dence indicates that the present day professionals are far superior than
the top amateur players. This situation is the same in most sports,
namely, that the professional player is the epitome of skill in compari
son with the amateur. Therefore, opponents of the question surmise
that open tournaments would be nothing more than professional tourna
ments with the professional players dominating all but the earliest of 168
rounds. Furthermore, up and coming amateurs would have to be omitted from the draw to leave room for only the top amateur players and the professionals. Interestingly enough, a similar feeling was expressed by a professional player, Barry McKay. McKay used to have strong feelings for an open tournament. Yet, in 1965, he stated,
The minute you have an amateur playing in one of our tourna ments, he will be taking a spot that should have been held by a pro. Therefore, he will be depriving a real live professional from earning a living. . .1 used to think open tennis was the only solution to the game, but I am not so sure it is that crucial any more because the pro game is growing so fast with sponsors, TV, etc. . .81
Another argument offered concerns the voluntary aspect of the
USLTA. Throughout its history the Association has carried on its pro grams through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers who believe in the purposes of the Association. Fundamentally, these purposes are three fold: tennis should be developed on a non-profit basis, neither the players nor officials should derive financial benefit from the game, and
the Association's activities should not be diverted for commercial and personal advantage. 82 Many feel that these same volunteers would not be so willing if they knew the end result was prize money for the profes
sionals.
O 1 Personal interview with Barry McKay, July 15, 1965.
82Holcombe Ward, "Amateur Tennis and the USLTA, " USLTA Service Bulletin, Special Issue, 1946, p. 3. Another consideration aligned with the volunteer movement is the status of the Association with regard to income tax. In 1942 the United
States Board of Tax Appeals handed down an important decision concern ing the USLTA. The Board recognized the Association as an amateur sports governing body devoted to
. , .the development of Tennis throughout the country, the upholding of amateurism and sportsmanship and regulations of the game, operated in the public interest primarily for pur poses of physical education and social welfare, and exempt from Federal income taxes because of the amateur character 83 of its organization and the non-commercial nature of its work.
Critics claim that open tournaments would change the motives of the Association and thus, it would be subject to taxation. Furthermore, some officials have suggested that open tournaments would open the door to gambling syndicates, as has occurred in other sports.
The situation in amateur golf is also offered by the opponents as an example of what will happen to the USLTA if open tournaments become a reality. It is an undeniable fact that the professionals in golf have so overshadowed their amateur counterparts that few people even know the name of a prominent amateur golfer. Thus, it is felt that the USLTA, an amateur organization, would be furthering the professional players more than the amateurs by sponsoring open tournaments.
Another factor necessary for consideration is the tournament schedule. Understandably, if open competition were allowed, many
OJWard,83 op. cit., p. 3. 170
tournaments solely for amateurs would be retained. The schedule now is extremely crowded for the major United States tournaments occur between the end of June and the middle of September. Therefore, it is natural that questions are raised concerning where open tournaments would be scheduled. Furthermore, the situation is confounded by the attitude of the professionals on this matter. They have stated that if
open tournaments are adopted, they will demand that a certain number be conducted on these lines.
Another main argument offered~by the opponents to the open is the
diversion of finances that are now used for promotion and junior develop
ment. It is undoubtedly true that open tournaments would increase gate
receipts. However, the use of the profits would differ markedly as large amounts in cash prizes would have to be awarded to the winners.
Moreover, it is questionable whether the smaller clubs could raise the
finances to sponsor an open tournament. Mr. Holcombe Ward, Presi
dent of the USLTA in 1946, stated his feelings in regard to an open in a
special report.
The USLTA1 s Junior Development program would be retarded, for the money which clubs now spend to provide opportunities for young players to meet the top-ranking amateurs in their tourna ments, would necessarily be diverted into cash prizes, living and traveling expenses for the professionals. . . .Rich clubs could attract the professionals with offers of large cash prizes; small clubs could not afford to meet that competition. The success or failure of our tournaments would be to some extent in the hands of professional stars. . . .
S^Ward, pp. pit., p. 6 . 171
Many officials fear that alignment with the professionals would mean the end of control by the USLTA and the ILTF. Pertinent remarks
concerning this point were made by Mr. Perry T. Jones in 1961 when he was Chairman of the USLTA Open Tennis Committee.
Personally, I think it was just as well that the Open Tennis proposals were laid on the table for a bit longer because the more I think of the implications to such a world-wide, national and sectional new conception of tennis as we have known it, the more I have come to have very definite reservations and a — desire to count the costs, as well as the benefits, before chang ing the entire philosophy of our wonderful game, which Open Tennis would certainly do.
He elaborated further that he
. . .would not be for Open Tennis unless I was thoroughly con vinced that such a program would be beneficial and complimen tary to our magnificent Amateur game of tennis. This would not be unless the control of the game remains with our amateur tennis officials through the ILTF, the various national tennis associations such as our USLTA and so forth. . . . To relinquish such control, or even part control, in order to "put Open Tennis on the roa A fellow member of the Open Tennis Committee expressed similar views in a letter to Mr. Jones in which he stated that if open tournaments existed, there would have to be a section within the Association for the professionals. In this respect he felt that "to have a pro division of USLTA can only ultimately mean complete control of that organization by the pros. They will have the money and consequently be principal ^M inutes of Open Tennis Committee of USLTA, February 2, 1961, pp. 1-2. (Mimeographed.) 86Ibid. 172 contributors to its support." 87 ' He also stated that "I am firmly of the opinion that the day 'Open Tennis' becomes a reality, amateur tennis as we have known it will be no more. The press has claimed for years that the majority of players want an open tournament. The following statement was made in 1934 by Mr. Clifford Sutter who was at that time the number four ranking American player. I don't really care whether there is an open tournament or not. 1 would definitely not play in it. Such a tournament would not help amateur tennis at all, but it would be a great boon to the professionals, a real life-saver. You can't compare the proposed tennis open to an open tournament in golf. In golf, the amateurs would have a hard time trying to win the Open Championship, but in tennis the first ten amateurs could easily top the first ten pro fessionals. The pros are the headliners in golf just as the ama teurs are the headliners in tennis. Chuck McKinley, number one ranking American player in 1963 and 1964, referred to the possibility of an open in an article in World Tennis. He stated, "When most people talk about open tennis, they are kidding themselves. They will have "Pro tennis" because everyone will be a pro. " 87 Letter to Perry T. Jones from Reese H. Taylor, February 22, 1960. (Mimeographed.) 88Ibid. ^"Amateur Players Ask for Open Tennis, " The Literary Digest (February 17, 1934), pp. 34-35. 90chuck McKinley, "My Life and Times, " World Tennis XII (March, 1965), p. 34. 173 McKinley is not alone in his views although most players seem to favor a type of open as an experiment. Yet, many authorities fear that if one such tournament was held, even as an experiment, it would lead to others. Another strong argument presented by opponents of the open is the question of expenses for players. Mr. Ward commented on this matter in his aforementioned report. A double standard of players' expenses in the same tourna ments, —a lower scale for amateurs and a higher scale for professionals, —would create complications which would be demoralizing. Our amateur expense regulations would be easier to evade, more difficult to control and almost impossi ble to enforce. The pressure would be to relax our rules, to increase expense allowances to amateurs, to meet the profes sionals scale, and to permit our players to make what money they could, directly or indirectly, from their expense accounts. 91 The feelings of the leaders against the open tennis question are summarized by the following remarks by Mr. Ward: The USLTA cannot be expected to alter its fundamental objectives, to bring about changes in the rules, and to employ the resources of the Association and its members to perpetuate the earning power of playing professionals by throwing our tournaments or matches wide open to them. To do that would be to abandon the main objective for which the USLTA has been organized—to maintain tennis as an amateur sport. Q?yu 91 Ward, op. cit., p. 6. 9^Ibid., p. 4. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter the purpose of the study, the procedure used in writing the dissertation, and the findings of the investigation are summarized. In addition, some additional conclusions are listed. Sum m ary Purpose of the study The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the USLTA with respect to its amateur code. The Association's belief in the principles of amateurism has resulted in many ramifications over the years. In order to accomplish the study it was necessary to examine the history of the game of lawn tennis in the United States, the history of the United States Lawn Tennis Association, and the history of the International Lawn Tennis Federation as it related to the USLTA in matters concerning amateurism. A secondary purpose of this disser tation was to trace the development of the open tournament controversy and present the arguments on both sides of the question. 174 P rocedure Material for the study was collected in the following manner: 1. Examination of all the printed material on lawn tennis including books, periodicals, and tennis guides. 2. Investigation of the minutes of USLTA meetings from 1881- 1966. 3. Personal interviews with tennis players, both amateur and professional; tennis reporters; and officials of the USLTA. 4. Examination of Committee Reports in the USLTA files. The history and interpretation of amateurism in the USLTA The USLTA, which was organized in 1881, is not only the first amateur sports governing body in the United States but is also the oldest lawn tennis association in the world. This expansive organization has been the dominant force behind amateur tennis in this country. Through its influence the game has grown from one just for the wealthy to one of the most popular individual sports within the reach of all regardless of economic circumstance. In Article I of the Constitution of the USLTA the purpose of the organization is stated as follows: The USLTA is a nation-wide non-commercial membership organization devoted to the development of tennis as a means 176 of healthful recreation and physical fitness and to the maintenance of high standards of amateurism, fair play and sportsmanship. * The Association was founded on the idealistic premise that tennis was a game for amateurs or in other words, no profit should be derived from participation. Concurrently, the USLTA has been directed over the years by officers who carried out their duties on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, the game has grown to its present proportions due to the dedication and effort of countless volunteer leaders throughout the coun try. The current figure of eight million tennis players in the United States is a creditable tribute to the Association and its programs which have been for the purpose of promotion. More than ninety-nine percent of these eight million players are amateur whereby they play for the complete enjoyment they derive from the game. In other words, these players fulfill the Association's definition of an amateur which states that a person is an amateur who "does not receive and has not received pecuniary advantage by the playing, teaching, demonstrating, or pursuit of the g a m e ." 2 However, a small percentage do realize "pecuniary advantage" from the game and are classified as amateurs. The Associ ation has been aware of this fact and has regarded the matter with grave concern through the years. This problem coupled with the open tourna ment question have provided the USLTA with its most controversial ^SLTA, The Official USLTA Yearbook 1966, p. 304. 2Ibid. p. 316. issues in its history. They appear to transcend almost every other subject in matter of importance that the Association has handled. Despite adverse criticism the USLTA has tried to be objective in its treatment of these topics always keeping in mind its belief in the Amateur Code. The growth of international play stimulated by the inauguration of the Davis Cup resulted in the formation of the International Lawn Tennis Federation. Due to this Federation, encompassing all the tennis nations, the rules and regulations for the game of tennis are standard throughout the world. In addition, this international governing body has attempted to be the clearing house for a similar interpretation of the Amateur Code by the lawn tennis associations of the respective countries. Since an open tennis proposal has never received enough votes for adoption, it is a matter of conjecture whether open tournaments would help or hinder tennis as an amateur sport. Nonetheless, the primary consideration has always been that open tennis should be permitted only if it does not affect the amateur game. The United States Lawn Tennis Association has functioned for eighty-five years as the governing body for amateur tennis. It has weathered good times and bad times and controversy and dissention. It appears that no issue will be great enough to destroy the Association's belief in its amateur principle. 178 Conclusions Most of the conclusions of this study are mentioned in the body of the dissertation. However, a few in particular deserve further clarifi cation. 1. It appears obvious that the chief weakness of the Association's Amateur Code has been the policy of "penalty after the crime. " In other words, the Code is written in nebulous terms until legislation is enacted against a previous permissable practice. Perhaps the Association can be excused by not being able to foresee how individuals can ingeniously misinterpret the letter and spirit of the rules. However, when an infrac tion first appears, the Association's handling of the matter has followed a similar pattern. Instead of immediately issuing a prohibitive measure the Association seemingly waits until the practice reaches larger pro portions. For example, it has been mentioned previously that a new infraction is occurring concerning payments for the use of rackets. It is inconceivable that the officials are unaware of this violation of the Amateur Code. Yet, if history repeats itself, the USLTA will allow this situation to continue until the practice becomes so flagrant that regula tions will be necessary. 2. Enforcement of the Amateur Code, especially in regard to exaggerated expense money, could be facilitated if violators were more severely punished. There is no denying that it is difficult to gather evi- 179 dence to prefer charges against a player or a tournament official for receiving or giving more money than the rule allows. However, when evidence is found, the usual punishment is rather lenient. The player is suspended from amateur competition for a number of months and the club represented by the official is issued a stern warning. Perhaps, if it was a known fact that all violations would be treated with extreme severity, transgressions would be minimized. 3. The problems of amateurism on the international scene are involved with issues concerning attitude and philosophy toward the Ama teur Code. It seems that anytime the problems concerning this matter appear difficult the ILTF appoints committees to study the situation. Meanwhile, the various interpretations of the Code continue unchecked. Perhaps it is unrealistic to hope that all tennis countries can have the same Code for its players. Yet, it is obvious that some nations do not attempt to follow the ILTF rules concerning amateurism. Therefore, the ILTF needs a strong enforcement rule whereby violations of the Code are treated with severity. Otherwise, flagrant disregard of the rules by some nations will continue as in the past. The presentation of the study has indicated that the problems con fronting the USLTA and the ILTF with regard to amateurism are difficult and complex. Perhaps all encompassing solutions will never be possible but it is evident that both the USLTA and the ILTF have made sincere efforts in this direction through the years. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Beaufort, the Duke of (ed.). The Badminton. Library of Sports and Pastimes. London: Longsman, Green, and Company, 1890. Berry, Elmer. The Philosophy of Athletics. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1927. Bingham, Norman W. , Jr. (ed.). The Book of Athletics and Out-of- Door Sports. Boston: Lothrop Publishing Company, 1895. Bouverie, E. O. P. and A. C. Ainger. The Badminton Library. London: Longsman, Green, and Company, 1894. Browne, Mary K. Design for Tennis. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1949. Buchanan, Lamont. The Story of Tennis. New York: The Vanguard Press, Inc., 1951. Budge, J. Donald. Budge on Tennis. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1939. Burchell, H. P. (ed.). Spalding’s Official Lawn Tennis Annual. New York: American Sports Publishing Company, 1913. Cooke, Sarah Palfrey. Winning Tennis. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. , 1946. Coombe, D. C. A History of the Davis Cup. London: Hennel Locke Limited, 1949. Cozens, Frederick W. and Florence S. Stumpf. Sports in American Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953. 180 181 Cummings, Parke. American Tennis. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1957. Danzig, Allison and Peter Brandwein (ed.). Sports' Golden Age. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948. Dewhurst, Edward B. The Science of Lawn Tennis. Philadelphia: Innes and Sons, 1910. Dulles, Foster Rhea. America Learns to Play. New York: D. Apple- ton-Century Company, 1940. Durant, John (ed.). Yesterday in Sports. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1956. ______, and Otto Bettmann. Pictorial History of American Sports. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1952. Gibson, Althea. I Always Wanted To Be Somebody. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Hardy, Samuel (ed.). Tennis Annual 1930. New York: American Sports Publishing Company, 1930. Hill yard, Commander G. W. Forty Years of First Class Lawn Tennis. London: Williams and Norgate, Limited, 1924. Jacobs, William P. (ed.). Tennis-Builder of Citizenship. South C arolina: Jacobs P re s s , 1943. Kramer, Jack. How to Win at Tennis. Chicago: Ziff-Davis Publishing Company, 1949. Marble, Alice. The Road to Wimbledon. New York: Charles S crib n er's Sons, 1946. Menke, Frank G. The Encyclopedia of Sports. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, I960. Merrihew, S. Wallis. The Quest of the Davis Cup. New York: American Lawn Tennis, Inc., 1928. 182 Moss, Edward B. (ed.). The Official United States Lawn Tennis Association Tennis Guide with the Official Rules, 1942. New York: A. S. B arnes and Company, 1942. Myers, A. Wallis. The Story of the Davis Cup. London: Methuen and Company, Lim ited, 1913. Paret, J. Parmly. Lawn Tennis. New York: The Macmillan Company 1904 . Methods and Players of Modern Lawn Tennis. New York: American Lawn Tennis, Inc. , 1931. Perry, Fred J. Perry on Tennis. Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1937. Potter, Edward C. Jr. Kings of the Court. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936. . Kings of the Court. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, In c ., 1963. Report of the American Olympic Committee. Connecticut: The Cond^ Nast Press, 1920. Rice, Grantland. The Tumult and the Shouting. New York: A. S. B arnes and Company, 1954. Rogers, Agnes. Women are Here to Stay. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Slocum, H. W. Jr. Lawn Tennis in our own Country. New York: A. G. Spalding and Brothers, 1890. Smyth, Brigadier J. G. Lawn Tennis. London: B. T. Batsford Limited, 1953. Steiner, Jesse F. Americans at Play. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. ,1933. Tunis, John R. The American Way in Sport. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1958. United States Lawn Tennis Association. Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States. Massachusetts! Plimpton Press, 1931. 183 . The Official United States Lawn Tennis Association Year book and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1950. New York: Tennis Publications, Inc., 1950. . The Official United States Lawn Tennis Association Year book and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1963. New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1963. ______. The Official United States Lawn Tennis Association Year book and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1964. New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc. , 1964. ______. The Official United States Lawn Tennis Association Year book and Tennis Guide with the Officiaf Rules 1965. New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1965. ______. The Official United States Lawn Tennis Association Year book and Tennis Guide with the Official Rules 1966. New York: H. O. Zimman, Inc., 1966. Umminger, Walter. Supermen, Heroes and Gods. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963. Van Dalen, Deobold B ., Elmer D. Mitchell and Bruce L. Bennett. A World History of Physical Education. New York: Prentice - Hall, Inc. , 1953. Weaver, Robert B. Amusements and Sports in American Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. Whitman, Malcolm D. Tennis Origins and Mysteries. New York*. The Derrydale Press, 1932. Wright, Irving C. (ed.). Lawn Tennis Guide for 1916. Boston: Wright and Ditson, 1916. . Lawn Tennis Guide for 1917. Boston: Wright and Ditson, 1917. . Lawn Tennis Guide for 1918. Boston: Wright and Ditson, 1918. . Lawn Tennis Guide for 1919. Boston: Wright and Ditson, 1919. 184 B. PERIODICALS "A Letter to Major McNair, " American Lawn Tennis, XVI (June 15, 1922), 115. "A New Man at the Helm, " Tennis U .S.A ., XXVII (March, 1964), 5. "All C om ers, 11 A m erican Lawn Tennis, VI (April 15, 1912), 89. "Amateur Players Ask for Open Tennis, " The Literary Digest, CXVII (F ebruary 17, 1934), 34-35. American Lawn Tennis, XIV (October 15, 1920), 480. American Lawn Tennis, XVI (December 15, 1922), 542. "Around the World, " World Tennis, X (February, 1963), 56. "Around the World, " World Tennis, XIII (November, 1965), 58. "Around the World, 11 World Tennis, IX (March, 1962), 58. "Around the World, " World Tennis, XII (May, 1965), 77. "Around the World, " World Tennis, XIII (June, 1965), 76-77. Barnes, George E. "1961 in Review and a Look Ahead, " The Official USLTA News (January-February, 1962), 2. "Changes in Tennis Rules, " Official Tennis-Badminton Guide (June 1956-June 1958), 40. "Davis Cup, Age 64, In Spring Check Up, " Tennis U .S.A ., XXVII (May, 1964), 12. Deford, Frank. "A Man to lead the Pros out of the Darkness, " Sports Illustrated, XXIV (June 20, 1966), 60. "Diamond Jubilee of the USLTA, " Lawn Tennis Library Record, XXXII (August, 1956), 2. Greenwood, Ros. "1964 Federation Cup Competition, " Tennis U .S.A ., XXVII (December, 1964), 8. 185 Heldman, C. and J. Joubert. "25 Years Ago, " World Tennis, X (October, 1962), 56. "How Can we save Tennis and the Amateur Status? An Interview with Jean Borotra by 'Tennis de France1 (1959), " Lawn Tennis Library Record (February, I960), 3. "ILTF Annual Meeting, " The Official USLTA News (August, 1962), 2. "International Lawn Tennis Association, " Official Program Lawn Tennis Championships of the United States-Women's Singles and Doubles (1925), 29. ! "ILTF, " American Lawn Tennis, XVI (March 15, 1923), 656. Jacobs, Helen Hull. "The Case for a Woman's Davis Cup Team, " World Tennis, IV (July, 1956), 12. Kane, Martin. "Open the Door, Stockholm, " Sports Illustrated, XX (July 10, 1961), 16. Laney, Al. "Greats of Previous Era Established Selves on Circuit, " Davis Cup Challenge Round United States Lawn Tennis Association Championships Magazine (1964) (no pagination). Lardner, John. "Simon Pure Psychosis, " Newsweek LIV (August 3, 1959), 75. McGann, George. "Don McNamara Wins Sept. Marlboro Award, " World Tennis, XIII (September, 1965), 39. McKinley, Chuck. "My Life and Times, " World Tennis, XII (March, 1965), 34. "Open Tennis Resolution, " The Official USLTA News (January-Febru- ary, 1963), 5. Potter, Ned. "Open Squelched by Federation, " American Lawn Tennis, XXVII (April 20, 1933), 5. . "The Old Question of the Open Tournament, " World Tennis, III (January, 1956), 17. _ . "Passing Shots, " World Tennis, X (December, 1962), 28. _ . "Passing Shots, " World Tennis, VIII (May, 1961), 19. 186 . "Passing Shots, " World Tennis, X (September, 1962), 34. . "1963 USLTA Annual Meeting, " The Official USLTA News (January-February, 1963), 2. . "The Davis Cup, " World Tennis, XI (June, 1963), 60. . "Passing Shots, "World Tennis,XI (July, 1963), 35. . "Passing Shots, "World Tennis, IX (January, 1962), 20-21. . "Passing Shots, "World Tennis, IX (April, 1962), 30. "Reviving the Olympic Games, " American Lawn Tennis, XXXIX (September 15, 1945), 15. "Robert S. Malaga Now Assistant to P res., " Tennis U. S. A. , XXVIII (June, 1965), 6. "Santana Wins Record Smashing US Singles, " Tennis U.S.A. , XXVIII (November, 1965), 4. "Schism in the USLTA, " World Tennis, XII (March, 1965), 14. "Seeding the Draw, " American Lawn Tennis, XXIV (September 5, 1930), 452. "Scorecard, " Sports Illustrated, XXIII (December 6, 1965), 33. Talbert, Bill. "An Open Letter to the USLTA, " Sports Illustrated, XXI (February 5, 1962), 46. "Tennis as the National Amateur Game, " The Literary Digest, LXIX (April 9, 1921), 60. "The Continentals, " Newsweek, XLVI (August 29, 1955), 46. "The President’s Column, " The Official USLTA News (August, 1961), 1. "USLTA," Tennis, U .S.A ., XXVII (May, 1964), 12. "USLTA Pres. Addresses Delaware LTA Meeting," The Official USLTA News, CCCXIV (November, 1963), 4. Ward, Holcombe. "Amateur Tennis and the USLTA, " USLTA Service Bulletin (Special Issue, 1946), 3-6. 187 "We have the Horses, " Tennis U.S.A. , XXIX (March, 1966), 14. "Wightman Cup, " Official Program Lawn Tennis Championships of the United States—Women's Singles and Doubles (1925), 24. C. NEWSPAPERS Boston Herald, April 15, 1965. Columbus D ispatch, June 12, 1966. Denver Post, February 5, 1965. New York Herald Tribune, February 10, 1966. D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL FOUND AT USLTA OFFICE "Addenda to memo on Amateurism and Player Expense Regulations dated 7/1/60." July 12, 1960. (Mimeographed.) Barde, Charles. "The ILTF, " A Report submitted to the Annual Meeting of the ILTF, July 7» 1953. (Mimeographed.) . A Report Submitted to the ILTF Special Committee on Ama teurism, January, 1958. (Typewritten.) Barnes, George E. "1961 in Review and A Look Ahead, " February 2, 1962. (M im eographed.) Copy of letter sent to various member nations of ILTF in March, I960. (Mimeographed.) Danzig, Allison, "The Great Tennis Schism, " New York Times, February 24, I960. (Mimeographed.) Hackenberg, Dick "Barnes: We won't Buy Davis Cup, " Chicago Sun Times, October 22, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Letter from George E. Barnes to Julian S. Myrick, July 27, 1961. (Mimeographed.) 188 Letter from George E. Barnes to Mr. S. B. Reay, Secretary ILTF, February 6, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Letter from Harold Lebair to Asa Bushnell, October 28, 1965. Letter to Perry T. Jones from Reese H. Taylor, February 22, I960. (Mimeographed.) Memo to Tressel, Denny, and Baker from Lebair, June 8, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Minutes of Meeting of Sports Governing Bodies, March 17, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Minutes of the Open Tennis Committee of the USLTA, 1961. (Mimeo graphed. ) Minutes of Meeting of the Amateur Rule Committee of the USLTA, September 7, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Minutes of Meetings of the USLTA from 1881-1966. 1961 Report of the USLTA Amateur Rules Committee. (Mimeographed.) 1961 Report of the Davis Cup Committee. (Mimeographed.) "Olympic Tennis Demands, " ILTF Annual Meeting, March, 1931. (Mimeographed.) President Turville's Acceptance Speech, January 22, 1962. (Mimeo graphed. ) on Amateurism, January, I960. (Mimeographed.) Report of Open Tennis Committee, February 3, 1961. (Mimeographed.) "The Lawn Tennis Association of Australia Davis Cup Draw 1966, " (Mimeographed.) "To Officers, Members of the Executive Committee, and Sectional Presidents, " November 21, 1962. (Mimeographed.) United States Lawn Tennis Association. "A Historical Sketch of the United States Lawn Tennis Association." 1956. (Mimeographed.) 189 E. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Avery, Peter Stults. "Evolution of the Rules of Lawn Tennis, " Unpub lished Master's Thesis, Springfield College, 1956. DuPont, Margaret Osborne. "International Tennis, " 1965. (Mimeo graphed. ) . Amateur player, letter to author, December 9, 1965. Hendrix, John William. "Factors Influencing Playing Styles In Tennis. " Unpublished Ed. D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1955. Varner, Margaret. Amateur player, letter to author, November 13, 1965. F. PERSONAL INTERVIEWS Bricka, Justina. Amateur player, at Longwood Cricket Club, August 24, 1965. Collins, Bud. Reporter, at Longwood Cricket Club, August 25, 1965. Danzig, Allison. Reporter, at New York Times Building, April 1, 1966. Davies, Mike. Professional player, at Longwood Cricket Club, July 14, 1965. Dollard, William. USLTA official, at Longwood Cricket Club, August 30, 1965. Fales, Donna Floyd. Amateur player, at Essex Country Club, August 21, 1965. Graebner, Carole. Amateur player, at West Side Tennis Club, Septem ber 6, 1965. Graebner, Clark. Amateur player, at Longwood Cricket Club, August 30, 1965. Grayson, Alan. Reporter, at West Side Tennis Club, September 6, 1965. Gunderson, Belmar. Amateur player, at Essex Country Club, August 21, 1965. 190 Hobart, Donald. USLTA official, at West Side Tennis Club, September 5, 1965. King, Billie Jean Moffitt. Amateur player, at Essex Country Club, August 20, 1965. Lewis, Mrs. Monroe. USLTA official, at West Side Tennis Club, Septem ber 5, 1965. MacKay, Barry. Professional player, at Longwood Cricket Club, July 15, 1965. Malaga, Robert. USLTA official, at West Side Tennis Club, September 5, 1965. Scott, Gene. Amateur player, at West Side Tennis Club, September 6, 1965. Sorlien, Richard. USLTA official, at West Side Tennis Club, Septem ber 6, 1965. Sparrow, Titus. USLTA umpire, at Essex Country Club, August20, 1965. Susman, Karen Hantze. Amateur player, at West Side Tennis Club, Septem ber 5, 1965. Talbert, William. Amateur player, at Longwood Cricket Club, August 24, 1965. Tressel, Martin. USLTA official, at West Side Tennis Club, September 6 , 1965. Wightman, Hazel Hotchkiss. USLTA official, at Chestnut Hill, M assa chusetts, January 29, 1964.