Talk:U.S. Pro Tennis Championships

Official title vs. Unofficial title

We now have a source from 1957 stating that the Cleveland event was officially known as the Cleveland World Pro. Kramer's remarks about the Cleveland being the U.S. Pro "that year" derive from 1979, and do not claim that "U.S. Pro" was an official name for the Cleveland event. It was an unofficial name in 1957, because the IPTA organization, which had given approval to the designation "U.S. Pro" to Cleveland for the early fifties no longer existed/. Check out the contemporary source, Sports Illustrated, 22 April 1957, "...officially known as the World Pro Tennis Championships." https://vault.si.com/vault/1957/04/22/a-class-reunion . There is no doubt now.Tennisedu (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Billed name is what it was. If you recall, other editors didnt even want the billed name listed as they, like me, know this event as the US Pro. I thought it fair to list both names. It seems clear from Kramer's remarks that he designated Cleveland as US Pro at the time (hence the reason he did not hold his own version most years). Also there are contemporary sources referring to the event as US Pro. On the pro tour between 1952 and 1962, the term "unofficial" is usually an inaccurate label to apply to Jack Kramer, because the guy effectively ran top level pro tennis for men's touring pros. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The term "billed name" does not appear in the sources. What does appear in the sources is "official name", and your so-called "billed name" is your own invention, not in the sources. The name used in a billing IS the official name, so your distinction is spurious in any event. Jack Kramer did not run the Cleveland event, it was Jack March who did that, and insisted on the name "World Pro", and even warned of suing Kramer for infringing on the World Pro name with the world pro tours. Your Kramer source is not contemporary, it is from1979, when Kramer was long since no longer an official with any connection to the Cleveland event. Sports Illustrated calling World Pro the "official" name suggests that there was an unofficial name, which survived in occasional blurbs in those few newspaper references you found. But SI makes clear that the official name was World Pro.Tennisedu (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your POV pushing on this issue is relentless. A billed name is something the event was billed as. Your remarks about the term billed are fantasies. This is what the term is described as if you type it into the google dictionary, which contains definitions from Oxford Languages:

bill verb

past tense: billed; past participle: billed

1. list (a person or event) in a programme.

"they were billed to appear but did not show up"

Similar: advertise, promote, announce, post

I have already thoroughly debunked your theory about the US Pro being a retrospective designation, as not only is it clear from the remarks Kramer made, but I also provided the list of contemporary sources referring to the event as US Pro. Lew Hoad did not win this event. Please come to terms with this and be at peace with it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with Hoad, by the time Hoad played at Cleveland its status as a major had already declined. Kramer himself did not regard the Cleveland as a major tournament in 1958. That is not the point. The point is clear here, "billed" is not in the sources, "official" is in the sources. Nothing more needs to be said than that. Cleveland World Pro was the official name, "billed" does not have any source to back it up.Tennisedu (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)