PDA

View Full Version : A Great Wikipedia Article.. Must Read


whistleway
03-04-2007, 10:26 AM
I came across this excellent wikipedia article:

World number ones since 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings)

It has a lot of great research and I provide an excerpt:

Male tennis players No. 1 since 1913

8 years Pancho Gonzales, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
7 years Bill Tilden, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931
7 years Rod Laver, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970
6 years Jack Kramer, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953
6 years Ken Rosewall, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1970
6 years Pete Sampras, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998
5 years Fred Perry, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1941
5 years Don Budge, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942
4 years Ellsworth Vines, 1932, 1935, 1936, 1937
4 years Björn Borg, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980
3 years Henri Cochet, 1928, 1929, 1930
3 years Bobby Riggs, 1941, 1946, 1947
3 years Jimmy Connors, 1974, 1976, 1982
3 years John McEnroe, 1981, 1983, 1984
3 years Ivan Lendl, 1985, 1986, 1987
3 years Roger Federer, 2004, 2005, 2006

It seems very comprehensive. Knowledgeable fans from this board, please contribute to that article. This article to me, is the best I have seen online that is comprehensive and very informative.

Thanks

scineram
03-04-2007, 10:35 AM
Looks like some POV and original research, so problematic on wikipedia.

chaognosis
03-04-2007, 10:53 AM
I know the article and have made a few small contributions to it, but yes it is quite controversial ... though it is a good attempt at correcting the obviously false all-amateur 'number one' rankings you find in books like Bud Collins's Total Tennis. The problem, of course, is how to weight amateur success and pro dominance in the pre-open years. The original author of that article I know to be a big fan of Pancho Gonzales, and he has written many of the tennis articles so that they are 'pro-Gonzales' in one way or another. I myself am less inclined to give the pros a free pass over all the amateurs from 1948-1967. For example, Hoad's lackluster pro debut in late 1957 does not PROVE that he was 'under the best pros' in his great year 1956 ... it rather shows that he was not well suited to the pro format, though he did improve in 1958 and '59. Also, I find it very hard to compare Emerson's great amateur years in the mid-60s with Rosewall/Laver as pros; much like comparing amateur Perry and pro Vines in in the mid-30s.

In my own view, Cochet should retain number one status in 1931 over Tilden (this would be controversial). Perry should be the undisputed number one for 1934-36, and Budge for 1937-38, leaving Vines only 1932. Kramer I believe was better than Riggs already in 1946 and remained at number one into the early '50s. I give Hoad 1956, but the rest of the mid-to-late '50s go to Gonzales. Rosewall has 1961, '63, possibly '64, while Laver gets his Grand Slam year (1962) and the late '60s. I put Newcombe second to Laver in 1967, and I give him full number one status in 1970 and '71, and possibly even '73 (though I could be biased as I much prefer him over Nastase).

For the open years, the article makes many of the right calls. Ashe was the true number one for 1975. I give Vilas 1977, but Borg certainly gets 1978-80. McEnroe gets 1981, '83-84, while Connors was number one in 1982 for his Wimbledon/US wins. Lendl gets 1985-87, then Wilander gets 1988 and Becker gets 1989. Edberg has his two years (1990-91), followed by Courier (1992), then six straight years for Sampras ... though Agassi is a close number two in 1995. Agassi gets 1999, Kuerten gets 2000 (narrowly over Safin), Hewitt has two years (2001-02). I actually give Federer 2003 over Roddick, on the basis of Wimbledon and the form he reached at year's end, winning the Master's Cup. That is a close call though. And of course, Federer at number one for 2004-present.

armand
03-04-2007, 10:54 AM
Poor Jimmy got shafted! Big time. Six ways from Sunday.

The Gorilla
03-04-2007, 11:01 AM
I know the article and have made a few small contributions to it, but yes it is quite controversial ... though it is a good attempt at correcting the obviously false all-amateur 'number one' rankings you find in books like Bud Collins's Total Tennis. The problem, of course, is how to weight amateur success and pro dominance in the pre-open years. The original author of that article I know to be a big fan of Pancho Gonzales, and he has written many of the tennis articles so that they are 'pro-Gonzales' in one way or another. I myself am less inclined to give the pros a free pass over all the amateurs from 1948-1967. For example, Hoad's lackluster pro debut in late 1957 does not PROVE that he was 'under the best pros' in his great year 1956 ... it rather shows that he was not well suited to the pro format, though he did improve in 1958 and '59. Also, I find it very hard to compare Emerson's great amateur years in the mid-60s with Rosewall/Laver as pros; much like comparing amateur Perry and pro Vines in in the mid-30s.

In my own view, Cochet should retain number one status in 1931 over Tilden (this would be controversial). Perry should be the undisputed number one for 1934-36, and Budge for 1937-38, leaving Vines only 1932. Kramer I believe was better than Riggs already in 1946 and remained at number one into the early '50s. I give Hoad 1956, but the rest of the mid-to-late '50s go to Gonzales. Rosewall has 1961, '63, possibly '64, while Laver gets his Grand Slam year (1962) and the late '60s. I put Newcombe second to Laver in 1967, and I give him full number one status in 1970 and '71, and possibly even '73 (though I could be biased as I much prefer him over Nastase).

For the open years, the article makes many of the right calls. Ashe was the true number one for 1975. I give Vilas 1977, but Borg certainly gets 1978-80. McEnroe gets 1981, '83-84, while Connors was number one in 1982 for his Wimbledon/US wins. Lendl gets 1985-87, then Wilander gets 1988 and Becker gets 1989. Edberg has his two years (1990-91), followed by Courier (1992), then six straight years for Sampras ... though Agassi is a close number two in 1995. Agassi gets 1999, Kuerten gets 2000 (narrowly over Safin), Hewitt has two years (2001-02). I actually give Federer 2003 over Roddick, on the basis of Wimbledon and the form he reached at year's end, winning the Master's Cup. That is a close call though. And of course, Federer at number one for 2004-present.



but you can't do that Federer wasn't the year end number 1 of 2003, he accumalated less points than Roddick.

chaognosis
03-04-2007, 11:10 AM
I think there's some value to a more sensitive approach, b/c sometimes the numbers simply do get it wrong (as they did in 1975, '77, '78, '82 and '89). You'll notice that often all the top tennis magazines disagree with the computer rankings and issue different rankings of their own. The computer system is in place, and its purpose is to determine the seedings for tournaments, but one does not NEED to accept its word as final as far as year-end number ones are concerned ... in fact, in some cases one really shouldn't. Just as an example, if Nadal had beaten Federer at Wimbledon last year and the rest of the year followed as it did, Federer would have had more points than Nadal ... but virtually ANY expert would have ranked Nadal number one over Federer. Of course that didn't happen, so the 2006 number one was an easy choice. But you sometimes have to look beyond the numbers, b/c the computer only does what it's programmed to do ... it can't be sensitive to ALL the factors.

A more extreme example: I think it's statistically possible for a player to win the Grand Slam but NOT finish the year at number one. Would you be prepared to accept the computer ranking in that case? I assure you, every tennis journalist in the world would not.

The Gorilla
03-04-2007, 11:24 AM
Could you give your definition of the number one please?

chaognosis
03-04-2007, 11:29 AM
The best player in the world for a given year.

The question is how to define 'best player.'

Thus you can have the official computer rankings, but every tennis magazine is also free to make their own year-end rankings. (When there were no computer rankings, this is the way it was always done.) This is nothing new. Look back to 1975, probably the best example. The computer ranked Connors number one ... he had the most 'points' according to the system arbitrarily designed by tour officials. But EVERY expert in the world thought that Ashe was actually the best player that year, which is why after looking at all the evidence, that Wikipedia article ranks Ashe #1 over Connors.

The Gorilla
03-04-2007, 11:33 AM
The best player in the world for a given year.

The question is how to define 'best player.'

Thus you can have the official computer rankings, but every tennis magazine is also free to make their own year-end rankings. (When there were no computer rankings, this is the way it was always done.) This is nothing new. Look back to 1975, probably the best example. The computer ranked Connors number one ... he had the most 'points' according to the system arbitrarily designed by tour officials. But EVERY expert in the world thought that Ashe was actually the best player that year, which is why after looking at all the evidence, that Wikipedia article ranks Ashe #1 over Connors.



Yeah, I get what you're saying, but isn't the whole point of ranking points per victory supposed to attribute value to each victory accordingly?Do you think the present system is flawed, and if so how?

urban
03-04-2007, 11:51 AM
The article was originally, as Chaognosis said, made by editor, who favored Gonzales quite a bit, was revised by a French contributor, who dug deep into the researches of McCauley, Sutter and others.Alongside some other guys, I did some contributions on the discussion side, which went into the article. Yes, it is sometimes controversial, but on the other hand, the ATP webside stats, on which most journalists and so called experts rely, are highly incomplete or simply wrong. You only have to look on the ITF webside and the many events in the early open era, which are completely ignored by the ATP, to see that. The problem for pre open era is, that it is speculation, to rank the pros against the amateurs, because they played different circuits. As Chaognosis points out, who knows, what Hoad would have done in his great year 1956, with all the pros in the field. So its more a compilation of the professional Nr. 1 over the years. Also, in the early 70s, its difficult to reconstruct solid rankings, because there was no computer ranking, and many majors were played by depleted fields. For instance for 1970, on modern ranking calculations, on the basis of the gradual points system of majors, Super Nine Events, and smaller events, Laver would have been Nr. 1 with ca. 1100 points, with Rosewall second with 950 points, and Newcombe, the Wimbledon winner, a distant third. I agree with some observations by Chaognosis, but i would rank Nastase over Newcombe in 1973, due to his more consistent record. The ATP computer rankings, with its often intransparent arithmetics, didn't tell always the true story: Connors certainly wasn't Nr. 1 in 75, or 77, or 78, but he was real Nr.1 in 1982, when the computer had Mac first.

BreakPoint
03-04-2007, 12:00 PM
The best player in the world for a given year.

Then how could BOTH Gonzales and Rosewall be the best player for 1960? And how could BOTH Laver and Rosewall be the best player for 1970?

And how could Rosewall, and NOT Laver be the best player for 1962, a year in which Laver won ALL FOUR Grand Slams? And how could Borg, and NOT Vilas be the best player in 1977, when Vilas won 15 tournaments, including both the French Open and US Open, and had that 53 match winning streak on clay?

chaognosis
03-04-2007, 12:19 PM
Then how could BOTH Gonzales and Rosewall be the best player for 1960? And how could BOTH Laver and Rosewall be the best player for 1970?

And how could Rosewall, and NOT Laver be the best player for 1962, a year in which Laver won ALL FOUR Grand Slams? And how could Borg, and NOT Vilas be the best player in 1977, when Vilas won 15 tournaments, including both the French Open and US Open, and had that 53 match winning streak on clay?

If more than one player is selected, it is b/c there is no conclusive data to make a decision. Therefore it's what's known as a 'tie.' If you read my earlier post, you'd find I disagree with some of those findings. I would rank neither Laver nor Rosewall, but rather Newcombe, number one in 1970. I also would rank Laver as the best in 1962, though there are MANY experts who put Rosewall first. The reason is that when Laver turned pro in 1963, he consistently lost to Rosewall, the pro champion, and even said that he had to learn to play tennis all over again in order to be able to beat Rosewall. (Laver did eventually take over as the undisputed pro number one in 1965.)

There is a very good case that Borg was superior to Vilas in 1977, though Vilas had probably the better record. Vilas won Roland Garros over a very depleted field ... neither Borg nor Connors were there. And despite Vilas's win streak on clay, Borg completely owned him on that surface and almost certainly would have beaten him at the French. All that said, as I wrote in my post above, I do rank Vilas first for 1977, followed by Borg. The funny thing is that the computer ranked Connors first that year, which almost nobody could agree with.

urban
03-04-2007, 12:23 PM
Now, the article may be sometimes arbitrary in his judgement, but it gives explanations and many different sources. In 1977 for instance, Connors was the 'official' ATP computer Nr.1, Borg was named Nr.1. by 'Tennis magazine' and other leading journals, and Vilas was Nr.1 called by 'World Tennis'. While Vilas had the best overall record, Borg was 3-0 head to head over him (two wins on clay, one at Masters Cup on carpet). Imo, it seems not unfair or unreasonable in such a constallation, to rank both Nr.1 equally.

chaognosis
03-04-2007, 12:33 PM
Good post, urban.

I agree that while the article contains 'original research', its aim is to find the truth, whereas most other sources are just blatantly false. As such I don't think it is at all a violation of Wikipedia policies ... and moreover, it's one of the best resources available for this complex issue.

jamumafa
03-04-2007, 12:39 PM
No. nu-uh. Laver has to be number 1 when he won all 4 slams in one year. Has to be. there is no two ways about it. rosewall having a good H2H over him means nothing IMHO

chaognosis
03-04-2007, 12:48 PM
No. nu-uh. Laver has to be number 1 when he won all 4 slams in one year. Has to be. there is no two ways about it. rosewall having a good H2H over him means nothing IMHO

I suspect you don't understand the pro/amateur divide in those days. Rosewall and other pros (who most considered to be better than any of the top amateurs) were not allowed to compete at the major tournaments. Laver himself admitted in 1963, after he joined the pro ranks, that Rosewall was a much superior player to him. So would Laver have won the Grand Slam in 1962 had Rosewall, Hoad, etc., been allowed to compete? Probably not. Would he have won even a single major tournament? Hard to say, but there's a good chance he wouldn't have.

That said, I do think the Grand Slam is such a special achievement that Laver deserves the number one spot for that year, just as Budge deserved it in 1938. Though to Budge's credit, when he turned pro the following year he actually BEAT the top pros (Vines and Perry), unlike Laver, so his '38 Slam may carry more 'weight'.

The Gorilla
03-04-2007, 12:52 PM
it definitly does.

btw, didn't Gonzalez beat the winner of wimbledon 11 years in a row in special exhibitions as he was the winner of wembley?

urban
03-04-2007, 01:01 PM
No. Gonzales won the Wembley London pro, which was a sort of Pro World Championship, 4 times, 51,52,54,56. Rosewall won it 57,60-63, 68; Laver won it 64-67,69-70.

The Gorilla
03-04-2007, 01:25 PM
No. Gonzales won the Wembley London pro, which was a sort of Pro World Championship, 4 times, 51,52,54,56. Rosewall won it 57,60-63, 68; Laver won it 64-67,69-70.

from wikipedia

''in that period, Gonzales won the United States Professional Championship eight times and the Wembley professional title in London four times, plus beating, in head-to-head tours, all of the best amateurs who turned pro, which included every Wimbledon champion for 10 years in a row. During this time Gonzales was known for his fiery will to win, his cannonball serve, and his all-conquering net game, a combination so potent that the rules on the professional tour were briefly changed in the 1950s to prohibit him from advancing to the net immediately after serving. Under the new rules, the returned serve had to bounce before the server could make his own first shot, thereby keeping Gonzales from playing his usual serve-and-volley game. He won even so, and the rules were changed back. So great was his ability to raise his game to the highest possible level, particularly in the fifth set of long matches, that Allen Fox has said that he never once saw Gonzales lose service when serving for the set or the match.''

I personally think that this tells us about the standard of the amatuer tour compared to the pro's.It was men against boys.

urban
03-04-2007, 02:13 PM
Not all Wikipedia-articles are true. As far as i know, Gonzales beat Wimbledon champs Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, and Cooper on head-to-head-tours, after losing his initial tour to Kramer. On the tour, when he beat Cooper in 1959, he lost most of his matches vs. Hoad. He won his last Wembley pro in 1956, never the French pro, and his last wins at the US pro 1959,61, were in depleted fields.

jonajjs
03-04-2007, 02:48 PM
yah.. thats right

The Gorilla
03-04-2007, 06:16 PM
Not all Wikipedia-articles are true. As far as i know, Gonzales beat Wimbledon champs Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, and Cooper on head-to-head-tours, after losing his initial tour to Kramer. On the tour, when he beat Cooper in 1959, he lost most of his matches vs. Hoad. He won his last Wembley pro in 1956, never the French pro, and his last wins at the US pro 1959,61, were in depleted fields.

very similar to sampras in so many ways.

stormholloway
03-04-2007, 07:28 PM
77 was a questionable one, but I give the nod to Vilas.

urban
03-04-2007, 11:57 PM
Yes. i would Vilas give the nod, too. But on Wikipedia you cannot fix your own opinion, as reasonable as it may be. Fact is, there were 3 players named or called Nr.1 in tennis in 1977. Even the computer ranking is somewhat subjective. The Grand Slam Cup, the richest and often very strong event in Munich in the 90s, wasn't counted in the ATP race for political reasons. It was an ITF event, and therefore banned by the ATP. In 1998, it would have an important effect on the ranking: In a year, when Sampras lead the ATP race in a very close race, Rios, who won the Munich event, would have overtaken him. And the real Nr.1 was probably Rafter, who won USO and the most Super Nine events, and played well in Davis Cup, which was also not counted in the ATP race.

The Gorilla
03-05-2007, 09:00 AM
Yes. i would Vilas give the nod, too. But on Wikipedia you cannot fix your own opinion, as reasonable as it may be. Fact is, there were 3 players named or called Nr.1 in tennis in 1977. Even the computer ranking is somewhat subjective. The Grand Slam Cup, the richest and often very strong event in Munich in the 90s, wasn't counted in the ATP race for political reasons. It was an ITF event, and therefore banned by the ATP. In 1998, it would have an important effect on the ranking: In a year, when Sampras lead the ATP race in a very close race, Rios, who won the Munich event, would have overtaken him. And the real Nr.1 was probably Rafter, who won USO and the most Super Nine events, and played well in Davis Cup, which was also not counted in the ATP race.

but players don't try as hard in in non ranking events as they do in ones that reward victory with points.Most top players don't even participate in Davis cup for example.

Tennisfan!
05-16-2008, 05:52 AM
Who's Hayford Peirce? Chao or urban?

urban
05-16-2008, 05:58 AM
I think, neither.

chaognosis
05-17-2008, 01:17 PM
I think, neither.

That is correct.

noeledmonds
05-17-2008, 04:06 PM
This is indeed a great article which has been researched and referenced in depth by several different experts (some of whom have an active presense on this board). Ultimately I think that the article does fairly well with a complex issue that there is no definitive objective answer to much of the time.

I would say however that the penultamate section entitled "Male tennis players No. 1 or Co-No. 1" is presented in a misleading way. This list weights co-number 1 and undisputed number 1 on the same level. Gonzales's 8 years ending number 1 look rather supreme but if you take out the co-number 1s from the disputable years then Gonzales actually has the same year end number 1s as Renshaw, Tilden and Sampras. Co-number 1s being included in the list benefits more ambigious years (all pre-1980) where 2 players are given the number 1 acolade. However, removing the co-number 1s from such a list all together would disadvatage this same group of player so there is no simple solution.

Edberg&Becker
07-01-2008, 12:52 PM
Look this, from wiki discussion page, what do you think?

"Andrew Tasiopoulos and Károly Mazák, very high class men, have given me their results about 6 months ago not only for 1931 but for all years and in World Tennis it is written black on white that Perry and G. Patrick Hughes were sent to the USA. Perry was the only non-US very top player who made the transatlantic player : Cochet and Austin didn't make the trip. Because of his illness Cochet didn't deserve the 1st amateur rank. I have all the available results for the Monte Carlo Cup and the Italian Chps (Sutter's book for Monte Carlo and Fumarola's book for the Italian) : for Monte Carlo some matches or rounds are missing (Sutter though helped by Alan Little couldn't find all the results before publishing his book in early 1997) but for the Italian I have all the matches (except errors) from 1st round to final. In particular in 1931 Cochet beat just good players at Monte Carlo (as George Lyttelton Rogers) but not top players and in the Italian he beat only "ordinary" players and the only good player he met was G.P. Hughes : being already ill the French couldn't resist and lost in straight sets. So Károly and I agreed 6 months ago that Vines was probably the leading amateur. But contrary to you Károly and I also agreed that Tilden was the best in 1931 because Tilden was a better all-round player than Vines in 1931 in particular on clay. Vines improved after 1931 nevertheless in the very first meetings against Tilden in 1934, Tilden led Vines though all the matches were played on fast indoor courts, Vines's best surface. Only after Vines reverse the results at the very end of their first short tour (11-9 for Vines). Then in the rest of the year 1934 Vines mastered Tilden but mainly on fast courts. Vines became a top player on clay only in 1935 when he won the French Pro beating Nüsslein (then the best pro claycourt player) winner of Tilden in the semis : this was Vines's apogee on clay. So I repeat : even at the very beginning of 1934 Tilden beat Vines on the latter's best surface so I presume that in 1931 Tilden was better than Vines on every surface.

To conclude, unhappily Andrew is not an "official" source and he hasn't published any ranking so we can't use him to rank Tilden and Vines instead of Cochet for 1931.

Other debatable year : 1913. Myers ranked Brookes co-No.2 (with McLoughlin) but Stakovich from Tennis and Golf didn't rank Brookes in the Top10 probably because Brookes didn't quit Australia. But in some aspects I don't entirely contradict Myers. Apparently in 1913 Brookes just played test matches in January and the Victorian Chp in November : in the last one he beat in the semis one Parker (for the moment I can't find if it was Harry or Ernie Parker) but defaulted in the final to Heath. I recall you that the British Isles made an Australasian tour in austral summer 1912-1913. In November the British Isles captured the Davis Cup with in particular Parke beating Brookes in five sets. Then the British team played numerous matches down under (in particular the Australasian Chp and test matches against New South Wales, Queensland, New Zealand, Sydney Metropolitan Club, Australia, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia). In early 1913 Brookes represented Australia (meeting ended on January 21, 1913) then Victoria. The Melburnian had learnt from his Davis Cup defeat to Parke not give angles to Parke and to play in the centre of the court : in those 1913 matches Brookes met Parke twice and beat it : 97 62 as an Australia representative and 63 36 63 as a Victoria player. But more amazing Brookes met Charles Percy Dixon, one of the very top player of the time, and Brookes crushed him ... 60 60. So Myers have perhaps overrated Brookes (on reputation) but not so much. The most puzzling : Charles P. Haggett, a British professional, invited by the West Side Tennis Club in early 1913, had a slight edge on McLoughlin in practice matches for the preparation of Davis Cup in early June 1913 and have beaten Wilding too in practice matches (but I don't know when and where : 1913 seems doubtful because Haggett was mainly in the States whereas Wilding was in Britain so perhaps in 1914 when Australasia played the US in Davis Cup)"

Are this users in here? German friend is urban?

Tomaz Bellucci
07-02-2008, 02:46 AM
AndrewTas is here, Karoly I don't know.

Idzznew
02-20-2009, 12:12 PM
Hello,

A month ago started a site/forum o colect as many full results, esp. pre 1968
on: http://tennis.forumpro.nl/
Would you a look and see if yu can/want to contribute?

thnxs
Alex

"Andrew Tasiopoulos and Károly Mazák, very high class men, have given me their results about 6 months ago not only for 1931 but for all years and in World Tennis it is written black on white that Perry and G. Patrick Hughes were sent to the USA. Perry was the only non-US very top player who made the transatlantic player : Cochet and Austin didn't make the trip. Because of his illness Cochet didn't deserve the 1st amateur rank. I have all the available results for the Monte Carlo Cup and the Italian Chps (Sutter's book for Monte Carlo and Fumarola's book for the Italian) : for Monte Carlo some matches or rounds are missing (Sutter though helped by Alan Little couldn't find all the results before publishing his book in early 1997) but for the Italian I have all the matches (except errors) from 1st round to final. In particular in 1931 Cochet beat just good players at Monte Carlo (as George Lyttelton Rogers) but not top players and in the Italian he beat only "ordinary" players and the only good player he met was G.P. Hughes : being already ill the French couldn't resist and lost in straight sets. So Károly and I agreed 6 months ago that Vines was probably the leading amateur. But contrary to you Károly and I also agreed that Tilden was the best in 1931 because Tilden was a better all-round player than Vines in 1931 in particular on clay. Vines improved after 1931 nevertheless in the very first meetings against Tilden in 1934, Tilden led Vines though all the matches were played on fast indoor courts, Vines's best surface. Only after Vines reverse the results at the very end of their first short tour (11-9 for Vines). Then in the rest of the year 1934 Vines mastered Tilden but mainly on fast courts. Vines became a top player on clay only in 1935 when he won the French Pro beating Nüsslein (then the best pro claycourt player) winner of Tilden in the semis : this was Vines's apogee on clay. So I repeat : even at the very beginning of 1934 Tilden beat Vines on the latter's best surface so I presume that in 1931 Tilden was better than Vines on every surface.

To conclude, unhappily Andrew is not an "official" source and he hasn't published any ranking so we can't use him to rank Tilden and Vines instead of Cochet for 1931.

Other debatable year : 1913. Myers ranked Brookes co-No.2 (with McLoughlin) but Stakovich from Tennis and Golf didn't rank Brookes in the Top10 probably because Brookes didn't quit Australia. But in some aspects I don't entirely contradict Myers. Apparently in 1913 Brookes just played test matches in January and the Victorian Chp in November : in the last one he beat in the semis one Parker (for the moment I can't find if it was Harry or Ernie Parker) but defaulted in the final to Heath. I recall you that the British Isles made an Australasian tour in austral summer 1912-1913. In November the British Isles captured the Davis Cup with in particular Parke beating Brookes in five sets. Then the British team played numerous matches down under (in particular the Australasian Chp and test matches against New South Wales, Queensland, New Zealand, Sydney Metropolitan Club, Australia, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia). In early 1913 Brookes represented Australia (meeting ended on January 21, 1913) then Victoria. The Melburnian had learnt from his Davis Cup defeat to Parke not give angles to Parke and to play in the centre of the court : in those 1913 matches Brookes met Parke twice and beat it : 97 62 as an Australia representative and 63 36 63 as a Victoria player. But more amazing Brookes met Charles Percy Dixon, one of the very top player of the time, and Brookes crushed him ... 60 60. So Myers have perhaps overrated Brookes (on reputation) but not so much. The most puzzling : Charles P. Haggett, a British professional, invited by the West Side Tennis Club in early 1913, had a slight edge on McLoughlin in practice matches for the preparation of Davis Cup in early June 1913 and have beaten Wilding too in practice matches (but I don't know when and where : 1913 seems doubtful because Haggett was mainly in the States whereas Wilding was in Britain so perhaps in 1914 when Australasia played the US in Davis Cup)"

Are this users in here? German friend is urban?[/QUOTE]

bluetrain4
02-20-2009, 12:18 PM
I've heard a lot of great stuff about Gonzalez from knowledgable tennis fans.

Is he unfairly left out of GOAT debates because of the fact he does not possess simple points of comparison to other GOAT candidates? For instance, you can't really compare his Slam total to other GOAT candidates, because he was a professional when pros didn't play the Slams and his resume and "greatness" isn't based primarily on Slams.

CyBorg
02-20-2009, 01:16 PM
The most important abstraction on tennis history on the net.

Very useful, easy to scan through, not fool-proof but a great way to begin thinking about histroy. Best of all, a fantastic alternative to counting majors.

Tomaz Bellucci
03-19-2009, 11:58 AM
The most important abstraction on tennis history on the net.

Very useful, easy to scan through, not fool-proof but a great way to begin thinking about histroy. Best of all, a fantastic alternative to counting majors.

Agree with you, please take three minutes and read it

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-24-2009, 06:54 AM
AndrewTas is here, Karoly I don't know.

This is I who wrote that stuff about the year 1931, in the discussion page of Wikipedia to answer jeffreyneave who wished that I place Vines co-N°1 for 1931 in the article, given Andrew's stats for that year that he listed himself in tt.tennis-warehouse. But in Wikipedia you are supposed to be neutral and to use established sources and unfortunately Andrew's excel files aren't considered as known sources. Apparently most people use Myers' amateur ranking as the Bible (but shouldn't). Myers only ranked Vines #3 amateur. However Myers often made rankings on reputation as in 1919 when he admittedly recognized that he ranked Brookes 6th amateur in 1919 on prestige. In 1913 he also co-ranked Brookes n°2 though the Australian played very little as I said before (I found Brookes' 1913 results in Ayres' Almanack 1914 edited by ... Myers). In 1931 Myers also ranked Cochet on reputation but one can't really blame Myers for that because Vines was pretty unknown then (his first great win was the Pacific Southwest in September 1930 and above all Vines, because he was not selected in the US Davis Cup team in spring 1931, didn't play in Europe that year. So Myers could have ranked Vines higher retrospectively when he first saw Vines playing superbly at Wimby in 1932 but then Myers would have set a precedent.

Károly is not a member of tt.tennis-warehouse.