PDA

View Full Version : Vilas was never nš1?


BERDI4
02-19-2005, 03:17 PM
I heard that Vilas has never been nš1. Is this true? Didn't he win 62 tournaments (don't know how many slams but I think all except Wimbledon) and the US and French opens in the same year 1977?

Aykhan Mammadov
02-19-2005, 03:23 PM
See my thread "Very Very interesting facts".

raftermania
02-19-2005, 04:51 PM
Is Aykhan invisible or something? It says he has posted here yet there is no message, am I seeing things??? Yes I know some might perceive this phenomenon as a good thing.

Serve-And-Volley
02-19-2005, 04:59 PM
No Vilas was never ranked number 1 in the world. His career high was number 2 in 1975.

Aykhan Mammadov
02-19-2005, 05:05 PM
Is Aykhan invisible or something? It says he has posted here yet there is no message, am I seeing things??? Yes I know some might perceive this phenomenon as a good thing.


Raftermania, I posted here the thread " Very Very interesting facts", but not only nobody replied it, not. Nobody even looked at it , no views here at that thread, despite it is interesting. I don't understand what is going on. Either this forum is not democratic, i.e. some peoples may censor authors, or participants decided to drive me out.

bc-05
02-19-2005, 05:13 PM
Is Aykhan invisible or something? It says he has posted here yet there is no message, am I seeing things??? Yes I know some might perceive this phenomenon as a good thing.

u know what i see the same thing it says that aykhan last posted in this thread yet i couldn't see his post.. he must be some kind of alladin guy.. meh..

Aykhan Mammadov
02-19-2005, 05:23 PM
Either you all decided to joke with me !!!! Ha-ha-ha!!!!

equinox
02-19-2005, 06:02 PM
heh he's probably been set on global ignore. That's what one gets for being off topic every post. nice job jon.

BreakPoint
02-19-2005, 09:07 PM
I'd be very surprised if Vilas was not ranked #1 at some point during 1977. I know he did not end the year at #1. I think Jimmy Connors did. However, the guy won two Grand Slams and had some phenomenal record, like 68-3 or something that year.

joe sch
02-20-2005, 07:32 AM
I'd be very surprised if Vilas was not ranked #1 at some point during 1977. I know he did not end the year at #1. I think Jimmy Connors did. However, the guy won two Grand Slams and had some phenomenal record, like 68-3 or something that year.

Breakpoint, it is very surprising that Vilas was #2 to Borg in 1977 since it was one of the most phenomenal years in sports history since Guillermo was 145-14 and had record 50 match winning streak broken by Nastase who used a speghetti racket. This was a historic year and match which resulted in the new stringing rules preventing any further such upsets to the tennis history books.

andfor
02-20-2005, 07:44 AM
For those who like to see......http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/playerprofiles/default2.asp?playernumber=V028

rhubarb
02-20-2005, 07:53 AM
I'd be very surprised if Vilas was not ranked #1 at some point during 1977. I know he did not end the year at #1. I think Jimmy Connors did. However, the guy won two Grand Slams and had some phenomenal record, like 68-3 or something that year.

Connors was number one for an amazing stint, from 29th July 1974 to the 9th of April 1979, with one week's break in August 1977 where he lost it temporarily o Borg.

Vilas didn't make number one unfortunately. I'm sure people didn't bother in the mid-seventies who was at the top at the end of the year, but one reason why Vilas might not have made it was that he had already lost his AO title to Gerulaitis in December ;) Anyway, rankings worked differently in those days.

Pushmaster
02-20-2005, 11:13 AM
Is Aykhan invisible or something? It says he has posted here yet there is no message, am I seeing things??? Yes I know some might perceive this phenomenon as a good thing.
I've noticed the same thing in other threads, very strange??

Aykhan Mammadov
02-20-2005, 01:21 PM
I had here at forum a lot of fun, simply spent time with you. Really didn't offend anybody, didn't try to offend even, and let myself to joke sometimes just in order to relax and enjoy.

As I understand I'm outside of the forum by some unknown for me reasons. So what. Just see my name and notice that I'm here.

BERDI4
02-20-2005, 02:26 PM
Again, Aykhan posted another invisible message.

Truedge
02-20-2005, 03:30 PM
I remember on Sportscentury they said something about ranking being about points scored in a match, so even though Vilas won all those tournaments, someone else scored more points.

BreakPoint
02-20-2005, 03:58 PM
I remember on Sportscentury they said something about ranking being about points scored in a match, so even though Vilas won all those tournaments, someone else scored more points.

Please see my signature line below.

Rabbit
02-20-2005, 08:51 PM
I sure thought I remembered one of the two tennis magazines back then ranking Vilas #1, Tennis or World Tennis. But, after some looking around on the internet, it doesn't appear so. I think he should've been ranked #1 in 77.

andfor
02-21-2005, 06:45 AM
I sure thought I remembered one of the two tennis magazines back then ranking Vilas #1, Tennis or World Tennis. But, after some looking around on the internet, it doesn't appear so. I think he should've been ranked #1 in 77.

You bring up a possibility. If I remember some of the tennis magazines may have had their own rankings back then. I just can't remember that far back. At that time the ATP system was somewhat new and the pro tour also had the WCT Tennis tour to compete against.

atatu
02-21-2005, 09:06 AM
That's exactly right, World Tennis ranked Vilas #1, I still remember the goofy cover with him wearing a tennis shirt with a green #1 on it.

Rabbit
02-21-2005, 10:33 AM
Vindication!!!!!

Thanks, atatu, I knew I remembered it somewhere.

Vegito
04-18-2015, 01:35 AM
I sure thought I remembered one of the two tennis magazines back then ranking Vilas #1, Tennis or World Tennis. But, after some looking around on the internet, it doesn't appear so. I think he should've been ranked #1 in 77.

http://bucket3.clanacion.com.ar/anexos/fotos/18/1749318.jpg

Or here: http://raquetasytenis.weebly.com/uploads/3/3/5/0/3350499/5549846_orig.jpg

jg153040
04-18-2015, 02:09 AM
That is because to be nr.1 you have to do good across all surface for 12 months and that is no easy task.

It proves how hard it is to be nr.1 if such talented guys like Vilas can't even make it.

Firstservingman
04-18-2015, 02:29 AM
Vilas won the USO?

It was on clay, wasn't it.

jg153040
04-18-2015, 02:32 AM
Vilas won the USO?

It was on clay, wasn't it.

Then it's not that impressive. Clay is about the legs not about tennis skills.

I guess most people would agree that great clay players are the best athletes, but great fast surface players are the best tennis players.

Vegito
04-18-2015, 02:46 AM
Vilas won the USO?

It was on clay, wasn't it.

Har-Tru, "green clay" It was a little faster than red clay.

Firstservingman
04-18-2015, 02:51 AM
Then it's not that impressive. Clay is about the legs not about tennis skills.

I guess most people would agree that great clay players are the best athletes, but great fast surface players are the best tennis players.

I see what you did there. :lol:

Vilas was one-dimensional though, clay only.
Nothing wrong with clay, but the greatest players show greatness on all surfaces.

Hence he was never #1.

Sabratha
04-18-2015, 02:52 AM
To be fair he did deserve to be No. 1 in 1977.

tipsa...don'tlikehim!
04-18-2015, 02:55 AM
Vilas number 2 in 1977 really shows how ridiculous was the ranking system back then.

Vegito
04-18-2015, 02:55 AM
In 1977 Vilas had some great results in fast surfaces. The most impressive, the victory against Connors in the Masters, in the round-robin. Was voted as the best match of that decade.

jg153040
04-18-2015, 03:05 AM
I see what you did there. :lol:

Vilas was one-dimensional though, clay only.
Nothing wrong with clay, but the greatest players show greatness on all surfaces.

Hence he was never #1.

Well, for me tennis skills is a bit more impressive than being a great athlete.

That is just a personal preference. Some people say running a marathon is more impressive than building a space shuttle, I can't agree there.

To be a great athlete you only need to train like 5-6 hours a day max, anything more is counter productive. And you don't have to think that much.

But, to be a genius you need to sleep 4 hours a day and engage your brain 14-20 hours a day for years.

Sabratha
04-18-2015, 03:05 AM
Vilas number 2 in 1977 really shows how ridiculous was the ranking system back then.
He did win quite a lot though.

tipsa...don'tlikehim!
04-18-2015, 03:08 AM
He did win quite a lot though.

yes not only he won 2 slams but for a total of 16 tournaments in a single year. And he was never number 1!

jg153040
04-18-2015, 03:14 AM
yes not only he won 2 slams but for a total of 16 tournaments in a single year. And he was never number 1!

Well, rankings don't measure dominance, they measure consistency.

Why should rankings reflect titles won anyway? It's a different metric.

We already count slams, masters and so on. Why do we want another metric which is based on title won? That would be double counting.

Alpine skiing or jumping, it's the same. Greatness is about two things, consistency and domination. You don't have to win most races to be nr.1 in skiing for example.

I think people don't understand that tennis doesn't have one goal, but two goals. One goal is to dominate, one goal is to be consistent. And that is the purpose of rankings.

Both is very important, don't you think? Slams measure peak performance in a year, but rankings measure consistency, which is quite fair and balanced.

Firstservingman
04-18-2015, 03:17 AM
Well, for me tennis skills is a bit more impressive than being a great athlete.

That is just a personal preference. Some people say running a marathon is more impressive than building a space shuttle, I can't agree there.

To be a great athlete you only need to train like 5-6 hours a day max, anything more is counter productive. And you don't have to think that much.

But, to be a genius you need to sleep 4 hours a day and engage your brain 14-20 hours a day for years.

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic in your previous poast. :lol:

Yeah, that's why Wimbledon is the best IMO.
Only the greatest tennis players win Wimbledon.

Firstservingman
04-18-2015, 03:18 AM
yes not only he won 2 slams but for a total of 16 tournaments in a single year. And he was never number 1!

Why is that?

How is a guy who won two slams not world #1?

jg153040
04-18-2015, 03:28 AM
Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic in your previous poast. :lol:

Yeah, that's why Wimbledon is the best IMO.
Only the greatest tennis players win Wimbledon.

Yeah, tennis changed it's a different game. It's about athleticism and fitness and less about skills. Which is a shame, because there are plenty of endurance sports out there, why did they have to change tennis so much? It was no need.

What if chess would be about fitness too?

PMChambers
04-18-2015, 04:16 AM
Yeah, tennis changed it's a different game. It's about athleticism and fitness and less about skills. Which is a shame, because there are plenty of endurance sports out there, why did they have to change tennis so much? It was no need.

What if chess would be about fitness too?

What era are you referring too? I assume 1950's? Supreme fitness was a huge benefit through my era's 80, 90, 00 & 10. Players like Borg, Connors, Change, Cash, Lendl, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, to a degree Sampras in a straight line, Becker for power, Edberg for light footed change of direction, Hewitt and Coria for change of direction, Wilander for endurance and change of direction. Even mac was fast in early 80's though he fattened up a bit in the mid 80's but then he was not No.1 then. Prior to my gen but from what I've seen on recordings and people I know who played them, Laver and Rosewall where very fleet of foot. Sorry but I've never seen an era or heard of an era where athletic prowess was not required.

G A S
05-05-2015, 06:06 AM
To be fair he did deserve to be No. 1 in 1977.

It is a point to debate about the ranking systems, which have changed a lot over the years, but these discussions seem to never come to a definite conclusion.

jg153040
05-05-2015, 06:08 AM
I see how both sides will turn this into an argument.

1.They will say, look ranking nr.1 is not important, since Vilas was great layer but never nr.1.

2.The other side will say, hey being nr.1 is so hard that even some GS champions can't even do it.

And then we will all dance till the end of time.