PDA

View Full Version : Who was number 1 for 1970?


timnz
04-17-2009, 04:27 AM
My pick was Laver because of winning far more titles than anyone else - 15 in total, plus strong winning records against his two main rivals that year - Rosewall (head to head for year 5-0 in Laver's favour), Newcombe (head to head for year 3-0 in Laver's favour).

The main reason for picking Rosewall or Newcombe, was that they won Grand Slam titles but Laver didn't. (Newcombe winning Wimbledon and Rosewall winning the US Open). Laver did poorly in those two events

However, a case could be made that Laver won an equivalent to a Grand Slam that year.

IN 1970 the Australian Open wasn't available for all people to play. However, there was the
1970 Dunlop International final between Laver & Rosewall which Laver won.

I am wondering therefore if the 1970 Dunlop International final was considered a replacement for the Australian Open, at the time.

jeffreyneave
04-18-2009, 08:14 AM
i agree laver was the no1 in 1970. the dunlop open was in some of the aussie press as the real aussie open in 1970. players who played the dunlop but not the official aussie included laver, rosewall, nastase, gonzales, gimeno ,stolle, emerson and riessen. all the top playes who entered the real aussie also entered the dunlop.


i see you are a great fan of laver, rosewall and hoad. i think i also read that you are from new zealand

in feb/march 1964 laver, rosewall , hoad and andersen played a round robin tour of new zealand with each playing 12 matches. the final result was :

hoad 7-5
laver 7-5
rosewall 6-6
andersen 4-8

do you have any information or access to the indvidual results.

jeffrey

timnz
04-18-2009, 11:42 PM
(Jeffrey - I'll see what I can do....)

My purpose in creating the thread was that for those who don't agree that Laver was the number 1 for 1970 - their argument was that he didn't win a major that year.

My Argument was that the Dunlop in Sydney that year really was the true Australian Open (I know not officially, but all the good players from the Australian Open were there at the Dunlop plus the top players missing from the official Australian Open).

Hence, Laver has a major (albeit unofficial) and because he won a lot more tournaments in total than Rosewall or Newcombe (perhaps more than them both combined ?) then really he is a undisputed number 1 for 1970.

timnz
04-19-2009, 05:25 AM
I just checked and Newcombe only won 2 tournaments that year (one was Wimbledon though. The other was a very minor tournament). And Rosewall won 6 (one was the US Open).

Compared to Laver's 15 tournament wins (including as I have said 'the true though unofficial' Australian Open ie the Dunlop in Sydney), why is there any debate as to Laver being the number one in 1970 ?

charliefedererer
04-19-2009, 08:57 AM
I just checked and Newcombe only won 2 tournaments that year (one was Wimbledon though. The other was a very minor tournament). And Rosewall won 6 (one was the US Open).

Compared to Laver's 15 tournament wins (including as I have said 'the true though unofficial' Australian Open ie the Dunlop in Sydney), why is there any debate as to Laver being the number one in 1970 ?

Well said.

pc1
04-19-2009, 09:29 AM
(Jeffrey - I'll see what I can do....)

My purpose in creating the thread was that for those who don't agree that Laver was the number 1 for 1970 - their argument was that he didn't win a major that year.

My Argument was that the Dunlop in Sydney that year really was the true Australian Open (I know not officially, but all the good players from the Australian Open were there at the Dunlop plus the top players missing from the official Australian Open).

Hence, Laver has a major (albeit unofficial) and because he won a lot more tournaments in total than Rosewall or Newcombe (perhaps more than them both combined ?) then really he is a undisputed number 1 for 1970.

That was a weird year. Laver was definitely considered the best player in the world by the majority of players and people but he didn't do well in the majors. I suppose if they had an ATP computer rankings in those days Laver would have been number one but they have different standards for ranking players and Laver blew it in the majors.

hoodjem
04-19-2009, 04:14 PM
I have been persuaded that Laver (and not Newcombe) was the better no. 1 for 1970.

Would Rosewall be no. 2?

urban
04-20-2009, 08:22 AM
In his book of 2002, Newk himself thinks, that Laver was the best in 1970. He writes, that he told him that years later, by the earlier time he was afraid to give Laver a glimpse of his own (Newk's)uncertainty about his status.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-21-2009, 05:37 AM
That was a weird year. Laver was definitely considered the best player in the world by the majority of players and people but he didn't do well in the majors. I suppose if they had an ATP computer rankings in those days Laver would have been number one but they have different standards for ranking players and Laver blew it in the majors.

jeffrey's 1970 and 1971 rankings with his own methodology :
1970 : 1. Laver 1095, 2. Rosewall 865
1971 : 1. Laver 938, 2. Rosewall 818
(See : http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3146905&postcount=292)

jeffrey's 1970 and 1971 rankings with my approach (I grant many more points for majors (equivalent to the modern Slam tourneys) and for final wins) :
1970 : 1. Laver 1072, 2. Rosewall 1028 (see in "Tennis before 1919" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings/Archive_2)
1971 : 1. Laver 938, 2. Rosewall 818 (see in http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3146905&postcount=317)

The only reservation I have, not to claim myself Laver #1 in 1970 and 1971 (ahead of Rosewall each year) at 100%, is that I haven't made my own point system, my estimation and I haven't checked jeffrey's estimations.
But save for that I wholly concur with jeffrey on that point.

timnz
04-21-2009, 05:10 PM
Thanks

What are your thoughts about regarding the Dunlop at Sydney on par with a major that year (since it was more hotly contested that the official Australian Open)?

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-21-2009, 11:51 PM
Hello timnz,
well hard to say, some consider it as the unofficial Australian Open and apparently others seemed to have forgotten that tourney but contrary to the official Australian Open there were at least the NTL pros (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Emerson, Gimeno, Stolle) and in that event Ashe, the Australian titlist was beaten. And even Nastase who usually never came Down Under entered the Dunlop Open. Nasty only came back in Australia in 1981 when he was well past his prime.

Borgforever
04-22-2009, 04:23 AM
Well, Ilie Nastase also lost the YEC/GP Masters final at Kooyong in late 1974 to Guillermo Vilas 7-6, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4...

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-22-2009, 05:48 AM
Well, Ilie Nastase also lost the YEC/GP Masters final at Kooyong in late 1974 to Guillermo Vilas 7-6, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4...

Yes I should have told in a traditional tournament with eliminating rounds.
What does mean "YEC" ?

Borgforever
04-22-2009, 06:52 AM
Year End Championship since nowadays Masters is a lot of tourneys and not the season finale tourney thing. Avoid confusion. If that's ever possible in the tennis world... :-)

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-22-2009, 07:29 AM
I just checked and Newcombe only won 2 tournaments that year..

Newk won 4 tourneys in 1970 :

12-18 january Melbourne Victorian Open (Australie), Grass : Tony Roche 6-4 6-4 4-6 ab.
2-7 june Casablanca/WCT Morocco Open (Maroc), Clay : Andres Gimeno 6-4 6-4 6-4
22 june-4 july Wimbledon (Angleterre), Grass : Ken Rosewall 5-7 6-3 6-3 3-6 6-1
13-19 july Hoylake Rothmans Open North, Grass : Owen Davidson 4-6 9-7 6-4

timnz
04-22-2009, 01:36 PM
The Wikipedia site only lists the two of them. Who is up for updating the wikipedia site?

Thanks for the info :)

hoodjem
04-22-2009, 03:00 PM
I believe the statistics convincingly demonstrate that Laver is definite for no. 1 in 1970.

I think the more controversial year is 1971.

Borgforever
04-22-2009, 03:31 PM
I believe the statistics convincingly demonstrate that Laver is definite for no. 1 in 1970.

I think the more controversial year is 1971.

Yes, I agree. 1970 is a super-weird year but I must contend that I think there's uncontestable reason for Laver as alone No. 1 that year. I'm totally convinced. Jeffrey's and Carlo's arguments made it brilliantly clear to me that the only fair judgment on who the top man was in 1970 and that was Rod Laver from Rockhampton in Queensland, Australia -- principally for his limitless dominance in tourney wins (what 10-12 more tourneys than his main rivals Ken and Newk?! Stunning!) plus his dominant Dunlop-bullseye which was brim-filled with greats in the field and the real Aussie Open that year so Rod had one bigass major in the bag back in 1970. And he had H2H dominance against his main rivals in major numbers with no viable excuses for them...

Plus Newk backing up the claim years later when the smoke had cleared. Newk's no liar...

Clear-cut Rod Laver for his 7th straight year as World No. 1 in 1970. The only stain on The Rocket that year is his weak GS-tourney record. I forgive him for that just because he was so insanely dominant EVERYWHERE else.

I do credit Newk and Kenny enormously though and they are joint No. 2's in my book. In a normal era either Newk or Ken would've been probable and easy No. 1's but this was an era of unimaginable talent at the highest level (in my book 1950 to 1974 was the most competitive era before or since because of so many unbelievable players). For me Newk's Wimby victory is just fantastic over a defiant Rosewall. Kenny's achievement there and elsewhere was just as great. He was dang 36!

So being year end No. 2 can be a real prize if your perfs are really impressive in themselves. Super-great, unforgettable No. 2's always worthy of mention? Borg in 1981, Mac in 1980, Lendl in 1984, 88 and 89, Becker 86, Nadal 2005-07, Connors 1975, 78, Sampras in 1999 (although I am so radical and insane that I have Sampras as co-No. 1 with Andre that year -- so sue me! Making Sampras seven years straight No. 1 in my book). What No. 2 means is only that you are extremely close to being Numero Ono on the planet with the tennis joy-stick -- if you're impressive that is...

In 1971 I have triple No. 1's -- a weaker Laver, Newk and Rosewall -- pretty much equal. I don't mind this at all. It could be so. They each had something on the other and everybody was fantastic when they reached their apex that year. These guys are just incredible players so I feel it's unfair to tennis to degrade any of them when they seem to have equal, legitimate arguments for a fair shake as head honcho. So I actually have Rod Laver as No. 1 for eight straight years in the toughest era IMO...

I count more points for Wimby than any other tourney. Depending on the field of course I count 4, 3, 2, 1 for Wimby (4=W 3=F 2=SF 1=QF) and for RG, USO and AO 3, 2, 1 (W=3, F=2, SF=1). Wimby is the biggest. The cathedral of tennis...

hoodjem
04-22-2009, 06:25 PM
Rosewall's longevity at the highest levels of the game is indeed incredible, astounding, quite worthy of astonishment.
So I actually have Rod Laver as No. 1 for eight straight years in the toughest era IMO. . .
You are quite astute in your evaluation my gentle friend. I cannot but agree.

Another excellent reason that "Rocket" Rodney Laver is, hands-down, THE GOAT.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-23-2009, 02:07 AM
The Wikipedia site only lists the two of them. Who is up for updating the wikipedia site?

Thanks for the info :)

AndrewTas had gracefully given me many tournament final results and then I gave them to Jema974, a french colleague. Jema had listed those wins in the French site of wikipedia (and sometimes but not every time in the English one). So if you want more details on a player see the French version directly or by cliking the French link in the English version.

SgtJohn
04-23-2009, 02:23 AM
Hello everyone,

1970:

I am definitely not as positive as most of you are on this one...If I give the nod to Laver, it's only with great reluctance, given his dismal record in the 2 greatest tournaments.

1970 was always especially tricky due to the divergence of opinion among sources. A natural attitude, when in doubt, is to read the newspaper of the time, to have a better grasp of what was considered to define greatness.
But it's no help for that year. The Times of London clearly names Laver the uncontested world champion, focusing mainly on his domination in terms of prize money, which reflects his consistency. But on the other hand, some tennis authorities named Newcombe the number 1, implicitly giving great importance to the top tournament, and little to the non-major events.
Rosewall seems like a 'mix' between the two approaches, with his near-perfect record in Wimbledon and the USO, and his moderate success in other events, that is why I often gave him the nod.

However, Laver's victories in Philadelphia, Sidney, LA, Wembley, Johannesburg and the Queens are too much to argue, as these events were all quasi-Majors, probably more significant than our Masters 1000 today... I just wish that Laver could have for instance won the Masters, thus making our choice easier...

1971:

I'm not a big fan of ranking systems, as choices in the weight you attribute to events or the relative weight of round reached can change you leader board completely.
Whenever I use them for tricky years, I am careful to test with different such factors to see if the outcome stays the same.

I think that Jeffrey's system gave far too much weight to Finals and Semi-Finals. The approach I favour, as I have often said is: Victory=1000, Final=500, SF=250, etc.
In the ATP system (up to 2009), a semi-final was worth 450 pts. Is it fair that reaching 2 semi-finals is almost the same as winning a tournament? I think not...
This system is responsible for many bad-ranked years in my opinion (1998, 2003, for the most recent).

Quick note:
I don't think that the ATP rankings are necessarily bad per se, the problem is people using them as an indicator of historical judgment, which they are not designed too.
When Carlo criticizes the fact that 2 Masters 1000 = 1 Grand Slam, he is obviously right from a long-term point of view, but it is not shocking to me that it is so on a week-to-week basis.
Ranking points are the 'money' of the tennis world, and as any economy, this world is ruled by incentives. So the Grand Slam points must be
a)high enough to give a sense of significance to fans and players, and be faithful to historical importance.
b)be low enough so that players still have a strong incentive to play in lesser tournaments, for obvious financial reasons it is in the interest of the tour.


To come back to 1971, the fact is that when using this 100-500-250 system, Laver is never the number 1, suggesting that he was fairly consistent but did not get enough victories in big events ( I used stats from the itftennis.com website and the WCT thread here, I admit I might have missed some).
Newcombe is neck-and-neck with Laver at the beginning of the year, and is the top player after Wimbledon, but unfortunately did nothing afterwards.
The 2 contenders for that year seem to be Rosewall and Smith.

As I said, the choice of weight for different tournaments is what determines the winner, so in the end I guess this year is a matter of personal sensitivity. If you give the AO and Dallas full Slam status (ie equal to Wimbledon), Rosewall is ahead. If you judge these 2 a bit behind (like the Masters Cup is to the GS tournaments), and give Major status to the USO, Smith is number 1.
Their only encounter was at Washington DC when Rosewall beat Smith in the SF...


Jonathan

pc1
04-23-2009, 04:23 AM
Hello everyone,

1970:

I am definitely not as positive as most of you are on this one...If I give the nod to Laver, it's only with great reluctance, given his dismal record in the 2 greatest tournaments.

1970 was always especially tricky due to the divergence of opinion among sources. A natural attitude, when in doubt, is to read the newspaper of the time, to have a better grasp of what was considered to define greatness.
But it's no help for that year. The Times of London clearly names Laver the uncontested world champion, focusing mainly on his domination in terms of prize money, which reflects his consistency. But on the other hand, some tennis authorities named Newcombe the number 1, implicitly giving great importance to the top tournament, and little to the non-major events.
Rosewall seems like a 'mix' between the two approaches, with his near-perfect record in Wimbledon and the USO, and his moderate success in other events, that is why I often gave him the nod.

However, Laver's victories in Philadelphia, Sidney, LA, Wembley, Johannesburg and the Queens are too much to argue, as these events were all quasi-Majors, probably more significant than our Masters 1000 today... I just wish that Laver could have for instance won the Masters, thus making our choice easier...

1971:

I'm not a big fan of ranking systems, as choices in the weight you attribute to events or the relative weight of round reached can change you leader board completely.
Whenever I use them for tricky years, I am careful to test with different such factors to see if the outcome stays the same.

I think that Jeffrey's system gave far too much weight to Finals and Semi-Finals. The approach I favour, as I have often said is: Victory=1000, Final=500, SF=250, etc.
In the ATP system (up to 2009), a semi-final was worth 450 pts. Is it fair that reaching 2 semi-finals is almost the same as winning a tournament? I think not...
This system is responsible for many bad-ranked years in my opinion (1998, 2003, for the most recent).

Quick note:
I don't think that the ATP rankings are necessarily bad per se, the problem is people using them as an indicator of historical judgment, which they are not designed too.
When Carlo criticizes the fact that 2 Masters 1000 = 1 Grand Slam, he is obviously right from a long-term point of view, but it is not shocking to me that it is so on a week-to-week basis.
Ranking points are the 'money' of the tennis world, and as any economy, this world is ruled by incentives. So the Grand Slam points must be
a)high enough to give a sense of significance to fans and players, and be faithful to historical importance.
b)be low enough so that players still have a strong incentive to play in lesser tournaments, for obvious financial reasons it is in the interest of the tour.


To come back to 1971, the fact is that when using this 100-500-250 system, Laver is never the number 1, suggesting that he was fairly consistent but did not get enough victories in big events ( I used stats from the itftennis.com website and the WCT thread here, I admit I might have missed some).
Newcombe is neck-and-neck with Laver at the beginning of the year, and is the top player after Wimbledon, but unfortunately did nothing afterwards.
The 2 contenders for that year seem to be Rosewall and Smith.

As I said, the choice of weight for different tournaments is what determines the winner, so in the end I guess this year is a matter of personal sensitivity. If you give the AO and Dallas full Slam status (ie equal to Wimbledon), Rosewall is ahead. If you judge these 2 a bit behind (like the Masters Cup is to the GS tournaments), and give Major status to the USO, Smith is number 1.
Their only encounter was at Washington DC when Rosewall beat Smith in the SF...


Jonathan

Not that this means much because my initial feeling is that Laver was NOT number one in 1971. However considering his astounding performance at the Tennis Champions Classic in which he won 13 without a loss against virtually all the top players, I would think that a healthy Laver, in 1971, if rested would be the player you would have picked in 1971 if you had a match to play for your life, with the possible exception if it was played on clay.

I'm not talking about record here, I'm saying who would you want playing for you in one big match in 1971? If rested, I think Laver was still the best, for one match.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-23-2009, 05:37 AM
Not that this means much because my initial feeling is that Laver ...at the Tennis Champions Classic in which he won 13 without a loss against virtually all the top players.

I disagree a little. He didn't face all the top players but the top WCT players : he didn't face any independant pros in TCC in particular Smith, Nastase and Kodes. When he met them he lost to Kodes at Stockholm and Nastase at Wembley that year.

pc1
04-23-2009, 05:47 AM
I disagree a little. He didn't face all the top players but the top WCT players : he didn't face any independant pros in TCC in particular Smith, Nastase and Kodes. When he met them he lost to Kodes at Stockholm and Nastase at Wembley that year.

Didn't Laver defeat Kodes in the Italian Open final that year in straights sets also?

Yes you're right but he did face Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Ralston, Emerson and Taylor, some of them more than once. That's very tough opposition.

My terminology was perhaps a bit off but my point was that Laver was able, with rest would still be perhaps the favorite against anyone in the world.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-23-2009, 05:54 AM
Didn't Laver defeat Kodes in the Italian Open final that year in straights sets also?

Yes you're right but he did face Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Ralston, Emerson and Taylor, some of them more than once. That's very tough opposition.

My terminology was perhaps a bit off but my point was that Laver was able, with rest would still be perhaps the favorite against anyone in the world.

Yes Laver beat Kodes at Rome but I wanted to say that no independant pros had the opportunity to meet Laver in the TCC though some of them could have beaten Rocket (I didn't choose Smith among the independant pros who defeated Laver in 1971 simply because in their only meeting Smith had ... lost to Laver at Washington).

pc1
04-23-2009, 06:09 AM
Yes Laver beat Kodes at Rome but I wanted to say that no independant pros had the opportunity to meet Laver in the TCC though some of them could have beaten Rocket (I didn't choose Smith among the independant pros who defeated Laver in 1971 simply because in their only meeting Smith had ... lost to Laver at Washington).

Okay my friend. Incidentally I made a minor change in my last post in the 15 greatest players thread.

I enjoy this debate in the other thread.

Tomaz Bellucci
05-23-2009, 01:32 PM
Laver for me, but not so clear

grafselesfan
05-23-2009, 01:35 PM
I dont know who was #1 for the men that year but Margaret Court was by a huge margin the player of the year, far overshadowing what any man or women did that year.

jeffreyneave
05-24-2009, 03:02 AM
well i did the ranking system according to 2000-8 atp system and laver finished first a comfortable 100 points ahead of rosewall. I don't like 50% ratios at all and prefer 1,2,4,7,10 which was dfirst used back in 1959 and has survived more or less unchallenged to 2009 (the ltatest 2009 system is far closer to 1,2,4,7,10 than 50% ratios. if you reach 2sf in 32 man events you are winning six matches copared to 5 for winning one event so there's nothing wrong with 2sf being worse but close to another pkayer who wins an event and then loses in the 1st round of the other event.

but the bottom line is that I did the rankings using 50% ratios (see 22nd feb post by me which uses the 50% approach)and laver still wins with rosewall still sexond; all it does is move smith definitely above newcombe and fairly close to rosewall but still number3. I also did my own ranking method which takes account of head to head results and laver is still the winner and rosewall still second; nastase rises to third given his 9 wins and 6 rus and fine head to head, although no where near the quantity of top class wins that laver achieved.


jefffrey

SgtJohn
05-24-2009, 01:04 PM
Hi Jeffrey,

I guess this means that we didn't use the same set of data for 1971...
I used the itftennis.com data, which I reckon is probably very incomplete... Did you take yours in yearbooks or so?

Jonathan

jeffreyneave
05-25-2009, 03:21 AM
i count every competitive match i can find. that means using yearbooks,, some of the atp web site database (this has some stupid errors like 2 candian opens and a paris indoor event which did not exist in 1971 and is just a replication of the 1970 event which did exist), the itf database, french versions on wikki and newspapers of the time which is really the only reliable source for all matches. for instance i found that smith was runner-up in a 5 man bermuda roundrobin to van dillen and laver won the 4man cbs classic defeating okker and newcombe.


jeffrey

hoodjem
05-25-2009, 05:19 AM
well i did the ranking system according to 2000-8 atp system and laver finished first a comfortable 100 points ahead of rosewall. I don't like 50% ratios at all and prefer 1,2,4,7,10 which was dfirst used back in 1959 and has survived more or less unchallenged to 2009 (the ltatest 2009 system is far closer to 1,2,4,7,10 than 50% ratios. if you reach 2sf in 32 man events you are winning six matches copared to 5 for winning one event so there's nothing wrong with 2sf being worse but close to another pkayer who wins an event and then loses in the 1st round of the other event.

but the bottom line is that I did the rankings using 50% ratios (see 22nd feb post by me which uses the 50% approach)and laver still wins with rosewall still sexond; all it does is move smith definitely above newcombe and fairly close to rosewall but still number3. I also did my own ranking method which takes account of head to head results and laver is still the winner and rosewall still second; nastase rises to third given his 9 wins and 6 rus and fine head to head, although no where near the quantity of top class wins that laver achieved.


jefffrey

Pretty convincing if you do it both ways, and Laver comes out on top either way.

I guess this gives Laver 8 straight years.

SgtJohn
05-25-2009, 01:51 PM
Pretty convincing if you do it both ways, and Laver comes out on top either way.

I guess this gives Laver 8 straight years.

I don't want to seem to nitpick, but again, just adding tournaments can be deceptive. What factor is used between "Super 9"-like events and Grand Slams ? 2? 4? 10? How many 'best events' are counted?

If you count every event, whatever number the players took part in, you would invariably end up with, for instance, Lendl as #1 in 89, Vilas in 77 or Lendl in 1982, that are perfectly respectable choices, but many people with disagree with them, still...

You understand I'm not a big fan of ranking points. I use them very often, but precisely I saw so many different outcomes when 'changing the rules' just a little, that their objectivity is no certain thing to me, and rational arguments seem to have more credit.

However the early 70s are probably the years when I lack the most data, I don't have any yearbook, just the (incomplete) information from atpworldtour and itftennis, and extra data from this website, so I'm not calling out jeffrey's results either.

Jonathan

jeffreyneave
05-26-2009, 02:54 AM
i use the ratios of 2000-8 when i do rankings based on the system of the last decade. Obviously you have to adjust for the reality of 1971 but the basic ratios stay same; carlo's approach does not make any difference to 1971 from using the sysyem of the last decade , which has the approval of the itf and atp and thus is always the base position. obviously i prefer my own approach counting head to head matches amongst the top players and not using the masters series/super 9 events, which gives points based on the quality of the field not actually who you beat.

so the ratios between a top tier regular event and a true slam is 100:200 in championship race terms. 4:1 ratios have never been used anywhere but carlo's dumb approach ; if no governing body has ever used it its totally unacceptable to me and neither has any body in the last 50 years used 50% ratios; prize money might be split by 50% ratios but obvioulsly players and administrators reward players fairly in points sysyem and thankfully totally reject short term memory approach of just winning; a ru is fine achievement and winning 4 matches is not that different to winning 5.

the system of the last decade is a best of 18 or could be expressed as 4 majors plus best 14 others. so that's the base poition and i have no problems getting results of ashe no1 in 1975, and becker no1 in 1989.


jeffrey

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
05-27-2009, 03:37 AM
...4:1 ratios have never been used anywhere but carlo's dumb approach ;...
jeffrey
jeffrey's petty behaviour as usual

Scott_tennis
05-27-2009, 04:55 AM
Does anyone have a full listing/roster of individual match results for Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe for 1970, inclusive of Grand Prix events, other open events, and all pro events including the Tennis Champions Classic?

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
05-27-2009, 07:17 AM
From AndrewTas's wonderful work,

Rosewall's 1970 season :

1970

Tournaments Played 25
Tournaments Won 6
Tournaments Runner-Up 4 (includes Tennis Classic Final)
Tournament Singles Win-Loss 71-21

----------------------------------------------------------------

February 2-8 1970
Philadelphia PA U.S.A.

R64 defeated Roy Barth 61 63
R32 lost to Clark Graebner 63 62

----------------------------------------------------------------

February 12-14 1970
WCT Miami USA

QF defeated Ray Moore 61 75
SF defeated Tony Roche 97 26 62
F defeated Andres Gimeno 36 62 36 76 63

----------------------------------------------------------------

February 20-22 1970
WCT Corpus Christi

QF defeated Ray Moore 75 16 62
SF defeated Butch Buchholz 36 64 76
F defeated John Newcombe 62 60

----------------------------------------------------------------

March 1 1970
Tennis Champions Classic Los Angeles

RR lost to Emerson 75 46 75 64

----------------------------------------------------------------

March 4-7 1970
Rothmans Indoor Professional Tournament Wembley London

1R defeated Dennis Ralston 1012 86 108
QF defeated Niki Pilic 108 97
SF defeated Butch Buchholz 62 63
F lost to Marty Riessen 64 62

----------------------------------------------------------------

March 16-22 1970
Sydney Australia

R32 BYE
R16 defeated Frank SEDGMAN 46 97 64 86
QF defeated Pancho GONZALES 60 108 62
SF defeated Andres GIMENO 64 68 119 61
F lost to Rod Laver 36 62 36 62 63

MDF Rosewall/ Stolle defeated Bowrey/ Taylor 63 75

----------------------------------------------------------------

April 21-26 1970
WCT Dallas USA

R32 BYE
R16 defeated Ray Moore 63 62
QF defeated Marty Riessen 60 68 75
SF lost to Roy Emerson 86 86

MDF Emerson/ Jacques defeated Rosewall/ Stolle 64 63

----------------------------------------------------------------

May 6-10 1970
WCT Atlanta

R16 defeated Ismail EL SHAFEI 62 63
QF defeated Marty RIESSEN 61 63
SF lost to Dennis RALSTON 97 63

----------------------------------------------------------------

May 13-17 1970
WCT Las Vegas USA

R16 defeated Butch Buchholz 60 60
QF lost to Tony Roche 61 36 61

----------------------------------------------------------------

27 May 1970 to 01 June 1970
WCT St Louis USA

R32 BYE
R16 defeated Mark COX 64 62
QF defeated John NEWCOMBE 86 75
SF defeated Fred STOLLE 62 61
F lost to Rod Laver 6-1 6-4

----------------------------------------------------------------

June 3 1970
Tennis Champions Classic New York

RR defeated Fred Stolle 57 60 64 61

RR defeated Tom Okker 62 64 62

----------------------------------------------------------------

June 5 1970
Tennis Champions Classic New York

SF defeated Roy Emerson 46 61 64 46 75

----------------------------------------------------------------

June 15-20 1970
South of England Championships Eastbourne

1R BYE
2R defeated T Ulrich 63 61
QF defeated Barry Phillips-Moore 64 62
SF defeated Fred Stolle 62 119
F defeated Bob Hewitt 62 61

MDF Rosewall/ Stolle defeated RR Maud/ A Stone 63 75

----------------------------------------------------------------

June 22 – July 4 1970
Wimbledon

R128 defeated Colin DIBLEY 63 75 64
R64 defeated Jean-Claude BARCLAY 62 61 63
R32 defeated Terry ADDISON 62 64 60
R16 defeated Tom GORMAN 62 62 36 75
QF defeated Tony ROCHE 108 61 46 62
SF defeated Roger TAYLOR 63 46 63 63
F lost to John Newcombe 57 63 62 36 61

MDF Newcombe/ Roche defeated Rosewall/ Stolle 108 63 61

----------------------------------------------------------------

July 6-11 1970
Green Shield Welsh Open Newport GBR

1R BYE
2R defeated A Fine 60 60
3R defeated B Bertram 46 62 62
QF defeated Mark Cox 108 97
SF defeated Owen Davidson 60 63
F defeated John Newcombe 64 64

MDF O Davidson/ Newcombe defeated Pilic/ Rosewall 64 64

----------------------------------------------------------------

July 16 1970
Tennis Champions Classic New York

Final lost to Rod Laver 64 63 63

----------------------------------------------------------------

July 20-26 1970
GP/WCT Cincinnati USA

R64 defeated Sutarjo SUGIARTO 62 63
R32 defeated Jim MCMANUS 62 86
R16 defeated Jaime FILLOL 62 40 retired
QF defeated Clark GRAEBNER 63 61
SF defeated Ilie NASTASE 60 63
F defeated Cliff RICHEY 79 97 86

----------------------------------------------------------------

July 24 1970 to August 2 1970
GP/WCT Louisville USA

R16 defeated Pierre BARTHES 64 62
QF defeated Roy EMERSON 64 61
SF lost to Rod Laver 6-4 1-6 6-1

----------------------------------------------------------------

August 3-9 1970
US Pro Championships, Boston USA

R32 defeated Roger TAYLOR 62 64
R16 lost to Cliff DRYSDALE 64 76

----------------------------------------------------------------

August 10-12 1970
Mount Washington Invitational Bretton Woods NY

SF lost to Roy Emerson 63 63

----------------------------------------------------------------

August 19-23 1970
WCT Fort Worth USA

R16 BYE
QF lost to Andres GIMENO 63 62

----------------------------------------------------------------

August 24-30 1970
Marlboro Open Championships Orange NJ

1R BYE
2R defeated Peter Curtis 64 62
3R defeated Jean-Loup Rouyer 75 75
QF defeated Andres Gimeno 64 62
SF lost to Bob Carmichael 46 63 64 62

----------------------------------------------------------------

September 2-13 1970
U.S. Open USA

R128 defeated Robert POTTHAST 62 62 64
R64 defeated Stanley PASARELL 64 62 60
R32 defeated Charlie PASARELL 76 64 64
R16 defeated Niki PILIC 75 67 76 64
QF defeated Stan SMITH 62 62 62
SF defeated John NEWCOMBE 63 64 63
F defeated Tony ROCHE 26 64 76 63

----------------------------------------------------------------

October 19-25 1970
Barcelona Spain

R64 BYE
R32 defeated Uriel Oquendo Snr. 64 61 61
R16 defeated Patricio Rodriguez 64 63 63
QF lost to Zeljko Franulovic 108 75 63

----------------------------------------------------------------

November 9-15 1970
Paris Indoor

R32 defeated Patrick Proisy 61 62
R16 defeated Clark Graebner 36 64 64
QF lost to George Goven 76 62

MDF Rosewall/ Gonzales defeated Okker/ Riessen 64 76 76

----------------------------------------------------------------

November 16-21 1970
Wembley

R32 defeated Bob CARMICHAEL 68 98 75
R16 defeated Niki PILIC 62 61
QF defeated Pancho GONZALES 62 63
SF lost to Cliff RICHEY 75 62

MDF Rosewall/ Smith defeated Nastase/ Tiriac 64 63 62

----------------------------------------------------------------

November 22-29 1970
Stockholm

R32 defeated Jan KODES 63 64
R16 defeated Jan LESCHLY 60 62
QF defeated Mark COX 63 64
SF lost to Stan SMITH 810 62 97

----------------------------------------------------------------

December 9-15 1970
Masters Singles Japan

RR lost to Stan SMITH 64 65
RR lost to Rod LAVER 56 63 65
RR defeated Arthur ASHE 63 64
RR defeated Jan KODES 65 64
RR defeated Zeljko FRANULOVIC 63 63

Scott_tennis
05-27-2009, 05:37 PM
Thanks for the detailed Rosewall match information.

Do you have comparable lists for Laver and Newcombe for 1970?

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
05-27-2009, 10:45 PM
No. If I had had it I would have given it.

However I have the following incomplete results about 1970 Newcombe's record :

24 tournaments and a little pro Australian tour January 4-8, where Newcombe ended 2nd behind Roche and ahead of Pilic, Okker and Taylor (I've got the results somewhere but not to hand)
- Victorian-Melbourne (ended on January 18 ) victory over Roche
- Australian Open-Sydney (ended on January 26) defeat in the quarterfinals against Ralston 19-17 20-18 4-6 6-3
- Philadelphia (ended on February 8 ) : defeat in the semifinals against Roche 6-0 6-3 6-4
- Corpus Christi (February 20-22) : defeat in the final against Rosewall 6-2 6-0
- London Royal Albert Hall (March 4-7) : defeat in the round of 16 (1st round) against Riessen 3-6 14-12 6-3
- Dunlop Open Sydney (March 16-22) : defeat in the round of 16 (2nd round) against Gimeno
- Dallas (ended on April 26) defeat last 16 against Gimeno
- Atlanta (May 6-10) : defeat in semifinals against Okker 2-6 10-8 6-1
- Las Vegas (probably May 13-17) : lost to Emerson qf
- Tennis Champion Classic (January 31, Detroit beaten by Gonzales 6-4 6-4 6-2, May 21 West Orange, beaten by Rosewall 5-7 7-5 6-1 6-2)
- St Louis (May 27 - June 1) : defeat in the quarterfinals against Rosewall 8-6 7-5
- Casablanca (June 2-7) victory over Gimeno
- Bristol (June 8-13) defeat in the semifinals against Pilic 4-6 14-12 8-6
- Queen's (June 15-20) defeat in the final against Laver 6-4 6-3
- Wimbledon (ended on July 4) : victory over Rosewall
- Newport (UK) (July 6-11) defeat in the final against Rosewall 6-4 6-4
- Hoylake (July 13-18 ) victory
- Louisville (July 28 - August 2) : defeat in the final against Laver 6-3 6-3
- Boston-US Pro (ended on August 9) : defeat in the round of 32 (1st round) against Graebner 6-2 6-4
- Fort Worth (ended on August 23) : defeat in the semifinals against Emerson 8-6 7-5
- US Open (ended on September 13) : defeat in the semifinals against Rosewall 6-3 6-4 6-3
- Pacific Southwest-Los Angeles (ended on September 27) : defeat in the final against Laver 4-6 6-4 7-6
- Vancouver (ended on October 4) : defeat in the quarterfinals against Gimeno 6-3 6-3
- Midland (October 8-11) : defeat in the final against Taylor 2-6 7-6 6-1

Scott_tennis
05-30-2009, 11:01 AM
Carlo - Thanks for posting the Rosewall results (courtesy of AndrewTas) and the Newcombe results for 1970. I hope that you or AndrewTas have the full Laver match results for 1970 and can add to this thread. I recall seeing a Laver 1969 detailed match listing posted on a different thread in this forum and hope that you can share a comparable list for 1970.

I think that such a listing will help support to those who take the position that Laver should be considered as top rated for 1970.

Thanks

Dean
06-06-2009, 11:49 PM
I suppose if they had an ATP computer rankings in those days Laver would have been number one but they have different standards for ranking players and Laver blew it in the majors.

To say he 'blew it in the majors' is a little harsh, since in 1970 he wasn't allowed to defend his AO and FO wins from 1969.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 06:40 AM
I did not know that Laver was barred in 1970. Please explain. Thank you.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 07:10 AM
Go here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=256012

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
09-30-2009, 05:45 AM
I did not know that Laver was barred in 1970. Please explain. Thank you.

Hello hoodjem,

None of the 6 NTL players (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Emerson, Gimeno and Stolle) played the 1970 Australian Open because their boss, George McCall, and themselves, considered that the prize money was ridiculous : imagine that the ITPA tournament, the Philadelphia Open, that same year offered US $ 60,000 for 48 players while the Australian only US $ 10,760 (and for more players, 64).
However the WCT players (Roche, Newcombe, Okker, ...) entered that Slam tourney.

At the French this time the 32 WCT players (who then included the 6 NTL players) didn't enter.

So Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Emerson, Gimeno and Stolle didn't play both the Australian and the French in 1970.

In both Slam tournaments the organizers didn't accept to give the guarantees requested by the NTL then WCT organizations.

hoodjem
09-30-2009, 06:39 PM
Ah, I see. Thank you. This explains a lot.

Damn! Politics and tennis do not mix!

kiki
02-24-2012, 08:06 AM
Rosewall has the best record: a title at Forest Hills and a lost final at the All England.He should be nº 1, even by a very close margin (Newcombe and Laver would also have a claim)

For 1971, the battle was even more divided with 6-7 players winning the big events.A truly great year.

Limpinhitter
02-24-2012, 08:31 AM
IMO, Laver was the de facto best player in the World for any one match, and the player I would bet on for any one match, through 1973.

To understand Laver's record after 1969 you have to understand that: (1) Having won 2 Grand Slams despite being barred from the majors for 5 years of his prime, he felt that he had made his point about his dominance at the majors, (2) He knew he had a limited amount of time left in pro tennis to earn enough money to retire and decided to redirect his focus from the low paying majors to the higher paying pro events.

That's why Laver's prize money dominance was considered an important measure of his greatness, as it still is in golf. If the majors were the highest paying events of that day, I suspect Laver would have remained focused on, and would have succeeded in, winning more majors.

kiki
02-24-2012, 08:38 AM
Hello hoodjem,

None of the 6 NTL players (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Emerson, Gimeno and Stolle) played the 1970 Australian Open because their boss, George McCall, and themselves, considered that the prize money was ridiculous : imagine that the ITPA tournament, the Philadelphia Open, that same year offered US $ 60,000 for 48 players while the Australian only US $ 10,760 (and for more players, 64).
However the WCT players (Roche, Newcombe, Okker, ...) entered that Slam tourney.

At the French this time the 32 WCT players (who then included the 6 NTL players) didn't enter.

So Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Emerson, Gimeno and Stolle didn't play both the Australian and the French in 1970.

In both Slam tournaments the organizers didn't accept to give the guarantees requested by the NTL then WCT organizations.

Are you talking about 1970 or rather 1971? WCT was not operative before 1971, the year that the pro players could play the majors except the french, because that dummy Chartrier banned them from the french.So, you must be refeering to 1971 rather than 1970.

As a matter of fact, and here is where I am confused, I think Ashe, a WCT player reached the FO qf or sf in the 1970 event, so he was not barred - thus, rest of pro players shouldn´t-

kiki
02-24-2012, 08:41 AM
IMO, Laver was the de facto best player in the World for any one match, and the player I would bet on for any one match, through 1973.

To understand Laver's record after 1969 you have to understand that: (1) Having won 2 Grand Slams despite being barred from the majors for 5 years of his prime, he felt that he had made his point about his dominance at the majors, (2) He knew he had a limited amount of time left in pro tennis to earn enough money to retire and decided to redirect his focus from the low paying majors to the higher paying pro events.

That's why Laver's prize money dominance was considered an important measure of his greatness, as it still is in golf. If the majors were the highest paying events of that day, I suspect Laver would have remained focused on, and would have succeeded in, winning more majors.

That is also what I think.AAMOF, laver himself wrotte in his biography something to that extent ( of course he was not so open about " going just for the money", but you could feel he had definitely set a line in his approach tot ennis and, clearly, majors were behind that line and big money was his goal)

Dean
02-24-2012, 09:11 PM
IMO, Laver was the de facto best player in the World for any one match, and the player I would bet on for any one match, through 1973.

To understand Laver's record after 1969 you have to understand that: (1) Having won 2 Grand Slams despite being barred from the majors for 5 years of his prime, he felt that he had made his point about his dominance at the majors, (2) He knew he had a limited amount of time left in pro tennis to earn enough money to retire and decided to redirect his focus from the low paying majors to the higher paying pro events.

That's why Laver's prize money dominance was considered an important measure of his greatness, as it still is in golf. If the majors were the highest paying events of that day, I suspect Laver would have remained focused on, and would have succeeded in, winning more majors.

With grand slams mostly out of the picture he concentrated on the big money equivalents of the 9 Masters1000 events where he won 5 of 9 during 1970. 31 years before Djokovic did the same.

kiki
02-25-2012, 07:07 AM
What many people may not known is the fact that you win a GS must absorb a lot of menthal energy and will, otherwise you wouldn´t be human.

If Borg had gotten the GS, say, in 1979 or 1980, he´d have retired earlier than he did ( end of 1981)

Doug_Hartley_2012
02-27-2012, 04:56 AM
Ohmy goodness, what are you guys smoking? Laver was no way world number 1 in 1970. For those of us alive and paying attention, Laver delivered a huge CHOKE after an awesome 1969 Grand Slam. He was getting hammered by Tony Roche, another Aussie leftie, and it was Rosewall and Newcombe who delivered at the Majors. For the record, Rosewall was named Martini and Rossi player of the year. Some others opted for Newk but Laver - no way. It would be the equivalent of a current player nailing a clutch of tournaments a level below the Majors but flopping at the big 4, claiming to be number 1 on the basis of number of tournies won or head to head tallies. Sorry, that doesn't rate. It's the Big Four first and foremost. In 1970, Laver arguably finished fourth among the Aussies,which still meant world number 4 - but never number 1.

timnz
02-27-2012, 11:07 AM
Ohmy goodness, what are you guys smoking? Laver was no way world number 1 in 1970. For those of us alive and paying attention, Laver delivered a huge CHOKE after an awesome 1969 Grand Slam. He was getting hammered by Tony Roche, another Aussie leftie, and it was Rosewall and Newcombe who delivered at the Majors. For the record, Rosewall was named Martini and Rossi player of the year. Some others opted for Newk but Laver - no way. It would be the equivalent of a current player nailing a clutch of tournaments a level below the Majors but flopping at the big 4, claiming to be number 1 on the basis of number of tournies won or head to head tallies. Sorry, that doesn't rate. It's the Big Four first and foremost. In 1970, Laver arguably finished fourth among the Aussies,which still meant world number 4 - but never number 1.

It wasnt the big 4 for laver it was the big 2. He was barred from the australian and rhe french. He also won the defacto australian in sydney that had a deeper field than the australian. He won nearly 4 times as many tournaments as newcombe. He was undefeated against both rosewall and newcombe in head to head. 1970 is not straight forward at all. Newcome did poorly outside of wimbledon.

Nadal_Power
02-27-2012, 11:56 AM
Not sure how much Laver wanted to play small Australian Open in 1970.. that week he was in Ney York's MSG, playing against Pancho Gonzales in winner takes all match for 10000$.. Arthur Ashe get less than half of that for taking AO

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=L6hVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9OADAAAAIBAJ&pg=1881,4201984&dq=rod+laver&hl=en

timnz
02-27-2012, 02:05 PM
Not sure how much Laver wanted to play small Australian Open in 1970.. that week he was in Ney York's MSG, playing against Pancho Gonzales in winner takes all match for 10000$.. Arthur Ashe get less than half of that for taking AO

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=L6hVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9OADAAAAIBAJ&pg=1881,4201984&dq=rod+laver&hl=en

I don't think that was his decision necessarily but rather that promoter of the group of tennis players he was a part of.

timnz
02-27-2012, 02:10 PM
What do you do in a comparison when Newcombe and Rosewall did well in the Wimbledon and US Open but only won a handful of 250 point level equivalent tournaments outside of them - compared to laver who won 5 Masters 1000 level events - including the two most prestiguous Hard Court tournaments (South African and Los Angeles) and the most prestigious indoor tournament (Philly - though you could debate the Masters was that year where Laver was runner-up). The other 10 tournament wins of laver surely included a fair number of 500 point equivalent tournaments too (speaking today's lingo).

hoodjem
02-27-2012, 03:38 PM
Ohmy goodness, what are you guys smoking? Laver was no way world number 1 in 1970. For those of us alive and paying attention, Laver delivered a huge CHOKE after an awesome 1969 Grand Slam. He was getting hammered by Tony Roche, another Aussie leftie, and it was Rosewall and Newcombe who delivered at the Majors. For the record, Rosewall was named Martini and Rossi player of the year. Some others opted for Newk but Laver - no way. It would be the equivalent of a current player nailing a clutch of tournaments a level below the Majors but flopping at the big 4, claiming to be number 1 on the basis of number of tournies won or head to head tallies. Sorry, that doesn't rate. It's the Big Four first and foremost. In 1970, Laver arguably finished fourth among the Aussies,which still meant world number 4 - but never number 1.Really?! That sounds exactly like what was happening to Wozniacki or Safina for months. (Or Marcel Rios, before that.)

Neither one has won a major, but the faultless computer kept listing them at no. 1 on points.

I am not necessarily agreeing with it, but simply pointing out that it apparently does happen (with much mathematical justification).

The rankings computer does not smoke anything!

Benhur
02-27-2012, 04:08 PM
What do you do in a comparison when Newcombe and Rosewall did well in the Wimbledon and US Open but only won a handful of 250 point level equivalent tournaments outside of them - compared to laver who won 5 Masters 1000 level events - including the two most prestiguous Hard Court tournaments (South African and Los Angeles) and the most prestigious indoor tournament (Philly - though you could debate the Masters was that year where Laver was runner-up). The other 10 tournament wins of laver surely included a fair number of 500 point equivalent tournaments too (speaking today's lingo).

My only problem with this approach is how is it determined that Laver won 5 Master 1000 (equivalent) level events in 1970? I mean, matching the attendance requirements of a current Master 1000 event, where normally all the world's top 20 players (at least) are present, sounds like a very tall order for 1970. In examining the 1977 habits, Krosero discovered that the top ten players were mostly scattered around in different tournaments at any given time. I am sure Laver won some important tournaments, but can they really be called Master 1000 equivalents from an attendance perspective?

timnz
02-27-2012, 04:08 PM
If we say that the slams get 2000 points (not sure we should do that for the Australian or the French as they had weak fields particularly the former) and the runner-up in the slam gets what 1200 points.

Lets say the masters Cup winner (Stan Smith) gets 1500 points (what does the runner-up at the Masters Cup get?) (Rod Laver)

Then say the Masters 1000 events were:

Johannesburg (Rod Laver winner)

Los Angeles (Rod Laver winner)

Monte Carlo (Željko Franulović winner)

Rome (Ilie Năstase winner)

London/Wembley (Rod Laver winner)

Boston (Tony Roche winner FYI Rod Laver runner-up)

Stockholm (Stan Smith winner)

Philadelphia WCT (Rod Laver winner)

Sydney (Rod Laver winner FYI Ken Rosewall runner-up)


That's 5000 points for Rod Laver from tournament wins alone (actually more given his Boston runner-up and other placings but lets not include it for now). Now if Rosewall gets 2000 points for US Open and 1200 points for Wimbledon plus 5 other tournaments (were they 250 point level or 500 point level?) - if we weight his other tournament wins at 375 points each (half way between 250 and 500) - then that is an additional 1875 points. (I have to say I think I am been generous to the tournaments involved).

For Rod - he won 10 tournaments over and above his Master 1000 level tournaments. Two of them - 'The Tennis Champions Classic' (which in terms of athletic achievement probably should be rated as higher than a Slam tournament - but we will rate it 375 points) and Queen's Club - at least should be rated as 500 tournaments. But even though there is some bias in these scores against Laver - lets put all the tournaments at 375 points. That is an additional 3750 points.

Now I am not even including Newcombe because he fares worse in the points standing than Rosewall does (Newcombe only won 3 other events outside Wimbledon all probably to be rated around the 250 points level).

Hence, Laver is standing on at least 8750 points (this doesn't include his runner-ups like at the Masters cup and Boston and lesser tournament points) and Rosewall on 5075 points (this is bias towards Rosewall because I included his Wimbledon runner-up and didn't include Laver's masters cup runner up(lesser points though it is)).

Now yes, there were also minor placings at tournaments that I didn't include but I am very confident the points added up from the minor placings would still favour Rod Laver greatly.

Now accordingly - that is why Laver is number 1 for 1970.

(Note: If you went strickly through every tournament giving it a 2012 equivalent rating - I am confident that Laver would end up with around double the point of Rosewall. So I wonder if in 2012 someone had the most points - actually double the second place points person but the points winner didn't get to a Slam final - who would rate as number 1?)

Mustard
02-27-2012, 04:24 PM
In 1970, Ken Rosewall delivered best in the majors, but Rod Laver was the most dominant on the tour. Laver won 13 titles in 1970, but had poor R16 exits at Wimbledon and the US Open to Roger Taylor and Dennis Ralston. Rosewall won only 6 titles, but won the US Open and was runner-up of Wimbledon. Newcombe won 2 titles, but 1 of those was Wimbledon, and he was a semi finalist at the US Open.

I suppose Laver was the best player of 1970 overall, despite his poor showing at Wimbledon and the US Open, because he was just so dominant elsewhere, but I think Rosewall and Newcombe would have been more satisfied at the end of that year considering that they won those majors. The early 1970s was when the politics in tennis really started to esculate.

Mustard
02-27-2012, 04:31 PM
To say he 'blew it in the majors' is a little harsh, since in 1970 he wasn't allowed to defend his AO and FO wins from 1969.

Laver did blow it at Wimbledon and the US Open in 1970. That is undeniable. Roger Taylor beating Rod Laver at 1970 Wimbledon is considered one of the greatest tennis upsets of all time. Laver won a tough first set and lost a tough second set, but then didn't come back with anything in the last 2 sets and won just 3 games.

timnz
02-27-2012, 04:36 PM
In 1970, Ken Rosewall delivered best in the majors, but Rod Laver was the most dominant on the tour. Laver won 13 titles in 1970, but had poor R16 exits at Wimbledon and the US Open to Roger Taylor and Dennis Ralston. Rosewall won only 6 titles, but won the US Open and was runner-up of Wimbledon. Newcombe won 2 titles, but 1 of those was Wimbledon, and he was a semi finalist at the US Open.

I suppose Laver was the best player of 1970 overall, despite his poor showing at Wimbledon and the US Open, because he was just so dominant elsewhere, but I think Rosewall and Newcombe would have been more satisfied at the end of that year considering that they won those majors. The early 1970s was when the politics in tennis really started to esculate.

Not trying to be pedantic but Rod won 15 titles not 13. (FYI Newcombe won 4 tournaments).

timnz
02-27-2012, 05:15 PM
Is that Newcombe isn't the year end number 1. He is either 2 or 3. On every criteria his record is inferior to Rosewall's (Grand Slam performance, Tournaments won etc). Hence, no matter how you place the rankings in 1970 - Rosewall must be ahead of Newcombe.

So depending on your position - Laver is 1, 2 or 3 - Rosewall is 1 or 2 - Newcombe is 2 or 3.

There is no argument that can back the position that Newcombe is number 1 (because his record is inferior to Rosewalls).

Mustard
02-27-2012, 06:13 PM
Not trying to be pedantic but Rod won 15 titles not 13. (FYI Newcombe won 4 tournaments).

Oh right. Just goes to show the general chaos of the tour at that time.

krosero
02-27-2012, 06:15 PM
Is that Newcombe isn't the year end number 1. He is either 2 or 3. On every criteria his record is inferior to Rosewall's (Grand Slam performance, Tournaments won etc). Hence, no matter how you place the rankings in 1970 - Rosewall must be ahead of Newcombe.

So depending on your position - Laver is 1, 2 or 3 - Rosewall is 1 or 2 - Newcombe is 2 or 3.

There is no argument that can back the position that Newcombe is number 1 (because his record is inferior to Rosewalls).And Laver was 5-0 in H2H vs Rosewall, 3-0 vs Newk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall#Open-closed_career:_April_1968_through_July_1972

pc1
02-27-2012, 06:27 PM
Is that Newcombe isn't the year end number 1. He is either 2 or 3. On every criteria his record is inferior to Rosewall's (Grand Slam performance, Tournaments won etc). Hence, no matter how you place the rankings in 1970 - Rosewall must be ahead of Newcombe.

So depending on your position - Laver is 1, 2 or 3 - Rosewall is 1 or 2 - Newcombe is 2 or 3.

There is no argument that can back the position that Newcombe is number 1 (because his record is inferior to Rosewalls).

Problem is that often in those days the Wimbledon winner was often named by some experts as automatic World Champion it seems and Newcombe was the 1970 Wimbledon Champion. It's wrong to do it that way but that's the way some thought.

I will say that I do think Laver was the strongest player in the world in 1970, whether he deserved to be World Champion is debatable.

Majors are too often overemphasized. Newcombe won two majors in 1973 but no one questioned Nastase being ranked over Newcombe that year. That's why I think it's ridiculous to rank greats simply by the amount of majors they won in their career. Everything should be taken into account, not just majors.

urban
02-27-2012, 09:30 PM
If one makes any kind of point race, Laver would emerge at Nr. 1 in 1970. I have seen quite a few points rankings (Jeffery Neave made one), and in all Laver came on top. Those 5 master like events, Laver won, were all well attended, as were the WCT events he won, and he beat Newk and Rosewall 8-0 all in finals or semis. Laver won across all 4 surfaces (Sydney, Queens, South Orange on grass, Philly, Wembley indoors, LA, St. Louis and others on hard, Louisville over Rosewall and Newk on clay). And additionally he won the by far most lucrative event, the Legends Classic over Rosewall.
As timnz writes, its Rosewall, who has another fair claim, by delivering in 2 majors and on the overall circuit. As pc 1 mentions, back then journalists automatically called Wim winners the Nr. 1. So Newcombe was named Nr.1 by Tingay and other experts. Newk himself in his book of 2002 wrote that Laver was the real Nr. 1 in 1970.

kiki
02-28-2012, 01:08 AM
Laver did blow it at Wimbledon and the US Open in 1970. That is undeniable. Roger Taylor beating Rod Laver at 1970 Wimbledon is considered one of the greatest tennis upsets of all time. Laver won a tough first set and lost a tough second set, but then didn't come back with anything in the last 2 sets and won just 3 games.

But Taylor was a top player who pulled up one upset here and another there.Reached semis at Wimbledon and Forest Hills, big serve, good volley and forehand...Tom Gorman, who was also a top player in the early 70´s defeated Laver at the 1971 Wimbledon.

kiki
02-28-2012, 01:10 AM
Laver did blow it at Wimbledon and the US Open in 1970. That is undeniable. Roger Taylor beating Rod Laver at 1970 Wimbledon is considered one of the greatest tennis upsets of all time. Laver won a tough first set and lost a tough second set, but then didn't come back with anything in the last 2 sets and won just 3 games.

Lost to Ralston at the US Open, right? Ralston had been Wimbledon runner up in 1966 and the best US player of his generation, along Ashe.A big underachiever, but very dangerous on his day ( kind of pre Tanner)

kiki
02-28-2012, 01:13 AM
If one makes any kind of point race, Laver would emerge at Nr. 1 in 1970. I have seen quite a few points rankings (Jeffery Neave made one), and in all Laver came on top. Those 5 master like events, Laver won, were all well attended, as were the WCT events he won, and he beat Newk and Rosewall 8-0 all in finals or semis. Laver won across all 4 surfaces (Sydney, Queens, South Orange on grass, Philly, Wembley indoors, LA, St. Louis and others on hard, Louisville over Rosewall and Newk on clay). And additionally he won the by far most lucrative event, the Legends Classic over Rosewall.
As timnz writes, its Rosewall, who has another fair claim, by delivering in 2 majors and on the overall circuit. As pc 1 mentions, back then journalists automatically called Wim winners the Nr. 1. So Newcombe was named Nr.1 by Tingay and other experts. Newk himself in his book of 2002 wrote that Laver was the real Nr. 1 in 1970.

Rod Laver is the GOAT, IMO, as stated so many times here.But, listen, in 1970, even if he was the strongest player ( which he certainly was), his record felt behind Rosewall´s and probably Newcombe´s.I´d rank him third.

It´s a bit like 1977, when Borg was the best player but Vilas had the best year.Or 1989, with Lendl the strongest player but Becker, undeniably having the best year.

Doug_Hartley_2012
02-28-2012, 01:43 AM
Look, you can worship Rod Laver all you want but I'm telling you - as an Aussie- he did not deliver where it mattered in 1970. Rosewall was awarded the Martini and Rossi player of the year award, so no question about who the sport saw as world number 1. If you consult World of Tennis '71, the year book for the 1970 season [you can't miss it - it's the one with KEN ROSEWALL on the cover - did not even rate Laver as one of its five players of the year. Court and Goolagong were the female champs recognised; Rosewall, Newcombe and Cliff Richey - winner of the first Grand Prix - were the guys. WOT says of Laver in 1970 'he won record 83,400 GBP prize money, but lost Wimbledon and US Open titles,did not compete in AO and FO and yielded status as world number 1'. Laver Emerson Stolle and Rosewall were not permitted to contest the AO by their management. Newcombe Roche Okker and Ashe were. The FO was also boycotted but Smith Ashe Richey and Nastase competed, as did new champ Kodes. Wimbledon was contested by most players. Laver lost 4R to the great British hope Roger Taylor in 4s. Rosewall beat Taylor in 4s two rounds later after also beating Roche in 4s but lost in 5s to Newcombe who had an easy semi against Gimeno. At the US Open, Laver bombed again, losing early to Ralston in 5s. Roche confirmed his status as the best leftie at the Majors, charging to the final and taking the first set against Rosewall. Rosewall, who had thrashed Newcombe in straight sets in the semis, fought back and took Roche in 4s. In a fragmented tour, Rosewall finished 3rd in the Grand Prix events to Laver's 4th. Roche defeated Laver in 5s in the US Pro final and in straight sets in the Irish Open.. Laver defeated Rosewall in 5s in the Dunlop Slazenger event in Sydney and Laver also won a number of WCT events.

kiki
02-28-2012, 04:52 AM
Look, you can worship Rod Laver all you want but I'm telling you - as an Aussie- he did not deliver where it mattered in 1970. Rosewall was awarded the Martini and Rossi player of the year award, so no question about who the sport saw as world number 1. If you consult World of Tennis '71, the year book for the 1970 season [you can't miss it - it's the one with KEN ROSEWALL on the cover - did not even rate Laver as one of its five players of the year. Court and Goolagong were the female champs recognised; Rosewall, Newcombe and Cliff Richey - winner of the first Grand Prix - were the guys. WOT says of Laver in 1970 'he won record 83,400 GBP prize money, but lost Wimbledon and US Open titles,did not compete in AO and FO and yielded status as world number 1'. Laver Emerson Stolle and Rosewall were not permitted to contest the AO by their management. Newcombe Roche Okker and Ashe were. The FO was also boycotted but Smith Ashe Richey and Nastase competed, as did new champ Kodes. Wimbledon was contested by most players. Laver lost 4R to the great British hope Roger Taylor in 4s. Rosewall beat Taylor in 4s two rounds later after also beating Roche in 4s but lost in 5s to Newcombe who had an easy semi against Gimeno. At the US Open, Laver bombed again, losing early to Ralston in 5s. Roche confirmed his status as the best leftie at the Majors, charging to the final and taking the first set against Rosewall. Rosewall, who had thrashed Newcombe in straight sets in the semis, fought back and took Roche in 4s. In a fragmented tour, Rosewall finished 3rd in the Grand Prix events to Laver's 4th. Roche defeated Laver in 5s in the US Pro final and in straight sets in the Irish Open.. Laver defeated Rosewall in 5s in the Dunlop Slazenger event in Sydney and Laver also won a number of WCT events.

And it settled out at Dallas 71, 72 with great victories for Rosewall over Laver.The second final, many called it the greatest tennis match ever seen.

In the open era, and counting only the majors, Rosewall won 3 big finals over Laver (WCT 71,72,FO 68) and Laver just one ( FO 69).

That gives you the real stature of Ken Robert Rosewall.

Nadal_Power
02-28-2012, 06:12 AM
My only problem with this approach is how is it determined that Laver won 5 Master 1000 (equivalent) level events in 1970? I mean, matching the attendance requirements of a current Master 1000 event, where normally all the world's top 20 players (at least) are present, sounds like a very tall order for 1970. In examining the 1977 habits, Krosero discovered that the top ten players were mostly scattered around in different tournaments at any given time. I am sure Laver won some important tournaments, but can they really be called Master 1000 equivalents from an attendance perspective?

We really can't do that cause there's big different between ATP Tour from 1990. and period 20 years before. In first decade Masters 1000 serie was not like one we have today cause only from 2000. that tournaments became only in that week, without others smaller

I made article when we can see that Top players from the 1980. played only a few tournaments together during season... it for sure was even worse in 70's http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=393473

kiki
02-28-2012, 07:30 AM
There have always been " Masters series", no matther how you called them.Events that were protected because of their importance and weight, that ranked just behind the GS.However, they were subjetc to changes.

US

-.Las Vegas
-.Palm Springs
-.Memphis
-.Philadelphia
-.Toronot/Montral

EUROPE

-.Rome
-.Stockholm
-.Hamburg

REST of THE WORLD

-.SA Open
-.Tokyo

After them, there were events called Super Series that offered less price money, but were still highly regarded.

US

Los Angeles
Houston
San Frisco
New Orleans
North Conway
Indianapolis
Boston
Cincinnati
Richmond

SAMERICA

Buenos Aires

EUROPE

Milan
Barcelona
Frankfurt
Rotterdam
Brussels
Wembley


ASIA

Sidney Indoors

urban
02-28-2012, 07:35 AM
The draws of the 1970 tournaments were on the ITF webside (i hope there are still there). Sydney for instance had all the top 15-20 players in the (48 or 64) draw and was a best of five affair from the first round on. The same draw standard is right for Philadelphia, Los Angeles or Wembley. Laver was imo 2-2 for the year against Roche, losing at Dublin and Boston and winning at Philly final and in the Classic series.
The 1970 situation at the top is very debatable (and depending, which parameters someone prefers), but in no way clear cut. Even Robert Geist, one of the greatest and best informed Rosewall supporters i know, has a three way tie for Nr 1 in 1970 between Newk, Rosewall and Laver.

kiki
02-28-2012, 07:45 AM
Better than 1970 was 1971.

AO : Rosewall beats Ashe
Rome:Laver beats Kodes
Phily:Laver beats Newcombe
FO: Kodes beats Nastase
Masters:Nasty beats Smith
WCT:Rosewall beats Laver
US:Smith defeats Kodes
Wimbledon:Newcombe defeats Smith

7 top players ( plus Gimeno,Roche,Okker,Lutz,Richey,Gorman,Riessen,Tayl or,Pilic,Franulovic,Orantes...) going at each other.Memorable year by any mean

Mustard
02-28-2012, 08:21 AM
Lost to Ralston at the US Open, right? Ralston had been Wimbledon runner up in 1966 and the best US player of his generation, along Ashe.A big underachiever, but very dangerous on his day ( kind of pre Tanner)

Ralston became Tanner's coach.

krosero
02-28-2012, 03:57 PM
The 1970 situation at the top is very debatable (and depending, which parameters someone prefers), but in no way clear cut. Even Robert Geist, one of the greatest and best informed Rosewall supporters i know, has a three way tie for Nr 1 in 1970 between Newk, Rosewall and Laver.Some others voted for Laver. See the section for 1970 on this page: "the panel of journalists which made the WCT draw for 1971 ranked Laver #1, Rosewall #2, Newcombe #3; and Robert Geist co-ranked Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe #1."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings#The_w orld_number_one_and_number_two_from_1877

It would be interesting to know the names of the journalists.

Another excerpt:

"The panel of 10 international journalists for the 'Martini and Rosso' Cup, ranked Rosewall number 1 with 97 points (out of a possible 100) over Laver with 89 points and Newcombe 3rd with 81 points"

Doug_Hartley_2012
02-29-2012, 03:18 AM
I used to be in fairly frequent contact with Robert Geist when I was working on a history of pro tennis a bit over ten years ago. My day job made it slow going and Joe McAuley's statistical history basically shut the door. However I would have been quick to tell Robert that a three way tie for ANY season is simple not tenable, nor is it justified for the 1970 season. It was a transitional and indeed somewhat chaotic period between the advent of Open tennis in mid 1968 until 1975 and a succession of boycotts and restraint of trade meant that Majors and the Davis Cup were seriously and frequently devalued.

I'd also caution you against taking any player's comment on other players too seriously. Newk's comment about Laver in 1970 may have been a bit coloured by Rosewall being his closest rival that season, not to mention utterly frustrating him a few years later in 1974 when he was desperate to prove he was better than Connors.

And you can't apply 2012 practices and assumptions to 1970 - just does not work. There was no single tour. No 'points'. No computer. No concept of tiers other than there was the Big 4 Majors and the rest. You can only rank Laver number 1 in 1970 on dollar earnings or 'blind' tournament results that ignore their stature or significance at the time. To do so would be to apply a totally different standard to any other season and to ignore assessments of the time. Laver started the year as reigning Grand Slam holder but was never to reach the quarterfinals of a Major ever again. His Major form simply deserted him.

Newcombe had a strong case. He won Wimbledon, which was good enough for many commentators 1970 or otherwise get top spot. However in 1970 the guy he beat in 5s in the final crushed him in straight sets in the US semis and won that title. So it was a bit ofa toss up. The prestigious Martini and Rossi award for Player of the year was given to Rosewall and that, to my mind settles it. Laver achieved absolutely nothing - zip - hear that silence at the Majors and was simply not in contention. You also have to consider the enormity of the fall from his 1969 form to appreciate how sudden and inexplicable and underwhelming his 1970 season was.

And yet, as late as the US Open, he was still seeded 1. His form in other tournaments and last year's Grand Slam had organisers convinced Laver must break out of slump in a big way soon. And yet all he could manage were two wins against minor Aussie players prior to losing to Ralston who in turn lost his next match. That half of the draw was won by Roche and Richey and the other half by Rosewall and Newcombe. And of course Rosewall as we know trounced Newk and won the whole thing.

Some trivia - Roy Emerson also performed superbly in the non Majors and was seeded 5 at the US Open. Despite progressing as far as Laver in the draw - the last 16 - and going down in four close sets to Stan Smith, who would win the title the following year, he wasn't even ranked in the top 10 at season's end. I have an issue with that on general tournament form but, in terms of how rankings were based then ie Majors achievements he fell short bigtime as well.

1970 has its similarities with 1977 and perhaps 1998 as well, in terms of different players excelling by different measures. However, I maintain pole position must involve winning at least one Major assuming no boycotts and take account of the views of experts of the time. Laver was disappointing in 1970 and it basically comes down to Newcombe or Rosewall on the basis of their victories at Wimbledon and the US Open. Re the Dunlop Open in Sydney ie the so-called 'alternative AO' in 1970, Laver did defeat Rosewall in a come from behind 5s tussle decided by a single service break in the 5th. Hardly gets him ahead of Rosewall in my book but worth noting perhaps that Newcombe was nailed in the second round of this 32 draw event.

Bud Collins ranked Newcombe at 1 as did Lance Tingay who qualified it as 'by a fraction'and perhaps was talking more about weighting Wimbledon a bit more important than Forest Hills. That was counterbalanced by Rosewall winning the prestigious Martini and Rossi player of the year award and being featured on the cover, together with lead article, of World of Tennis'71.

Nadal_Power
02-29-2012, 03:37 AM
Really looking for more post by you, Doug_Hartley_2012

Dean
02-29-2012, 04:11 AM
Look, you can worship Rod Laver all you want but I'm telling you - as an Aussie- he did not deliver where it mattered in 1970.

If you're going to judge an entire season by only 2 tournaments then why the hell bother playing the rest of the year at all.

The two players who you are certain where better than Laver in 1970 where 0-8 against him.

Doug_Hartley_2012
02-29-2012, 04:47 AM
Oh dear Dean, do I have to explain to you what those two tournaments were? If you want to be recognised as the boss, numero uno, the champ in tennis, it always comes down to Wimbledon and the US Open except in those rare seasons when boycotts skewed the norm. Nobody really cares how many Boca Ratons and Memphises etc players accumulate during a season. It's what happens in the big league that counts. And in tennis that big league historically pivots around four tournaments. Laver flatlined where it mattered in 1970. He choked. In fact, post 1969 Grand Slam, he choked permanently at the Majors. Never a serious chance. Didn't matter how much money he won. Or head to head results. Or other tournament results. Or how high he was seeded at the Majors. He was a total lemon at the Majors post the 1969 US Open. And every tennis history book will tell you that.

Dean
02-29-2012, 06:09 AM
Laver flatlined where it mattered in 1970. He choked. In fact, post 1969 Grand Slam, he choked permanently at the Majors. Never a serious chance.

It would actually help if you knew what you were talking about. But alas.

btw. He played in 5 maybe 6 majors from 1970-75.

kiki
02-29-2012, 06:54 AM
Ralston became Tanner's coach.

and US Davis Cup Captain.it was common in the late 60´s to early 70´s to rate Ralston as the most underachieving talent, even more than Roche ( after all, Tony was owned by injuries...)

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-01-2012, 05:23 AM
Dean, that's just it. Played. Not won. Not runner up. Not semifinalist. Not quarterfinalist. Grand Slammer to Dud in the space of one season. He froze after '69. Didn't even bother showing up at the AO or the FO ever again. Seeded but crashed early at the Wimbledons and US Opens he did turn up for. Flatlined. No show. No contest. Not so with Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, and other Aussie greats. He was 31yo when he won the '69 Grand Slam and he went for the easy money in 'challenges' and long forgotten tour events. He finished with a whimper at the Majors, and eventually in the rankings as well, unlike Rosewall who was a force to be reckoned with to age 43.

Limpinhitter
03-01-2012, 07:13 AM
I used to be in fairly frequent contact with Robert Geist when I was working on a history of pro tennis a bit over ten years ago. My day job made it slow going and Joe McAuley's statistical history basically shut the door. However I would have been quick to tell Robert that a three way tie for ANY season is simple not tenable, nor is it justified for the 1970 season. It was a transitional and indeed somewhat chaotic period between the advent of Open tennis in mid 1968 until 1975 and a succession of boycotts and restraint of trade meant that Majors and the Davis Cup were seriously and frequently devalued.

I'd also caution you against taking any player's comment on other players too seriously. Newk's comment about Laver in 1970 may have been a bit coloured by Rosewall being his closest rival that season, not to mention utterly frustrating him a few years later in 1974 when he was desperate to prove he was better than Connors.

And you can't apply 2012 practices and assumptions to 1970 - just does not work. There was no single tour. No 'points'. No computer. No concept of tiers other than there was the Big 4 Majors and the rest. You can only rank Laver number 1 in 1970 on dollar earnings or 'blind' tournament results that ignore their stature or significance at the time. To do so would be to apply a totally different standard to any other season and to ignore assessments of the time. Laver started the year as reigning Grand Slam holder but was never to reach the quarterfinals of a Major ever again. His Major form simply deserted him.

Newcombe had a strong case. He won Wimbledon, which was good enough for many commentators 1970 or otherwise get top spot. However in 1970 the guy he beat in 5s in the final crushed him in straight sets in the US semis and won that title. So it was a bit ofa toss up. The prestigious Martini and Rossi award for Player of the year was given to Rosewall and that, to my mind settles it. Laver achieved absolutely nothing - zip - hear that silence at the Majors and was simply not in contention. You also have to consider the enormity of the fall from his 1969 form to appreciate how sudden and inexplicable and underwhelming his 1970 season was.

And yet, as late as the US Open, he was still seeded 1. His form in other tournaments and last year's Grand Slam had organisers convinced Laver must break out of slump in a big way soon. And yet all he could manage were two wins against minor Aussie players prior to losing to Ralston who in turn lost his next match. That half of the draw was won by Roche and Richey and the other half by Rosewall and Newcombe. And of course Rosewall as we know trounced Newk and won the whole thing.

Some trivia - Roy Emerson also performed superbly in the non Majors and was seeded 5 at the US Open. Despite progressing as far as Laver in the draw - the last 16 - and going down in four close sets to Stan Smith, who would win the title the following year, he wasn't even ranked in the top 10 at season's end. I have an issue with that on general tournament form but, in terms of how rankings were based then ie Majors achievements he fell short bigtime as well.

1970 has its similarities with 1977 and perhaps 1998 as well, in terms of different players excelling by different measures. However, I maintain pole position must involve winning at least one Major assuming no boycotts and take account of the views of experts of the time. Laver was disappointing in 1970 and it basically comes down to Newcombe or Rosewall on the basis of their victories at Wimbledon and the US Open. Re the Dunlop Open in Sydney ie the so-called 'alternative AO' in 1970, Laver did defeat Rosewall in a come from behind 5s tussle decided by a single service break in the 5th. Hardly gets him ahead of Rosewall in my book but worth noting perhaps that Newcombe was nailed in the second round of this 32 draw event.

Bud Collins ranked Newcombe at 1 as did Lance Tingay who qualified it as 'by a fraction'and perhaps was talking more about weighting Wimbledon a bit more important than Forest Hills. That was counterbalanced by Rosewall winning the prestigious Martini and Rossi player of the year award and being featured on the cover, together with lead article, of World of Tennis'71.

Actually, there were points. The 1970 Grand Prix Tour (predecessor to the ATP), points champion was Cliff Richey.

Limpinhitter
03-01-2012, 07:15 AM
Dean, that's just it. Played. Not won. Not runner up. Not semifinalist. Not quarterfinalist. Grand Slammer to Dud in the space of one season. He froze after '69. Didn't even bother showing up at the AO or the FO ever again. Seeded but crashed early at the Wimbledons and US Opens he did turn up for. Flatlined. No show. No contest. Not so with Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, and other Aussie greats. He was 31yo when he won the '69 Grand Slam and he went for the easy money in 'challenges' and long forgotten tour events. He finished with a whimper at the Majors, and eventually in the rankings as well, unlike Rosewall who was a force to be reckoned with to age 43.

That's riduculous! Laver won 15 titles in 1970. The low paying majors just weren't that important then, and certainly not to Laver who, understandably, gave priority to the higher prize money events. He proved his point in 1969 and invested his time and energy in to making a comfortable retirement for his family. To suggest that Rosewall was the greater champion than Laver, who dominated the pro tour in a way that Rosewall never did, and who had a large H2H winning margin against Rosewall, and large winning H2H margins against others who had winning H2H records against Rosewall, is a very difficult case to make.

Rosewall was an all time great, top 5 in the World for 22 years. But, IMO no one shined with the blinding brightness of Laver in his prime, not even Rosewall.

urban
03-01-2012, 07:35 AM
There were points also in 1971 for the WCT tour. And in 1970 there were tiers of tournaments, too. In the Collins/ Laver book of 1971, those 15 excellent events for 1970, majors plus outstanding tour events are listed (p. 224 in the new edition). Those events had different winners like Roche (US pro), Nastase (US indoors plus Italian open), Smith (Stockholm indoor and Masters in Tokyo), Ashe (AO), Kodes (RG), Okker (german open). Laver won 5 of these plus the most lucrative Classic series. Those events had great draws (mostly 64 men), many had much better draws than RG or AO that year. In the Philadelphia US pro indoor, a big 65 ooo$ event promoted by Ed and Marlyn Fernberger for instance, Laver beat after round of 16 Emerson, Nastase, Ralston and Roche in successive rounds, in the LA South-West pacific, he beat in the later rounds Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, in the Wembley British indoor Fillol, Gimeno, Taylor, Nastase, Drysdale and Richey.

The draws can be found in the World of Tennis BP yearbook of 1971. It has Ken Rosewall on the cover and includes some practice tips from the Little Master, but it ranks Newcombe at Nr. 1: The ranking pope Lance Tingay writes (p.181): " Newcombe's status as the World best player was hotly challenged by two other Australians, Rosewall and Laver."

kiki
03-01-2012, 03:00 PM
This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

Steve132
03-02-2012, 04:08 PM
This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

How do you know this? What's the basis for this judgment? Can you list the twenty or thirty players from that date who would at the time have played better than Ferrer or Tsonga on their form over the past twelve months?

kiki
03-03-2012, 05:33 AM
How do you know this? What's the basis for this judgment? Can you list the twenty or thirty players from that date who would at the time have played better than Ferrer or Tsonga on their form over the past twelve months?

Richey,Riessen,Solomon,Dibbs,Gorman,Pilic,Franulov ic,Gottfried,Ramirez,Barazutti,Amritraj,Gildemeist er,Stockton,Lutz,Taroczy,Okker,Higueras,Cox,Drisda le,Hewitt,Mc Namara,Alexander,Pecci, on a given day Bertolucci on clay, Dent on fast grass,Edmondson...who many did I list? do you need me to go on?

kiki
03-03-2012, 05:34 AM
...and Metrevali (W finalista and FO sf) and Proisy, when he was on (AO and FO finalist)...may be Onny Parun, too

Steve132
03-03-2012, 08:13 AM
Richey,Riessen,Solomon,Dibbs,Gorman,Pilic,Franulov ic,Gottfried,Ramirez,Barazutti,Amritraj,Gildemeist er,Stockton,Lutz,Taroczy,Okker,Higueras,Cox,Drisda le,Hewitt,Mc Namara,Alexander,Pecci, on a given day Bertolucci on clay, Dent on fast grass,Edmondson...who many did I list? do you need me to go on?

I believe that both Ferrer and Tsonga are better players than the majority of your list, and it's not a particularly close call. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Ferrer and Tsonga compete in an era when all the leading players appear in the same tournaments, planning their schedules around the four majors, the YEC and the nine Masters events. 8 of the world's top 10 players entered Dubai, which is not even a Masters tournament, only an ATP 500 one. There are no rival pro tours, boycotts or other events that provide opportunities for "second tier" players like Ferrer or Tsonga (or del Potro or Soderling) to pick up titles. They are unlikely to amass the same number of titles as their predecessors did, simply because in order to win a title of any consequence today you have to beat two, possibly three, of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray. This change is relevant when comparing today's players with those of previous eras.

kiki
03-03-2012, 10:58 AM
I believe that both Ferrer and Tsonga are better players than the majority of your list, and it's not a particularly close call. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Ferrer and Tsonga compete in an era when all the leading players appear in the same tournaments, planning their schedules around the four majors, the YEC and the nine Masters events. 8 of the world's top 10 players entered Dubai, which is not even a Masters tournament, only an ATP 500 one. There are no rival pro tours, boycotts or other events that provide opportunities for "second tier" players like Ferrer or Tsonga (or del Potro or Soderling) to pick up titles. They are unlikely to amass the same number of titles as their predecessors did, simply because in order to win a title of any consequence today you have to beat two, possibly three, of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray. This change is relevant when comparing today's players with those of previous eras.

In part, you are right.But, by 1975 or so all players competed in the same circuits, at least the best players.And I don´t think quality of play has anything to see with ennis organization.

kiki
03-03-2012, 11:29 AM
The differnece of talent is this:

Dibbs and Ferrer, both reached a GS title semifinal twice and both lost the final of a YEC (WCT for Dibbs and Masters for Ferrer).Both short, dogged competitors, hard to beat and very honest players that never gave up.

But Ferrer is locked at nº 5 and even made top 4 for a while.Dibbs was never close to nº 5, much less nº 4.He was moving from nº1 8 to nº 11 or 12, depending on the season.Why? cause he faced a bunch more of talent.

I hope to have clarified things for you.

egn
03-03-2012, 12:08 PM
The differnece of talent is this:

Dibbs and Ferrer, both reached a GS title semifinal twice and both lost the final of a YEC (WCT for Dibbs and Masters for Ferrer).Both short, dogged competitors, hard to beat and very honest players that never gave up.

But Ferrer is locked at nº 5 and even made top 4 for a while.Dibbs was never close to nº 5, much less nº 4.He was moving from nº1 8 to nº 11 or 12, depending on the season.Why? cause he faced a bunch more of talent.

I hope to have clarified things for you.

This thread is wrong on so many levels. We will just start with Dibbs reached number 5.....and then won't continue on as Dibbs was consistently ranked in the top 5-8 range where Ferrer spends his time as well..

kiki
03-03-2012, 12:17 PM
This thread is wrong on so many levels. We will just start with Dibbs reached number 5.....and then won't continue on as Dibbs was consistently ranked in the top 5-8 range where Ferrer spends his time as well..

dibbs ranked nº 5? for how long?

egn
03-03-2012, 03:08 PM
dibbs ranked nº 5? for how long?

He was ranked top 5 for most of 78 where he finished off the year ranked 6. He finished off 77 at that rank as well and was somewhere in the 7-10 range at the end of 76 and 79.

If I recall correctly it was
76 - 9
77 - 6
78 - 6
79 - 10

Come on lets not exaggerate either, guys like Teltscher, Gene Mayer were able to ascend in the late 70s early 80s as well. Mayer I believe reached ranked 4...a guy who never made the semis of a major and is almost the James Blake of the 80s. Dibbs and Ferrer ranked very similarly, because I can't see Ferrer finishing top 10 for more than 4 seasons and this year will most likely be a lower top 10 finish.

kiki
03-03-2012, 03:18 PM
Mayer was able to beat Connors at Sidney, Borg and Mc Enroe at the Masters and Lendl at Rome, plus other exos.I don´t think Ferrer is able to do that.

Teacher won the AO, even with its star depleted field, it had Vilas,Lendl,Gerulaitis,Gottfried,Clerc,Pecci...whi le Ferrer has yet to reach a major final.

egn
03-03-2012, 11:33 PM
Mayer was able to beat Connors at Sidney, Borg and Mc Enroe at the Masters and Lendl at Rome, plus other exos.I don´t think Ferrer is able to do that.

Teacher won the AO, even with its star depleted field, it had Vilas,Lendl,Gerulaitis,Gottfried,Clerc,Pecci...whi le Ferrer has yet to reach a major final.

Eliot Teltscher was who I mentioned. Not Brian Teacher....come on get the names right. He won a single match against Borg and Mac and it just happened to be in the same tournament...You mentioned his single win against ALL FOUR OF THOSE GUYS. Ferrer beat Nadal in majors twice now and in the masters as well. He's beaten Djokovic twice now in the masters...Come on don't even compare Mayer and Ferrer. You take Mayer's record against Mac-Borg-Lendl vs Ferrer against Fed-Djok-Nadal I'm sure Ferrer has that won. Oh and come on that win against Lendl was in 1979 he wasn't even a top 20 player at that point in time. Face it Ferrer is not nearly as bad as you dream him to be and the competition is not nearly as weak as you want it to be.

egn
03-03-2012, 11:40 PM
This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

This is where this came from. Tsonga and Ferrer wouldn't be top 30. I wasted my time talking to you. I'm just dying in laughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0iKmRkgbA

Watch that, and then just stop posting ridiculous statements. Tsonga is arguably one of the most talented players out there, with great shotmaking abilities. You want me to believe Amritraj is better...Tsonga has made three major semifinals and has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in majors. You can't say that Tsonga would not be top 30 in the 70s because he would struggle against Amritrag, Dibbs and Gildemeister! Are you serious Gildemeister!?!?! If it's not clay I don't see Gildemeister even coming close..

kiki
03-04-2012, 01:15 AM
This is where this came from. Tsonga and Ferrer wouldn't be top 30. I wasted my time talking to you. I'm just dying in laughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0iKmRkgbA

Watch that, and then just stop posting ridiculous statements. Tsonga is arguably one of the most talented players out there, with great shotmaking abilities. You want me to believe Amritraj is better...Tsonga has made three major semifinals and has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in majors. You can't say that Tsonga would not be top 30 in the 70s because he would struggle against Amritrag, Dibbs and Gildemeister! Are you serious Gildemeister!?!?! If it's not clay I don't see Gildemeister even coming close..

Now, I confirm you have no idea of tennis...you put the vidoe of Tsonga as an examples of great volleys? because I will tell ya 50 better volleyers off my hat.Tsonga, in today´s no volley game is the only one daring to but...compare to Amritraj¡¡¡ Holly Cow¡¡¡

Idf he reached major semis, well, it depends on the field isn´t it?

kiki
03-04-2012, 01:17 AM
Eliot Teltscher was who I mentioned. Not Brian Teacher....come on get the names right. He won a single match against Borg and Mac and it just happened to be in the same tournament...You mentioned his single win against ALL FOUR OF THOSE GUYS. Ferrer beat Nadal in majors twice now and in the masters as well. He's beaten Djokovic twice now in the masters...Come on don't even compare Mayer and Ferrer. You take Mayer's record against Mac-Borg-Lendl vs Ferrer against Fed-Djok-Nadal I'm sure Ferrer has that won. Oh and come on that win against Lendl was in 1979 he wasn't even a top 20 player at that point in time. Face it Ferrer is not nearly as bad as you dream him to be and the competition is not nearly as weak as you want it to be.

No, he beat Lendl again on fast indoors.I didn´t say Ferrer was a bad player, he is one of the best right know.Only that his talent would be average in the golden era.

abmk
03-04-2012, 09:27 AM
This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

LOL, LMAO ...... clueless kiki strikes again. egn has already pwned you with some of the facts .... Let me complete it !

kiki
03-04-2012, 09:30 AM
LOL, LMAO ...... clueless kiki strikes again. egn has already pwned you with some of the facts .... Let me complete it !

Yes¡¡¡ come up with your facts, newtard

abmk
03-04-2012, 09:32 AM
Now, I confirm you have no idea of tennis...you put the vidoe of Tsonga as an examples of great volleys? because I will tell ya 50 better volleyers off my hat.Tsonga, in today´s no volley game is the only one daring to but...compare to Amritraj¡¡¡ Holly Cow¡¡¡

well, clueless, that video was just to show tsonga's talent, not just his volleying skills ..... No doubt, Vijay was by some distance the better volleyer , but Tsonga is by some distance the better player ....

Idf he reached major semis, well, it depends on the field isn´t it?

well, clueless, it depends on the field, but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis , let me enlighten you :

he beat murray, gasquet, youzhny and nadal to reach the finals of the AO in 2008

he beat djokovic to get to the semis of the AO in 2010

he beat federer to get to the semis of wimbledon in 2011 .....

abmk
03-04-2012, 09:35 AM
Yes¡¡¡ come up with your facts, newtard

Didn't egn already pwn you regarding dibbs and him not reaching close to #5 ? Hell, you don't even know much about tennis in the past, forget about present day tennis ....

kiki
03-04-2012, 09:45 AM
well, clueless, that video was just to show tsonga's talent, not just his volleying skills ..... No doubt, Vijay was by some distance the better volleyer , but Tsonga is by some distance the better player ....



well, clueless, it depends on the field, but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis , let me enlighten you :

he beat murray, gasquet, youzhny and nadal to reach the finals of the AO in 2008

he beat djokovic to get to the semis of the AO in 2010

he beat federer to get to the semis of wimbledon in 2011 .....

who are Youznhy and Gasquet? where did they come from?

kiki
03-04-2012, 09:46 AM
Didn't egn already pwn you regarding dibbs and him not reaching close to #5 ? Hell, you don't even know much about tennis in the past, forget about present day tennis ....

Dibbs was around 8 to 10.Ferrer is nº 5 so, make your acounts and see the difference.Even a clueless newtard like you can still see it¡¡

abmk
03-04-2012, 09:52 AM
Dibbs was around 8 to 10.Ferrer is nº 5 so, make your acounts and see the difference.Even a clueless newtard like you can still see it¡¡

Here, it might help,

Ranking

High
5

24.07.1978

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Di/E/Eddie-Dibbs.aspx

He was around 5, 6,7,8 from 78-79 ....

abmk
03-04-2012, 09:54 AM
who are Youznhy and Gasquet? where did they come from?

the are tennis players and good ones at that , but again, like I said ......

but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis .....

Tsonga was ranked in the 30s at that time and had an absolutely brilliant run in that tourney beating almost everyone in his path convincingly .....

now are you gonna argue Vijay was a better player than Tsonga, Ferrer etc ? really ? LOL !!!!

kiki
03-04-2012, 09:58 AM
the are tennis players and good ones at that , but again, like I said ......

but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis .....

now are you gonna argue Vijay was a better player than Tsonga, Ferrer etc ? really ? LOL !!!!

Talent wise, Amritraj was head and shoulders over the spanish midget and above Tsonga ( but IMO Tsonga is far better than Ferrer)...but, you know the difference? a player like Amritraj idn´t get any better than nº 20 or so, while a Tsonga or a Ferrer are eprmanent top 5 or top 6 memebers.

Can you now, finally, definitely understand why Amritraj played in the GOLDEN ERA and Ferrer and Tsonga play in one of the weakest ever eras?

My applause¡¡¡ you finally GOT IT

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:09 AM
This is where this came from. Tsonga and Ferrer wouldn't be top 30. I wasted my time talking to you. I'm just dying in laughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0iKmRkgbA

Watch that, and then just stop posting ridiculous statements. Tsonga is arguably one of the most talented players out there, with great shotmaking abilities. You want me to believe Amritraj is better...Tsonga has made three major semifinals and has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in majors. You can't say that Tsonga would not be top 30 in the 70s because he would struggle against Amritrag, Dibbs and Gildemeister! Are you serious Gildemeister!?!?! If it's not clay I don't see Gildemeister even coming close..

Ever seen peak Hans?

abmk
03-04-2012, 10:11 AM
Talent wise, Amritraj was head and shoulders over the spanish midget and above Tsonga ( but IMO Tsonga is far better than Ferrer)...but, you know the difference? a player like Amritraj idn´t get any better than nº 20 or so, while a Tsonga or a Ferrer are eprmanent top 5 or top 6 memebers.

Can you now, finally, definitely understand why Amritraj played in the GOLDEN ERA and Ferrer and Tsonga play in one of the weakest ever eras?

My applause¡¡¡ you finally GOT IT

Ah, you are unbelievably dense , kiki, even more than I had originally thought ...

Vijay was a talented player, but very streaky , which is why he didn't get to more than #16 in the world ..... not because of the era strength .........

VJ - win loss record of 393-303, win loss % = 56.4% , with best of 2 QFs ( USO, wim )
Tsonga- 200-89, win loss % = 69.2% ( AO final & SF, wim SF )
Ferrer - win loss record of 425-232, win loss % = 64.7% ( AO and USO SF , YEC final)

Ferrer and Tsonga are by some distance better . There is no comparison really, performance wise...

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:11 AM
Any of this forum has ever seen live tennis of the GOLDEN ERA? It would enhance the quality of the posts if anybody did and share experiences...

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:13 AM
Ah, you are unbelievably dense , kiki, even more than I had originally thought ...

Vijay was a talented player, but very streaky , which is why he didn't get to more than #16 in the world ..... not because of the era strength .........

VJ - win loss record of 393-303, win loss % = 56.4% , with best of 2 QFs ( USO, wim )
Tsonga- 200-89, win loss % = 69.2% ( AO final & SF, wim SF )
Ferrer - win loss record of 425-232, win loss % = 64.7% ( AO and USO SF , YEC final)

Ferrer and Tsonga are by some distance better . There is no comparison really

And which % do you think Ferrer would have had in the golden era? and Tsonga? and ...¡¡¡ Bagdhatis ???

abmk
03-04-2012, 10:17 AM
And which % do you think Ferrer would have had in the golden era? and Tsonga? and ...¡¡¡ Bagdhatis ???

I don't think that was the golden era at all . "Golden" era is more like 1985-90 IMO .....

I think the winning % for ferrer, tsonga or others would have been more or less the same , don't see that much of a difference in the strength of the eras ......

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:24 AM
I don't think that was the golden era at all . "Golden" era is more like 1985-90 IMO .....

I think the winning % for ferrer, tsonga or others would have been more or less the same , don't see that much of a difference in the strength of the eras ......

Wrong.Golden era is the 70´s and 80´s, with late 70´s and early 80´s as its peak.

How many slams won by others not called Nadal,Federer and now Djokovic?

abmk
03-04-2012, 10:31 AM
Wrong.Golden era is the 70´s and 80´s, with late 70´s and early 80´s as its peak.

How many slams won by others not called Nadal,Federer and now Djokovic?

Lulz, early 80s had a burnout borg, a choker Lendl, a Mac who lost quite a bit of interest once borg went out ..... Only "consolation" was a resurgent connors ( once borg left )

85 to 90 had Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg at the top, with Mac, Curren, Mecir, Cash,young Agassi,Connors,Leconte, Gomez,young Chang, young Sampras etc still in the mix

What is the point of your second question ? If you are saying its because the other players are not strong, I'd say that's not correct, its because these 3 are just that dominant

pc1
03-04-2012, 10:31 AM
The Golden Era of tennis is whatever you decide it to be. Personally I always hope it's in the present because I can watch it now.

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Lulz, early 80s had a burnout borg, a choker Lendl, a Mac who lost quite a bit of interest once borg went out ..... Only "consolation" was a resurgent connors ( once borg left )

85 to 90 had Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg at the top, with Mac, Curren, Mecir, Cash,young Agassi,Connors,Leconte, Gomez,young Chang, young Sampras etc still in the mix

What is the point of your second question ? If you are saying its because the other players are not strong, I'd say that's not correct, its because these 3 are just that dominant

When did you first watched live tennis? it is not interesting to talk when the other poster has not had the same experience of you.

Why is today a weak era? simply, because nobody has deplaced Murray from his nº 4 position, and Murray has no champions stature, as we all know.

abmk
03-04-2012, 10:44 AM
When did you first watched live tennis? it is not interesting to talk when the other poster has not had the same experience of you.

I watched live tennis since the 90s, but have watched many matches of the 80s ad before ....Its 'interesting" talking to you because frankly you had very little factual knowledge of tennis of any era ( holds even more true for the modern era ), yet keep on talking , making one delusional statement after the other !! Gotta admire that "courage" or whatever you want to call it ......

Why is today a weak era? simply, because nobody has deplaced Murray from his nº 4 position, and Murray has no champions stature, as we all know.

Lulz, and Lendl had a champion's stature before 84 FO final ????? Remember he was #2 at that point ..... If anything Lendl's situation was worse !

egn
03-04-2012, 10:52 AM
No, he beat Lendl again on fast indoors.I didn´t say Ferrer was a bad player, he is one of the best right know.Only that his talent would be average in the golden era.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M038&oId=L018

-__- where is that second win.

You still expect me to believe that Gene Mayer, Eddie Dibbs and Teltscher (not Teacher) would be able to make top 10 and top 5 but Ferrer would not be able to. Even though Ferrer follows a similar format to 70s-90s claycourters with that grind and never die attitude, excellent fitness and a quick compact service motion that can pack a punch for his small size.

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:52 AM
I watched live tennis since the 90s, but have watched many matches of the 80s ad before ....Its 'interesting" talking to you because frankly you had very little factual knowledge of tennis of any era ( holds even more true for the modern era ), yet keep on talking , making one delusional statement after the other !! Gotta admire that "courage" or whatever you want to call it ......



Lulz, and Lendl had a champion's stature before 84 FO final ????? Remember he was #2 at that point ..... If anything Lendl's situation was worse !

Lendl has won much more than Murray.How old Murray is now?

Sorry you have seen so liitle tennis¡¡ you don´t even know what the Golden Era is¡¡¡¡ LOOOOLL

egn
03-04-2012, 10:53 AM
When did you first watched live tennis? it is not interesting to talk when the other poster has not had the same experience of you.

Why is today a weak era? simply, because nobody has deplaced Murray from his nº 4 position, and Murray has no champions stature, as we all know.

So when Lendl reached no.1 without reaching a major what does that mean?

abmk
03-04-2012, 10:55 AM
So when Lendl reached no.1 without reaching a major what does that mean?

it means it was a weak era, doh !

egn
03-04-2012, 10:55 AM
Lendl has won much more than Murray.How old Murray is now?

Sorry you have seen so liitle tennis¡¡ you don´t even know what the Golden Era is¡¡¡¡ LOOOOLL

Lendl won his first major at 24...Murray is 24....hmmm

abmk
03-04-2012, 10:57 AM
Lendl has won much more than Murray.How old Murray is now?

Sorry you have seen so liitle tennis¡¡ you don´t even know what the Golden Era is¡¡¡¡ LOOOOLL

Lulz, and you claim to have seen so much tennis, don't know much about it at all .....

Yes, Lendl has won far more than Murray, but that was mainly from 85 onwards, the period which I referred to ..... bah !

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:58 AM
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M038&oId=L018

-__- where is that second win.

You still expect me to believe that Gene Mayer, Eddie Dibbs and Teltscher (not Teacher) would be able to make top 10 and top 5 but Ferrer would not be able to. Even though Ferrer follows a similar format to 70s-90s claycourters with that grind and never die attitude, excellent fitness and a quick compact service motion that can pack a punch for his small size.

Teacher would certainly not.Ferrer would rwach eventually the top 10.I think he could win as much as Solomon,Higueras or Dibbs.or Corrado Barazutti, for that mather

abmk
03-04-2012, 10:58 AM
Lendl won his first major at 24...Murray is 24....hmmm

Hey, don't let the facts hurt poor old "I-have-seen-tennis-for-so-many-years-yet-know-nothing-about-it" Kiki ......:twisted:

kiki
03-04-2012, 11:01 AM
Lulz, and you claim to have seen so much tennis, don't know much about it at all .....

Yes, Lendl has won far more than Murray, but that was mainly from 85 onwards, the period which I referred to ..... bah !

With each passing post, your cluelessness surprises me more and more.Lendl had won the Masters 2 or 3 times, plus WCT Finals before he won, at 24 his first slam.I don´t know how old is Murray, but I hope he is no older than 23...

You have proved that, at most, you saw tennis from 1990´s on.

I never saw Budge,Tilden or Gonzales but I have some respect for them and try to know about them before giving my opinion.You are a tennis netard, definitley

egn
03-04-2012, 11:01 AM
Ever seen peak Hans?

Only Hans match I watched in full was the 78 QF against Vilas. He played a great match and lost in 5 sets against a player who was really good but had a bloated slam count due to the depleted field of the Australian Open because two grass majors for Vilas I think we can all agree is absurd. I'd say that was the best match Hans ever played. However it still wasn't enough. Besides maybe I'm against him also cause he had that awkward two handed forehand at moments and I was never a fan of double handed on both wings.

egn
03-04-2012, 11:04 AM
Teacher would certainly not.Ferrer would rwach eventually the top 10.I think he could win as much as Solomon,Higueras or Dibbs.or Corrado Barazutti, for that mather

But Teacher and Teltscher both did -__- and I will live with that. Thats all I was really getting at. I think it's ridiculous to say Ferrer would not be a capable top 10 pushing top 5 player in any era. He's a very talented player.

kiki
03-04-2012, 11:05 AM
Only Hans match I watched in full was the 78 QF against Vilas. He played a great match and lost in 5 sets against a player who was really good but had a bloated slam count due to the depleted field of the Australian Open because two grass majors for Vilas I think we can all agree is absurd. I'd say that was the best match Hans ever played. However it still wasn't enough. Besides maybe I'm against him also cause he had that awkward two handed forehand at moments and I was never a fan of double handed on both wings.

He played his best tennis in 1979 and early 80.But, yes, his first big match was probably that 5 setter against one of the all time great clay courters...

kiki
03-04-2012, 11:07 AM
But Teacher and Teltscher both did -__- and I will live with that. Thats all I was really getting at. I think it's ridiculous to say Ferrer would not be a capable top 10 pushing top 5 player in any era. He's a very talented player.

Talent is not the word to describe Ferrer.But he makes up his lack of talent with a great fighting spirit ( although,as Dibbs or Solomon, that is never enough to upset the big boys when it matters)

abmk
03-04-2012, 11:08 AM
With each passing post, your cluelessness surprises me more and more.Lendl had won the Masters 2 or 3 times, plus WCT Finals before he won, at 24 his first slam.I don´t know how old is Murray, but I hope he is no older than 23...

You have proved that, at most, you saw tennis from 1990´s on.

Jeez , clueless kiki, learn to read ....

Lendl was winning titles left-right in 81-84 ( even going 7-0 vs Mac at one point ), but he was a bigger "choker" than Murray at that point because of that precisely , he couldn't do it at the majors... That's what I meant ......

He won the major ones from 85 onwards mainly .....

I never saw Budge,Tilden or Gonzales but I have some respect for them and try to know about them before giving my opinion.You are a tennis netard, definitley

forget about Budge, Tilden, Gonzales whom you never saw ...... You don't even know much about those you supposedly saw ......

You don't know how old Murray ??? Jeez, that's surprising !!!!!!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

kiki
03-04-2012, 11:12 AM
Jeez , clueless kiki, learn to read ....

Lendl was winning titles left-right in 82-84 ( even going 7-0 vs Mac at one point ), but he was a bigger "choker" than Murray at that point because of that precisely , he couldn't do it at the majors... That's what I meant ......

He won the major ones from 85 onwards mainly .....



forget about Budge, Tilden, Gonzales whom you never saw ...... You don't even know much about those you supposedly saw ......

You don't know how old Murray ??? Jeez, that's surprising !!!!!!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

But I know what the Golden Era was¡¡¡ and if I don´t know Murray´s age is becasue I couldn´t be less interested in him, which, of course, is not the case of you high school boys that keep staining Federer´s and Djokovich´s posters before falling asleep.LOL

abmk
03-04-2012, 11:16 AM
But I know what the Golden Era was¡¡¡ and if I don´t know Murray´s age is becasue I couldn´t be less interested in him, which, of course, is not the case of you high school boys that keep staining Federer´s and Djokovich´s posters before falling asleep.LOL

But of course, you probably only watched tennis for those 3-4 years, declared it as the golden era, then didn't/don't watch tennis at all for the rest of the years , yet dismiss the possibility that another era was better ....

The lesser said about your cluelessness of the modern era, the better ....Oh wait, that's not true. Its nice to have fun at your expense !!!! :)

egn
03-04-2012, 11:19 AM
He played his best tennis in 1979 and early 80.But, yes, his first big match was probably that 5 setter against one of the all time great clay courters...

Yes this is true Hans did reach his highest ranking in the 80s but that was still his best performance by far

abmk
03-04-2012, 11:20 AM
Teacher would certainly not.Ferrer would rwach eventually the top 10.I think he could win as much as Solomon,Higueras or Dibbs.or Corrado Barazutti, for that mather

This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

You fail ......This is you ......

http://www.dailylolpics.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire-fail.jpg

kiki
03-04-2012, 11:22 AM
But of course, you probably only watched tennis for those 3-4 years, declared it as the golden era, then didn't/don't watch tennis at all for the rest of the years , yet dismiss the possibility that another era was better ....

The lesser said about your cluelessness of the modern era, the better ....Oh wait, that's not true. Its nice to have fun at your expense !!!! :)

I hope they won´t make an IT test in TT...I´d miss you so much for the great laughters as I miss Joe Pike for the same.

Which posters are you staining tonight, Fed´s or Novac´s?

kiki
03-04-2012, 11:26 AM
Yes this is true Hans did reach his highest ranking in the 80s but that was still his best performance by far

Injuries tore him down.I think his two handed game brought him down.

BTW, he defeated Vilas in straight sets at the 1979 Davis Cup.Vilas didn´t have a good 1979, which means he ended up the year ranked nº 6 and won only a big title (AO) and vey few secondary titles (Washington)

abmk
03-04-2012, 11:28 AM
I hope they won´t make an IT test in TT...I´d miss you so much for the great laughters as I miss Joe Pike for the same.

Oh, yes ...... Of course, you are confident you are going to fail that IT test, right ? :lol:

Go ahead, Kiki, you are just making a mockery of yourself time and again. About time you actually watched some tennis !

kiki
03-04-2012, 11:34 AM
Oh, yes ...... Of course, you are confident you are going to fail that IT test, right ? :lol:

Go ahead, Kiki, you are just making a mockery of yourself time and again. About time you actually watched some tennis !

I can forget more tennis than you´ll ever be able to sink in, my boy.

But keep on posting, your pathetic ignorance and *******ism are unmatched on TT...and there are so many pathetic and ignorant posters over here¡¡¡

CyBorg
03-04-2012, 04:41 PM
Lulz, early 80s had a burnout borg, a choker Lendl, a Mac who lost quite a bit of interest once borg went out ..... Only "consolation" was a resurgent connors ( once borg left )

This is a kind of "creative" interpretation of historical events that can be applied with a brilliant flourish of incompetence in respect to any era.

It's applied so broadly and sloppily that by its logic no era is any good. You simply have to dig hard enough to find perceived problems and then blow them out of proportion.

Most of the perceived problems here are folklore stemming from some really bad history. That Borg burned out (but when?), that Lendl was a choker (was he?), that Mac lost interest (as early as 1980?).

CyBorg
03-04-2012, 04:47 PM
The "Mac losing interest" story is particularly dumb. I know where it came from. In an interview, Mac once said that Borg's retirement caused him to play worse and results faltered.

But Mac is a notoriously unreliable narrator. First of all, he's a dunce. Second of all, he makes excuses all the time. Consider this:

Borg didn't retire officially until the spring of 1983. Shouldn't Mac have struggled after this occurred? No. Mac had a great year in 1983 and a super one in 1984. Mac played badly in 1982, when Borg was working on coming back to play.

So can we please just stop repeating this piece of historical nonsense? Mac is just making an excuse for his struggles.

abmk
03-04-2012, 08:51 PM
I can forget more tennis than you´ll ever be able to sink in, my boy.

But keep on posting, your pathetic ignorance and *******ism are unmatched on TT...and there are so many pathetic and ignorant posters over here¡¡¡

you haven't seen enough tennis to forget about it ! Yes, I agree, there are many pathetic and ignorant posters around here and you are right at the top of that list with your "nostalgiatardness" and zero respect for any of the champions of modern tennis ....

borg number one
03-04-2012, 09:48 PM
I used to be in fairly frequent contact with Robert Geist when I was working on a history of pro tennis a bit over ten years ago. My day job made it slow going and Joe McAuley's statistical history basically shut the door. However I would have been quick to tell Robert that a three way tie for ANY season is simple not tenable, nor is it justified for the 1970 season. It was a transitional and indeed somewhat chaotic period between the advent of Open tennis in mid 1968 until 1975 and a succession of boycotts and restraint of trade meant that Majors and the Davis Cup were seriously and frequently devalued.

I'd also caution you against taking any player's comment on other players too seriously. Newk's comment about Laver in 1970 may have been a bit coloured by Rosewall being his closest rival that season, not to mention utterly frustrating him a few years later in 1974 when he was desperate to prove he was better than Connors.

And you can't apply 2012 practices and assumptions to 1970 - just does not work. There was no single tour. No 'points'. No computer. No concept of tiers other than there was the Big 4 Majors and the rest. You can only rank Laver number 1 in 1970 on dollar earnings or 'blind' tournament results that ignore their stature or significance at the time. To do so would be to apply a totally different standard to any other season and to ignore assessments of the time. Laver started the year as reigning Grand Slam holder but was never to reach the quarterfinals of a Major ever again. His Major form simply deserted him.

Newcombe had a strong case. He won Wimbledon, which was good enough for many commentators 1970 or otherwise get top spot. However in 1970 the guy he beat in 5s in the final crushed him in straight sets in the US semis and won that title. So it was a bit ofa toss up. The prestigious Martini and Rossi award for Player of the year was given to Rosewall and that, to my mind settles it. Laver achieved absolutely nothing - zip - hear that silence at the Majors and was simply not in contention. You also have to consider the enormity of the fall from his 1969 form to appreciate how sudden and inexplicable and underwhelming his 1970 season was.

And yet, as late as the US Open, he was still seeded 1. His form in other tournaments and last year's Grand Slam had organisers convinced Laver must break out of slump in a big way soon. And yet all he could manage were two wins against minor Aussie players prior to losing to Ralston who in turn lost his next match. That half of the draw was won by Roche and Richey and the other half by Rosewall and Newcombe. And of course Rosewall as we know trounced Newk and won the whole thing.

Some trivia - Roy Emerson also performed superbly in the non Majors and was seeded 5 at the US Open. Despite progressing as far as Laver in the draw - the last 16 - and going down in four close sets to Stan Smith, who would win the title the following year, he wasn't even ranked in the top 10 at season's end. I have an issue with that on general tournament form but, in terms of how rankings were based then ie Majors achievements he fell short bigtime as well.

1970 has its similarities with 1977 and perhaps 1998 as well, in terms of different players excelling by different measures. However, I maintain pole position must involve winning at least one Major assuming no boycotts and take account of the views of experts of the time. Laver was disappointing in 1970 and it basically comes down to Newcombe or Rosewall on the basis of their victories at Wimbledon and the US Open. Re the Dunlop Open in Sydney ie the so-called 'alternative AO' in 1970, Laver did defeat Rosewall in a come from behind 5s tussle decided by a single service break in the 5th. Hardly gets him ahead of Rosewall in my book but worth noting perhaps that Newcombe was nailed in the second round of this 32 draw event.

Bud Collins ranked Newcombe at 1 as did Lance Tingay who qualified it as 'by a fraction'and perhaps was talking more about weighting Wimbledon a bit more important than Forest Hills. That was counterbalanced by Rosewall winning the prestigious Martini and Rossi player of the year award and being featured on the cover, together with lead article, of World of Tennis'71.

Excellent post Doug_Hartley_2012. The year 1970 seems to have been a real toss up. I suppose it depends on how you weigh the different tournaments, the majors and then all the rest. Your point about applying modern criterion to 1970 results, when there was no computer, or any other well defined ranking system, is very sound. Yet Laver did win a good number of tournaments. Your post is a good argument for either Rosewall or Newcombe, if one does prioritize the major tournaments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SklUQD02Bs8&feature=related (Newcombe d. Rosewall, 1970 Wimbledon Final)

kiki
03-05-2012, 01:44 AM
The "Mac losing interest" story is particularly dumb. I know where it came from. In an interview, Mac once said that Borg's retirement caused him to play worse and results faltered.

But Mac is a notoriously unreliable narrator. First of all, he's a dunce. Second of all, he makes excuses all the time. Consider this:

Borg didn't retire officially until the spring of 1983. Shouldn't Mac have struggled after this occurred? No. Mac had a great year in 1983 and a super one in 1984. Mac played badly in 1982, when Borg was working on coming back to play.

So can we please just stop repeating this piece of historical nonsense? Mac is just making an excuse for his struggles.


Agreed.He said that because he wa sbeating Borg, and kept losing ( till 1983) to Lendl and, in the majors, to Connors.

timnz
03-06-2012, 09:29 PM
The fact is that he certainly won the number 3 and number 4 events of the year.

Two of the following 5 (all of which Laver won that year) could certainly be considered the number 3 and 4 events of the year:

Wembley
US Pro
LA Hardcourts
Philadelphia
Sydney Dunlop


So again, if he had won the Australian Open and the French open - and didn't win the top 2 of the 5 tournaments listed above - would he be unquestionably the number 1 for 1970?

(The argument here is that the top 2 of those 5 tournaments I have listed were a bigger achievement than winning the Australian Open and the French Open that year).

urban
03-06-2012, 09:47 PM
I had this discussion with Carlo and Jeffrey Neave a couple of years ago on the Wiki discussion sides on the question of the real big four tournaments a year. For 1970 we thought, that Sydney and LA (had a 64 draw) had the best draws and fields outside Wim and Forest Hills. Sgt John has made a valuable list here on TT about the big four in a year. LA was also probably the most important event with best draw outside Wim, Forest Hills and RG in 1968, because Australia wasn't yet open (Bowrey's win was a joke).

abmk
03-09-2012, 09:38 AM
This is a kind of "creative" interpretation of historical events that can be applied with a brilliant flourish of incompetence in respect to any era.

It's applied so broadly and sloppily that by its logic no era is any good. You simply have to dig hard enough to find perceived problems and then blow them out of proportion.

yes, it can. It makes for some dramatic "reading". I wasn't that serious when I made that post ...:)

Most of the perceived problems here are folklore stemming from some really bad history. That Borg burned out (but when?), that Lendl was a choker (was he?), that Mac lost interest (as early as 1980?).

Borg's burnout circa 81 and Lendl coming short at the big events in the early 80s are all well supported by the facts .....The Mac one I just threw that in just like that. I don't really believe in that "story" .....

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-12-2012, 02:53 AM
Bowrey's win at the 1968 Australian championships was not a joke. It was a logical progression to the next rung of amateur champions. The probability is that guys like Bowrey and Ray Ruffels and others would have had lead roles in another amateur season, along with the likes of Arthur Ashe, and challenged for Majors. That's where the sport was at and aren't we all grateful it went 'Open' in April 1968.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-12-2012, 03:13 AM
What would be very interesting would be IF someone could map/recreate the first six seasons of Open tennis and accurately compute player rankings based on contemporary criteria of Majors, other significant tour events and take account of fields and prize money. It is frustrating that even from a statistical point of view we are handicapped in undertaking complete match analysis and rankings comparisons of the COMPLETE Open era because the ATP computer, even in its imperfect form, arrived six years too late. There is no statistical basis to any full season number 1 ranking prior to 1974 and plenty of reason to suspect that top ten lists 1968-1973 exclude players whose form warranted inclusion. And who can forget the last amateur season of 1967 for which Lance Tingay came upwith a top 10 including TWELVE players. Yep.Amazingly, three guys tied for tenth spot. Maybe Rino Tommasi has lists out there that could be rediscovered and posted.

urban
03-12-2012, 06:46 AM
Bowreys win was not logical progression, because almost all leading amateurs of 1967 in one great rush had signed pro contracts with Lamar Hunt, some like Emerson had signed with McCall, and the rest, who stayed amateur like Ashe or Santana didn't play.

urban
03-12-2012, 06:51 AM
I agree, that a statistical analysis of the 1968-1973 years would be very helpful. I have seen some some points rankings on the basis of a simple points race with adding results together. The French webside with the year rankings, which some posters linked lately, has tried such a scheme.

hoodjem
03-12-2012, 10:12 AM
Lulz, early 80s had a burnout borg, a choker Lendl, a Mac who lost quite a bit of interest once borg went out ..... Only "consolation" was a resurgent connors ( once borg left ) Unfortunately, there is an intrinsic chronological contradiction here:

If you are talking about the early 80s when Borg was still playing, then you cannot be talking about the same period in which McEnroe had lost interest after Borg left the game.

Moose Malloy
03-12-2012, 07:05 PM
Maybe Rino Tommasi has lists out there that could be rediscovered and posted.

I have RT's top 10 for '68 to '72

1970
Rosewall
Newcombe
Laver
Roche
Ashe
Richey
Smith
Nastase
Okker
Kodes

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-13-2012, 02:21 AM
Moose, I would love to see the lists for those years, esp the top 10s. They were published as I recall in some World of Tennis annuals but as I have yet to assemble a full collection I can't be sure. eg World of Tennis 75 and 76 - profiling the 74 and 75 seasons - do include RT's top 100. Other issues from 71 and 77 onwards seem not to. And of course I'm happy to see a statistical table puts Rosewall at 1 in 1970, where I'm convinced he was.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-13-2012, 03:02 AM
Australian number 1; last Australian amateur champion in 1968;defeated Ashe in 1968 Davis Cup final; married Aussie female tennis great Lesley Turner.

Tex made the 1965 Australian quarters, losing in 5s to John Newcombe after leading 2 sets to 1. He made the Australian quarters again the following year, losing a titanic 5s battle to eventual champion Roy Emerson 9-7 4-6 4-6 7-5 9-7 after leading 2 sets to 1. The next year - 1967 - he was again the Australian quarters and again up against eventual champion Emerson. He took the first set and lost an even longer 4 set match than the previous year, 4-6 6-4 11-9 16-14. Tex was also a quarterfinalist at the 1966 US championships.

Bowrey was the heir apparent to Australian tennis when Emerson, Stolle, Newcombe and Roche departed to play pro tennis. He won the next Australian championships in 1968 and, when a strong pro field contested in 1969 he still reached the quarters, losing in 5s to his close rival Ray Ruffelsafter being 2 sets up, 9-11 2-6 6-0 6-3 6-4. He also won the Western Australian and South Australian titles 2-3 years prior to Metreveli.

Tex was a WCT pro 1968 - 1971 and retired in 1972 at age 28 to teach in Texas.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-13-2012, 03:15 AM
And while I have sourced Bowrey's 1968-71 connection with WCT from Max Robertson's Encyclopedia of Tennis, a more contemporary source - World of Tennis '71 - says he joined WCT in 1970. Tex came in at 21st on the pro earnings list that year with an awesome $12,213! Well, only Laver and Rosewall broke $100,000 with Emerson 3rd on about $97k. Tex was also a fine doubles player.

urban
03-13-2012, 08:06 AM
Now i know Bowrey, but heir apparent of Newk and Roche, who were same age or maybe younger than him, is a bit too much credit. If any was seen as heir apparent, it was the very young John Alexander.

pc1
03-13-2012, 09:02 AM
Now i know Bowrey, but heir apparent of Newk and Roche, who were same age or maybe younger than him, is a bit too much credit. If any was seen as heir apparent, it was the very young John Alexander.

I don't think that in general people considered Bowrey the heir apparent.

urban
03-13-2012, 09:36 AM
If i remember it right from the top of my head, then Hopman chose 17 or 18 year old Alexander together with Bowrey as singles players for the Davis Cup Challenge Round in 1968 against the US team of Ashe, Graebner, Pasarell. To notice the difference between the Australian Champs in 1967 and 1968, both strictly amateur champs, one has to look at the semifinal line-up in 1967, which consisted of Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe and Roche, if i remember it right. A pretty strong field, with players, who all would have had a chance to win 1969, 1970 or 1971.

Moose Malloy
03-13-2012, 10:11 PM
Moose, I would love to see the lists for those years, esp the top 10s. They were published as I recall in some World of Tennis annuals but as I have yet to assemble a full collection I can't be sure. eg World of Tennis 75 and 76 - profiling the 74 and 75 seasons - do include RT's top 100. Other issues from 71 and 77 onwards seem not to. And of course I'm happy to see a statistical table puts Rosewall at 1 in 1970, where I'm convinced he was.

RT publishes a 'Tennis Record Book' every year. It includes his top 10 rankings for '68 to '72(after that he just lists ATP rankings)

'71
Rosewall
Laver
Newcombe
Smith
Nastase
Kodes
Ashe
Okker
Drysdale
Riessen

'72
Rosewall
Laver
Smith
Newcombe
Nastase
Ashe
Okker
Riessen
Orantes
Drysdale

Its crazy to that Rosewall had a good case at being world #1 at age 36, 37, & 38. Esp after Laver's '69 season.

urban
03-13-2012, 10:18 PM
In the World of tennis yearbook for 1975 (published 1976) is a own ranking by Tommasi, different from the ATP ranking.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-14-2012, 01:22 AM
urban, that's right. Tommasi's rankings were different from the ATP. I think his were based on matches played and calculated on a simple win-loss percentage, but I'm not sure about that.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-14-2012, 01:29 AM
And thanks Moose, so that gives Rosewall a statistical claim to world number 1 three years in a row - 1970,71 and 72. Unreal. And at his age, it just reminds you of how efficient his game was - his court coverage, that he could not only mix it with the best...he was the best. Someone with a big serve and volley game would not be able to do that. You lose a few km per hour and suddenly you're toast. Rosewall had the game.

Can I ask two more favours please Moose. How about 1968 and 1969? I am surprised that neither Emerson nor Stolle featured in the other years. They were still seriously good at the start of the 1970s.

elegos7
03-14-2012, 02:12 AM
urban, that's right. Tommasi's rankings were different from the ATP. I think his were based on matches played and calculated on a simple win-loss percentage, but I'm not sure about that.

I also think that Tommasi's rankings were calculated on a simple win-loss percentage.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-14-2012, 02:12 AM
Granted neither Bowrey or Ruffels were younger than Newcombe or Roche or Davidson BUT they were the next in line. They played singles for Australia in Davis Cup challenge round in 1968. Alexander only played doubles, partnering Ruffels. Ray Ruffels was a leftie, our top junior by the end of 1964 and starting to make waves. Australian semis in both 1968 and 1969 against amateur and open players; Wimbledon quarters in 1967; Aust HC champ in 1969 and Australian number 1 in 1970. I've already mentioned Bowrey's results.

They performed creditably against a USA side in the DC final that featured Graebner and Ashe in the singles and Smith and Lutz in the doubles. Graebner recovered from a set down to defeat Bowrey in 5s in the opening rubber. Ashe similarly conceded the first set before overhauling Bowrey in 4s. Lut/Smith took the doubles in straight sets - no big surprise there. In the reverse singles, Graebner was down a set twice before defeating Ruffels in 5s and Bowrey defeatedAshe in the final match in 4s.

The scores are worth reading as they suggest an even and hard fought battle that Bowrey and Ruffels were not quite able to close out. Sets were decided 10-8 8-6 8-6 7-5 8-6 11-9 and 8-6, aside from the more straightforward results ala 6-4 or better. The Aussies won 4 of those 7 long sets but it was the Americans who triumphed, with both Ashe and Grebner being ranked in the world top 10 at season's end.

Moose Malloy
03-14-2012, 11:47 PM
Can I ask two more favours please Moose. How about 1968 and 1969?

'68
Laver
Rosewall
Ashe
Okker
Roche
Newcombe
Graebner
Santana
Drysdale
Mulligan

'69
Laver
Roche
Newcombe
Okker
Ashe
Rosewall
Gimeno
Drysdale
Smith
Stolle

I also think that Tommasi's rankings were calculated on a simple win-loss percentage

That certainly wasn't the case with his 1982 rankings(I have an Tennis magazine with them, he was part of the panel they used for their rankings. But he did have Lendl as #1 that year, while all the other members of the panel picked Connors)

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-15-2012, 12:52 AM
Moose, thanks very much. Confirms the view that Stolle was a top 10 player in 1969, but I'm surprised Emerson doesn't appear in any of Tommasi's lists 1968-71. I can only guess he was top 15 because he was so close and was beating the top Aussies and Gonzales on occasion, but clearly not regularly enough.

kiki
03-17-2012, 01:45 AM
Moose, thanks very much. Confirms the view that Stolle was a top 10 player in 1969, but I'm surprised Emerson doesn't appear in any of Tommasi's lists 1968-71. I can only guess he was top 15 because he was so close and was beating the top Aussies and Gonzales on occasion, but clearly not regularly enough.

I agree.In 1970, Emerson,Stolle,Fraser could be dangerous customers for a match here and there, but were not consistently beating the top players and I don´t think they figured in the top 10.

Guys like Gorman,Richey,Riessen,Nastase,Roche,Kodes,Pilic,Ta ylor or Franulovic were far more consistent.

But, on any given day and , specially on grass, they could beat anybody.

In 1972, old time pro Mal Anderson reached the finals of the AO.That proves they could still give you a serious scarce.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-17-2012, 02:50 AM
Moose, I know you posted that Tommassi published his world top 10s 1968-1972 but I remember seeing them later than that. The World of Tennis annuals published them for the 1974 and 1975 seasons at least. Sooooo, would you have any idea about a 1973 list from Tommasi? Now, I'm assuming one was published in World of Tennis 1974 edition - covering the 1973 season - but wouldn't you know it...that's one edition I DON'T have. I have issues with the ATP 1973 computer ranking because, as I understand it, it only covers part of the season. If that's correct,Tommasi might be a better source for a statistical top 10 for that year.

I have always felt that Newk was world number 1 in 1973. He started the year winning the Australian Open; the French and Wimbledon were no goes; and he won the US Open, defeating the Wimbledon champ Kodes who had been the best of a second tier bunch. He then followed that up with a straight sets demolition of Kodes in a Davis Cup semi; narrowly lost the Australian Indoor final to Laver in 5s; and defeated Smith and Gorman in the Davis Cup final. Nastase? I don't think so.

kiki
03-17-2012, 03:19 AM
Moose, I know you posted that Tommassi published his world top 10s 1968-1972 but I remember seeing them later than that. The World of Tennis annuals published them for the 1974 and 1975 seasons at least. Sooooo, would you have any idea about a 1973 list from Tommasi? Now, I'm assuming one was published in World of Tennis 1974 edition - covering the 1973 season - but wouldn't you know it...that's one edition I DON'T have. I have issues with the ATP 1973 computer ranking because, as I understand it, it only covers part of the season. If that's correct,Tommasi might be a better source for a statistical top 10 for that year.

I have always felt that Newk was world number 1 in 1973. He started the year winning the Australian Open; the French and Wimbledon were no goes; and he won the US Open, defeating the Wimbledon champ Kodes who had been the best of a second tier bunch. He then followed that up with a straight sets demolition of Kodes in a Davis Cup semi; narrowly lost the Australian Indoor final to Laver in 5s; and defeated Smith and Gorman in the Davis Cup final. Nastase? I don't think so.

... in 1974 he won the WCT finals over Borg, reached the US Open sf against Rosewall and the Masters semifinals where Vilas defeated him.In 1975 won the AO, defeating Connors in the finals, and reached the 1976 AO finals, where surprising Mark Edmondson had the best in 4 sets.I don´t think Newk recovered from that loss and almost retired in 1976, although he kept playing a few events during 1977 and 1978 - but he didn´t take tennis seriously in his last 3 years-

urban
03-17-2012, 07:41 AM
Most experts had Nastase as Nr. 1 in 1973, with good reason imo. Newcombe's first half of the year was littered with early and real bad losses, especially on the European tour, vs. people like Szoeke and others. The Aussie open had a pretty weak field that year.Newk came alive in the second half with wins at Forest Hills and Davis Cup (although losing to Hrebec there). Nastase, although going out early at Wim and Forest Hills, had the overall better year, with great wins at Rome and RG (without losing set) and Queens. And he won the Masters at Boston, during which i think he beat Newk in the round robin round. Newcombe had bad luck injuring himself in the semi against Okker, but imo he needed this Masters win to even up with Nasty.

kiki
03-17-2012, 11:22 AM
Most experts had Nastase as Nr. 1 in 1973, with good reason imo. Newcombe's first half of the year was littered with early and real bad losses, especially on the European tour, vs. people like Szoeke and others. The Aussie open had a pretty weak field that year.Newk came alive in the second half with wins at Forest Hills and Davis Cup (although losing to Hrebec there). Nastase, although going out early at Wim and Forest Hills, had the overall better year, with great wins at Rome and RG (without losing set) and Queens. And he won the Masters at Boston, during which i think he beat Newk in the round robin round. Newcombe had bad luck injuring himself in the semi against Okker, but imo he needed this Masters win to even up with Nasty.

Both players were even until the Masters, having both won 2 big titles each.But, I agree with urban that the Masters gave the final edge to Nastase ( who also had a favourable H2H against John)

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-17-2012, 10:37 PM
kiki, Newk was born in 1944 so by 1978 he was 34. He didn't lose interest; he just reached the end of the competitive road. He was a big serving guy and IMO it's harder for them to play on than say a Rosewall with an all court game.

And to be fair to Newk, he was a contender for world number in 1973 aged 29; he was widely accepted as the world number 1 mid-1974 season when he claimed the WCT title but before Connors swept both Wimbledon and the US Open without meeting him; and he opened 1975 with a decisive victory over Connors in the AO final.

With every reason to believe he was on course to challenge for number 1 yet again, he suffered a knee injury playing World Team Tennis of all things in Hawaii in June and that crippled any hope of winning Wimbledon one more time or taking top ranking.

kiki
03-18-2012, 12:38 AM
kiki, Newk was born in 1944 so by 1978 he was 34. He didn't lose interest; he just reached the end of the competitive road. He was a big serving guy and IMO it's harder for them to play on than say a Rosewall with an all court game.

And to be fair to Newk, he was a contender for world number in 1973 aged 29; he was widely accepted as the world number 1 mid-1974 season when he claimed the WCT title but before Connors swept both Wimbledon and the US Open without meeting him; and he opened 1975 with a decisive victory over Connors in the AO final.

With every reason to believe he was on course to challenge for number 1 yet again, he suffered a knee injury playing World Team Tennis of all things in Hawaii in June and that crippled any hope of winning Wimbledon one more time or taking top ranking.

Which was the reaction in Australia when Edmondson won the 76 Open, defeating all time greats Rosewall and Newcombe? It was supossed to be the " burial" of both all timers and the emergence of a new force to be reckoned with.Unfortunately, Edmondson just deliveried twice more and then went on to playing doubles .He reached the 1979 AO semifinals, losing in 5 sets to Sadri, and reached the Wimbledon semifinals, defeating Vilas and Gerulaitis and bowing in straight sets to Connors.

Doug_Hartley_2012
03-19-2012, 03:00 AM
Eddo was a talented player. He performed better than many people realise. I never felt he was truly fit and he came so close to nailing Borg at Wimbledon in 1977 - he had him 2 sets down and also had match points against Fibak at Wimbledon in 1980 before losing. In 1981 he beat Gerulaitis at Wimbledon to reach the semis. It was some revenge for having lost to Vitas in the 1979 Davis Cup semi after being up two sets to nil in the opening rubber.Eddo lost that match 8-6 16-14 8-10 3-6 3-6. If I was looking for one word to describe Eddo, it would be 'nearly'.

hoodjem
03-19-2012, 09:31 AM
Eddo was a talented player. . . . If I was looking for one word to describe Eddo, it would be 'nearly'.

Good turn of phrase.

kiki
03-19-2012, 03:41 PM
Even if not true champs, aussies like Alexander,Dent,Warwick or Frawley ( and the most succesful one Mark Edmondson) were extremely dangerous on grass.Borg must know it pretty well since Edmondson in 1977 and Frawley in 1980 were close to beat him...just as Amaya in 78 and, of course, Vijay Amritraj in 1979...BTW, has anybody gotten footage of that match?

kiki
10-27-2013, 08:06 AM
What happens if we credit the Dunlop at Sidney as the 4 th biggest event in 1970? We basically have Laver with one major win, Rosewall with a major ( + a lost final) and Newcombe ( with a major).Kodes was not in their league in spite of his FO win.

Rosewall seems to behave better at the GS championships but Laver was the most consistent player.

But for a given match, I take Newcombe...

BobbyOne
10-27-2013, 06:09 PM
What happens if we credit the Dunlop at Sidney as the 4 th biggest event in 1970? We basically have Laver with one major win, Rosewall with a major ( + a lost final) and Newcombe ( with a major).Kodes was not in their league in spite of his FO win.

Rosewall seems to behave better at the GS championships but Laver was the most consistent player.

But for a given match, I take Newcombe...

kiki, we could also take the Masters as the fourth greatest match.

I rank Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe as tied No.1.

I think it's impossible to rank Laver ALONE No.1, a player who failed terribly at the GS tournaments.

Rosewall edged out Newcombe clearly: won 5:3 sets in GS competition, finished ahead of Newk in the GP and the Masters, finished ahead in WCT series, was 5:2 in hth...

kiki
10-29-2013, 03:28 PM
kiki, we could also take the Masters as the fourth greatest match.

I rank Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe as tied No.1.

I think it's impossible to rank Laver ALONE No.1, a player who failed terribly at the GS tournaments.

Rosewall edged out Newcombe clearly: won 5:3 sets in GS competition, finished ahead of Newk in the GP and the Masters, finished ahead in WCT series, was 5:2 in hth...

I agree about the Masters as one of the best events then.Smith won this first Masters played on a full rr system, and Laver and Rosewall were there.

I think Kodes,Franulovic and Richey made up for the three remaining positions, because it was a 6 men tournament, if I recall well.Newck did not play this tournament.But WCT started off its full tour in 1971, how could Rosewall finish ahead of Newcombe if there was no official tour?

BobbyOne
10-29-2013, 04:10 PM
I agree about the Masters as one of the best events then.Smith won this first Masters played on a full rr system, and Laver and Rosewall were there.

I think Kodes,Franulovic and Richey made up for the three remaining positions, because it was a 6 men tournament, if I recall well.Newck did not play this tournament.But WCT started off its full tour in 1971, how could Rosewall finish ahead of Newcombe if there was no official tour?

kiki, Ashe was the remaining player finishing fourth behind Smith, Laver and Rosewall.
Newcombe did not qualify for the Masters. He finished only seventh in Grand Prix.

Richey finished first in the Grand Prix but did not enter the Masters (injury?).

You are right that there was not an official WCT series but there were many pro events probably under the aegis of WCT. I believe that NTL had finished that year.

In the pro prize money list Rosewall finished second behind Laver and ahead of Emerson and Newcombe.

Newcombe did not qualify for the First Tennis Classic series where Rosewall lost in final to Laver (MSG).

kiki
10-29-2013, 11:44 PM
kiki, Ashe was the remaining player finishing fourth behind Smith, Laver and Rosewall.
Newcombe did not qualify for the Masters. He finished only seventh in Grand Prix.

Richey finished first in the Grand Prix but did not enter the Masters (injury?).

You are right that there was not an official WCT series but there were many pro events probably under the aegis of WCT. I believe that NTL had finished that year.

In the pro prize money list Rosewall finished second behind Laver and ahead of Emerson and Newcombe.

Newcombe did not qualify for the First Tennis Classic series where Rosewall lost in final to Laver (MSG).

OK, so Ashe instead of Richey.Still a very strong tournament with the best 6 guys of the year excepting John Newcombe at Tokyo for the first Masters of history.

Kodes never performed great indoors as opposed to clay and grass.maybe he ebnjoyed naturakl conditions and not artificial.He never reached an indoor major final, be it at Dallas or at the Masters.Franulovic was excellent on clay, but nothing special outside it.

BobbyOne
10-31-2013, 02:39 AM
OK, so Ashe instead of Richey.Still a very strong tournament with the best 6 guys of the year excepting John Newcombe at Tokyo for the first Masters of history.

Kodes never performed great indoors as opposed to clay and grass.maybe he ebnjoyed naturakl conditions and not artificial.He never reached an indoor major final, be it at Dallas or at the Masters.Franulovic was excellent on clay, but nothing special outside it.

kiki, I must correct me. Newcombe was yet a part of the Tennis Classic but did not qualify for the FINAL 4 man tournament because he lost to Gonzalez and did not play another match. In that MSG event Rosewall defeated Emerson and Laver defeated Gonzalez in the SFs. Laver beat Rosewall yet another time in the final.

BobbyOne
10-31-2013, 05:28 AM
OK, so Ashe instead of Richey.Still a very strong tournament with the best 6 guys of the year excepting John Newcombe at Tokyo for the first Masters of history.

Kodes never performed great indoors as opposed to clay and grass.maybe he ebnjoyed naturakl conditions and not artificial.He never reached an indoor major final, be it at Dallas or at the Masters.Franulovic was excellent on clay, but nothing special outside it.

kiki, I must correct me once more: Newcombe played yet a second match in that pro (WCT) series in 1970. He lost to Rosewall 7-5, 5-7, 1-6, 2-6. I did not find that in the World of Tennis Annual but found it in Rosewall at Wikipedia.

Altogether Rosewall lead 5:2 matches against Newcombe in 1970.

kiki
10-31-2013, 03:55 PM
well, those three-four first years of the 70´s had no clear number one, in the way of 1974 Connors or 1978-1980 Borg.But the quality of the top players was astounding, much more than a shortcoming, it was a real advantage.

nothing to see with the first three -four years of the 2000´s, when , except Sampras and Agassi played their best, the talent was obviously missing.

BobbyOne
11-01-2013, 01:05 AM
well, those three-four first years of the 70´s had no clear number one, in the way of 1974 Connors or 1978-1980 Borg.But the quality of the top players was astounding, much more than a shortcoming, it was a real advantage.

nothing to see with the first three -four years of the 2000´s, when , except Sampras and Agassi played their best, the talent was obviously missing.

kiki, Yes, 1970 to 1973 did not have a clear No.1. But yet it was a strong period.

kiki
11-01-2013, 07:01 AM
kiki, Yes, 1970 to 1973 did not have a clear No.1. But yet it was a strong period.

That is what makes interesting to find a number one with a valid argument to back it up.

Not the best player in absolute terms, not even the best one for a given match or tournament but the player that did a bit better than the other opponents to be considered as the best in the world.

In the women´s ranks it was basically Court with King and Goolagong having each one a dominating year.Evert came round in 1974 as a solid number one.

But I can think of 7 players that could claim to be number one at some periods of the season during the 70-73 frame.

while I concede it is very debatable, my feeling is:

1970 1/ Rosewall 2/ Newcombe 3/Laver
1971 1/ Smith 2/Rosewall 3/Newcombe and Kodes
1972 1/Nastase 2/Smith 3/Rosewall
1973 1/Nastase and Newcombe 3/Kodes

Ashe had periods when he could also be considered but didn´t win anything big except the 1970 AO and the 1972 WCT winter finals which were basically second rate tournaments.

If we consider the full four years as a whole, the final outcome would be:

1/Nastase and Smith 3/Rosewall 4/Kodes and Newcombe 6/Ashe and Laver

No other player can fit in, although Gimeno and Roche were always top ten players and then, it is a toss up with Okker,Franulovic and Pilic, although I think Okker deserves the tenth place much more than the others since he was a much better all round player.

From spectator point of view, given the contrast and mixture of styles and the great quality of these players, I consider 1970 to 1973 as one of the best periods in tennis history.

Those top ten plus Pilic,Orantes,Franulovic,Lutz,Gorman,Riessen,Metre vali,Taylor,Richey,Panatta and young and emerging guys such as Borg and Jimmy Connors...you don´t get it much better.