1970-73: clash of the titans

[KG1965]

I do not remember if I had already made a thread on this topic ....

I like to analyze, after '69 GS of Laver, and the domain of Rod in the period 1966-69, dividing the period in 4 years.
Also to change optics.
1970-73
1974-77
1978-81
1982-85
1986-89
1990-93
...

The 1970-73 period was very even fought because the circuit was divided in two by ... a wall, and the Grand Prix was separated from the WCT, so the aussie on one side and Nastase and Smith on the other.
Laver was always the man to beat but perhaps the second half of 1971 Newcombe became the best, then came Smith and finally Nasty.
Who was the man of the period?
IMHO maybe Newcombe, but Laver (and Rosewall) were still better than Newk).

Newcombe, Smith and Nasty were strongest in slam tournaments (2 because Melbourne was a joke and Paris resembled like other great tournaments) but in the WCT tournaments (shorter) proved to be better than Newk.

Ultimately for me maybe
1) Newcombe
2) Smith
3) Nastase
4) Rosewall and Laver

... but it depends on how much value gives WCT tournaments in the early 70's were worth much more than later.

For some the impression, however, it was that Laver and Rosewall were stronger than Newcombe.

For this reason Laver was for almost all the best player until 1973. Maybe.

 

[BobbyOne]

I do not remember if I had already made a thread on this topic ....

I like to analyze, after '69 GS of Laver, and the domain of Rod in the period 1966-69, dividing the period in 4 years.
Also to change optics.
1970-73
1974-77
1978-81
1982-85
1986-89
1990-93
...

The 1970-73 period was very even fought because the circuit was divided in two by ... a wall, and the Grand Prix was separated from the WCT, so the aussie on one side and Nastase and Smith on the other.
Laver was always the man to beat but perhaps the second half of 1971 Newcombe became the best, then came Smith and finally Nasty.
Who was the man of the period?
IMHO maybe Newcombe, but Laver (and Rosewall) were still better than Newk).

Newcombe, Smith and Nasty were strongest in slam tournaments (2 because Melbourne was a joke and Paris resembled like other great tournaments) but in the WCT tournaments (shorter) proved to be better than Newk.

Ultimately for me maybe
1) Newcombe
2) Smith
3) Mastase
4) Rosewall and Laver

... but it depends on how much value gives WCT tournaments in the early 70's were worth much more than later.

For some the impression, however, it was that Laver and Rosewall were stronger than Newcombe.

For this reason Laver was for almost all the best player until 1973. Maybe.

KG, Rosewall was the best player in majors for the 1970 to 1973 period: He won five majors, reached one final and reached two SFs (Wimbledon 1971 and US Open 1973). Astonishing and unknown but right!

EDIT: I must correct myself: Rosewall reached three major SFs in that period. I forgot that he reached also the 1973 WCT Dallas SF. (He then beat Laver for third place by 6-3, 6-2, by the way). Thus Rosewall collected nine big SFs from 1970 to 1973.

 

[KG1965]

1970:

Laver is number one with big margin(wins Los Angeles, Wembley, SA Open + 6 WCT tiltes). Another category.

Rosewall wins 2 WCT + US Open, Newk one WCT + Wimbledon, Smith wins Stockholm + Masters.
After Nasty (Salisbury + Rome)

 

[pc1]

1970:

Laver is number one with big margin(wins Los Angeles, Wembley, SA Open + 6 WCT tiltes). Another category.

Rosewall wins 2 WCT + US Open, Newk one WCT + Wimbledon, Smith wins Stockholm + Masters.
After Nasty (Salisbury + Rome)

Don't forget the Sydney Melbourne which was essentially a major that year for Laver.

 

[KG1965]

1971:
Is it better than Laver , with little margin.
Newk wins Wimbledon + 4 WCT but Laver and Rosewall are ... on vacation .

After Smith & Nasty.

1970+1971
The aussie 3 are close in achievements but the feeling is that it is due to the fact that in Secona part of 1971 Laver and Rosewall may rest .
Laver and Ken seem >> Newk

 

[KG1965]

Don't forget the Sydney Melbourne which was essentially a major that year for Laver.

Thank you, you were right to remind me, I did not do a very precise work in truth.

Laver in 1970 was >>> on all opponents . Since 1971 decreases productivity while Ken improves .

 

[KG1965]

In 1972 Smith commands and 1973 Nastase, although Smith dominates the WCT circuit where he had not before competed .

Ilie and Stan position themselves behind Newk in the 1970-1973 period , and before the two old aussie but it is difficult to sustain .

I think depends on the value you choose to ascribe to the WCT titles .

In subsequent years if you exclude the WCT Finals and Philadelphia the other tournaments were penalized by the ATP but the first years of the WCT circuit maybe they were important tournaments and Laver won one wheelbarrow. Even Rosewall .

If he attributes much score WCT titles Laver arrives at the level of Newk .

 

[pc1]

Thank you, you were right to remind me, I did not do a very precise work in truth.

Laver in 1970 was >>> on all opponents . Since 1971 decreases productivity while Ken improves .

In 1971 Laver won perhaps the strongest tennis tournament of all time in the Tennis Champions Classic defeating Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe (several times), Emerson (several times), Taylor, Ralston (several times) and Okker also several times. He won 13 matches without a loss. People were in awe at Laver's performance in that tournament. He also won the important Italian Open over Kodes. Not a great year by Laver's peak standards but still not bad for anyone else. Laver was clearly NOT number one by the standards of the day or even now imo. However I would say that I doubt any player could defeat Laver regularly if they played a series of matches with him in 1971. This is sort of proven out at the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.

 

[hoodjem]

In 1971 Laver won perhaps the strongest tennis tournament of all time in the Tennis Champions Classic defeating Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe (several times), Emerson (several times), Taylor, Ralston (several times) and Okker also several times. He won 13 matches without a loss. People were in awe at Laver's performance in that tournament. He also won the important Italian Open over Kodes.

That was the year that Kodes won the FO (again).

 

[pc1]

That was the year that Kodes won the FO.

My best guess at that point is that for actual playing strength Laver was still the best but it didn't show up in the results except for the Tennis Champions Classic. In 1972 I'm not quite sure who was the best for actual playing strength but it could have been Nastase although Laver was still up there.

 

[70sHollywood]

I would say for 70-73:

1) Newk
2) Nasty
3) Muscles
4) Stan Smith
5) The Rocket

 

[BobbyOne]

1971:
Is it better than Laver , with little margin.
Newk wins Wimbledon + 4 WCT but Laver and Rosewall are ... on vacation .

After Smith & Nasty.

1970+1971
The aussie 3 are close in achievements but the feeling is that it is due to the fact that in Secona part of 1971 Laver and Rosewall may rest .
Laver and Ken seem >> Newk

KG, When were Laver and Rosewall on vacation in 1971??

Rosewall did not rest in the second part of 1971: He won the big Dallas Finals!

 

[BobbyOne]

Thank you, you were right to remind me, I did not do a very precise work in truth.

Laver in 1970 was >>> on all opponents . Since 1971 decreases productivity while Ken improves .

KG, A player who fails dramatically in the biggest ones cannot be superior to players who win the biggest ones.

 

[BobbyOne]

I would say for 70-73:

1) Newk
2) Nasty
3) Muscles
4) Stan Smith
5) The Rocket

70sHollywood, I still would say that Rosewall was more successful in that period than Newcombe as he won 5 big events while Newcombe won 4 (but the more important one, I concede). But Rosewall also reached 5 additional big SFs whereas Newcombe reached only 2 big SFs.

 

[Limpinhitter]

In 1971 Laver won perhaps the strongest tennis tournament of all time in the Tennis Champions Classic defeating Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe (several times), Emerson (several times), Taylor, Ralston (several times) and Okker also several times. He won 13 matches without a loss. People were in awe at Laver's performance in that tournament. He also won the important Italian Open over Kodes. Not a great year by Laver's peak standards but still not bad for anyone else. Laver was clearly NOT number one by the standards of the day or even now imo. However I would say that I doubt any player could defeat Laver regularly if they played a series of matches with him in 1971. This is sort of proven out at the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.

In addition to winning the biggest tennis tournament in tennis history, Laver was also the WCT points leader, won 7 tournaments and was the record setting money leader for 1971.

 

[BobbyOne]

In addition to winning the biggest tennis tournament in tennis history, Laver was also the WCT points leader, won 7 tournaments and was the record setting money leader for 1971.

Limpin, a certain Rosewall won eight tournaments.

Laver unfortunately failed at the three most important tournaments he entered: Wimbledon, WCT Finals and AO.

 

[70sHollywood]

What does Laver have to say about the Tennis Champions Classic in his recent autobiography?

 

[70sHollywood]

70sHollywood, I still would say that Rosewall was more successful in that period than Newcombe as he won 5 big events while Newcombe won 4 (but the more important one, I concede). But Rosewall also reached 5 additional big SFs whereas Newcombe reached only 2 big SFs.

In my opinion there were 7 tier 1 events in this period - W/US in 70/71, US in 72, RG/US in 73. Newcombe wins 3/7, Nastase 2, Smith and Rosewall 1 each. Not only that but for various reasons you could argue that Wimbledon in 70/71 and the US Open in 73 were the number 1 event in each year, so Newcombe won the top event in 3/4 years. Rosewall and Smith both have 1 R/U each, and both at Wimbledon.

H2H Newcombe has 4 wins in these events, Rosewall has 2. The other 3 have none.


Tier 2 events I would look at AO 70/71, RG 71/72, Wimbledon 72, WCT Finals, GP Masters, TCC 71. Newcombe wins 0, Nastase 3, Rosewall 3, Smith 3, Laver 1.

H2H Newcombe has 0 wins, Rosewall 3, Nastase 4, Laver 4, Smith 4.


In the Davis Cup Smith beat Nastase 3 years in a row but Newk and Laver beat Smith.


Tight overall. I say Newk is number 1 because of his record in the biggest tournaments. Nastase, Rosewall, Smith are very close. Not sure about Nastase above Rosewall and Smith now.


(In other tournaments Laver probably has the best record, followed by Nastase or Smith. Newcombe had 2 big wins in Philly 71 and Las Vegas 72. Rosewall comes off worst here).

 

[KG1965]

The reasoning is simple despite the period .. was shattered .

Wimbledon and USO were worth so much , RG was a good tournament but as others . Australian worth much less .

If the WCT tournaments had a low value as after 1974 ( with the exception of Philadelphia and Dallas ) Newk is first ( although Laver 's first sharply in 1970 ) .
If the WCT tournaments had a high value Laver dominates 1970 and is the number of the 1970-1973 period .

For the moment I am inclined to the second hypothesis : Laver number one 1966-1969 and number one also in the periodo 1970-1973 .

I intend to analyze better the WCT tournaments in the early years of the circuit but today I am convinced that Laver > Newk , Smith , Rosewall , Nasty .

 

[KG1965]

In 1971 Laver won perhaps the strongest tennis tournament of all time in the Tennis Champions Classic defeating Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe (several times), Emerson (several times), Taylor, Ralston (several times) and Okker also several times. He won 13 matches without a loss. People were in awe at Laver's performance in that tournament. He also won the important Italian Open over Kodes. Not a great year by Laver's peak standards but still not bad for anyone else. Laver was clearly NOT number one by the standards of the day or even now imo. However I would say that I doubt any player could defeat Laver regularly if they played a series of matches with him in 1971. This is sort of proven out at the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.

Boom. Target hit , as usual.

 

[KG1965]

KG, A player who fails dramatically in the biggest ones cannot be superior to players who win the biggest ones.

What were the biggest tournaments Bobby?

 

[KG1965]

There are two ways to analyze the year 1981 , for example .

It is analyzed on the basis of the standard 2015, or 1996 or 2007 .

Or you look at trying to think of being in 1981 .

I incline to the latter solution.
The other solution I care but ... little little little.

 

[KG1965]

1966-1969 LAVER
1970-1973 LAVER or NEWCOMBE (work in progress)
1974-1977 CONNORS
1978-1981 BORG
1982-1985 MCENROE
1986-1989 LENDL
1990- ....

1962-1965 ...
1958-1961 ...
1954-1957 ...
1950-1953 ...

 

[KG1965]

1950-1953 KRAMER
1954-1957 GONZALEZ
1958-1961 GONZALEZ
1962-1965 ROSEWALL
1966-1969 LAVER
1970-1973 LAVER or NEWCOMBE (work in progress)
1974-1977 CONNORS
1978-1981 BORG
1982-1985 MCENROE
1986-1989 LENDL
1990-1993 EDBERG ?
1994-1997 SAMPRAS
1998-2001 AGASSI, SAMPRAS or KUERTEN ??
2002-2005 FEDERER
2006-2009 FEDERER
2010-2013 NADAL or DJOKOVIC ?
2013-2017 DJOKOVIC

 

[BobbyOne]

In my opinion there were 7 tier 1 events in this period - W/US in 70/71, US in 72, RG/US in 73. Newcombe wins 3/7, Nastase 2, Smith and Rosewall 1 each. Not only that but for various reasons you could argue that Wimbledon in 70/71 and the US Open in 73 were the number 1 event in each year, so Newcombe won the top event in 3/4 years. Rosewall and Smith both have 1 R/U each, and both at Wimbledon.

H2H Newcombe has 4 wins in these events, Rosewall has 2. The other 3 have none.


Tier 2 events I would look at AO 70/71, RG 71/72, Wimbledon 72, WCT Finals, GP Masters, TCC 71. Newcombe wins 0, Nastase 3, Rosewall 3, Smith 3, Laver 1.

H2H Newcombe has 0 wins, Rosewall 3, Nastase 4, Laver 4, Smith 4.


In the Davis Cup Smith beat Nastase 3 years in a row but Newk and Laver beat Smith.


Tight overall. I say Newk is number 1 because of his record in the biggest tournaments. Nastase, Rosewall, Smith are very close. Not sure about Nastase above Rosewall and Smith now.


(In other tournaments Laver probably has the best record, followed by Nastase or Smith. Newcombe had 2 big wins in Philly 71 and Las Vegas 72. Rosewall comes off worst here).

70sHollywood, AO 1970 was not a truly big event. Also 1972 AO was not. But Dunlop Sydney was.

 

[BobbyOne]

1950-1953 KRAMER
1954-1957 GONZALEZ
1958-1961 GONZALEZ
1962-1965 ROSEWALL
1966-1969 LAVER
1970-1973 LAVER or NEWCOMBE (work in progress)
1974-1977 CONNORS
1978-1981 BORG
1982-1985 MCENROE
1986-1989 LENDL
1990-1993 EDBERG ?
1994-1997 SAMPRAS
1998-2001 AGASSI, SAMPRAS or KUERTEN ??
2002-2005 FEDERER
2006-2009 FEDERER
2010-2013 NADAL or DJOKOVIC ?
2013-2017 DJOKOVIC

KG, Laver was far away from best player in the 1970 to 1973 period. Rosewall and Newcombe were better.

 

[KG1965]

Rod was so much stronger opponents in 1970 which could be the best of the period although in 1972 and 1973 even though it was behind the fourth with a lot of distance .

It depends on how much worth the WCT tournaments .

If the tournaments were worth enough as I think Rod is the top player of the period .

 

[Limpinhitter]

Rod was so much stronger opponents in 1970 which could be the best of the period although in 1972 and 1973 even though it was behind the fourth with a lot of distance .

It depends on how much worth the WCT tournaments .

If the tournaments were worth enough as I think Rod is the top player of the period .

The WCT Circuit doesn't get the recognition that it should, in part, because it doesn't exist any more. The pros played for money and they were the highest paying events except for the TCC tournaments.

 

[70sHollywood]

1950-1953 LAVER
1954-1957 LAVER
1958-1961 LAVER
1962-1965 LAVER
1966-1969 LAVER
1970-1973 LAVER
1974-1977 LAVER
1978-1981 LAVER
1982-1985 LAVER
1986-1989 LAVER
1990-1993 LAVER
1994-1997 LAVER
1998-2001 LAVER
2002-2005 LAVER
2006-2009 LAVER
2010-2013 LAVER
2013-2017 LAVER

 

[BobbyOne]

70sHollywood, Whereas Federer is the star of the General PP forum, Laver is the star of the Former PP forum.

 

[Limpinhitter]

1950-1953 KRAMER
1954-1957 GONZALEZ
1958-1961 GONZALEZ
1962-1965 ROSEWALL
1966-1969 LAVER
1970-1973 LAVER or NEWCOMBE (work in progress)
1974-1977 CONNORS
1978-1981 BORG
1982-1985 MCENROE
1986-1989 LENDL
1990-1993 EDBERG ?
1994-1997 SAMPRAS
1998-2001 AGASSI, SAMPRAS or KUERTEN ??
2002-2005 FEDERER
2006-2009 FEDERER
2010-2013 NADAL or DJOKOVIC ?
2013-2017 DJOKOVIC

Fixed it for you!

1950-1953 KRAMER
1954-1957 GONZALEZ
1958-1961 GONZALEZ
1962-1963 ROSEWALL
1964-1971 LAVER
1972-1973 LAVER, NEWCOMBE, NASTASE or SMITH (work in progress)
1974-1977 CONNORS
1978-1981 BORG
1982-1985 MCENROE
1986-1989 LENDL
1990-1993 EDBERG or COURIER ?
1994-1997 SAMPRAS
1998-2001 AGASSI, SAMPRAS or KUERTEN ??
2002-2005 FEDERER
2006-2009 FEDERER
2010-2013 NADAL or DJOKOVIC ?
2013-2017 DJOKOVIC

 

[BobbyOne]

What were the biggest tournaments Bobby?

KG, Wimbledon, WCT Finals, AO. Laver (and Rosewall) did not enter the US Open nor the French Open.

 

[BobbyOne]

Fixed it for you!

1950-1953 KRAMER
1954-1957 GONZALEZ
1958-1961 GONZALEZ
1962-1963 ROSEWALL
1964-1971 LAVER
1972-1973 LAVER, NEWCOMBE, NASTASE or SMITH (work in progress)
1974-1977 CONNORS
1978-1981 BORG
1982-1985 MCENROE
1986-1989 LENDL
1990-1993 EDBERG or COURIER ?
1994-1997 SAMPRAS
1998-2001 AGASSI, SAMPRAS or KUERTEN ??
2002-2005 FEDERER
2006-2009 FEDERER
2010-2013 NADAL or DJOKOVIC ?
2013-2017 DJOKOVIC

Limpin, Your next masterpiece: Laver No.1 in 1970 and 1971! Laver (possible) No.1 in 1972/73. Where is your "beloved" Rosewall?

Limpinhitter: It's time to apologize and to correct...

 

[Limpinhitter]

The TCC was the most important event in 1970 and 1971, both won by Laver.

 

[BobbyOne]

The TCC was the most important event in 1970 and 1971, both won by Laver.

Learn history!!

 

[KG1965]

KG, Wimbledon, WCT Finals, AO. Laver (and Rosewall) did not enter the US Open nor the French Open.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[70sHollywood]

As I see it the 1971 AO was a glorified WCT tournament whilst the 1971 French Open was a glorified Grand Prix Circuit tournament. The top players in the AO were stronger, but it was only a 48 man draw. I don't think either one is clearly above the other, and both were clearly below Wimbledon.

The US is a little tricky due to some top WCT guys not playing. It still had a very good 128 man draw though. This is why as I previously mentioned Wimbledon could be considered the only true 100% major for the year. If I was to really split hairs I would say it went:

1) Wimbledon
2) US Open
3) Australian Open, French Open

The WCT finals was no stronger, or at this point more prestigious, than the AO whilst the GP Masters was the same in comparison with the FO. So neither of those deserve to be ranked any higher than the AO/FO.

The Tennis Champions Classic is harder to judge but I would not put it on the same level as Wimbledon for certain and probably not the US either.

 

[BobbyOne]

As I see it the 1971 AO was a glorified WCT tournament whilst the 1971 French Open was a glorified Grand Prix Circuit tournament. The top players in the AO were stronger, but it was only a 48 man draw. I don't think either one is clearly above the other, and both were clearly below Wimbledon.

The US is a little tricky due to some top WCT guys not playing. It still had a very good 128 man draw though. This is why as I previously mentioned Wimbledon could be considered the only true 100% major for the year. If I was to really split hairs I would say it went:

1) Wimbledon
2) US Open
3) Australian Open, French Open

The WCT finals was no stronger, or at this point more prestigious, than the AO whilst the GP Masters was the same in comparison with the FO. So neither of those deserve to be ranked any higher than the AO/FO.

The Tennis Champions Classic is harder to judge but I would not put it on the same level as Wimbledon for certain and probably not the US either.

70sHollywood, the 1971 Dallas Finals were stronger and more prestigious than the AO, the Masters and also the French Open and arguably the US Open. The Finals were the climax of a long WCT tournament series with many top players including Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe.

Rosewall wrote in World of Tennis yearbook that his encounter against Laver was the most important they ever have played. Thus it surpassed even their Wembley and French Open clashes.

 

[70sHollywood]

70sHollywood, the 1971 Dallas Finals were stronger and more prestigious than the AO, the Masters and also the French Open and arguably the US Open. The Finals were the climax of a long WCT tournament series with many top players including Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe.

Rosewall wrote in World of Tennis yearbook that his encounter against Laver was the most important they ever have played. Thus it surpassed even their Wembley and French Open clashes.

The 1971 AO featured all the players who participated in the WCT finals, plus another 40 players, including the likes of Roche. There is no way the WCT finals can be considered stronger.

 

[BobbyOne]

The 1971 AO featured all the players who participated in the WCT finals, plus another 40 players, including the likes of Roche. There is no way the WCT finals can be considered stronger.

70sHollywood, I must contradict. The AO had even 64 participants but many of them second and third class players from Australia.

Roche was already handicapped at that time by his elbow injury.

As told the WCT Finals had more prestige and more money for the winner than the AO even though the latter had a tough field that year.

 

[BobbyOne]

The 1971 AO featured all the players who participated in the WCT finals, plus another 40 players, including the likes of Roche. There is no way the WCT finals can be considered stronger.

Deleted post

 

[BobbyOne]

The 1971 AO featured all the players who participated in the WCT finals, plus another 40 players, including the likes of Roche. There is no way the WCT finals can be considered stronger.

Deleted post

 

[BobbyOne]

The 1971 AO featured all the players who participated in the WCT finals, plus another 40 players, including the likes of Roche. There is no way the WCT finals can be considered stronger.

Deleted post

 

[Limpinhitter]

Duplicate.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Duplicate.

 

[Limpinhitter]

As I see it the 1971 AO was a glorified WCT tournament whilst the 1971 French Open was a glorified Grand Prix Circuit tournament. The top players in the AO were stronger, but it was only a 48 man draw. I don't think either one is clearly above the other, and both were clearly below Wimbledon.

The US is a little tricky due to some top WCT guys not playing. It still had a very good 128 man draw though. This is why as I previously mentioned Wimbledon could be considered the only true 100% major for the year. If I was to really split hairs I would say it went:

1) Wimbledon
2) US Open
3) Australian Open, French Open

The WCT finals was no stronger, or at this point more prestigious, than the AO whilst the GP Masters was the same in comparison with the FO. So neither of those deserve to be ranked any higher than the AO/FO.

The Tennis Champions Classic is harder to judge but I would not put it on the same level as Wimbledon for certain and probably not the US either.

Considering the draw, the number or rounds, and the massive prize money, it seems to me that the 1971 TCC was the most prestigious, and most demanding, event of 1971 by a large margin. Laver went undefeated winning 13 straight matches, almost double the number of matches needed to win a major, and Laver's prize for winning for that event was $160,000. Compare that to the first prize for winning the Wimbledon men's singles title that year of $3,750.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Considering the draw, the number or rounds, and the massive prize money, it seems to me that the 1971 TCC was the most prestigious, and most demanding, event of 1971 by a large margin. Laver went undefeated winning 13 straight matches, almost double the number of matches needed to win a major, and Laver's prize for winning for that event was $160,000. Compare that to the first prize for winning the Wimbledon men's singles title that year of $3,750.

In addition, Laver went undefeated in 13 straight matches against the best players in the World, almost double the number of matches needed to win Wimbledon, except there were no easy early round opponents. Given all of the data, I think there is a strong argument for Laver to be ranked #1 in 1971, making him #1 for 8 straight years, a feat only matched by Gonzalez.

 

[pc1]

The 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was never supposed to be taken by a player who went unbeaten! That was supposed to be an impossible task. After Laver won the 13th match without a loss people were in awe of the incredible feat that Laver accomplished. To run through a field unbeaten with Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Ashe, Rosewall, Taylor, Ralston and Okker and to play some of them several times is unheard of! Possibly the strongest field to win a tournament unbeaten in history.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was never supposed to be taken by a player who went unbeaten! That was supposed to be an impossible task. After Laver won the 13th match without a loss people were in awe of the incredible feat that Laver accomplished. To run through a field unbeaten with Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Ashe, Rosewall, Taylor, Ralston and Okker and to play some of them several times is unheard of! Possibly the strongest field to win a tournament unbeaten in history.

That win by Laver was arguably one of the most impressive feats in the history of men's tennis behind only Laver's Grand Slam and the 3 of 4 major title years of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[BobbyOne]

In addition, Laver went undefeated in 13 straight matches against the best players in the World, almost double the number of matches needed to win Wimbledon, except there were no easy early round opponents. Given all of the data, I think there is a strong argument for Laver to be ranked #1 in 1971, making him #1 for 8 straight years, a feat only matched by Gonzalez.

Limpin, Laver was strong in 1971 but Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe had more success. The Rocket failed at Wimbledon, at Dallas and at the AO.