Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by urban, Oct 7, 2012.
I will be able to concede the possibility to have federer in the first tier if that is the price...
That is good to know. :lol: It really is a shame that no one will/can upload that match.
So, in Laver's last year as an amateur in 1962, he had a win-loss record of 167-15, won all 4 majors, and won 22 tournaments overall.
Of course, Emmo was playing with a broken foot after running into a post at Wimbledon, and Laver's toughest match at Wimbledon was against Santana.
It's interesting how Emerson has a 12-3 win-loss record in major finals, and that all 3 of the losses were to Laver in 1962.
Just to be clear....we are discussing singles matches, exclusive of doubles.
At Forest Hills, Emmo was returning after a layoff due to a broken foot.
Wasn't it Emerson himself who coined the phrase "if you start the match, you're fit to play"?
Brave words, but not reality.
What he meant was, don't complain if you insist on playing.
That doesn't exclude tennis analysts from investigating the health and injuries of players as explanatory factors.
Emerson's sentiment is correct. Injuries or not, the result is fair either way.
The result may be fair, but does not tell us much.
Ideally, what we want is to have both players healthy and playing their best. This tells us something about the relative merits of the players.
Of course. Ideally, we want every player 100% fit, but that's not always possible.
And the results have to be considered with that in mind.
No, the results are the results. No excuses. Explanations are okay, but not excuses.
Yes, the point is to evaluate the results.
Yes, Emerson was injured at Wimbledon in '62, and if he had remained healthy the likelihood is that he would have lost all 4 majors finals in '62 to Laver. Up to the time of that injury, Laver had taken 11 of their last 13 matches, including a straight-set wins at Queens Club.
After Queens Club both Emerson and McKinley said that Laver was a much better player than he had been in '61.
Who do you think was the best amateur player of 1961, krosero? Emerson or Laver? I went for Emerson narrowly, because of his 2 majors, but Laver has a strong case too.
this article is hilarious.
It reeks of bias.
Alan Trengrove might have a very decorated career documenting tennis in various forms...but this if intended to be a serious piece doesnt really add to it.
Only true fanboys of the bygone eras of tennis would think its well written and unbiased.
I really can't say, I've never looked at that year in depth.
And Emmo was a much better player in 1964 than 1962.
Santana was a better player in 1965 and 1966 than in 1962.
The reality is that the amateurs made more money for themselves and the administrators.
Hoad played a lot of tennis in 1958 and 1959 because he was part of the world championship series of head to head tours. sedgeman did not play much tennis in '57 and '58 because he was not part of the head to head tours. The structure of the tour chaned in early 1960s. From july 1961 the tour was bsased on tournaments not head to head tours because Trabert was in charge rather than Kramer. Hoad was a full-time tournament player and played all thsat was available to him. He played as much as Rosewall, who was the number one player for most of the period of july 1961 to the end of 1964. Hoad played more tournaments than rosewall in '61 and '62, slightly less in'63 and about the same in '64. Hoad 's least active year in the first half of the 60s was 1960 because there were fewer tournaments to play. His most active was '64 when there lots to play.
Actually, there was more tournament play in 1959, when Ampol and Qantas were sponsors of the tour. And a 14-tournament series designed to determine the world #1 (no such series existed in 1960, 1961, 1962), with points awarded according to finishes, and a bonus money pool.
This 1959 series pre-figured the later Grand Prix circuit and Masters series, both also arranged by Kramer.
Dan, 1964 had as many tournaments as 1959 had.
Bobby, I was meaning to ask you, how many matches EXCLUDING DOUBLES did Laver play in 1962?
Yes, 1964 was a full year of tournament play, but I am not sure that there was an organized CHAMPIONSHIP based on tournament results. If so, there would be no controversy about who was number one in 1964.
Dan, Laver won 167 out of 182 matches in singles in 1962.
In 1964 there was an organized championship based on tournament (probably 14 events)results. Buchholz wrote about the series in World tennis. That's also the reason why I still rank the winner of the series, Rosewall first for 1964 tied with Laver who had the huge hth and won two majors.
The organised series consisted of 19 tournaments in 1964 more than 1959. Laver ended up playing 28 tournaments more than hoad's sixteen in 1959. I regard laver as clearly no1 in 1964. Overall he won 11 tournaments compared to Rosewall's 10. Laver won 2 major to rosewall's one. In the head to head he crushed rosewall 15-4. Laver's win percentage was 74% compared to Rosewall's 69%. Laver is ahead in all categories a clear winner.
Rosewall's win in the point series is based only on a proprtion of the overall tournaments and play. Furthermore it gave no extra points to pro majors. World rankings are based on total overall play not a proportion of overall play. The organised series should be disregarded as a measure of world rankings.
When you have an "organized" series, the constituent tournaments have extra weight and count towards bonus money (as in 1959, and today).
Clearly, Hoad faced tougher opposition than Laver (in 1964) in 1959, yet still won 70% of his championship tour matches (there were two championship tours), 76 wins and 33 losses. Hoad played almost 400 matches in his first 2 1/2 years as a pro.
There were no extra points awarded for winning the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, by far the most prestigious event of the year, where he had to beat the number two and three players on the Ampol tour, Gonzales and Rosewall.
And, yes, Hoad's money winnings from July 1957 to January 1, 1960 (the final match of the 1959 tour) exceeded Laver's winnings from 1963 to 1965.
jeffrey, I clearly contradict you that Laver is the clear No.1 for 1964. I also doubt that the series included 19 tournaments. You can't consider all tourneys you find in Joe's book. After the series Butch Buchholz clearly wrote in World Tennis that "Rosewall (again) won the tour". All players had known at the year's start that the official tournament tour was the only way to determine the world' best. Nothing else is as clear as this....
I still rank Rosewall and Laver equally for 1964.
Rosewall also won the World's Heavyweight Championship at Johannesburg against Laver.
Tough to call, but I also have Laver by a nose in 1964.
hoodjem, If you and others put away one of Rosewall's feats (winner of the 1964 tour) it's no wonder that Muscles is mostly ranked far behind Laver and Gonzalez. The same with Rosewall's No. 1 place in 1970 (ex aequo with Laver and Newcombe).
It's time to give Muscles his due credit...
World rankings are based on total play; the organised series did consist of 19 tournaments(I have counted up Rosewall's 78 points) but that did not cover all 31 tournaments played in 1964. The series is faulty also because it gave no extra points to the pro majors. Just because the pro tour organises a serires does not mean we abandon standard world rankings procedures. Laver was ahead on all the standard measures of world ranings. He won more tournaments; he won more majors; he crushed rosewall 15-4 in the head to head. Just being ahead in two of these categories meand you desreve the no1; being ahead in all three means laver is a certainty. laver also had a superior win loss percentage of 74.8% compared to Rosewall's 69.5%. Just because Rosewall won one best of five set match in south africa in no way compensates for Laver's 15 wins which included 2 best of 5 set wins.
I only counted 14 tournaments.
The No.1 player of the pros (and therefore of the world) was every year determinated by who won the world tour (world series). That's tennis history. By the way, I was one of the first ones who ranked Laver tied No.1 with Rosewall for 1964 while most or all sources had only Rosewall at No.1...
In 1970 Laver won just secondary events
Newcombe was the dominant player for a match but "only" won at Wimbly
Rosewall won Forest Hills and lost a classic five set final at London
Small but firm edge for muscles as the Number one player that yr
I am a great admirer of Muscles. (I believe that his incredible longevity at the top of the game will never be duplicated.)
I do give him his due credit. I also do think that in 1964 Laver just edged him out as the top player for that year.
kiki, I'm glad that you rank Rosewall No. 1 for 1970 but I must say that Laver won many rather important events. Thus I give him a tied No.1.
I also rank Newcombe Co.-No.1 because he won the most important tournament and reached SF of Forest Hills.
Interesting that you write that Newcombe was a dominant player for a match because an in shape Newcombe in my opinion for a BIG MATCH would be one of my top choices for an important match. Newk would be a danger to beat anyone on any surface if he was in shape in an important match during his peak years.
A reasonable ranking but I must add that I do believe that in actual playing strength I believe Laver was still the top player.
It gets tricky in the early 1970's.
Sure in a 3 or 4 round event, or challenge match, Laver was clearly #1 in those years, but in the big one, Wimbledon, Newk was clearly number one, and should probably get the number one unofficially.
Newk once said that tennis should be judged by the majors, because STAMINA was an important aspect of tennis dominance, and seven rounds best-of-five sets was the standard. I believe that even the US Open lowered its standards for a while, accepting best-of-three sets in early rounds for a few years. This was an advantage for the top players.
Yes Newcombe never lost a five setter in an important event except to doubles mate Roche...and Jan Kodes
Laver won everything but the majors coming off his best season ever
Imagine Lakers winning the ring and next year picking N1 in the draft
Early 70 are not talked so much here but it is just ad tough as late 50
Newcombe,Ashe,Laver,Rosewall,Roche,Nastase,Smith,Okker,Gimeno,Santana,Lutz and of course Kodes
Better even than Gonzales,Hoad,Trabert,Segura,Sedgman,Olmedo,Anderson,Cooper and Rosewall which is to say a lot
I don't see it.
For one thing, Rosewall was younger and better in the late 1950's.
Laver was beginning (at 32) to show age.
Really, the prime-age stars are Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Nastase, Smith, Okker, Kodes. No one here to challenge the Gonzales or Hoad of the late fifties..
Deeper than 50 a top
The top 15 of the early 70 is the best IMO
Perfect mixture of depth and to
1970 Laver could beat 1959 Hoad and 1972 Nastase could also beat 1959 Gonzales
We will never know for sure, but the top EIGHT of 1959 looks better than the top eight of 1971, including a resume of titles won.
Laver at his best (not 1970, but about 1967) would not beat a 1959 Hoad, he could not match the power, and Nastase would crack apart in a tough match with Gonzales (there is no comparison with the serves).
Kodes never beat Newcombe in a five-setter. He actually lost three times to Newk in five-set matches: at Rome and RG in '69 and in the '73 USO final: http://www.itftennis.com/ProCircuit...result.aspx?Player1=10002376&Player2=10002309
Newk did lose five-setters to Roche, at 69 AO and 69 USO. He also lost five-setters at 1968 Wimbledon (to Ashe), 1969 French (to Okker), and 1972 AO (to Mal Anderson 9-7 in the fifth).
And he lost at the 1970 AO to Ralston in a four-set match that went to 93 games.
In some ways it is an advantage but over the course of five sets there are generally fewer upsets because it's harder for an inferior player to win three sets than two over a better player.
Not sure about that. Lobb does have a point that Laver was declining and the eternally young Rosewall was actually going down a bit also. Ancient Pancho Gonzalez could be in that group also and Jimmy Connors became a top force in 1973 so he could be added there also.
In the late 1950's Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman and Segura were particularly strong players, especially the top four. But I'll give you this, the early 1970's were pretty incredible and you could be correct.
In 1975 they had Connors, Ashe, Borg, Orantes, Rosewall, Laver, Tanner, Vilas so that's not bad either. Newcombe was still around but pass his best despite winning the Australian.
Peak Nastase can match anybody
While Nasty is much better than Pancho on clay Pancho is better indoors and maybe grass but by a less difference
Laver was mentaly stronger than Hoad
By early 70 I mean 70-74 before the 1974 revolution took over
It is pre golden era and we can also assimilate 68 and 69 since it is homogeneous
So 68 to 73 is pre golden, 74 to 89 is golden and 90 to 95 is post golden, at least O
Separate names with a comma.