Prize-fight mentality in tennis... and other thoughts on #1 / best player / alpha / world champion - through tennis history

[dwightcharles]

Boxing and other forms of prize-fighting determine their world champion in a different way than modern pro tennis does.

I don't actually know a lot about boxing and fighting, but the title of 'world champion', which is de facto "#1" is determined by who holds the belt (or title) designated for 'world champion.' Boxers don't play 80 matches a year, or have a unifed world tour of tournaments the way tennis does. But to be the 'champ' in boxing, you have to beat the current champ in a title fight. It seems that not all fights are (or 'were,' perhaps) title fights. It would be possible to beat the champ but not get the 'world champ' title/belt if it wasn't a title fight.

I put forward that the same idea existed in tennis for many years. Now in the present day, this mentality does not predominate in tennis. In tennis we determine #1 by an agreed upon (but subjective) system of points allocation. The system is applied objectively, but it's construction is necessarily subjective. We currently have point systems that comprise the WTA and ATP computer rankings that are commonly accepted as 'fair,' but they have been tweaked several times over the years since the computer rankings began. The fact that they can be tweaked shows that the system is subjective. However once accepted, the points system is objectively and consistently applied and so it can be deemed to be 'fair.' However, we could certainly conceive of other point systems that might have different results (e.g. average points per tournament vs. best-of-18 results), maybe one that made Federer #1 for 2017, for example.

However, before the computer rankings in 1973 (1975 for the WTA), point systems were sporadic at best. Thus we have the great debates about who was the best player at a particular time, for a particular year, and even (for the brave debater) for all time. It seems we generally take two approaches to determining a yearend #1 for a past year - 1. we try to quantify and debate the merits of the player's accomplishments for that year, and 2. we try to weigh contemporary (to the time) expert opinion (at least, published opinion) on the year in question. Very frequently we do both of these things and don't distinguish very well which we are doing or the relative merits of each method.

When considering contemporary expert opinion, many 'experts' published yearend top ten lists that clearly labelled a particular player as #1 for the year, Wallis Meyers did this, for example. At other times we glean opinions from old tennis books that Player X was the best in 1903, for example. How did these 'experts' make their judgments? Did they have a personal or de facto points system in their head? Did they consider all the matches played by a player in a year? Did they consider all the matches played by all the top players in a year? Is it likely they even had access to this information? And the answer of course, is 'no'... although sometimes assiduous efforts were made to gather as much information as possible.

I think there are at least three ways we and experts from the past look at who is the best for a particular year, (and they and we often don't distinguish which we are doing):
1. The accumulation of accomplishments during the year - who has the most impressive record or collection of titles - this is similar (but not identical) to our modern points systems.
2. Who is the 'best player'? Which player's tennis is most likely to win? Who has the best game? Who is the 'alpha?'
3. Was last year's best player (or the chief rival) convincingly beaten in a match that 'counts?'

It is this last point #3, that I think is like boxing. It seems that this sort of thinking certainly prevailed during the whole 'challenge round' era. The other players vied for a chance to knock off the champ in the challenge (title) round. We can see in the 1880's that the English considered Willie Renshaw the best in England (and the world, since no other country was up to the standard of English tennis, in their opinion), and yet he was only playing one public match per year - the challenge round final of Wimbledon. While bizarre to our modern mindset, this prize-fight mentality was accepted as normal in tennis at that time.

We see this prize-fight mentality continue for many decades. May Sutton claimed her second Wimbledon crown and then retreated to the US, actually California, and a successor to her as 'champ' would have to unseat her on her home turf, or so she seemed to be saying. Bill Tilden did the same thing in the 1920's, choosing to stay at home in the US (mostly). The tennis public seemed to accept that taking the title of champ or year's best could only be accomplished by beating him at Davis Cup or maybe at the (in Tilden's case) US Championships. When Davis Cup was initiated it was called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge and the US wished to challenge the idea that British tennis was the best in the world. It's a significant point - the idea was to determine who was the world's best. Beating a player in a Davis Cup final and winning that player's national championship was a slam dunk in determining best player for a year - at least until pro tennis.

As pro tennis tours picked up steam from 1926 on, we see this prize-fight mentality continue on the pro tour. The touring exhibitions - barnstorming tours - were a lot more like prize fights than tournaments, although one victory wouldn't determine a new champ - a winning tour might. Certainly this seems to be part of Jack Kramer's mentality in the mid-50's when he wouldn't give Pancho Gonzalez a shot at the world champ title until 1956 (correct me if that year is wrong). It's totally a boxing mentality. But as the pro circuit widened in the 1960's and with the dawn of open tennis in 1968, the idea of winning a tour of tournaments, and not just a tour of matches, came to predominate. This led to the points systems we use today (which had existed only in limited forms earlier). These point systems are much better at unifying a tour of far-flung tournaments where the top players are not constantly playing each other.

I have trouble considering Kramer the top player of 1955 (is that the year he didn't play?) just because Gonzalez hadn't had a title tour. But I do think, for example, that Bobby Riggs should be considered the top player of 1947. Consider, Riggs won the pro tour, Kramer the amateur. Then they met in one match at the end of the year. Riggs won it. Ergo Riggs is the #1 for the year. Sure Kramer might have been the better player, as he proved in 1948, but in the de facto title match for the year, Riggs was the victor. That's the prize-fight mentality. (edit: I realize that many will not agree about my assessment of 1947!)

I think that since the prize-fight mentality was a factor for the players, it must be considered as part of their context - in how they thought of themselves in relation to the idea of #1, the 'best,' or 'world champ.' This can help inform our debates about who we think was #1 for a particular year or period.

What do you think?

 

[elegos7]

You got a good point here, I also think this prize-fight mentality determined who was regarded the best player for many decades.
And boxing was enormously popular in the time period we talk about, it is understandable people could make analogues in tennis as well.

 

[Phoenix1983]

You got a good point here, I also think this prize-fight mentality determined who was regarded the best player for many decades.
And boxing was enormously popular in the time period we talk about, it is understandable people could make analogues in tennis as well.

I think this is the reason why some people still put so much stock in the H2H between the top players. When Nadal was regularly beating Federer on all surfaces, some questioned the legitimacy of Federer's No 1 status, when his biggest rival often got the better of him.

 

[dwightcharles]

I think this is the reason why some people still put so much stock in the H2H between the top players. When Nadal was regularly beating Federer on all surfaces, some questioned the legitimacy of Federer's No 1 status, when his biggest rival often got the better of him.

Yes even now, we have trouble totally trusitng the points system. 2017 is a prime example.

 

[Ivan69]

Boxing and other forms of prize-fighting determine their world champion in a different way than modern pro tennis does.

I don't actually know a lot about boxing and fighting, but the title of 'world champion', which is de facto "#1" is determined by who holds the belt (or title) designated for 'world champion.' Boxers don't play 80 matches a year, or have a unifed world tour of tournaments the way tennis does. But to be the 'champ' in boxing, you have to beat the current champ in a title fight. It seems that not all fights are (or 'were,' perhaps) title fights. It would be possible to beat the champ but not get the 'world champ' title/belt if it wasn't a title fight.

I put forward that the same idea existed in tennis for many years. Now in the present day, this mentality does not predominate in tennis. In tennis we determine #1 by an agreed upon (but subjective) system of points allocation. The system is applied objectively, but it's construction is necessarily subjective. We currently have point systems that comprise the WTA and ATP computer rankings that are commonly accepted as 'fair,' but they have been tweaked several times over the years since the computer rankings began. The fact that they can be tweaked shows that the system is subjective. However once accepted, the points system is objectively and consistently applied and so it can be deemed to be 'fair.' However, we could certainly conceive of other point systems that might have different results (e.g. average points per tournament vs. best-of-18 results), maybe one that made Federer #1 for 2017, for example.

However, before the computer rankings in 1973 (1975 for the WTA), point systems were sporadic at best. Thus we have the great debates about who was the best player at a particular time, for a particular year, and even (for the brave debater) for all time. It seems we generally take two approaches to determining a yearend #1 for a past year - 1. we try to quantify and debate the merits of the player's accomplishments for that year, and 2. we try to weigh contemporary (to the time) expert opinion (at least, published opinion) on the year in question. Very frequently we do both of these things and don't distinguish very well which we are doing or the relative merits of each method.

When considering contemporary expert opinion, many 'experts' published yearend top ten lists that clearly labelled a particular player as #1 for the year, Wallis Meyers did this, for example. At other times we glean opinions from old tennis books that Player X was the best in 1903, for example. How did these 'experts' make their judgments? Did they have a personal or de facto points system in their head? Did they consider all the matches played by a player in a year? Did they consider all the matches played by all the top players in a year? Is it likely they even had access to this information? And the answer of course, is 'no'... although sometimes assiduous efforts were made to gather as much information as possible.

I think there are at least three ways we and experts from the past look at who is the best for a particular year, (and they and we often don't distinguish which we are doing):
1. The accumulation of accomplishments during the year - who has the most impressive record or collection of titles - this is similar (but not identical) to our modern points systems.
2. Who is the 'best player'? Which player's tennis is most likely to win? Who has the best game? Who is the 'alpha?'
3. Was last year's best player (or the chief rival) convincingly beaten in a match that 'counts?'

It is this last point #3, that I think is like boxing. It seems that this sort of thinking certainly prevailed during the whole 'challenge round' era. The other players vied for a chance to knock off the champ in the challenge (title) round. We can see in the 1880's that the English considered Willie Renshaw the best in England (and the world, since no other country was up to the standard of English tennis, in their opinion), and yet he was only playing one public match per year - the challenge round final of Wimbledon. While bizarre to our modern mindset, this prize-fight mentality was accepted as normal in tennis at that time.

We see this prize-fight mentality continue for many decades. May Sutton claimed her second Wimbledon crown and then retreated to the US, actually California, and a successor to her as 'champ' would have to unseat her on her home turf, or so she seemed to be saying. Bill Tilden did the same thing in the 1920's, choosing to stay at home in the US (mostly). The tennis public seemed to accept that taking the title of champ or year's best could only be accomplished by beating him at Davis Cup or maybe at the (in Tilden's case) US Championships. When Davis Cup was initiated it was called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge and the US wished to challenge the idea that British tennis was the best in the world. It's a significant point - the idea was to determine who was the world's best. Beating a player in a Davis Cup final and winning that player's national championship was a slam dunk in determining best player for a year - at least until pro tennis.

I think that since the prize-fight mentality was a factor for the players, it must be considered as part of their context - in how they thought of themselves in relation to the idea of #1, the 'best,' or 'world champ.' This can help inform our debates about who we think was #1 for a particular year or period.

What do you think?

I understand that pro boxing in your theory has to defend the challenge system. In contrary, boxing is the typical example how many flaws the challenge system had (has). Let's see what is pro boxing since years.
There is not another sport in the world where you chose your opponent, where there is no league, where there is no competition. It has a very loose form of rankings that can be deviated by the smarter and more wealthy in the game. It has 4 official organisations which can't agree each other since decades about the rules, principles and structure. And thus they do nothing. They are just spectators.
This results in "the best not fighting the best", which is something that is always achieved in all other sports.

From all above, since decades pro boxing is not considered a sport world-wide. It became rather a one-night multi-million show a year. Even more we should ask ourselves is it still a show. DAZN which transmitted the last champions battle Joshua-Pulev admitted it is shockingly surprised by the low number of the audience. In fact this match is not the only one. The audience in boxing decreases from year to year. All know the reasons but nobody does nothing.

Let's not forget that competition is the essence of sport. How many fights (matches) on the player's list are competitive? In other sports leagues, seeding, knock-out, round-robin and play off systems ensure that competitive matches ensue. A boxer can play 20 matches without facing a real test. The art of match making removed the element of sport from professional boxing.
In all sports there is a natural conclusion that a winner is crowned throughout a tournament or a league. Pro boxing fails to deliver the most competitive fights. The same was the challenge system in tennis. Similar to many default systems in sport it has been abandoned fast and easy.

Since weeks we are not talking about the rough facts which are known. As historians, fans or whatever, we are talking about the evaluation of the challenge system and its adequacy, logic, vitality, perception. Repeating somebody's opinion on something without evaluating it fully and properly does not corresponds to any standards of the history evaluation.
Nobody from the defenders of the challenge system in tennis didn't answer the natural historian questions:

1. What is the competition in a challenge system?
2. Since when 1 player is considered a competition? Was(is) that the idea of the competition in sport?
3. Why the challenge system had a so short life when it was regarded (mainly technically) by the journalists?
4. Why the challenge system has been introduced only in couple of tournaments but not in all?
5. Why the challenge system has been introduced in Britain and the USA? Why not in Australia, Asia and continental Europe?
6. How would somebody analyze and compare Renshaw's 1881 title in 6 rounds and 1882 title in 1 round (the exact years don't matter)? Did Wally Myers or other journalists analyse (compare) that or just technically announced the hero (the winner)? (A hint - "title is a title" is neither analytical nor comparable answer)
7. Why the challenge system hasn't been introduced in all sports (except the chaotic boxing)?
8. Were the players happy with the challenge system?

Back to the thread title. The prize-fight mentality is nothing else than easy(lazy)-fight mentality. Some few "smart" players adjusted to that rule and simply didn't play (didn't fight). Their thinking became the simplest - "Why should I play more when I can play only 1 match?". Is this the thinking of serious sport players? Of course, the best would be if they don't play at all and are again the champions. At the same time 99% of the players were so "deluded" to play tens of tournaments and matches !!! Were they?

The final question (maybe rhetorical) - is the challenge system a sport (with all qualities of sport) or just a prize-fighting? I think we all have the answer.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Boxing and other forms of prize-fighting determine their world champion in a different way than modern pro tennis does.

I don't actually know a lot about boxing and fighting, but the title of 'world champion', which is de facto "#1" is determined by who holds the belt (or title) designated for 'world champion.' Boxers don't play 80 matches a year, or have a unifed world tour of tournaments the way tennis does. But to be the 'champ' in boxing, you have to beat the current champ in a title fight. It seems that not all fights are (or 'were,' perhaps) title fights. It would be possible to beat the champ but not get the 'world champ' title/belt if it wasn't a title fight.

I put forward that the same idea existed in tennis for many years. Now in the present day, this mentality does not predominate in tennis. In tennis we determine #1 by an agreed upon (but subjective) system of points allocation. The system is applied objectively, but it's construction is necessarily subjective. We currently have point systems that comprise the WTA and ATP computer rankings that are commonly accepted as 'fair,' but they have been tweaked several times over the years since the computer rankings began. The fact that they can be tweaked shows that the system is subjective. However once accepted, the points system is objectively and consistently applied and so it can be deemed to be 'fair.' However, we could certainly conceive of other point systems that might have different results (e.g. average points per tournament vs. best-of-18 results), maybe one that made Federer #1 for 2017, for example.

However, before the computer rankings in 1973 (1975 for the WTA), point systems were sporadic at best. Thus we have the great debates about who was the best player at a particular time, for a particular year, and even (for the brave debater) for all time. It seems we generally take two approaches to determining a yearend #1 for a past year - 1. we try to quantify and debate the merits of the player's accomplishments for that year, and 2. we try to weigh contemporary (to the time) expert opinion (at least, published opinion) on the year in question. Very frequently we do both of these things and don't distinguish very well which we are doing or the relative merits of each method.

When considering contemporary expert opinion, many 'experts' published yearend top ten lists that clearly labelled a particular player as #1 for the year, Wallis Meyers did this, for example. At other times we glean opinions from old tennis books that Player X was the best in 1903, for example. How did these 'experts' make their judgments? Did they have a personal or de facto points system in their head? Did they consider all the matches played by a player in a year? Did they consider all the matches played by all the top players in a year? Is it likely they even had access to this information? And the answer of course, is 'no'... although sometimes assiduous efforts were made to gather as much information as possible.

I think there are at least three ways we and experts from the past look at who is the best for a particular year, (and they and we often don't distinguish which we are doing):
1. The accumulation of accomplishments during the year - who has the most impressive record or collection of titles - this is similar (but not identical) to our modern points systems.
2. Who is the 'best player'? Which player's tennis is most likely to win? Who has the best game? Who is the 'alpha?'
3. Was last year's best player (or the chief rival) convincingly beaten in a match that 'counts?'

It is this last point #3, that I think is like boxing. It seems that this sort of thinking certainly prevailed during the whole 'challenge round' era. The other players vied for a chance to knock off the champ in the challenge (title) round. We can see in the 1880's that the English considered Willie Renshaw the best in England (and the world, since no other country was up to the standard of English tennis, in their opinion), and yet he was only playing one public match per year - the challenge round final of Wimbledon. While bizarre to our modern mindset, this prize-fight mentality was accepted as normal in tennis at that time.

We see this prize-fight mentality continue for many decades. May Sutton claimed her second Wimbledon crown and then retreated to the US, actually California, and a successor to her as 'champ' would have to unseat her on her home turf, or so she seemed to be saying. Bill Tilden did the same thing in the 1920's, choosing to stay at home in the US (mostly). The tennis public seemed to accept that taking the title of champ or year's best could only be accomplished by beating him at Davis Cup or maybe at the (in Tilden's case) US Championships. When Davis Cup was initiated it was called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge and the US wished to challenge the idea that British tennis was the best in the world. It's a significant point - the idea was to determine who was the world's best. Beating a player in a Davis Cup final and winning that player's national championship was a slam dunk in determining best player for a year - at least until pro tennis.

As pro tennis tours picked up steam from 1926 on, we see this prize-fight mentality continue on the pro tour. The touring exhibitions - barnstorming tours - were a lot more like prize fights than tournaments, although one victory wouldn't determine a new champ - a winning tour might. Certainly this seems to be part of Jack Kramer's mentality in the mid-50's when he wouldn't give Pancho Gonzalez a shot at the world champ title until 1956 (correct me if that year is wrong). It's totally a boxing mentality. But as the pro circuit widened in the 1960's and with the dawn of open tennis in 1968, the idea of winning a tour of tournaments, and not just a tour of matches, came to predominate. This led to the points systems we use today (which had existed only in limited forms earlier). These point systems are much better at unifying a tour of far-flung tournaments where the top players are not constantly playing each other.

I have trouble considering Kramer the top player of 1955 (is that the year he didn't play?) just because Gonzalez hadn't had a title tour. But I do think, for example, that Bobby Riggs should be considered the top player of 1947. Consider, Riggs won the pro tour, Kramer the amateur. Then they met in one match at the end of the year. Riggs won it. Ergo Riggs is the #1 for the year. Sure Kramer might have been the better player, as he proved in 1948, but in the de facto title match for the year, Riggs was the victor. That's the prize-fight mentality. (edit: I realize that many will not agree about my assessment of 1947!)

I think that since the prize-fight mentality was a factor for the players, it must be considered as part of their context - in how they thought of themselves in relation to the idea of #1, the 'best,' or 'world champ.' This can help inform our debates about who we think was #1 for a particular year or period.

What do you think?

Just to be technically correct, Riggs did not win the pro tour in 1947, he actually lost it to Kovacs. They were tied at 5 wins each on the Pro Challenge tour, and played a special best-of-five set deciding playoff, which Kovacs won in straight sets. Riggs lost a 1947 tour to Budge (in a European tour), but Riggs still claimed world No. 1 status as a result of winning the tournament series with a point system the previous season in 1946.

So the principle of winning the world No. 1 from a tournament series was well established as a result of that 1946 series, and there also were tournament point systems in other years to establish world No. 1 (not the world champion, which was the result of usually a hth tour). Tournament point systems also existed for 1959, 1960, 1964, 1965 through to open tennis.

 

[urban]

Tennis is and has always been a one on one sport, a "duel on distance" (Erich Kästner). You have to defeat the opponent on the other side of the net, or you get defeated by him, there is no draw. And you cannot defend a lead and play it safe within the match, you have to win the last point, you have to go in for the kill like a matador. There is something brutal in a tennis match, not that the fists are flying, but its a technical, physical and psychological warfare, and the man or woman with the last punch will win, regardless of all points and games both players won or lost. The tennis player is not running against a clock or playing golf against a course, but he has simply to beat the other guy. His performance is always relative to this other guy. I remember the Australian runner Ron Clarke, who beat every record in long distance running, but never could beat his opponents head to head on the big stakes, at the Olympics or Commonwealth Games. He had no endsprint.
So its quite normal, that in tennis head to head competition is a very important matter, and why not? If you are the best on the world, you will beat the other guy. If you cannot do it regularly, you are not the best. Of course, we had on the old pro this king of the hill format. If you had to play your biggest opponent for 20-30 times in a year, you could not hide. The duel is the essence of tennis, and its good so.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Tennis is and has always been a one on one sport, a "duel on distance" (Erich Kästner). You have to defeat the opponent on the other side of the net, or you get defeated by him, there is no draw. And you cannot defend a lead and play it safe within the match, you have to win the last point, you have to go in for the kill like a matador. There is something brutal in a tennis match, not that the fists are flying, but its a technical, physical and psychological warfare, and the man or woman with the last punch will win, regardless of all points and games both players won or lost. The tennis player is not running against a clock or playing golf against a course, but he has simply to beat the other guy. His performance is always relative to this other guy. I remember the Australian runner Ron Clarke, who beat every record in long distance running, but never could beat his opponents head to head on the big stakes, at the Olympics or Commonwealth Games. He had no endsprint.
So its quite normal, that in tennis head to head competition is a very important matter, and why not? If you are the best on the world, you will beat the other guy. If you cannot do it regularly, you are not the best. Of course, we had on the old pro this king of the hill format. If you had to play your biggest opponent for 20-30 times in a year, you could not hide. The duel is the essence of tennis, and its good so.

However, the old hth tours tended to be marathon events, beyond any reasonable contest for evaluating relative tennis ability. And that was because they were primarily commercial formats to obtain as much revenue as possible. Kramer stated often that his real objective was to move away from the two-man hth format into a tournament series format with a point system, where a larger number of players could participate, and it was Kramer who did in fact introduce the tournament series format. He did this first in the 1959/1960 seasons, and then as the pro tour advisor, he helped to arrange the tournament series for 1964. This latter spawned an ongoing tournament series with points which ran on into the open era. Kramer also arranged a similar format for the Grand Prix series in the open era.

The problem with the two-man format was that it was for the "championship of each other", it did not provide an overall pro ranking. Sometimes it featured the probable world No. 1 against the probable world No. 4, so it was not really a true world championship. But it did use the amateur champion, whose name had been built up by the media as an amateur, which would sell tickets for the pro tour for at least one season, then the rookie pro would have lost his shine and become a secondary draw in the pro ranks.

 

[dwightcharles]

Good points, Ivan. I agree that the challenge-round system was terrible. I personally don't like it at all. It certainly was not commercially smart, and all reports I've read in the old books tend toward the idea that the players didn't like it.
However, my point is not that it was good or bad. My point is that "it WAS what they had," and if we try to understand the mentality behind it, we can see how the contemporary choices for who was the best player at the time were logical to them. And the 'them' includes the players.

 

[dwightcharles]

Dan, great historical perspective with those supplemental facts on 1947. Thank-you! And the observation that the barnstorming structure was driven by money is really important for understanding the context.
I think the focus on 'ranking' and 'number 1' was probably less than it is now, or at least was contextualized differently... it was king-of-the-hill bragging rights or nothing. Thoughts?

 

[dwightcharles]

Tennis is and has always been a one on one sport, a "duel on distance" (Erich Kästner). You have to defeat the opponent on the other side of the net, or you get defeated by him, there is no draw. And you cannot defend a lead and play it safe within the match, you have to win the last point, you have to go in for the kill like a matador. There is something brutal in a tennis match, not that the fists are flying, but its a technical, physical and psychological warfare, and the man or woman with the last punch will win, regardless of all points and games both players won or lost. The tennis player is not running against a clock or playing golf against a course, but he has simply to beat the other guy. His performance is always relative to this other guy. I remember the Australian runner Ron Clarke, who beat every record in long distance running, but never could beat his opponents head to head on the big stakes, at the Olympics or Commonwealth Games. He had no endsprint.
So its quite normal, that in tennis head to head competition is a very important matter, and why not? If you are the best on the world, you will beat the other guy. If you cannot do it regularly, you are not the best. Of course, we had on the old pro this king of the hill format. If you had to play your biggest opponent for 20-30 times in a year, you could not hide. The duel is the essence of tennis, and its good so.

I think you really hit the nail on the head here, Urban. This visceral mano a mano combat (hand to hand) deeply drives certain players - Boris Becker springs to mind. Not a huge number of slams or weeks at #1, but had remarkable h2h records against other top players. Of 55 slam winners in the OE, Becker is 4th in winning h2h percentage against the pool of other slam winners. Here are the numbers (based on ATP database OE matches)...

Total h2h's-winning h2h-%: (OE slam winners)
1. Nadal 17-15-88.2%
2. Borg 22-19-86.4%
3. Djokovic 13-10-76.9%
4. Becker 29-22-75.9%
5. Lendl 31-23-74.2%
6. Federer 24-17-70.8%
7. Sampras 27-19-70.4%
8. Laver 14-9-64.3%
9. Agassi 32-20-62.5%
10. AMurray 13-8-61.5%
11. LHewitt 24-14-58.3%
12. McEnroe 30-17-56.7%
13. Courier 23-13-56.5%
14. Wilander 25-14-56.0%
15. Connors 32-17-53.1%
16. Edberg 24-12-50.0%
17. Stich 20-10-50.0%
The other 38 slam winners are below 50%
How to read these numbers: Nadal has 17 h2h's against other OE slam winners (he has played 17 other slam winners), and he leads the h2h in 15 of the 17.

Becker (#4) does much better in this metric than he is generally ranked among OE players. Federer (#6) does worse. It suggests that Becker was more driven to personally dominate his opponents and would get it up for the big match. Perhaps an even more extreme case is Kyrgios.
On the other hand, Federer, frequently cited as best in the OE, is only #6 on this list - suggesting that while he played tennis at a very high level, he may not have raised his level when facing other top opponents. And I'm sure there are other interpretations of this data...

Interesting that Djokovic has faced only 13 slam winners, but Borg faced 22, and Becker 29 in relatively short careers.

 

[Ivan69]

Good points, Ivan. I agree that the challenge-round system was terrible. I personally don't like it at all. It certainly was not commercially smart, and all reports I've read in the old books tend toward the idea that the players didn't like it.
However, my point is not that it was good or bad. My point is that "it WAS what they had," and if we try to understand the mentality behind it, we can see how the contemporary choices for who was the best player at the time were logical to them. And the 'them' includes the players.

Starting with the last sentence, "them" did not include the players. The players knew the system but they disagreed with it. And they couldn't do anything. That was entirely the tournament's decision and the journalists present it in the media.

About the mentality, obviously the mentality was NOT the same for all players. From the available data we have it is seen that most of the players played in many tournaments, not only in challenge rounds. Only a few players like Renshaw, Larned and maybe somebody else played too limited. Every reasonable tennis fan should respect the players who play and disrespect the players who don't, no matter of the rules back then. It's not a coincidence that guys like Tilden, Laver, Rosewall, Segura, Connors, Lendl were(are) considered respectfully big tennis machines for having played almost everywhere.
The most part of the fans and experts usually compare number of titles of different players not evaluating the titles at all. I am very sorry but nobody has the right to compare for instance 7 Renshaw slam titles with 7 Laver slam titles or 7 Connors slam titles by using just rough numbers. Or the often mentioned 12 Emerson slam titles which were "more" than Borg's 11. That's very very weird.

You are right that "it was what they had" (not by their choice). But this doesn't mean that the today's people can't evaluate that system. Even more the today's people are obliged to reevaluate any system (conclusion, idea, fact) which is fully wrong or has too many flaws. I will give you an example.

For about 100+ years it was mentioned and repeated the long-held theory about Darwin's human origin from monkeys. Some 2-3 years ago I have read an essay written by experts researching Darwin's activities and works. The essay originated somewhere in 2005-2008 (I don't remember the year). The experts present their researches and proves that the theory is wrong. I am not an expert in biology or anthropology but the experts in these areas were explicit. Without any doubts. They admit the good work of Darwin but the "monkey" issue is wrong. Those experts for sure didn't work with the approach "it was what it was".

And this is the role of the today's experts - to research, analyse, collect more data etc. about the past and to make an reevaluation of something which is partly or fully wrong. If we rely entirely on contemporaries (Myers, Darwin, etc.) then "the monkey" is still here. The experts don't blame Darwin for that as well as I don't blame Myers for that. What I can do is to research, analyse, collect data, ascertain (prove) the challenge system as correct/wrong and make an reevaluation of that system if wrong. Value of titles and assessing the players are just consequences of the reevaluation.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, great historical perspective with those supplemental facts on 1947. Thank-you! And the observation that the barnstorming structure was driven by money is really important for understanding the context.
I think the focus on 'ranking' and 'number 1' was probably less than it is now, or at least was contextualized differently... it was king-of-the-hill bragging rights or nothing. Thoughts?

The ranking series began in 1946, and renewed in 1959 and 1960. These are the first years where the focus was on "world No. 1" as an official defined concept with a point system.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Starting with the last sentence, "them" did not include the players. The players knew the system but they disagreed with it. And they couldn't do anything. That was entirely the tournament's decision and the journalists present it in the media.

About the mentality, obviously the mentality was NOT the same for all players. From the available data we have it is seen that most of the players played in many tournaments, not only in challenge rounds. Only a few players like Renshaw, Larned and maybe somebody else played too limited. Every reasonable tennis fan should respect the players who play and disrespect the players who don't, no matter of the rules back then. It's not a coincidence that guys like Tilden, Laver, Rosewall, Segura, Connors, Lendl were(are) considered respectfully big tennis machines for having played almost everywhere.
The most part of the fans and experts usually compare number of titles of different players not evaluating the titles at all. I am very sorry but nobody has the right to compare for instance 7 Renshaw slam titles with 7 Laver slam titles or 7 Connors slam titles by using just rough numbers. Or the often mentioned 12 Emerson slam titles which were "more" than Borg's 11. That's very very weird.

You are right that "it was what they had" (not by their choice). But this doesn't mean that the today's people can't evaluate that system. Even more the today's people are obliged to reevaluate any system (conclusion, idea, fact) which is fully wrong or has too many flaws. I will give you an example.

For about 100+ years it was mentioned and repeated the long-held theory about Darwin's human origin from monkeys. Some 2-3 years ago I have read an essay written by experts researching Darwin's activities and works. The essay originated somewhere in 2005-2008 (I don't remember the year). The experts present their researches and proves that the theory is wrong. I am not an expert in biology or anthropology but the experts in these areas were explicit. Without any doubts. They admit the good work of Darwin but the "monkey" issue is wrong. Those experts for sure didn't work with the approach "it was what it was".

And this is the role of the today's experts - to research, analyse, collect more data etc. about the past and to make an reevaluation of something which is partly or fully wrong. If we rely entirely on contemporaries (Myers, Darwin, etc.) then "the monkey" is still here. The experts don't blame Darwin for that as well as I don't blame Myers for that. What I can do is to research, analyse, collect data, ascertain (prove) the challenge system as correct/wrong and make an reevaluation of that system if wrong. Value of titles and assessing the players are just consequences of the reevaluation.

Good analogy. The scientific establishment has rallied to defend the traditional Darwinian theory, just as traditional ideas in tennis history are defended.

 

[KG1965]

Boxing and other forms of prize-fighting determine their world champion in a different way than modern pro tennis does.

I don't actually know a lot about boxing and fighting, but the title of 'world champion', which is de facto "#1" is determined by who holds the belt (or title) designated for 'world champion.' Boxers don't play 80 matches a year, or have a unifed world tour of tournaments the way tennis does. But to be the 'champ' in boxing, you have to beat the current champ in a title fight. It seems that not all fights are (or 'were,' perhaps) title fights. It would be possible to beat the champ but not get the 'world champ' title/belt if it wasn't a title fight.

I put forward that the same idea existed in tennis for many years. Now in the present day, this mentality does not predominate in tennis. In tennis we determine #1 by an agreed upon (but subjective) system of points allocation. The system is applied objectively, but it's construction is necessarily subjective. We currently have point systems that comprise the WTA and ATP computer rankings that are commonly accepted as 'fair,' but they have been tweaked several times over the years since the computer rankings began. The fact that they can be tweaked shows that the system is subjective. However once accepted, the points system is objectively and consistently applied and so it can be deemed to be 'fair.' However, we could certainly conceive of other point systems that might have different results (e.g. average points per tournament vs. best-of-18 results), maybe one that made Federer #1 for 2017, for example.

However, before the computer rankings in 1973 (1975 for the WTA), point systems were sporadic at best. Thus we have the great debates about who was the best player at a particular time, for a particular year, and even (for the brave debater) for all time. It seems we generally take two approaches to determining a yearend #1 for a past year - 1. we try to quantify and debate the merits of the player's accomplishments for that year, and 2. we try to weigh contemporary (to the time) expert opinion (at least, published opinion) on the year in question. Very frequently we do both of these things and don't distinguish very well which we are doing or the relative merits of each method.

When considering contemporary expert opinion, many 'experts' published yearend top ten lists that clearly labelled a particular player as #1 for the year, Wallis Meyers did this, for example. At other times we glean opinions from old tennis books that Player X was the best in 1903, for example. How did these 'experts' make their judgments? Did they have a personal or de facto points system in their head? Did they consider all the matches played by a player in a year? Did they consider all the matches played by all the top players in a year? Is it likely they even had access to this information? And the answer of course, is 'no'... although sometimes assiduous efforts were made to gather as much information as possible.

I think there are at least three ways we and experts from the past look at who is the best for a particular year, (and they and we often don't distinguish which we are doing):
1. The accumulation of accomplishments during the year - who has the most impressive record or collection of titles - this is similar (but not identical) to our modern points systems.
2. Who is the 'best player'? Which player's tennis is most likely to win? Who has the best game? Who is the 'alpha?'
3. Was last year's best player (or the chief rival) convincingly beaten in a match that 'counts?'

It is this last point #3, that I think is like boxing. It seems that this sort of thinking certainly prevailed during the whole 'challenge round' era. The other players vied for a chance to knock off the champ in the challenge (title) round. We can see in the 1880's that the English considered Willie Renshaw the best in England (and the world, since no other country was up to the standard of English tennis, in their opinion), and yet he was only playing one public match per year - the challenge round final of Wimbledon. While bizarre to our modern mindset, this prize-fight mentality was accepted as normal in tennis at that time.

We see this prize-fight mentality continue for many decades. May Sutton claimed her second Wimbledon crown and then retreated to the US, actually California, and a successor to her as 'champ' would have to unseat her on her home turf, or so she seemed to be saying. Bill Tilden did the same thing in the 1920's, choosing to stay at home in the US (mostly). The tennis public seemed to accept that taking the title of champ or year's best could only be accomplished by beating him at Davis Cup or maybe at the (in Tilden's case) US Championships. When Davis Cup was initiated it was called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge and the US wished to challenge the idea that British tennis was the best in the world. It's a significant point - the idea was to determine who was the world's best. Beating a player in a Davis Cup final and winning that player's national championship was a slam dunk in determining best player for a year - at least until pro tennis.

As pro tennis tours picked up steam from 1926 on, we see this prize-fight mentality continue on the pro tour. The touring exhibitions - barnstorming tours - were a lot more like prize fights than tournaments, although one victory wouldn't determine a new champ - a winning tour might. Certainly this seems to be part of Jack Kramer's mentality in the mid-50's when he wouldn't give Pancho Gonzalez a shot at the world champ title until 1956 (correct me if that year is wrong). It's totally a boxing mentality. But as the pro circuit widened in the 1960's and with the dawn of open tennis in 1968, the idea of winning a tour of tournaments, and not just a tour of matches, came to predominate. This led to the points systems we use today (which had existed only in limited forms earlier). These point systems are much better at unifying a tour of far-flung tournaments where the top players are not constantly playing each other.

I have trouble considering Kramer the top player of 1955 (is that the year he didn't play?) just because Gonzalez hadn't had a title tour. But I do think, for example, that Bobby Riggs should be considered the top player of 1947. Consider, Riggs won the pro tour, Kramer the amateur. Then they met in one match at the end of the year. Riggs won it. Ergo Riggs is the #1 for the year. Sure Kramer might have been the better player, as he proved in 1948, but in the de facto title match for the year, Riggs was the victor. That's the prize-fight mentality. (edit: I realize that many will not agree about my assessment of 1947!)

I think that since the prize-fight mentality was a factor for the players, it must be considered as part of their context - in how they thought of themselves in relation to the idea of #1, the 'best,' or 'world champ.' This can help inform our debates about who we think was #1 for a particular year or period.

What do you think?

IMHO this is one of the best threads I have come across.
The question is well posed in fact there are some good replicas.

Interesting.

 

[Dan Lobb]

IMHO this is one of the best threads I have come across.
The question is well posed in fact there are some good replicas.

Interesting.

Agreed, one of the best. Hope the moderators agree with that assessment.

 

[Ivan69]

Good analogy. The scientific establishment has rallied to defend the traditional Darwinian theory, just as traditional ideas in tennis history are defended.

Well, the correct verbs are "disprove". Other is ok.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Well, the correct verbs are "disprove". Other is ok.

The classical Darwin theory has been thoroughly disproved, and many of the traditional tennis history myths have also been disproved.

 

[NonP]

This is fun, two of the forum's biggest know-nothing blowhards scratching each other's backs while saying absolutely nothing of interest. These jokers are really wrong about everything.

 

[Dan Lobb]

This is fun, two of the forum's biggest know-nothing blowhards scratching each other's backs while saying absolutely nothing of interest. These jokers are really wrong about everything.

If two noted disputants agree on fundamentals, that is an indication of basic truth underlying the discussion.

In this case, public mythologies.