Who was #1 in 1971?
- Thread starter dwightcharles
- Start date
Charles, I agree mostly. But of course a ranker can be wrong.
I think you are asking the right questions, but I don't always agree with your conclusions.
I don't like the 2+2=5 analogy because it is simplistic and frankly a bit insulting to people in that era. I'm not going to assume that we have magically become so smart since then that we have it all figured out now, and that most everyone at that time was wrong. That just doesn't feel right to me.
One very important thing to me is that we CAN'T fully understand how people of that time FELT about the system in place, how they reacted to it, how they rated their own success in THAT system, and how they adapted their schedules to that system.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I sometimes think you put too much faith in the modern lens.
This is why I consistently find myself somewhere in between you and Krosero, because you lean more towards reinterpreting things through the modern lens, while Krosero seems to lean more towards simply presenting information that is clearly focused on a lens of that time.
I like to flip lenses, figuratively, then analyze things as two separate views (at least) that will never fully agree and perhaps should not be expected to.
By the way, here is my thinking:
I was just recently looking at a whole bunch of Twilight Zone episodes, run on a marathon. My wife could not understand whey I even watched them. To her the acting is just horrible. I tried to explain to her that if you have a strong knowledge of theatre you realize that what you are seeing is essentially stage acting, and that what we see on stage, without mikes, essentially has not changed. So it is a window into a different time.
There are other people who idolize shows and films from that time, saying that everything great about acting has been lost.
The problem is using one and only one lens, then not realizing that we NEED more than one lens to have an understanding of what was and what is.
If you lean too hard on "facts", assuming we simply know more now and that everything should be reexamined, you are very close to people who simply state that modern tennis and modern tennis players are simply superior to what was. Modern rackets are better, modern strings are better, shoes that slide on HCs are better, and having a box full of people in your box, wiping your butt every 30 seconds if necessary, is better.
Everything is better, and add to that our ranking system.
It just wasn't the same in the early 70s.
That's why I'm very comfortable with ties for those early years, and frankly view people who MUST have an undisputed #1 as a bit inflexible.
Gary, Very reasonable post. People who give tied No.1 places are not automatically cowards. Sometimes it's really extremely difficult to decide between two or even three players.
I agree with you very much on this point, the point that facts were clearly wrong. In fact, using one example in music, trills and other "ornaments" were played very differently from what Bach and people of his time played and taught, and we did not find out about this until rather recently, in the past few decades.
This doesn't make earlier playing of this music any less interesting, and it doesn't mean that it was "wrong", but it tells us that we were not getting close to what was actually played.
We, unfortunately, do not have time machines.
Gary, Regarding music I sometimes prefer non-authentic performances. I always had reservations towards Harnoncourt. "Back to the roots" can sometimes sound
F.i. the Bach piano concertos sound better when being played with a piano instead of a cembalo. Only the piano version gives you an idea how modern Bach composed these works (jazzy).
By the way, hours ago I listened to the opening concert (performance) of the so-called new "Elbphilharmonie" in Hamburg, a grandious concert building.
Alas, some boring and even ugly pieces were played (contemporary music) that will not bring the youth towards classic music. I enjoyed only the last piece, the fourth movement of Beethoven's grandious 9th symphony where I had some tears. European Union has stolen a short part from that masterpiece ( melody of "Ode an die Freude"; I don't like the Union at all)) for its hymn but it's much better to hear the whole movement at least (about 25 minutes) or, better the whole symphony with it's overwhelming first movement.
Last edited:
Charles, I mostly agree. But at Lance Tingay we know that he mostly ranked the (male) Winmbledon winner as No.1 even in cases where other players (Laver, Rosewall; Smith, Rosewall) were at least as successful and strong.
That's a great point.
We are probably all making our own points here. The number one thing I keep thinking of is the incredible disagreement about 2013, only four years ago, with a split between the ATP and that other organization for which I always forget the letters.
Nadal was #1. Djokovic was #1. Both were #1. Let the fights begin (not here but in the rest of the forum.)
If people can't agree about 2013, they are never EVER going to agree about 1971.
My point about 2+2=5 is that it is not the right analogy.
A better one would be that 3+3=5, which happens to be 100% true in music. C to E is a 3rd, E to G is a 3rd, but C to G is a 5th. I tell my students this is "musical math", and I explain that a letter gets double-counted. An apparently ridiculous statement turns out to be true, in music.
So in order to evaluate anything as a true or false statement, you need context.
I was thinking earlier that it is more like light. Is it waves? Particles? Both? Has this whole duality/paradox been redefined? (I have no idea.) <my attempt at humor>
What I expect will happen in the future is that things will continue to get more and more muddy as more facts are brought to light. Sometimes more and more information does not simplify things but rather just underscores complexity.
Gary, Well said.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
To me it is about the interpretations. Some with "period instruments" are very special, some are not at all. And sometimes a large ensemble with modern instruments sounds bloated and over-played, but under a different conductor it sounds wonderful.
Beethoven when well performed feels brand new to me even right now. I really love his symphonies.
I loathe anything else but a modern concert grand for playing his piano concertos. I was given a period recording with someone playing a piano more like what was played at that time, and I can't stand it. It sounds neutered. No passion.
People forget that Beethoven was continuously asking for bigger and more powerful instruments.
But in the symphonies sometimes the older instruments sound even more raw and more primitive. For instance, when the horn parts are played on valveless horns they sound very different. Even a modern French horn is "dangerous" to play on because the upper notes are so close together with the lips. If a brass player hits a wrong note, usually it will be the French horn player.
The old valveless horns are incredibly hard to play without missing notes. It's a bit like the modern rackets as opposed to the old clubs with gut.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
To me it is about the interpretations. Some with "period instruments" are very special, some are not at all. And sometimes a large ensemble with modern instruments sounds bloated and over-played, but under a different conductor it sounds wonderful.
Beethoven when well performed feels brand new to me even right now. I really love his symphonies.
I loathe anything else but a modern concert grand for playing his piano concertos. I was given a period recording with someone playing a piano more like what was played at that time, and I can't stand it. It sounds neutered. No passion.
People forget that Beethoven was continuously asking for bigger and more powerful instruments.
But in the symphonies sometimes the older instruments sound even more raw and more primitive. For instance, when the horn parts are played on valveless horns they sound very different. Even a modern French horn is "dangerous" to play on because the upper notes are so close together with the lips. If a brass player hits a wrong note, usually it will be the French horn player.
The old valveless horns are incredibly hard to play without missing notes. It's a bit like the modern rackets as opposed to the old clubs with gut.
Gary, Fine analysis.
I also love Beethoven's symphonies and would rank them in this order: 9 (by far), 3, 7, 5, 6, 4, 8, 2, 1. The first symphony is still a refreshing work and better than most Haydn symphonies and about equal with fine Mozart symphonies like Haffner and Linzer. Prager und his last three ones are better though.
Beethoven once rated the Eroica his best but he made that statement after having composed only eight symphonies. I also agree with the master regarding his best piano sonata (before his last 4 ones). Beethoven chose the great Appassionata.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Bobby, don't forget that Beethoven was so much younger than the other two. I always forget the exact chronology, but the last time I thought about it seriously I remember that when I listened to Beethoven's first symphony and "lined it up" with the symphonies written at about the same time by Mozart and Haydn, it was a very interesting comparison.
Do you ever get the feeling that "Pape Haydn" sort of churned all those symphonies out? Some of them are exceptional, but there are so many.
The thing I have always identified with in Beethoven is that he struggled. If you examine his sketches, often they were hardly at all like the finished compositions. It was such a struggle for him, and the result was so amazing.
I prefer 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9, but with no preference. All masterpieces, and of course they others "ain't bad".
I've never liked the sonatas as well, which is sort of a strange statement from a pianist, but the Appassionata would be at the top of my list. My favorite concerto is the 3rd. The final string quartet is a miracle!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
This photo is from 1972. That was a great classic match. 1971 not so much.
I finally chose Rosewall, for two reasons:
1) won one of the most legendary matches in the history ( and lift the trophy!)
2) won an excellent edition of the Australian Open (to the level of W & USO).
Bobby, don't forget that Beethoven was so much younger than the other two. I always forget the exact chronology, but the last time I thought about it seriously I remember that when I listened to Beethoven's first symphony and "lined it up" with the symphonies written at about the same time by Mozart and Haydn, it was a very interesting comparison.
Do you ever get the feeling that "Pape Haydn" sort of churned all those symphonies out? Some of them are exceptional, but there are so many.
The thing I have always identified with in Beethoven is that he struggled. If you examine his sketches, often they were hardly at all like the finished compositions. It was such a struggle for him, and the result was so amazing.
I prefer 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9, but with no preference. All masterpieces, and of course they others "ain't bad".
I've never liked the sonatas as well, which is sort of a strange statement from a pianist, but the Appassionata would be at the top of my list. My favorite concerto is the 3rd. The final string quartet is a miracle!
Gary, Thanks for your thoughts and your most beloved works.
Beethoven was only 14 years younger than Mozart but composed much more "modern" (especially in dynamics and rhythm). But Mozart was also modern in his Requiem ("Dies irae, dies illa") and his Adagio and Fuge KV 546.
Yes Beethoven did not write as easily as Haydn, Mozart and Schubert and probably also Bach did. His composing was often a big fight with the notes and with himself. For the theme of the second movement of the "Schicksalssymphonie" he wrote about 20 versions... But it's a wonder that the final version always sounds as fresh and flowing as the best works of other composers.
Yes, Haydn and Mozart wrote so many symphonies and quantity might have diminished their significance. Mozart's best symphonies are better than Haydn's best. I only love two Haydn symphonies: No. 94 and No. 103. I once teased a music journalist from Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) in claiming that Haydn properly has written virtually only one symphony. IMO they lack deep emotions which the best Mozart symphonies, the best Beethoven ones and the two great Schubert symphonies yet have (also Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Tschaikowsky).
It's no surprise that we have the same five Beethoven symphonies as our favourite ones because they are the best as several experts have confirmed since many, many decades. His greatest step was from No.2 to No.3.
It's really astnonishing that you are a pianist and yet don't like Beethoven's sonatas as well. I strongly would suggest that you buy Gulda's interpretation of all 32 sonatas. It's great. There is no weak one. But I would recommend especially opus 2/1; 10/3 (Largo!!); 13 (Pathetique); 27/2 (Mondscheinsonate); 28 (Pastorale); 31/2 (Der Sturm; Tempest); 49/1 (little known, sounds like Mozart in first movement); 53 (Waldstein); 57 (Appassionata); 90 (first m. modern, second m. like Schubert); 106 (Hammerklaviersonate, very modern); 109 (a gem); 110 (another gem); 111 (grandiose, with the famous Jazz part in second movement). Famous German pianist and conductor, Hans von Bülow, once claimed that Bach's "Wohltemperiertes Klavier" is the Old Testament of piano music, Beethoven's sonatas the New Testament...
There are yet a few other great piano works from Beethoven: His "Bagatelles" (opus 126 the best), the great Diabellivariationen (very modern!) and "Für Elise".
You might be one of only a few who love B's 3rd piano concerto as his best. Most fans say No.4 (f.i. the great Wilhelm Backhaus) or 5 (Emperor Concerto), my favourite one.
I find all five late Beethoven string quartetts miracles. They are very modern and bold. Tschaikowsky thought Beethoven were insane when he wrote them. My favourite one might be opus 132, especially because of its last movement where we find a beautifuly melody (Beethoven planned to use it as last movement of his Ninth), a "Schönberg passage" and a part of hysteria.
I also love Beethoven's violin concerto, the Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, the best ouvertures and "An die ferne Geliebte" (sonc cycle).
Last edited:
hoodjem, The 1971 final was also a famous and classic match even though not as thrilling and great as the 1972 version.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Don't forget that Mozart died in 1791. Supposedly sketches have been found from Beethoven's 1st symphony from around 1795, but what we hear today was published around 1801. So comparing Mozart's last symphonies with Beethoven's 1st still gives us a gap of 5-10 years, and instruments continued to evolve.
I'd be glad to continue this in detail somewhere else, but it's really the wrong place for involved musical discussions.
Don't forget that Mozart died in 1791. Supposedly sketches have been found from Beethoven's 1st symphony from around 1795, but what we hear today was published around 1801. So comparing Mozart's last symphonies with Beethoven's 1st still gives us a gap of 5-10 years, and instruments continued to evolve.
I'd be glad to continue this in detail somewhere else, but it's really the wrong place for involved musical discussions.
Gary, I agree regarding the wrong place (even though I remember that there were long discussions about baseball and/or American football).
Mozart's three late symphonies are surely greater than Beethoven's 1st.
Bach lived before Mozart and yet composed more "modern" than the latter. Bach almost invented Jazz before Beethoven opus 111...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I wish someone with deep knowledge of the tournament results, a computer, and a spreadsheet would calculate the (retro-projected) rankings for 1971.
(I have little faith in the "experts" because the strange habit back then was to award the no. 1 ranking to the player who won Wimbledon--almost regardless of what else that player did during the year.)
It appears that Newk won six tournaments in 1971, including Wimbledon.
It appears that Rosewall won eight tournaments in 1971, including the AO.
It appears that Stan Smith won six tournaments that year, including the USO.
It appears that Laver won seven titles that year, including the TCC.
It appears that Jan Kodes won two tournaments that year, including the FO.
But this is an insufficient compilation. What about runners-up and lesser results for any tournaments entered? Points must be awarded for those results for us to arrive at a complete picture of the standings.
Such a calculation would give us a much more objective conclusion of the true standing of players for 1971.
Last edited:
In 1971, Rosewall was 36 years old.
In 1971 there was no unified tournament circuit or point system. Grand Prix and WCT had different point systems, and many important events (TCC, USLTA Winter Circuit, South African Open, Davis Cup) were not part of either of these circuits.
I have done an arbitrary spreadsheet using my own point system, and got Laver slightly ahead of Newcombe on point average, with Smith and Rosewall close behind. However, if we exclude TCC, Newcombe comes ahead of Laver.
And the final outcome depends on how many points we assign to certain tournaments, and the point distribution to the earlier rounds.
Not event ATP could get its system right on its first try. The 1973 system was abandoned a few months later, and in 1974 they devised a completely different point system.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes! 1970 was a confusing, complicated, and close year.
I believe that Newcombe himself has stated that he felt Laver was the best for that year.
My suggestion is that we use today's point system for early rounds, lesser tournaments, etcetera, (and see where that leads us). It seems to be fair enough and accepted enough to be considered unsubjective.
