Who was number 1 for 1970?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, Apr 17, 2009.

  1. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    What many people may not known is the fact that you win a GS must absorb a lot of menthal energy and will, otherwise you wouldn´t be human.

    If Borg had gotten the GS, say, in 1979 or 1980, he´d have retired earlier than he did ( end of 1981)
     
    #51
  2. Doug_Hartley_2012

    Doug_Hartley_2012 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    133
    Ohmy goodness, what are you guys smoking? Laver was no way world number 1 in 1970. For those of us alive and paying attention, Laver delivered a huge CHOKE after an awesome 1969 Grand Slam. He was getting hammered by Tony Roche, another Aussie leftie, and it was Rosewall and Newcombe who delivered at the Majors. For the record, Rosewall was named Martini and Rossi player of the year. Some others opted for Newk but Laver - no way. It would be the equivalent of a current player nailing a clutch of tournaments a level below the Majors but flopping at the big 4, claiming to be number 1 on the basis of number of tournies won or head to head tallies. Sorry, that doesn't rate. It's the Big Four first and foremost. In 1970, Laver arguably finished fourth among the Aussies,which still meant world number 4 - but never number 1.
     
    #52
  3. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    Big 2

    It wasnt the big 4 for laver it was the big 2. He was barred from the australian and rhe french. He also won the defacto australian in sydney that had a deeper field than the australian. He won nearly 4 times as many tournaments as newcombe. He was undefeated against both rosewall and newcombe in head to head. 1970 is not straight forward at all. Newcome did poorly outside of wimbledon.
     
    #53
  4. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    #54
  5. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    Australian Open Absence

    I don't think that was his decision necessarily but rather that promoter of the group of tennis players he was a part of.
     
    #55
  6. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    Laver's 1970 record

    What do you do in a comparison when Newcombe and Rosewall did well in the Wimbledon and US Open but only won a handful of 250 point level equivalent tournaments outside of them - compared to laver who won 5 Masters 1000 level events - including the two most prestiguous Hard Court tournaments (South African and Los Angeles) and the most prestigious indoor tournament (Philly - though you could debate the Masters was that year where Laver was runner-up). The other 10 tournament wins of laver surely included a fair number of 500 point equivalent tournaments too (speaking today's lingo).
     
    #56
  7. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Really?! That sounds exactly like what was happening to Wozniacki or Safina for months. (Or Marcel Rios, before that.)

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

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

    The rankings computer does not smoke anything!
     
    #57
  8. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    My only problem with this approach is how is it determined that Laver won 5 Master 1000 (equivalent) level events in 1970? I mean, matching the attendance requirements of a current Master 1000 event, where normally all the world's top 20 players (at least) are present, sounds like a very tall order for 1970. In examining the 1977 habits, Krosero discovered that the top ten players were mostly scattered around in different tournaments at any given time. I am sure Laver won some important tournaments, but can they really be called Master 1000 equivalents from an attendance perspective?
     
    #58
  9. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    Lets apply the 2012 point system against 1970

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

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

    Then say the Masters 1000 events were:

    Johannesburg (Rod Laver winner)

    Los Angeles (Rod Laver winner)

    Monte Carlo (Željko Franulović winner)

    Rome (Ilie Năstase winner)

    London/Wembley (Rod Laver winner)

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

    Stockholm (Stan Smith winner)

    Philadelphia WCT (Rod Laver winner)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    (Note: If you went strickly through every tournament giving it a 2012 equivalent rating - I am confident that Laver would end up with around double the point of Rosewall. So I wonder if in 2012 someone had the most points - actually double the second place points person but the points winner didn't get to a Slam final - who would rate as number 1?)
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2012
    #59
  10. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    In 1970, Ken Rosewall delivered best in the majors, but Rod Laver was the most dominant on the tour. Laver won 13 titles in 1970, but had poor R16 exits at Wimbledon and the US Open to Roger Taylor and Dennis Ralston. Rosewall won only 6 titles, but won the US Open and was runner-up of Wimbledon. Newcombe won 2 titles, but 1 of those was Wimbledon, and he was a semi finalist at the US Open.

    I suppose Laver was the best player of 1970 overall, despite his poor showing at Wimbledon and the US Open, because he was just so dominant elsewhere, but I think Rosewall and Newcombe would have been more satisfied at the end of that year considering that they won those majors. The early 1970s was when the politics in tennis really started to esculate.
     
    #60
  11. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Laver did blow it at Wimbledon and the US Open in 1970. That is undeniable. Roger Taylor beating Rod Laver at 1970 Wimbledon is considered one of the greatest tennis upsets of all time. Laver won a tough first set and lost a tough second set, but then didn't come back with anything in the last 2 sets and won just 3 games.
     
    #61
  12. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    15 Titles

    Not trying to be pedantic but Rod won 15 titles not 13. (FYI Newcombe won 4 tournaments).
     
    #62
  13. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    What is absolutely certain about 1970

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

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

    There is no argument that can back the position that Newcombe is number 1 (because his record is inferior to Rosewalls).
     
    #63
  14. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Oh right. Just goes to show the general chaos of the tour at that time.
     
    #64
  15. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    And Laver was 5-0 in H2H vs Rosewall, 3-0 vs Newk.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall#Open-closed_career:_April_1968_through_July_1972
     
    #65
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Problem is that often in those days the Wimbledon winner was often named by some experts as automatic World Champion it seems and Newcombe was the 1970 Wimbledon Champion. It's wrong to do it that way but that's the way some thought.

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

    Majors are too often overemphasized. Newcombe won two majors in 1973 but no one questioned Nastase being ranked over Newcombe that year. That's why I think it's ridiculous to rank greats simply by the amount of majors they won in their career. Everything should be taken into account, not just majors.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2012
    #66
  17. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    If one makes any kind of point race, Laver would emerge at Nr. 1 in 1970. I have seen quite a few points rankings (Jeffery Neave made one), and in all Laver came on top. Those 5 master like events, Laver won, were all well attended, as were the WCT events he won, and he beat Newk and Rosewall 8-0 all in finals or semis. Laver won across all 4 surfaces (Sydney, Queens, South Orange on grass, Philly, Wembley indoors, LA, St. Louis and others on hard, Louisville over Rosewall and Newk on clay). And additionally he won the by far most lucrative event, the Legends Classic over Rosewall.
    As timnz writes, its Rosewall, who has another fair claim, by delivering in 2 majors and on the overall circuit. As pc 1 mentions, back then journalists automatically called Wim winners the Nr. 1. So Newcombe was named Nr.1 by Tingay and other experts. Newk himself in his book of 2002 wrote that Laver was the real Nr. 1 in 1970.
     
    #67
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    But Taylor was a top player who pulled up one upset here and another there.Reached semis at Wimbledon and Forest Hills, big serve, good volley and forehand...Tom Gorman, who was also a top player in the early 70´s defeated Laver at the 1971 Wimbledon.
     
    #68
  19. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Lost to Ralston at the US Open, right? Ralston had been Wimbledon runner up in 1966 and the best US player of his generation, along Ashe.A big underachiever, but very dangerous on his day ( kind of pre Tanner)
     
    #69
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Rod Laver is the GOAT, IMO, as stated so many times here.But, listen, in 1970, even if he was the strongest player ( which he certainly was), his record felt behind Rosewall´s and probably Newcombe´s.I´d rank him third.

    It´s a bit like 1977, when Borg was the best player but Vilas had the best year.Or 1989, with Lendl the strongest player but Becker, undeniably having the best year.
     
    #70
  21. Doug_Hartley_2012

    Doug_Hartley_2012 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    133
    Look, you can worship Rod Laver all you want but I'm telling you - as an Aussie- he did not deliver where it mattered in 1970. Rosewall was awarded the Martini and Rossi player of the year award, so no question about who the sport saw as world number 1. If you consult World of Tennis '71, the year book for the 1970 season [you can't miss it - it's the one with KEN ROSEWALL on the cover - did not even rate Laver as one of its five players of the year. Court and Goolagong were the female champs recognised; Rosewall, Newcombe and Cliff Richey - winner of the first Grand Prix - were the guys. WOT says of Laver in 1970 'he won record 83,400 GBP prize money, but lost Wimbledon and US Open titles,did not compete in AO and FO and yielded status as world number 1'. Laver Emerson Stolle and Rosewall were not permitted to contest the AO by their management. Newcombe Roche Okker and Ashe were. The FO was also boycotted but Smith Ashe Richey and Nastase competed, as did new champ Kodes. Wimbledon was contested by most players. Laver lost 4R to the great British hope Roger Taylor in 4s. Rosewall beat Taylor in 4s two rounds later after also beating Roche in 4s but lost in 5s to Newcombe who had an easy semi against Gimeno. At the US Open, Laver bombed again, losing early to Ralston in 5s. Roche confirmed his status as the best leftie at the Majors, charging to the final and taking the first set against Rosewall. Rosewall, who had thrashed Newcombe in straight sets in the semis, fought back and took Roche in 4s. In a fragmented tour, Rosewall finished 3rd in the Grand Prix events to Laver's 4th. Roche defeated Laver in 5s in the US Pro final and in straight sets in the Irish Open.. Laver defeated Rosewall in 5s in the Dunlop Slazenger event in Sydney and Laver also won a number of WCT events.
     
    #71
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    And it settled out at Dallas 71, 72 with great victories for Rosewall over Laver.The second final, many called it the greatest tennis match ever seen.

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

    That gives you the real stature of Ken Robert Rosewall.
     
    #72
  23. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    We really can't do that cause there's big different between ATP Tour from 1990. and period 20 years before. In first decade Masters 1000 serie was not like one we have today cause only from 2000. that tournaments became only in that week, without others smaller

    I made article when we can see that Top players from the 1980. played only a few tournaments together during season... it for sure was even worse in 70's http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=393473
     
    #73
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    There have always been " Masters series", no matther how you called them.Events that were protected because of their importance and weight, that ranked just behind the GS.However, they were subjetc to changes.

    US

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

    EUROPE

    -.Rome
    -.Stockholm
    -.Hamburg

    REST of THE WORLD

    -.SA Open
    -.Tokyo

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

    US

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

    SAMERICA

    Buenos Aires

    EUROPE

    Milan
    Barcelona
    Frankfurt
    Rotterdam
    Brussels
    Wembley


    ASIA

    Sidney Indoors
     
    #74
  25. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    The draws of the 1970 tournaments were on the ITF webside (i hope there are still there). Sydney for instance had all the top 15-20 players in the (48 or 64) draw and was a best of five affair from the first round on. The same draw standard is right for Philadelphia, Los Angeles or Wembley. Laver was imo 2-2 for the year against Roche, losing at Dublin and Boston and winning at Philly final and in the Classic series.
    The 1970 situation at the top is very debatable (and depending, which parameters someone prefers), but in no way clear cut. Even Robert Geist, one of the greatest and best informed Rosewall supporters i know, has a three way tie for Nr 1 in 1970 between Newk, Rosewall and Laver.
     
    #75
  26. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Better than 1970 was 1971.

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

    7 top players ( plus Gimeno,Roche,Okker,Lutz,Richey,Gorman,Riessen,Taylor,Pilic,Franulovic,Orantes...) going at each other.Memorable year by any mean
     
    #76
  27. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Ralston became Tanner's coach.
     
    #77
  28. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    Some others voted for Laver. See the section for 1970 on this page: "the panel of journalists which made the WCT draw for 1971 ranked Laver #1, Rosewall #2, Newcombe #3; and Robert Geist co-ranked Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe #1."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...The_world_number_one_and_number_two_from_1877

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

    Another excerpt:

    "The panel of 10 international journalists for the 'Martini and Rosso' Cup, ranked Rosewall number 1 with 97 points (out of a possible 100) over Laver with 89 points and Newcombe 3rd with 81 points"
     
    #78
  29. Doug_Hartley_2012

    Doug_Hartley_2012 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    133
    I used to be in fairly frequent contact with Robert Geist when I was working on a history of pro tennis a bit over ten years ago. My day job made it slow going and Joe McAuley's statistical history basically shut the door. However I would have been quick to tell Robert that a three way tie for ANY season is simple not tenable, nor is it justified for the 1970 season. It was a transitional and indeed somewhat chaotic period between the advent of Open tennis in mid 1968 until 1975 and a succession of boycotts and restraint of trade meant that Majors and the Davis Cup were seriously and frequently devalued.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bud Collins ranked Newcombe at 1 as did Lance Tingay who qualified it as 'by a fraction'and perhaps was talking more about weighting Wimbledon a bit more important than Forest Hills. That was counterbalanced by Rosewall winning the prestigious Martini and Rossi player of the year award and being featured on the cover, together with lead article, of World of Tennis'71.
     
    #79
  30. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    Really looking for more post by you, Doug_Hartley_2012
     
    #80
  31. Dean

    Dean Rookie

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    105
    If you're going to judge an entire season by only 2 tournaments then why the hell bother playing the rest of the year at all.

    The two players who you are certain where better than Laver in 1970 where 0-8 against him.
     
    #81
  32. Doug_Hartley_2012

    Doug_Hartley_2012 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    133
    Oh dear Dean, do I have to explain to you what those two tournaments were? If you want to be recognised as the boss, numero uno, the champ in tennis, it always comes down to Wimbledon and the US Open except in those rare seasons when boycotts skewed the norm. Nobody really cares how many Boca Ratons and Memphises etc players accumulate during a season. It's what happens in the big league that counts. And in tennis that big league historically pivots around four tournaments. Laver flatlined where it mattered in 1970. He choked. In fact, post 1969 Grand Slam, he choked permanently at the Majors. Never a serious chance. Didn't matter how much money he won. Or head to head results. Or other tournament results. Or how high he was seeded at the Majors. He was a total lemon at the Majors post the 1969 US Open. And every tennis history book will tell you that.
     
    #82
  33. Dean

    Dean Rookie

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    105
    It would actually help if you knew what you were talking about. But alas.

    btw. He played in 5 maybe 6 majors from 1970-75.
     
    #83
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    and US Davis Cup Captain.it was common in the late 60´s to early 70´s to rate Ralston as the most underachieving talent, even more than Roche ( after all, Tony was owned by injuries...)
     
    #84
  35. Doug_Hartley_2012

    Doug_Hartley_2012 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    133
    Dean, that's just it. Played. Not won. Not runner up. Not semifinalist. Not quarterfinalist. Grand Slammer to Dud in the space of one season. He froze after '69. Didn't even bother showing up at the AO or the FO ever again. Seeded but crashed early at the Wimbledons and US Opens he did turn up for. Flatlined. No show. No contest. Not so with Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, and other Aussie greats. He was 31yo when he won the '69 Grand Slam and he went for the easy money in 'challenges' and long forgotten tour events. He finished with a whimper at the Majors, and eventually in the rankings as well, unlike Rosewall who was a force to be reckoned with to age 43.
     
    #85
  36. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Actually, there were points. The 1970 Grand Prix Tour (predecessor to the ATP), points champion was Cliff Richey.
     
    #86
  37. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    That's riduculous! Laver won 15 titles in 1970. The low paying majors just weren't that important then, and certainly not to Laver who, understandably, gave priority to the higher prize money events. He proved his point in 1969 and invested his time and energy in to making a comfortable retirement for his family. To suggest that Rosewall was the greater champion than Laver, who dominated the pro tour in a way that Rosewall never did, and who had a large H2H winning margin against Rosewall, and large winning H2H margins against others who had winning H2H records against Rosewall, is a very difficult case to make.

    Rosewall was an all time great, top 5 in the World for 22 years. But, IMO no one shined with the blinding brightness of Laver in his prime, not even Rosewall.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
    #87
  38. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    There were points also in 1971 for the WCT tour. And in 1970 there were tiers of tournaments, too. In the Collins/ Laver book of 1971, those 15 excellent events for 1970, majors plus outstanding tour events are listed (p. 224 in the new edition). Those events had different winners like Roche (US pro), Nastase (US indoors plus Italian open), Smith (Stockholm indoor and Masters in Tokyo), Ashe (AO), Kodes (RG), Okker (german open). Laver won 5 of these plus the most lucrative Classic series. Those events had great draws (mostly 64 men), many had much better draws than RG or AO that year. In the Philadelphia US pro indoor, a big 65 ooo$ event promoted by Ed and Marlyn Fernberger for instance, Laver beat after round of 16 Emerson, Nastase, Ralston and Roche in successive rounds, in the LA South-West pacific, he beat in the later rounds Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, in the Wembley British indoor Fillol, Gimeno, Taylor, Nastase, Drysdale and Richey.

    The draws can be found in the World of Tennis BP yearbook of 1971. It has Ken Rosewall on the cover and includes some practice tips from the Little Master, but it ranks Newcombe at Nr. 1: The ranking pope Lance Tingay writes (p.181): " Newcombe's status as the World best player was hotly challenged by two other Australians, Rosewall and Laver."
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
    #88
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...
     
    #89
  40. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    How do you know this? What's the basis for this judgment? Can you list the twenty or thirty players from that date who would at the time have played better than Ferrer or Tsonga on their form over the past twelve months?
     
    #90
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Richey,Riessen,Solomon,Dibbs,Gorman,Pilic,Franulovic,Gottfried,Ramirez,Barazutti,Amritraj,Gildemeister,Stockton,Lutz,Taroczy,Okker,Higueras,Cox,Drisdale,Hewitt,Mc Namara,Alexander,Pecci, on a given day Bertolucci on clay, Dent on fast grass,Edmondson...who many did I list? do you need me to go on?
     
    #91
  42. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ...and Metrevali (W finalista and FO sf) and Proisy, when he was on (AO and FO finalist)...may be Onny Parun, too
     
    #92
  43. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    I believe that both Ferrer and Tsonga are better players than the majority of your list, and it's not a particularly close call. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

    Ferrer and Tsonga compete in an era when all the leading players appear in the same tournaments, planning their schedules around the four majors, the YEC and the nine Masters events. 8 of the world's top 10 players entered Dubai, which is not even a Masters tournament, only an ATP 500 one. There are no rival pro tours, boycotts or other events that provide opportunities for "second tier" players like Ferrer or Tsonga (or del Potro or Soderling) to pick up titles. They are unlikely to amass the same number of titles as their predecessors did, simply because in order to win a title of any consequence today you have to beat two, possibly three, of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray. This change is relevant when comparing today's players with those of previous eras.
     
    #93
  44. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    In part, you are right.But, by 1975 or so all players competed in the same circuits, at least the best players.And I don´t think quality of play has anything to see with ennis organization.
     
    #94
  45. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The differnece of talent is this:

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

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

    I hope to have clarified things for you.
     
    #95
  46. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    This thread is wrong on so many levels. We will just start with Dibbs reached number 5.....and then won't continue on as Dibbs was consistently ranked in the top 5-8 range where Ferrer spends his time as well..
     
    #96
  47. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    dibbs ranked nº 5? for how long?
     
    #97
  48. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    He was ranked top 5 for most of 78 where he finished off the year ranked 6. He finished off 77 at that rank as well and was somewhere in the 7-10 range at the end of 76 and 79.

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

    Come on lets not exaggerate either, guys like Teltscher, Gene Mayer were able to ascend in the late 70s early 80s as well. Mayer I believe reached ranked 4...a guy who never made the semis of a major and is almost the James Blake of the 80s. Dibbs and Ferrer ranked very similarly, because I can't see Ferrer finishing top 10 for more than 4 seasons and this year will most likely be a lower top 10 finish.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
    #98
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Mayer was able to beat Connors at Sidney, Borg and Mc Enroe at the Masters and Lendl at Rome, plus other exos.I don´t think Ferrer is able to do that.

    Teacher won the AO, even with its star depleted field, it had Vilas,Lendl,Gerulaitis,Gottfried,Clerc,Pecci...while Ferrer has yet to reach a major final.
     
    #99
  50. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Eliot Teltscher was who I mentioned. Not Brian Teacher....come on get the names right. He won a single match against Borg and Mac and it just happened to be in the same tournament...You mentioned his single win against ALL FOUR OF THOSE GUYS. Ferrer beat Nadal in majors twice now and in the masters as well. He's beaten Djokovic twice now in the masters...Come on don't even compare Mayer and Ferrer. You take Mayer's record against Mac-Borg-Lendl vs Ferrer against Fed-Djok-Nadal I'm sure Ferrer has that won. Oh and come on that win against Lendl was in 1979 he wasn't even a top 20 player at that point in time. Face it Ferrer is not nearly as bad as you dream him to be and the competition is not nearly as weak as you want it to be.
     

Share This Page