urban, We also have the exact figures for 1968 and 1969.
Who was number 1 for 1970?
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
urban, We also have the exact figures for 1968 and 1969.
NatF, Forget your modern lens and accept the facs of 1970 and their valuation by the experts of that time. As dwightcharles has shown the vast majority of the experts ranked Rosewall first. I rank Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe equal. If I would be forced to yet make a distinction, I would rank 1 Rosewall, 2 Laver, 3 Newcombe.
US Open was always regarded very high and about equal with Wimbledon, at least at the American experts. Thus Rosewall's many No.1 places for that year.
They might not have counted their total major haul but of course they looked how many majors they won in a given year and how many were won by their opponents.
EDIT: I would rank Newcombe No.3, not No.2 if forced to differ between Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
And I respectfully disagree Bobby. I wont' blame anyone for picking Rosewall as #1 perhaps in this case you can just respectfully disagree with me
I have long since accepted the valuations of the times, I just don't feel shackled by them. Though I do find it interesting that Laver was seeded #1 for the AO in 1971. Can anyone shed light on who/how the seeding was determined?
Last edited:
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Firstly I would add that some people thought the German Championships was a major. Tilden thought so, he ranked Aussem number 1 (though he almost certainly would have been biased for a few reasons).
The reason why I used this example of 1931 in particular is because it is a year where one player won multiple majors whilst another was clearly the "the best player in the world" by a fair margin. We are talking about prime Helen Wills here. Years like 1970 or 1977 there is significant difference because I don't think the players considered the best in the world (Laver, Borg) had anywhere near as strong an argument as Lenglen and Wills.
I like your point about how Wills being the titan needed to be beaten. In this case the onus should have been on Aussem to play the US Championships and beat Wills. That would be another reason for picking Wills. This is my argument for Vines over Budge in 1938 (who do you pick for this year? I'm guessing Budge). But this line of thought has it's flaws. Do we give Seles the number 1 for 1993 because Graf didn't prove she had overtaken her?
It's the issue of world number 1 v best player in the world. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth if the world number 1 isn't the best player in the world, but it also leaves a bad taste if the best player in the world didn't have the best record at the biggest events. What to do? You say you are not happy about ranking Wills at number 6 in 1926 but are sticking to it. Why stick to it? you are not happy with it, you don't believe it so what does it mean if you stick with it? It's relevance is then meaningless for you is it not?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
And I respectfully disagree Bobby. I wont' blame anyone for picking Rosewall as #1 perhaps in this case you can just respectfully disagree with me
I have long since accepted the valuations of the times. Though I do find it interesting that Laver was seeded #1 for the AO in 1971. Can anyone shed light on who/how the seeding was determined?
Well Laver was almost universally considered the strongest player at the beginning of 1971. There was most likely a seeding committee so naturally if Laver was entered in the tournament he would be probably top seed. Sometimes the seeding committees could be quirky however with their seedings.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Did he? He is clearly on record as saying Hoad was the only player to beat him in a tour. We can assume he meant when he (Pancho) was top dog, thus not including the Kramer tour. The direct h2h was as important as the overall result.
The way I see it there were three stages - The Tour, The Important Events (ToC, Wembley etc..), Tournament Series. The first phase can be considered a draw (Pancho wins the overall tour, Hoad the h2h). The second phase can be considered a draw (Hoad def. Gonzalez in the ToC, Gonzalez def. Hoad in the "US Pro", and this is ignoring whether the ToC was the number 1 event or if the Aus Pro was on the same level, both of which favour Hoad). Hoad wins the third phase.
So at no stage did Hoad lose, and it is possible he won 2/3. So whilst they were very close, I see Hoad as the clear winner. I would compare this year with a year like 1966, where Laver and Rosewall were close but in no area does Rosewall have an edge. So the result is close, but clear.
The difficult years are those where two players had clear advantages in different ways, such as 1950.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Forget all that prize money guff, this is the best argument for picking Laver.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Boiling the year down to who did better in just 4 weeks of competition, is just very iffy in my mind. Laver won numerous well attended and big events - and was seeded #1 in the biggest tournaments for most of 1971. In this case I think it's fine to make your own mind up.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Here's a quote from John Newcombe's book--In 1970 the American tennis player Dennis Ralston commented If you asked 100 of the top players today who the best player was, 99 would say Rod Laver. The exception would be John Newcombe, who would undoubted say, "John Newcombe"
Pretty obvious who was considered the best in 1970. Even Newcombe thought so but he didn't want to give Laver a psychological edge. Newcombe calls Laver the best player he ever faced.
And I respectfully disagree Bobby. I wont' blame anyone for picking Rosewall as #1 perhaps in this case you can just respectfully disagree with me
I have long since accepted the valuations of the times, I just don't feel shackled by them. Though I do find it interesting that Laver was seeded #1 for the AO in 1971. Can anyone shed light on who/how the seeding was determined?
NatF, I'm able to disagree respectfully with you even if I ask you to forget the modern lens...
The seedings often were very subjective, see Rosewall's low No. 9 at the 1974 Wimbledon.
Laver was seeded No.1 because he had some wins at end-1970 and early 1971. Additionally there maybe was some valuation of Laver's reputation.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
For me the first issue when looking at weak/strong era's is longevity. This is what people mean really. The idea being that a player was only on top because of a weak era. Longevity guards against that because it shows an ability to be on top across multiple generations.
Now in theory if the best player was at his beat all the time he would win all the time, and the second best would be runner up all the time, and 3rd and 4th would reach the semi's all the time etc...
So you put the two together and there would probably be an example of a strong era. But of course things are never simple. I think 2011 comes close to this kind of thing, but I am certain Djokovic was a better player in 2015. So you could argue an era or year is only as strong as it's best player.
NatF, I respectfully disagee...
The great majority of tennis experts (about 10: 5) ranked Rosewall ahead of Laver.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Great points.
A poster just wrote the seedings were often subjective. That is very true however I will also state that the rankings at that time also were very subjective, so subjective at times you wondered about the logic of that expert. I believe one expert used to ALWAYS pick the Wimbledon champion as number one for the year which is of course silly. If you are able to analyze the performance of the players in 1970 from a year 2017 perspective with more logic and more intelligence, why shouldn't you do it?
If 10 out of 15 people said 2+2=5 and the other 5 people said 2+2=4. Do you really go with the majority or do you go with the correct mathematical answer?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Maybe it's my modern lens again but unless there were some withdrawals I don't really see the distinction between seeding and ranking. Clearly some experts (the seeding committee) believed Laver to be the best player in the world, likewise the locker room seemed to favour Laver.
The rankings of the experts that have been named in this thread are also subjective.
I would consider the seeding committee experts. I also don't agree that we should just take the word of experts without our own analysis anyway.
treblings
Hall of Fame
i find the whole issue of seeding being different from ranking interesting.
my gut feeling is that it must have happened quite often. has somebody looked into it?
i remember that at the US Open and Wimbledon this has been done till quite recently.
the Americans favoring their own players, and Wimbledon favoring fast-court players
over spanish clay-courters.
my gut feeling is that it must have happened quite often. has somebody looked into it?
i remember that at the US Open and Wimbledon this has been done till quite recently.
the Americans favoring their own players, and Wimbledon favoring fast-court players
over spanish clay-courters.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I think at the US Open the number 1 player was the number 1 seed almost every year. One notable exception appears to be Bjorn Borg being the number 1 seed in 1978.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I recall something similar, but I don't think it was very recent.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
NatF
Bionic Poster
Wimbledon still has it's own seeding system, not sure if that was the case back when there were more grass court events. There is a formula involved these days, it's not subjective.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Again, I disagree. In my view, it is axiomatic that Rosewall was still playing at his peak when he won 4 open major titles (beating major champions in the finals of each), between 1968 and 1972. However, his bad losses to Connors in the finals of the 1974 Wimbledon and USO finals indicated to me that, at that point, he was no longer physically at his peak level.
The reason that Rosewall was #1 in 62' and 63' is because Gonzalez had retired and Laver had not yet reached his peak level of play. When Laver reached his peak, he dominated Rosewall for the next 9 straight years. The reason that Rosewall was even as competitive as he was against Laver in the open era (25-9 in favor of Laver including a 2-0 in favor of Rosewall in 1977), is because Rosewall was injury free, and Laver was not.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Hi NatF!
thanks for the welcome!
I appreciate your balanced approach to this all.
You say the Dunlop was a major in your eyes...
I appreciate why you could say that, it was a big important tournament. But I am very hesitant to use the terminology 'major'. I really think this is our modern lens that we are reading back onto the past. We are so accustomed to thinking of four majors now, we have this almost 'need' to find four majors for every year in the past. But I don't think they were thinking in terms of majors in 1970.
Even though Laver won the slam in 1969, I don't think anyone at the time thought of the 1969 Australian as a 'major.' It was just one of the tournaments necessary to do an accomplishment called "the grand slam." But it was far from one of the four biggest tournaments. On it's own it wasn't that important. Let's say we took the nine 1000 tournaments of today and someone put up a $50 million prize for anyone who could win all 9 in a year. Maybe they called it the 'Champ Challenge' (dumb name, but bear with me
My point is, I don't think players in 1970 (or in 1938 like Budge) were particularly interested in winning 'a major'. I think they were very concerned with winning Wimbledon, the USO, and as much money as possible.
The Dunlop may have been a big important tournament in 1970. But I don't think anyone at the time attached any 'major' significance to it. Nor should we.
I don't think that calling the Dunlop International the true Australian Championships for 1970 has anything to do with reading the past with a modern lens. The respective draws of the AO and DI would seem to indicate that the top players themselves considered the DI to be the more important event. I think prize money was probably the reason. That's why (I suspect), that NatF and others consider the DI to be the true Australian championship for 1970.
Last edited:
No, Bobby (where have I heard that expression before?), it was about how Olmedo might fare against the pros, and the Sports Illustrated author used Hoad as the benchmark, and did not mention Gonzales.
Do you not recall reading that article yourself?
treblings
Hall of Fame
neither do i. my guess is late 90´s maybe.
treblings
Hall of Fame
i didn´t know that. maybe i can find out more about that formula.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That's a good point and supports arguments supporting Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver as being three of the very best.
That is my argument for the idea of a "peak". For many players it is clear what their peak year was, but for some not so clear. Being on top is also a psychological thing and reflects and absolute indomitable will to win. I don't think that kind of mental edge lasts, week in and week out, for many years. The very best are very good at winning when they are not at their peaks. If they are even close, it may be good enough to keep them at #1.
I would never argue that Djokovic was a better player in 2015, but I would argue that 2011 and 2015 are his best years, so examples of a "two-peak" career. To me the point is that this is a grand total of two years of nearly total dominance. Also, peaks are not yearly things. They can start on any day and continue to any day. Periods of being undefeated might be a good measuring stick.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
It's not clear what you disagree with, although probably everything.
I would not necessarily argue against this point. In fact, I would say that Rosewall is one of the rare players who probably had multiple peaks. Most likely players have physical peaks (young, strong, fast, quick recovery) and mental peaks (understanding of the game, superior tactics, learning how to win ugly when necessary.) These two peaks can happen at the same time, in which case a player is absolutely unbeatable. But they can also happen at different times, which is especially likely when a player, for one reason or another, does not utterly devote himself to the game until later in his career. Agassi might be a good example of this. Injuries will also split careers, so that might explain Nadal's return to near dominance in 2013.
The only place where I strongly disagree with you is the idea of a peak that is uninterrupted for a very long time. I don't agree that Rosewall's peak lasted for many, many years.
I would agree with that.
You are, again, completely ignoring age. I agree that Laver had not yet reached his peak until sometime in '64, but you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that perhaps Rosewall had passed his own physical peak at age 30.
That's where we disagree. You are also assuming that by the early 60s Gonzales, at a time when he would have been at least 32, would have had NO loss in his own physical peak. I'm still saying that for most players the peak of their careers PHYSICALLY tended to be around age 25 or so. You disagree.
I'm saying that this peak is probably moving closer to the end of the 20s now, reflecting training and medicine which is lengthening both life spans and quality of life.
Last edited:
dwightcharles
Rookie
In general, this is a wonderful post and I have much to agree with here.
I'd like to tackle the following:
I have a few of graphs on this.
The first is based on computer rankings in the open era. The data set is all men who won a slam and were born in 1950 or later (so that most of their careers are captured in the rankings). What the graph shows is the average computer ranking of all men in the data set. The peak in this graph is around 23 to 25. The attack is quite sharp to age 20, but the taper to age 31 or so is fairly gradual. It certainly illustrates that prime age is from 20 to 29-30. (Incidentally, the small hiccup at age 24 is almost totally due to Pat Cash's crash at that age, and the one at 27 to Del Potro.)
The second graph shows just the end of year rankings for the most recent 6 top men who were multi-year #1's, and had reasonably long careers (note that Sampras has the shortest career of this group). For Laver and Rosewall, rankings before 1973 are subjective, but use my majority opinion approach. All rankings after 1973 are computer rankings (so Connors, rightly or wrongly gets #1 for 1974-78).
In this graph the peak is at 26 or 27 when no one is ranked below #2.
The next graph (and more to GD's point) is the number of majors won at each age by top major winners throughout tennis history. It includes all who won 4 majors or more, plus Murray and Wawrinka. 'Majors' include all Wim and USC/O, AO, RG since 1925, ITF majors (1912-24), and pro-majors (Wem, FrPro, USPro for the years universally recognized). Specifically, this includes: Renshaw, Sears, RDoherty, Larned, Wrenn, HDoherty, Wilding, Tilden, Johnston, Kozeluh, Borotra, Cochet, Richards, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Nusslein, Vines, Budge, Parker, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Emerson, Santana, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka.
The red line represents the total number of titles won by this group at each age. The blue line is the two-year average for each age. This blue line tends to smooth out the line a bit to make the trend more visible. It seems that the longterm average peak major-winning age has been 24.
To see if there was a difference with modern times, I looked at just those who had won 6 or more slams in the open era (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). It looks like the peak is still about age 24.
I'd like to tackle the following:
I have a few of graphs on this.
The first is based on computer rankings in the open era. The data set is all men who won a slam and were born in 1950 or later (so that most of their careers are captured in the rankings). What the graph shows is the average computer ranking of all men in the data set. The peak in this graph is around 23 to 25. The attack is quite sharp to age 20, but the taper to age 31 or so is fairly gradual. It certainly illustrates that prime age is from 20 to 29-30. (Incidentally, the small hiccup at age 24 is almost totally due to Pat Cash's crash at that age, and the one at 27 to Del Potro.)
The second graph shows just the end of year rankings for the most recent 6 top men who were multi-year #1's, and had reasonably long careers (note that Sampras has the shortest career of this group). For Laver and Rosewall, rankings before 1973 are subjective, but use my majority opinion approach. All rankings after 1973 are computer rankings (so Connors, rightly or wrongly gets #1 for 1974-78).
In this graph the peak is at 26 or 27 when no one is ranked below #2.
The next graph (and more to GD's point) is the number of majors won at each age by top major winners throughout tennis history. It includes all who won 4 majors or more, plus Murray and Wawrinka. 'Majors' include all Wim and USC/O, AO, RG since 1925, ITF majors (1912-24), and pro-majors (Wem, FrPro, USPro for the years universally recognized). Specifically, this includes: Renshaw, Sears, RDoherty, Larned, Wrenn, HDoherty, Wilding, Tilden, Johnston, Kozeluh, Borotra, Cochet, Richards, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Nusslein, Vines, Budge, Parker, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Emerson, Santana, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka.
The red line represents the total number of titles won by this group at each age. The blue line is the two-year average for each age. This blue line tends to smooth out the line a bit to make the trend more visible. It seems that the longterm average peak major-winning age has been 24.
To see if there was a difference with modern times, I looked at just those who had won 6 or more slams in the open era (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). It looks like the peak is still about age 24.
Bingo.In general, this is a wonderful post and I have much to agree with here.
I'd like to tackle the following:
I have a few of graphs on this.
The first is based on computer rankings in the open era. The data set is all men who won a slam and were born in 1950 or later (so that most of their careers are captured in the rankings). What the graph shows is the average computer ranking of all men in the data set. The peak in this graph is around 23 to 25. The attack is quite sharp to age 20, but the taper to age 31 or so is fairly gradual. It certainly illustrates that prime age is from 20 to 29-30. (Incidentally, the small hiccup at age 24 is almost totally due to Pat Cash's crash at that age, and the one at 27 to Del Potro.)
The second graph shows just the end of year rankings for the most recent 6 top men who were multi-year #1's, and had reasonably long careers (note that Sampras has the shortest career of this group). For Laver and Rosewall, rankings before 1973 are subjective, but use my majority opinion approach. All rankings after 1973 are computer rankings (so Connors, rightly or wrongly gets #1 for 1974-78).
In this graph the peak is at 26 or 27 when no one is ranked below #2.
The next graph (and more to GD's point) is the number of majors won at each age by top major winners throughout tennis history. It includes all who won 4 majors or more, plus Murray and Wawrinka. 'Majors' include all Wim and USC/O, AO, RG since 1925, ITF majors (1912-24), and pro-majors (Wem, FrPro, USPro for the years universally recognized). Specifically, this includes: Renshaw, Sears, RDoherty, Larned, Wrenn, HDoherty, Wilding, Tilden, Johnston, Kozeluh, Borotra, Cochet, Richards, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Nusslein, Vines, Budge, Parker, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Emerson, Santana, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka.
The red line represents the total number of titles won by this group at each age. The blue line is the two-year average for each age. This blue line tends to smooth out the line a bit to make the trend more visible. It seems that the longterm average peak major-winning age has been 24.
To see if there was a difference with modern times, I looked at just those who had won 6 or more slams in the open era (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). It looks like the peak is still about age 24.
I find it very interesting the collapse after 24 years.
Why ????
dwightcharles
Rookie
dwightcharles
Rookie
Very balanced, Nat, thanks!
So Laver won the prize money for 1970, Rosewall the USO, and Newcombe won Wim. That would seem to give them more or less equal claims on #1. So then we have to look at the rest of the year.
With our modern eyes, we all discount Newcombe (7th on the money list??), but at the time, observers did not, Tingay among them. Was he that out of touch? or are we?
Also with our modern eyes, we tend to favour Laver's record. It has things we appreciate like a high win-loss % and a strong h2h against chief rivals.
But contemporaries of 1970 weighed all the evidence and favoured Rosewall. Certainly he's not particularly lacking. He won a decent number of tournaments, had a decent win-loss %, fared decently against rivals, won decent money, and won a major. It's not hard to see how they might have chosen him. Especially since the rest of Newcombe's record was so weak, and Laver failed so miserably at the two biggest events. It seems to me that the contemporaries, on average, attached more significance to those two big events than we are doing now. That seems to be the crux of the difference between the modern opinion (which favours Laver), and the contemporary to 1970 one (which favoured Rosewall).
dwightcharles
Rookie
Great points 70's! there is much to challenge me here...!
Yes, it's debatable in 1931 if Wills accomplishment was greater than Aussem - I think it was. Tilden disagrees. (which makes me very nervous!). But I stick to majority opinion.
I stick to my 1926 valuation of Wills at #6 in order to be consistent. I would place her at #2, (and I would place Laver at #1 for 1970) left to my own devices. But I look through a modern lens. So I think it is more reasonable and defensible to use the majority viewpoint of published lists than to use my own rankings. If I write an article about tennis, I want to be taken seriously, and I think a majority tally of published opinion is defensible, whereas my own ideas are not... until/unless I can establish a reputation as a 'source.' (btw, my 'articles' make it no further than my blog or forums like this)
For 1938 I would REALLY like to pick Vines (I generally favour the pros over the ams), but Budge spanked Vines so greatly in 1939, that it seems the logical thing to do is pick Budge. Once again, I'm lucky to have majority opinion agree with my choice. (and I know that 1939 results shouldn't count for 1938 - but they indicate something)
dwightcharles
Rookie
dwightcharles
Rookie
Again, I would say this indicates who they felt was playing at the highest level, not who had the most accomplishment for 1970.
dwightcharles
Rookie
dwightcharles
Rookie
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
It's not clear what you disagree with, although probably everything.
I would not necessarily argue against this point. In fact, I would say that Rosewall is one of the rare players who probably had multiple peaks. Most likely players have physical peaks (young, strong, fast, quick recovery) and mental peaks (understanding of the game, superior tactics, learning how to win ugly when necessary.) These two peaks can happen at the same time, in which case a player is absolutely unbeatable. But they can also happen at different times, which is especially likely when a player, for one reason or another, does not utterly devote himself to the game until later in his career. Agassi might be a good example of this. Injuries will also split careers, so that might explain Nadal's return to near dominance in 2013.
The only place where I strongly disagree with you is the idea of a peak that is uninterrupted for a very long time. I don't agree that Rosewall's peak lasted for many, many years.
I would agree with that.
You are, again, completely ignoring age. I agree that Laver had not yet reached his peak until sometime in '64, but you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that perhaps Rosewall had passed his own physical peak at age 30.
That's where we disagree. You are also assuming that by the early 60s Gonzales, at a time when he would have been at least 32, that Pancho would have had no loss in his own physical peak. I'm still saying that for most players the peak of their careers PHYSICALLY tended to be around age 25 or so. You disagree.
I'm saying that this peak is probably moving closer to the end of the 20s now, reflecting training and medicine which is lengthening both life spans and quality of life.
I'm not completely ignoring age. I am saying that health is a more relevant factor. And, it remains my opinion that if a tennis player is free of injury, he can continue to play at his peak into his late 30's, even early 40's in some cases. I don't agree that 25 is the peak age for a tennis player who is otherwise healthy. Further, I don't see a basis to conclude that Rosewall's game declined in level of play during the 60's and early 70's.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
This reminds me - all this talk about Year End Number 1 and who had the best year, but how many players had their best 12 month period across 2 years? If we just look at the stats (majors, win % etc..) In the open era I make it -
Djokovic - 2015/2016
Nadal - 2008/2009
Agassi - 1999/2000
Sampras - 1993/1994
McEnroe - 1983/1984
Borg - 1979/1980
Federer - 2006/2007???
Lendl - 1985/1986???
Laver 1968/1969???
Not sure about Connors, I think 1974 might be his best 12 months.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
But, that question has also been answered.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I got 49/58 and 59/66. I actually didn't get the 1971 Australian Open!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I honestly don't think it's that hard to figure out. I'll discuss it later but I want to see what the other posters have to discuss.
Just found this about the seedings, from an AP report of March 22, 1971.
Rod Laver Overlooks Seeding
CHICAGO (AP) — Australia's Rod Laver probably couldn't care less over his No. 4 seeding in the Chicago phase of the 20-city World Championship of Tennis tournament which starts a week-long session today.
It's the first time since August of 1970 that Laver, whose racquet thumps a steady march to the bank, has not been accorded No. 1 seed in a tourney.
In the three-site tourney here marking the third leg of the World Championship series, the No. 1 seeded player is another Australian biggie, 1970 Wimbledon champion John Newcombe.
Also seeded ahead of Laver in the hand-picked 32 man field are Arthur Ashe, No. 2; and Australia's Ken Rosewall, No. 2.
While the World Championship show is picking up again since the second leg outing at Sydney, Australia, two weeks ago, Laver last Friday night won the New York phase of the Tennis Champion Classic series to raise his 1971 earnings to $150,000.
The Classic and the World series are not connected.
The $50,000 Chicago tourney, offering a top singles prize of $10,000, will be contested during the week at sites in a schedule the sponsors hoped would spark attendance.
CHICAGO (AP) — Australia's Rod Laver probably couldn't care less over his No. 4 seeding in the Chicago phase of the 20-city World Championship of Tennis tournament which starts a week-long session today.
It's the first time since August of 1970 that Laver, whose racquet thumps a steady march to the bank, has not been accorded No. 1 seed in a tourney.
In the three-site tourney here marking the third leg of the World Championship series, the No. 1 seeded player is another Australian biggie, 1970 Wimbledon champion John Newcombe.
Also seeded ahead of Laver in the hand-picked 32 man field are Arthur Ashe, No. 2; and Australia's Ken Rosewall, No. 2.
While the World Championship show is picking up again since the second leg outing at Sydney, Australia, two weeks ago, Laver last Friday night won the New York phase of the Tennis Champion Classic series to raise his 1971 earnings to $150,000.
The Classic and the World series are not connected.
The $50,000 Chicago tourney, offering a top singles prize of $10,000, will be contested during the week at sites in a schedule the sponsors hoped would spark attendance.
I haven't come across any statement from him about the rankings, that he might have made back then. In his 2013 memoir he says only that he dropped to fourth in the rankings:
I exited [the USO] in the fourth round, just as I had at Wimbledon. Talk about a let-down. In 1969 I had won all four major tournaments, in 1970 I won none….
The top 15 tournaments were won by nine different men. I won the Philadelphia Indoor Open, the Dunlop Open in Sydney, the South Africa Open, the Pacific Southwest Open and the Embassy Indoor Open in London; Arthur Ashe won the Australian Open and the Paris Indoor Open; the US Indoor Open and the Italian Open were taken out by the wild man Ilie Nastase; Jan Kodes won the French Open; Newk won Wimbledon; Rochey triumphed at the US Pro; the West German Open was won by the consistent Tom Okker; Kenny Rosewall was a popular winner (at age 35) of the US Open; and Stan Smith won the Stockholm Indoor Open. The variety of winners made tennis more exciting. Fans knew that any of us could beat anyone else if the stars aligned correctly….
For all that 1970 didn’t reach the heights of previous years and I slipped to No. 4 in the world rankings, behind Newk, Muscles and Rochey, I fared well financially. In winning five of the 15 major pro events, I banked $201,453 prize money, more than anyone else on the circuit, and sponsors seemed unperturbed that I had failed to win a grand slam tournament and continued to pay me to endorse their products.
The top 15 tournaments were won by nine different men. I won the Philadelphia Indoor Open, the Dunlop Open in Sydney, the South Africa Open, the Pacific Southwest Open and the Embassy Indoor Open in London; Arthur Ashe won the Australian Open and the Paris Indoor Open; the US Indoor Open and the Italian Open were taken out by the wild man Ilie Nastase; Jan Kodes won the French Open; Newk won Wimbledon; Rochey triumphed at the US Pro; the West German Open was won by the consistent Tom Okker; Kenny Rosewall was a popular winner (at age 35) of the US Open; and Stan Smith won the Stockholm Indoor Open. The variety of winners made tennis more exciting. Fans knew that any of us could beat anyone else if the stars aligned correctly….
For all that 1970 didn’t reach the heights of previous years and I slipped to No. 4 in the world rankings, behind Newk, Muscles and Rochey, I fared well financially. In winning five of the 15 major pro events, I banked $201,453 prize money, more than anyone else on the circuit, and sponsors seemed unperturbed that I had failed to win a grand slam tournament and continued to pay me to endorse their products.
dwightcharles
Rookie
Bingo.
I find it very interesting the collapse after 24 years.
Why ????
Wow, that's a tough one.
Of course I'm always willing to speculate...!
In this group of 4+ major winners, there were 42 majors won at age 24, and 35 won at age 25... here's the break down of the peak years:
age 21 - 29 majors
age 22 - 31 majors
age 23 - 32 majors
age 24 - 42 majors
age 25 - 35 majors
age 26 - 29 majors
age 27 - 36 majors
age 28 - 34 majors
age 29 - 24 majors
I think the question should be why there is a dip at age 26.
It's probably just an anomaly. What does the data say? For Budge, Parker, and Vines, that was a WW2 year. Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Lacoste had all stopped winning by then. That's about it as far as I can see...
NatF, I must contradict: There is a great difference between seedings and rankings. The seedings were made along to several things, mainly the performance of the last few weeks; considering who was the holder; the reputation of the players (Laver!!); the ATP rankings.
Rosewall was seeded No.2 at the 1975 Wimbledon only because he reached the previous final and was the ATP's No.2. But that seeding was not realistic. The seeding committee should have considered that a 40 years old player was not likely to reach the final again.
The rankings were made by acknowledged experts at the end of a year (or almost at the end in McCauley's case) and covered THE WHOLE YEAR!!
The seeding lists were even more subjective than the ranking lists.
At the 1972 AO Newcombe was seeded first even though Rosewall had beaten Newk in their end-1971 WCT Finals.
You have not answered my question why you think that Collins has ranked Laver only fourth and behind Roche. Of course the reason is that he, and most experts of that time, had the focus on the GS tournaments where Roche fared much better than Laver.
Generally I must stress that I see one of my foremost functions in posting (again) in (peacefully) "fighting" against the pro-Laver bias and the anti-Rosewall bias of several posters here. You, urban and especially Limpinhitter come to mind, the last with his obscene bias and his lies.
treblings, Yes, the seedings in pre-ATP times (and even later) were often disputed and sometimes rather strange.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Hardly! You are now ignoring facts that have already been presented to you. You are beginning to remind me of another poster who thinks that carpet bombing the board with the same false premises over and over will suddenly make them meritorious. Let's review 1970:
1) In 1970, Laver won 15 total titles: the TCC, the Dunlop International (either major or Masters equivalents), 4 more Masters equivalents, 9 more smaller titles. Newcombe won 3 total titles: Wimbledon and 2 smaller events. Rosewall won 6 total titles: The USO and 5 smaller events.
2) Laver was the money winner in 1970.
3) Laver dominated his two closest rivals: 5-0 vs. Newcombe; 3-0 vs. Rosewall including a straight set drubbing in the final match of the TCC.
I reject your assertion that factoring H2H statistics, or factoring prize money, amounts to looking back with modern eyes. If that were the case, then Pancho Gonzalez would probably have never been the #1 player in the world, and the WCT Tour would probably have never existed. Rather, it seems to me that the practice of merely counting major titles to determine greatness is a much more modern practice than is looking at all of the facts and circumstances.
I further reject your assertion that "contemporaries of 1970" weighed all of the evidence, or that they favored Rosewall, or Newcombe. First, in my view, "the contemporaries of 1970" were the players of the time, not the non-player observers from the sidelines. Second, pc1 has already kindly provided you with evidence of what the contemporaries of 1970 thought - according to one of those contemporaries, Dennis Ralston, 99% thought that Laver was #1. Third, please provide your evidence that the non-player observers whose opinions you value so highly, "weighed all of the evidence." You proffer conjecture, not evidence.
Last edited:
Limpin, As rather often, you are wrong again: Rosewall had the edge against Gonzalez (5:4) already in 1961 and won the big tournaments where Pancho participated.
You just give Rosewall "peak years" for 1966 till 1972 ("peak" at 37/38!!) in order to show that even a "peak" Rosewall lost often in majors, to Laver, Gimeno, Roche, Newcombe, Lutz, Cox, Okker, Ashe...
Rosewall and Gonzalez did NOT meet in 1977.
Limpin, Not prize money was the reason why the players rated Dunlop higher than the AO. The strength of the field was.
