WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    Is this the same tour that was referred to by more than one poster as the World Championship Tour in the "Is Rosewall a Goat Candidate," thread in support of their argument that Rosewall should be considered #1 for 1964?
     
  2. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,777
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Yes.
     
  3. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    So, they were wrong? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
  4. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    There is also the small matter that in 1964 Laver's H2H record against Rosewall was 15-4.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry
     
  5. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    PC1, thanks for contacting one of the participants. Did he give you any indication as to why Rosewall was named #1 at the end of '64?
     
  6. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,777
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    We'll just leave it that the 130 Day 1964 tour wasn't for number one.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
  7. ultradr

    ultradr Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,676
    I thought 1 or 2 of Laver's years were co-#1's, no?
     
  8. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    No! Why would you think that? (As if we didn't know).

    First, there were no official rankings before 1970. Rankings were pure opinions of commentators who where at liberty to disagree with each other, and who may not have even played the game themselves. Second, even after 1970, the official rankings of the Grand Prix Tour and the WCT Tour didn't include players who didn't play their respective events. So, what was the value of these rankings in the big picture? Very little. Further, the ATP didn't exist before 1973, and then it was only a ranking system, not a tour. Moreover, the ATP's first few attempts at creating a ranking system were dubious at best. The present ATP system is very fair and logical by comparison. The current point allocation system began in 2009. But, even now, the ATP doesn't recognize most of Laver's and Rosewall's titles, in large part, because they occurred before the ATP existed.

    Having said all that, in my opinion and in the opinion many others, Laver was the dominant, sole #1, for 7 straight years from 1964 through 1970 based on his record.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Limpinhitter, Sorry, but as usual you are wrong in several points.

    The winner of the long world series was usually considered the world champion, at least tied with the man who succeeded most at the pro majors. Examples are 1960 and 1961 when Gonzalez won the world series and Rosewall won the big tournaments.

    In some years there was a point system which determined the No.1, 1959 in the tournament series (details available at Dan Lobb), and in 1964 also in the long tournament series (17 tournaments). There were point systems also in 1965 and 1966 (but we have no final rankings; Laver won both series).

    The "private" rankings by Potter, Tingay, L'Equipe etc were semi-official and widely acknowledged as true world rankings

    The ATP rankings were pretty fair since their beginning in 1973 but open for tied No.1 places, see 1973 Nastase vs. Newcombe; 1977 Connors vs. Borg and Vilas, and so on.

    Laver was never sole No.1 for seven years! In 1964 Rosewall was ranked SOLE No.1 by almost all experts (World of Tennis yearbook) and the players themselves (read Butch Buchholz' long article in the 1965, January, World Tennis magazine). In 1970 Laver was ranked by the top experts only at places 3 and 4 respectively (Tingay, McCauley; Collins, the last one being a true Laver admirer and friend).
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    krosero likes this.
  10. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    It seems that someone is such a biased Rosewall fanboy that he repeatedly claims that Rosewall was #1 for 1964 even though: (1) Laver won more titles than Rosewall in 1964, (2) Laver won 2 of 3 so called pro majors in 1964, and (3) Laver had a 15-4 head to head record against Rosewall in 1964.

    It seems to me that it is clear to all rational, reasonable, unbiased, observers who was #1 for 1964.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Limpin, You are totally wrong and never ready to learn from experts. All data you give are right and yet you miss the deciding point: The 1964 long tournament series was modelled to determine the 1964 world champion. Rosewall won that tour and thus he was world champion along the rules of THAT time! It's irrelevant that under the rules of today Laver would be the No.1 player (majors getting much more points than other tournaments, and so on). For all the players and the experts in 1964 Rosewall was the clear champion. Laver's achievements mentioned by you give him IMO a Co. No.1 for 1964 even though Rosewall won more important tournaments than Laver (7:6) and Rosewall won the important "Heavy Weight World Professional Title" at Johannesburg by 6-4, 6-1, 6-4 against Laver. By the way, it seems as though I was the first expert who gave Laver a tied No.1 place long ago.

    I dislike that you answer to my arguments without addressing me. Poor style...

    And I dislike that you still have not corrected your wrong numbers in the Laver 36 majors thread. But more I dislike your wrong claim that I would have given 40 open era majors to Rosewall. It's not favourable to tell wrong things or lies about a fellow poster!!!
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    krosero likes this.
  12. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    (1) As clearly explained by pc1 above, he has confirmed with a player on that tour that there was no World Championship Tour in 1964. Rosewall was not the World Champion in 1964. There is no such thing. Tennis rankings are not determined by World Championships.

    (2) Laver won 2 of 3 so called pro majors in 1964.

    (3) Laver won more total titles than Rosewall in 1964. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver).

    (4) Laver and Rosewall each won 7 so called "important" titles in 1964. ("Important" titles sounds like something a certain Rosewall fanboy made up to try to make Rosewall appear equal to Laver. On the pro tour the important titles were the ones that paid the highest prize money). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver).

    (5) Laver was 15-4 H2H against Rosewall in 1964.

    (6) Laver was #1 in 1964.

    (7) Rosewall was #2 in 1964. They were not tied. They were not co #1's. Laver was #1. Rosewall was #2.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
  13. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    Did he say who was number one for the year, or say anything about the year-end rankings in general? This question of how Rosewall was ranked number one at the end of '64 is now more acute than ever, if the tour he won was not seen as a championship series.

    An interesting comparison here would be with the '59 tournament series. The points system used in '59 and '64 was exactly the same: 7 points to the winner, 4 for second place, 3 for third, 2 for fourth and 1 point to each quarterfinalist. I don't know if you're going to speak again to the '64 player but it might be interesting to get his take on the '59 series and on how the '64 series differed from it.

    Did you guys touch on points systems, or prize money? Any details from your conversation would be interesting to hear.
     
  14. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    Maybe my post above (reproduced below for your convenience), will help you settle the matter in your own mind:

    (1) As clearly explained by pc1 above, he has confirmed with a player on that tour that there was no World Championship Tour in 1964. Rosewall was not the World Champion in 1964. There is no such thing. Tennis rankings are not determined by World Championships.

    (2) Laver won 2 of 3 so called pro majors in 1964.

    (3) Laver won more total titles than Rosewall in 1964. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver).

    (4) Laver and Rosewall each won 7 so called "important" titles in 1964. ("Important" titles sounds like something a certain Rosewall fanboy made up to try to make Rosewall appear equal to Laver. On the pro tour the important titles were the ones that paid the highest prize money). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver).

    (5) Laver was 15-4 H2H against Rosewall in 1964.

    (6) Laver was #1 in 1964.

    (7) Rosewall was #2 in 1964. They were not tied. They were not co #1's. Laver was #1. Rosewall was #2.
     
  15. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,682
    The authority of the said player can be questioned though. As Krosero asked: What constitute a World Championship Tour. If the tour of 1959 and 1964 were organized similarly, why one of them is a World Championship and the other is not?
     
    krosero likes this.
  16. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    Besides being ranked #1 for '64, Rosewall was also acknowledged as having won the most prize money for that year, as I learned just recently. One newspaper report from March '65, an interview with Buchholz, stated that "Rosewall was the leading money winner last year." Another from June '65, an interview with Barry MacKay, stated that Rosewall was "last year's top money winner."
     
  17. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    Was this from the same source from which you asserted that Rosewall lead Laver H2H in 5 set matchs? One more time:

    (1) As clearly explained by pc1 above, he has confirmed with a player on that tour that there was no World Championship Tour in 1964. Rosewall was not the World Champion in 1964. There is no such thing. Tennis rankings are not determined by World Championships.

    (2) Laver won 2 of 3 so called pro majors in 1964.

    (3) Laver won more total titles than Rosewall in 1964. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver).

    (4) Laver and Rosewall each won 7 so called "important" titles in 1964. ("Important" titles sounds like something a certain Rosewall fanboy made up to try to make Rosewall appear equal to Laver. On the pro tour the important titles were the ones that paid the highest prize money). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver).

    (5) Laver was 15-4 H2H against Rosewall in 1964.

    (6) Laver was #1 in 1964.

    (7) Rosewall was #2 in 1964. They were not tied. They were not co #1's. Laver was #1. Rosewall was #2.

    PS: Assuming, arguendo (which I do not), that it is true that Rosewall was the top money winner in 1964, what reasonable observer would put that statistic over the ones I've listed above to determine the #1 for 1964? The answer is NONE!
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  18. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    Actually, no, only PC1 possibly has answers to the questions I asked.

    You need to start correcting the errors you've made -- you've made a couple of more blunders in this thread -- and withdrawing the strawman arguments that you've been levelling at BobbyOne. (All of the information necessary for you to recognize those mistakes and to correct them have already been pointed out to you repeatedly.) That is the basic minimum that can be expected of any poster and you've shown no interest even in beginning to correct them.

    You are no authority on the history of tennis and you plainly have no access to any information beyond what you can find at Wikipedia -- and you take the errors at Wikipedia, either unable to identify them or uninterested in doing so.

    There was a time when I considered you a serious poster but when it comes to tennis history you clearly do not realize what you don't know.
     
  19. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    This is a particularly nasty strawman, because the last time you asserted this I went through the trouble of linking you to past posts (made in the time when you were not even here) in which I specified that Laver led Rosewall 12-10 in all best of five matches through '67 and that he (Laver) subsequently took a majority of their best of five matches. You did not reply to my answer to you concerning this strawman, back when you first made it. That was disrespectful enough (your silence), but now I see here that you never accepted my explanation and in fact are still accusing me of claiming that Rosewall led Laver in best of five matches.

    I hardly ever use this word but I have to agree with BobbyOne that your lies about other poster's arguments are disgusting.

    Particularly so because in nearly every argument you get into on this board, you complain and wail about how others are misrepresenting your arguments. You show so much concern for your own arguments being treated fairly but you show no such concern for the arguments of others.
     
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    Kros, you have an unpleasant habit of changing the subject when you don't want to respond to premises presented to you. But first, as you know, I have never held myself out as a historian or an expert on tennis history, although I do have some knowledge about that subject. I proceed primarily upon my personal observations and accumulated knowledge of the game. And when someone, you or anyone else, asserts a premise that I consider to be false, I will dispute it.

    Please try to stay on point. I have made a case why I think that Laver was the best player, with the best record, and the most deserving of the #1 ranking in 1964. Now, please be kind enough to specify which of the facts that I have listed in support of my argument are erroneous.
     
  21. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    Actually, it was Urban who corrected your false assertion that Rosewall led Laver in 5 set matches. I didn't see your link.
     
  22. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    How anyone addresses and replies to other posters is never off-point in any thread and can never be taken off the table just because someone doesn't wish to acknowledge their mistakes (mistakes in factual information, as well as mistakes in representing other people's arguments). That is so basic to any human conversation and you still show no interest in doing it. How can you expect anyone to enter into any conversation with you if -- and this is going to be a long list, sorry -- you demonstrate little to no knowledge about the subject; demonstrate no interest in correcting your errors when they're pointed out to you; demonstrate a real eagerness to misrepresent the other person's arguments, even when corrected; claim that you did not see links, when they are provided to you (and when you plainly did see them); cries "strawman!" every time you are challenged; demonstrate an absolute willingness to change your position on a subject (ie, the pro majors) however it may suit you; demonstrate no interest in learning the truth but show an abundant personal animosity toward one poster, every time you speak of the subject. It would be a monumental waste of time to enter into a conversation with someone like that. And yet you present yourself as bringing -- let's see, what were your words -- reason, rationality, and honesty to the debate.

    Now you're trolling.
     
  23. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    Krosero, you are looking more and more like a historical revisionist all the time. In any event, I will take this non sequitur of a post as your tacit admission that all of my factors listed above in support of my position that Laver should be considered #1 for 1964 are true, and that you have no reasonable, rational or honest (much less compelling), opposition to that conclusion.
     
  24. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    I am truly sorry for you, that's all I will say.

    That, and this: do not misrepresent my arguments again.
     
  25. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,365
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I have tried to avoid co-number ones, whenever possible.
     
    Dan Lobb and Limpinhitter like this.
  26. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    Really? I'm touched. Also, please show me where I have misrepresented your arguments.
     
  27. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    When was it not possible?
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Limpin, It's really funny that you make the same claim six times (sic) in one and the same post (your points 6 and 7). But even if you repeat your wrong claim 87 times in one post, your wrong claim stays a wrong claim...

    You refer to Wikipedia. Interesting that you ignore Wikipedia's claim that Laver was No.1 (for the first time) in 1961 by Lance Tingay's ranking. As we know you refuse to accept "pure opinions of commentators" and all rankings prior to 1973.

    Rosewall won seven important titles, Laver won only six (I contradict Wiki). Perth was just a four- man tournament.

    Wikipedia also states that Laver won "eight Pro Slam titles" and the 1967 "Pro Grand Slam". As we know you refuse to accept pro GS titles and a Pro GS. Stop your cherry picking on Wikipedia!

    The 1964 tour was a World Championship Tour.

    You also are wrong that tennis rankings are not determined by World Championships. What about Pancho Gonzalez and his great world championship tours? Pancho was not No.1 so often because he would win big tournaments (only).
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Limpin, It's great that you repeat your whole post. That way we can learn your intelligent claims even better.

    A special question for you and other experts: Whom should we trust more: A participant of the 1964 world tour who writes detailed about the tour immediately after the tour (and the season) was finished or another participant who contradicts to the first participant a little later (to be exact 51 and a half years later)? I trust more Butch Buchholz than another player who recalls the tour more than 51 years later...
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Flash, Your question is justified.

    Buchholz in his long article stated three times (!) that Rosewall was the No.1 player in 1964. We do not know exactly what one of his colleagues said more than five decades later.

    I'm sure that if Buchholz would not have reported correctly, some other players, especially Laver (the No.2 player of Buchholz' list), would have corrected or contradicted him. As far as I know nobody questioned Buchholz' rankings.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    krosero, Did not know that. Of course we should take prize money numbers with a grain of salt because also prize money for doubles matches were included then. Hoad/Rosewall won many matches; also Buchholz/Laver did.

    But yes, prize money was then a significant indicator at the pros. But points and final standings in a long tour were more important.
     
    krosero likes this.
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Limpinhitter, Three times lucky? I do hope you will not repeat your post with those several wrong claims again and again.

    Why do you mock serious poster, krosero, and your other readers?

    You still are faulty in your argumentation without realizing your fault: Buchholz, MacKay and others (World of Tennis annuals of that time) ranked Rosewall No.1 for 1964 (undisputedly, by the way) in accordance with the rules and ranking usance of that time (1964) not according our measure of 2016.
     
  33. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,777
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    I grow weary of this endless merry-go-round!

    I read the Buchholz article numerous times! I have actually shown it to a friend of mine who is a lawyer since they specialize in reading documents. Neither one of us can find anything that indicates that the tour was a world championship tour. If anything it indicates that it was not a world championship tour! I have had communication with one of the participants in the tour and it is clear, 100% clear that it was not a world championship tour.

    I don't want to go back-and-forth with this forever! I gave the information that I have and if people want to believe that Rosewall was number one that year 1964, that's fine with me. If people want to believe Bill Tilden or Don Budge or Rod Laver was Champion that year in 1964, that's also fine. But please do not dispute the fact that a participant on that tour said it was not a world championship tour. He knows better than all of you! It's a one in seven chance that you can guess which one it is.

    I really don't want to comment on this much more if at all! You have all the facts. Make your conclusions and decide. I thought we were supposed to find the truth in tennis history.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    Limpinhitter and Dan Lobb like this.
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    krosero, You must be rather annoyed by Limpinhitter's recent posts to write as sharply as I did not know from you over the years. I do hope Limpin will become a bit more humble and decent after reading your words. Philosopher, Ernst Bloch, spoke about "The Principle of Hope"...
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Limpin, It's YOU who is a revisionist: You refuse to acknowledge the rules and the statements of 1964/1965. You totally ignore what Butch Buchholz has written about the 1964 No.1 player three times (krosero and I have quoted his words in case you have not read the World Tennis, January 1965 report on the world champion tour). You take the rules and parameters of 2016 to judge - almost 52 years post festum- a tour played in 1964...
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Limpin, There are many years where it's diffficult (or even unfair) to state a clear-cut No.1, from 1930 till today. Or can you tell me who the No.1 player was in 1970 (three candidates; your candidate being ranked at No.3 and 4 by the top experts), in 1973, in 1977?
     
  37. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,592
    Another philosopher wrote: Si tacuisses, expertus mansisses.
     
    Limpinhitter, Dan Lobb and pc1 like this.
  38. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,795
    Krosero, I think that part of the confusion here is that in 1959 the Kramer organization was open about the tournament series being a world championship, and the press openly claimed that.
    In 1964, Rosewall himself administered the 1964 official tour, and being a humble man, did not openly brag about this tour being for the "world championship" (Kramer and other American promoters liked to use this term in capital letters as an aid to marketing and ticket sales), nor did Rosewall point to himself as the "official world champion", he was a modest humble guy.

    That causes a lot of confusion when comparing the 1959 and 1964 tours.
     
  39. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,795
    I think that the answer is what I have indicated above.
     
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,795
    Bobby, part of the confusion is Rosewall's failure to point to himself in 1964 as the winner of the world championship...he was too modest a guy.
     
  41. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,682
    Yes but pc1,you make an argument of authority (misterious person) without explaining why the 1964 tour was not a world championship tour, nor explaining how such a tour does not weight heavily in identifying the world n°1.

    I disagree also that he knows better than anyone. Former tennis players say all sort of things, and have all sorts of reasons to say things.
     
    krosero and pc1 like this.
  42. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,795
    Flash, if this 1964 tour was (and I agree that it might have been or could have been under certain parameters) an openly acknowledged world championship tour, why, oh why, did Rosewall NOT point to himself as the winner of the world championship? That makes NO sense, and I do not see any answer coming from Bobby or Krosero, who seem to think that the 1964 tour must have been the world championship tour.

    As I state, the 1964 tour could well have been the championship tour, it certainly LOOKS like it was, but no one CLAIMS that it was, not Buchholz, not Rosewall, not anyone at the time.

    That is a very strong argument against this 1964 tour being the world championship.

    Part of the answer is perhaps that Hoad and Gonzales were still around, still winning some events, and it would seem a little strange to exclude these two giants from consideration as the greatest of the day...certainly, Rosewall himself considered these two guys as the greatest of all time, and that may have given Rosewall pause before proclaiming his own status.
     
  43. ultradr

    ultradr Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,676
    Precisely because of reasons you described, there were often co-#1's before the official ranking system used.
     
    krosero likes this.
  44. ultradr

    ultradr Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,676
    then why you included those for Gonzalez but not Laver?

    AFAIK, Laver was co-#1 with Rosewall in 1964 and with Newcombe and Rosewall in 1970.
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,795
    "Co-#1" makes no sense...some one has to be the better player...think of some system where you do not get "co-#1's", which is just a cop-out avoidance.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    urban, It's a great disappointment and a shame that you obviously take Limpinhitter's side who is an inferior poster to say the least!!

    I don't know if there is the word "expertus" at all.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Dan, There is no confusion at all among tennis experts about the 1964 tour. At that time the players and the experts rated the 17 tournament series as world champion tour and at least one newspaper (see krosero's report about the Holland newspaper).

    In 1993 when talking to me Rosewall claimed he was the No.1 player in 1964. I contradicted him partly and said that Laver deserves a Co.- No.1 place.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,177
    Dan, Rosewall is a humble man but he claimed that he was No.1 in 1964 as late as 1993. Buchholz reported the tour detailed and three times said that Muscles was the No.1 for 1964.
     
  49. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,777
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Here's what I wrote before just above.

    I thought we were supposed to find the truth on what actually happened in 1964. I present the truth and it's ignored as possibly wrong. I suppose I could say 2+2=4 and someone will argue it equals 5 and it could go endlessly.

    It shouldn't matter who a poster originally thought was number one or in reading or misinterpreting an article that they thought someone was number one in 1964. It should be the truth.

    What can I say? I figured this would happen but I hope for the best that people would just accept it. Some of the posts are quite ironic but I won't get into detail why.

    Again, the 130 day tour in 1964 was NOT a World Championship tour. You can lie to yourselves and say that was but it really wasn't. If it was a true World Championship Tour I would write that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  50. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,136
    PC1, you are doing the tennis World a service by correcting the false assertions repeatedly posted on this board.
     

Share This Page