WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,619
    It seems interesting and contradicts some assumptions here posted, that some believe following some newpaper statements from spring summer 1965, that Laver took over as pro king in May/June 1965.That would mean, that 1. the pros had a sort of rolling Ranking System. 2. the pro ranking was NOT depending on some end result of a so called Champions tour. 3 the pro ranking had NOTHING to do with so called pro Majors (they were not yet played). As pc 1 wrote, Lavers own quite direct statement indicates, that some dynamic sort of pro ranking existed.
     
    pc1 and NatF like this.
  2. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    A very diplomatic way of putting it.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  3. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,973
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    I try my best.
     
  4. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    In my view, it depends on your ranking system. If you have all of the dates of all of the matches and you look at 1964 in isolation, then Laver more likely took over the #1 spot earlier in the year. However, if you use a rolling 52 week ranking the way the ATP does it now, Laver probably took over the #1 spot later in the year.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    mattosgrant, I understand. Thanks.
     
  6. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    717
    I do agree, and we said before that expert opinion should be taken seriously but also treated with caution at the same time.

    I have an issue with how quickly the accounts of the time are dismissed in this case simply because people always make an issue about not judging former players/era's by todays standards. People say the Sydney Dunlop was the real AO in 1970. Was it? Where does it say this? Why are people so quick to adopt this view but not even ask why some rated Rosewall number 1 in 1964? And yes, it could be that sources from the time cannot be trusted and if that is the case then we must also take the same approach to other sources about other issues from long ago.

    Regarding the bolded parts, yes Laver made that statement but he is also quoted by McCauley at the time saying Rosewall was still number 1 and that he (Ken) won more big tournaments. Again, why automatically dismiss one yet take the other as gospel? (and it works both ways, we shouldn't automatically assume Laver was not number 1 in 1964 just because some experts said he wasn't). It is very possible that Laver was being kind, but I think it is worth thinking about. We have often discussed whether the 3 Pro Majors were really the 3 biggest tournaments but no one ever goes any further. So what if they were not? What if the Masters Pro was included and maybe all tournaments with a best of 5 set final? In this case I believe Rosewall has the best record across the aforementioned events in 1964, whilst Laver has the best record in 1965.
     
    krosero and pc1 like this.
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    urban, I understood krosero that he wanted to prove (by mid-1965 newspaper quotings) that Rosewall was commonly acknowledged as the 1964 No.1. The top player for a whole year is determined at the end of a year.

    By the way, the pros changed their seedings for tournaments every four weeks.
     
  8. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    You think Rosewall wrote in a private letter that he was #1? I don't see that.

    Maybe it was a 3 way phone call with Bud Collins. The call where Collin's said "and Kenny."
     
  9. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    No. In 1964, Laver won 2 of 3 so called pro majors, plus more total titles, plus more total matches, plus a higher winning percentage, plus a 15-4 H2H advantage over Rosewall.
     
  10. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    I think Laver gives a pretty high ranking to Rosewall.
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    70sHollywood, Thanks for this post. It seems as though you are less agitated when examining old records as others (including myself) are...
     
  12. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    My understanding is that it was the quality and depth of the draw of the Dunlop vs. the AO.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Limpin, All this is correct. But altogether your conclusion about 1964 is wrong...

    Ceterum censeo: Have you already corrected your wrong claim and your wrong numbers and apologized for your lie about me??
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Limpin, I finally can agree! Laver gives a better ranking to Rosewall than you give...
     
  15. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,973
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Many of the pros boycotted the Australian that year because of the price money I believe. That's why the Sydney is often call the real Australian Open in 1970.

    Incidentally that quote by Laver in the McCauley book was right after Wembley in September of 1964. There were still a few months left in the year
     
  16. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    717
    Certainly looking at it today it seems a more impressive tournament to win. Though the AO had a bigger draw (48 v 26) the Sydney line up was clearly better. My point is I have not seen any evidence from the time of it being a "major", unlike the TCC in 1971 where at least one article spoke very highly of it.

    Personally I always look at Philly or Los Angeles above Sydney. They both had 64 draws, very strong, big money, history. And of course both won by Laver. If I was picking 4 big events per year I would have those 2 plus Wimbledon and Forrest Hills for 1970.
     
  17. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    717
    I know, I am more interested in the "biggest tournaments" comment and whether there are other tourneys that need to be looked at. This applies to the era as a whole both before and after 1964. I'm sure the ToC in the late 50's deserves to be considered the equal of Wembley etc but are there others?
     
    pc1 likes this.
  18. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    My understanding is that calling the Dunlop a major is a retrospective opinion of how the event should be valued based current information.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  19. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,973
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    On a different note, 1977 was always an interesting year. I've always gone back and forth on it. I think Borg was the best for level of play but Vilas may very well have been number one for pure accomplishments. Connors won the WCT Championships and the Year End Masters.

    Who was number one in 1977?
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2016
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    I have no confidence in certain posters' opinions about what were big events on the old pro tour. It seems fairly obvious that this is a lame attempt to justify giving Rosewall more credit than the actual record can justify.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  21. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,530
    I think Borg, Connors, Vilas and, oh yes, Rosewall, were co #1's for 1977.
     
    KG1965 likes this.
  22. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,619
    On the old pro there were indeed several events, that were vip tournaments i would say. Often the classical venue played a role, like of course the Wimbledon World pro in 1967, but also like the events played on the sacred lawns of Newport in 1965-1967, or the Forest Hills 1966 round Robin edition with 13 participants, or 1966-1969 the rich events played at Madison Square Garden, where the pros had a 4 year lucrative contract. One event, that is imo underrated is the US pro indoor, played at White Plains in 1964, and then in 1965 and 1967 moved to the Old Armory Arena in Manhattan, where also the US national indoor tournament had been played. It had the same winners prize (3ooo $) as the US grass pro and up to 3000 onlookers. I am sure from writings by McCauley and others, that one can find in the New York Times archive extensive reports on those US pro indoors. And i am quite sure, that Lavers win over Gonzalez in the 1965 edition made great impact on US reporters, giving them the impression, that Laver indisputably had taken over as the top rank pro. One note: I think Dave Anderson wrote a book on the 1964 campaign in the US, especially on the Gonzalez comeback. I tried to get it, but never found it.
     
  23. jean pierre

    jean pierre Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    856

    Maybe Borg was the best player, but the world champion was of course Vilas.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Bobby, there was no "series" in 1962, simply a product of your imagination...who won the high profile events of that year? Hoad.
     
  25. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Laver won two of the three majors in 1964, beating Rosewall in both. Your numbers are backwards.
     
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    You mean, there is no evidence...I understand, don't extend yourself unnecessarily.
     
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Bobby, I simply pointed out that Krosero agrees with me an the key point of contention here, that the 1964 tour was NOT designated by the pros as an official world championship...this is not an insignificant issue, as you think. It affects the effort given by the players in those events.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Be clear in your claims.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  29. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Yes, Laver ranks Hoad number one among pre-open players, and he ranks Hoad above Rosewall.
    Rosewall ranks Hoad above Laver.
     
  30. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,583
    1977.. mmh a difficult year.

    Borg and Connors were stronger of Vilas but suffered injuries in that year : Connors retired six times during 1977 and Borg after winning Wimbledon was injured and did not win more great titles.

    If we look only Grand Slam tournaments Vilas dominates , logical. Without a doubt , without discussion.

    If we look at the 6 great tournaments: W , US Open , Masters GP , RG , Philadelphia (US Pro Indoor) , Dallas (WCT Finals).. dominating Connors .

    If we look at all the titles .... won Vilas , but half are scarce titles.

    IMHO Borg was 3rd at 31.12.1977 . Although, perhaps , he was the strongest .
     
    pc1 likes this.
  31. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,583
    IMHO in 1977 happens something like in 1975 .

    In 1975, Connors was probably the strongest , but did nothing to be number one at the end of year , not capitalized (for INJURIES).
    Orantes was the number one ranking if he had not been PENALIZED by the ATP ranking system.
    Ashe was the REAL number one because he also won the WCT Finals that they did not give points .

    In 1977, Borg was probably the strongest , but did nothing to be number one at the end of year , not capitalized (for INJURIES).
    Vilas was the number one ranking if he had not been PENALIZED by the ATP ranking system.
    Connors was the REAL number one because he also won the WCT Finals , the WCT Challenge Cup and especially the Masters Grand Prix that gave no points .
     
    pc1 likes this.
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    70sHollywood, Yes, Dunlop Sydney was not regarded a major in 1970 even though it was the "secret AO". Philadelphia and PSW were very strong events but I would rate Sydney a bit higher that year.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Limpin, Your attempt to belittle Rosewall is as lame as your efforts to blame me for claims I never did. You lied when writing that I would give 40 open era majors to Rosewall. Please note: I'm not an idiot!!! Time to apologize for that insult, don't you think? I only can consider you a serious person if you correct that insult, your wrong numbers in the Laver thread, and your wrong other claims and insinuations!!!
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Limpin, Without realizing it you are not far from truth: Rosewall at 43 (about 13 years after his peak) was able to beat the world's No.3, Gerulaitis, in straight sets and to give peak Connors (then 25) a marvellous fight. He was "only" No.12 in the ATP rankngs but for the second half of 1977 Rosewall deserves a top ten place winning two tournamenst and reaching the final in two additional one (one of them being the ToC).

    At 43 all your darlings from all-time No.1 to No.17 (all the players you rank above Rosewall) with the exception of Tilden were long retired and cared for their complaints of old age whereas the all-time weak player, Rosewall, beat four top ten players and matched peak Connors for two full hours...
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Dan, I should not answer to your unqualified words but I still hope yo will "awake" some day and will get serious.

    The 1962 "Australian TV Series" was, as you might learn when reading its name, a SERIES. Rosewall played 11 matches therein, won 10 and lost one (to Hoad). Read McCauley!

    Hoad won the high profile events of that year? That's new for me and probably for all other experts. Please tell me what events these were! Wembley? French Pro? Geneva Gold Trophy? Australian TV Series?
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Dan, You begin to lie like Limpinhitter! krosero did NOT agree with you in the key point! If you have read his numerous posts about the 1964 tour, you know that krosero clearly stated that the big tournament tour was the deciding ad No.1- determining tour of the year (equal if it had a label or not!) and that Rosewall was clearly the No.1 player in 1964 (at least for the contemporary players, experts and journalists). These are the two key points in our damned discussions since many days! I'm disgusted very much by your unqualified and arrogant behaviour. You are not entitled to mock me!!!
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Dan, I was, as all readers know.
     
  38. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Rosewall lost the final of that Australian TV series to Hoad...guess what that means? The most high profile event of the year in Australia was Hoad beating Rosewall in the final of that televised tournament.
     
  39. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Bobby, you should read Krosero's post again...he agreed with me that there was no designation of the 1964 tour as a world championship tour...that was the key point of contention between us...now, it is time for you to admit this, and acknowledge that if the tour was not designated as a world championship, that is a very significant point.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  40. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    Laver's book came out in 2013, and by then there had been a long-running debate about 1964 based on Andrew's documentation of Laver's and Rosewall's win/loss records for the year. His stats were published to Wikipedia, along with many of his other findings such as Laver's total of 200 tournament titles. That information has been incorporated into new books, such as the new edition of The Education of a Tennis Player. I think, in that context, Laver's statement in his 2013 autobiography may not be based on official records such as rankings points from 1964 -- records which after all this time are probably lost -- but on Andrew's new stats. Laver, or his co-author, could well mean that he was the top-ranked pro at the end of '64 in the sense that he had the best stats and the best overall record, based on the new and widely available information provided by Andrew. That's how much of an impact Andrew's work has had (and rightly so); and I think it's more likely that a statement made today would be based on the currently available stats, rather than on old statistics kept by the pros in '64 which are probably lost. I know both Bobby and Bud Collins have asked Butch Buchholz for the exact numbers of the '64 ranking points, and Buchholz told Bud that he could not remember them; obviously he didn't have them on hand anymore, or know where to find them.

    Andrew, you might say, is the closest analogy in tennis to your baseball statistician friend :)

    Having said that, when we refer to Andrew's new stats, we should be clear that they were new to us, when he provided them -- but there is no reason to think that Kramer, Rosewall and Buchholz did not know, at the time, everything that happened on the tour. If there was money involved on a tour, or a single stand, or a tournament, surely Rosewall as treasurer had the records. Kramer put together the tournaments of the US circuit in '64 and I know he also traveled to Europe that year for the tournaments there. Buchholz seems to have participated in virtually everything on the pro circuit (exaggerating not by much) in '64; he accompanied Laver on that last trek through the Middle East and France in November, before composing his article for World Tennis. Possibly no one was in a better position than he was, to give an overview of the main '64 tour and to know what all the players did in '64, and who was ranked in what spot, etc.

    That information was surely known and recorded in '64, so I cannot agree that we necessarily know better what the situation was. We do know the situation better than McCauley knew it when he wrote his great book in 2000 -- thanks to Andrew's work -- but that's because the records had long since been forgotten or lost.

    Buchholz was a regular columnist for World Tennis, so when he wrote his article summarizing the tour, he was not some one-time guest columnist who had no other contact with the magazine. If they wanted to know something about the pro scene and its tour, it would have been easy for them to ask him. So the fact that World Tennis, in its April 1965 issue, said that Laver was still challenging Rosewall for the number one spot and might soon get it, is quite significant, and cannot be dismissed as some random newspaper making some mistaken assumption. I cannot see how the preeminent American tennis magazine would not know who stood atop the rankings in April 1965, or at any time -- or why they would make a careless and mistaken assumption about who the top pro was. They would have been corrected by Buchholz, Laver, or someone else; often when they did make errors, readers pointed them out, in letters to the editors, published in the magazine.

    Bobby mentioned in a post above, as well, that to his knowledge no letter was published in World Tennis to the effect that Buchholz was wrong in naming Rosewall as the unquestioned pro champ for '64. I've had a look myself and found no such correction/objection in the first few months of '65.

    In any case, I have to disagree with your assertion that Joe McCauley made a mistake in his book, in your post from a few days ago when you said you'd contacted one of the '64 tour players. McCauley, as far as I can see, faithfully followed the documentation of the time period: Rosewall was ranked #1 above Laver at the end of '64 (as stated twice by World Tennis, once by Buchholz; and by numerous newspapers), and Laver overtook him in '65.

    If you mean that McCauley incorrectly called the '64 pro circuit a championship tour, well I don't recall him doing that; I don't have the book on me but I recall him saying only that the pros used a points system for their tournaments and that Rosewall ended up at the top of it by years-end.
     
    NatF likes this.
  41. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    I meant "must be declared the POY" in the sense of naming the tour winner as sole number one for the year -- that is, in the way that PC1 defines a championship tour. He can correct me if I'm wrong about his argument; but he has often posted that the old championship tours, by themselves, give a player the top spot for the year. And he said that if he had learned that the '64 tour was a championship tour he would have given the POY to Rosewall with no if's, and's or but's (I'm sure he meant Rosewall alone, without Laver as co-number one). That's the sense in which I was agreeing with him: the 130 day tour was not a tour in that sense. I don't believe any championship tour was ever a tour in that sense (as I've said in my long-running debates with him, I don't think any single tour of the past could render all remaining events for the year as dead rubbers; and I don't believe that just because a tour has the official title of a championship tour that it must therefore make its winner the top player of the year). And I'm sure you agree with me, because you don't name Rosewall sole number for '64; you have Rosewall and Laver as co-number ones. Laver obviously has a case for '64; he must have a case, even if the 130 day tour that Rosewall won was called a championship tour.

    I have not agreed with Dan's declaration that the 130 day was not a championship tour. PC1 interviewed a player who said it was not a championship tour, and I'm sure it was an honest statement; but we have no idea what the specifics of the statement were (no idea of the context). Did he mean that it was not a championship tour because it lacked that formal designation? (Like you said, it may have lacked that designation; that's entirely possible.) Did he mean that it was not a championship tour like the old H2H tours, which had a "King of the Hill" format in which a winner was declared on the date that he "clinched" the title? Did he speak about the specific features of the '64 tour (prize money, draw strength, etc.) and argue that the tour was not as significant as we might think? We don't know.

    I do know of that report of the Dutch Pro final at Noordwijk in August '64. It was an Associated Press report, referring to the "final of a world professional tennis championship series." Now of course that could be a mistake. But what I find significant about that reference is that when I research the old pro tour years, the vast majority of press reports simply refer to "tournaments" or "exhibitions"; or they refer to the name of the local championship (ie, naming it the US Championships, Wembley Championships, Dutch Championships, what have you). There is no reason at all for a journalist to throw in the title "world professional championship series." That's especially true of the Dutch Pro. At Wembley it might be a different story; for that tournament, you might suspect that some uninformed journalist might carelessly call it a world championship; but why the Dutch Pro? Why would that tournament be associated with the world championship of the pros?

    The earlier tournaments, in the U.S., were largely referred to as part of a the pros' new "tournament circuit." I'm actually finding a lot in the press reports about how the pros were beginning a grand new experiment, putting away the old world series of one-night stands and setting up, with Edward Hickey's new money, a modern circuit of tournaments; some reporters likened it to the pro golf circuit.

    In the articles I've seen, the press tended to refer to "tournaments," and they used the word "circuit" a lot. I haven't found them using the term "world series," in the American portion of the tour. But I don't know what significance that carries, and I'll give you an example of what I mean.

    Kramer actually put together the series of US tournaments in early '64 (he was asked to return, when Trabert retired). Kramer had long been talking about how the pros should move to a tournament format, and how the old world series of one-night stands was a moribund system. I think he could well have decided not to use an old term like "world series", simply because he wanted the public to know that the pros were now doing something entirely new. He had been saying for some years that the public really wanted tournaments. In his promotions and advertisements he would have been sure to signal to the public that they were getting the "tournaments" and the modern "circuit" that they wanted.

    That's just a speculation of mine; I have no idea whether it's true. But I do feel strongly that not too much emphasis should be place on the formal title or designation of the tour, because there are many reasons that one term or another might be used, or not used. Those reasons might have little or nothing to do with the real significance of the tour.

    The real importance of the tour can only be judged by looking at its makeup, such a draw strength, prize money, etc.

    And this tour had it all, regardless of its formal designation. It had the new money coming in from the banker Edward Hickey. Unlike the old H2H tours, it incorporated the top tournaments in the world. It gave out ranking points; and the player who finished at the top of the ranking points was named number one by the pros themselves. So if that tour did not decide who was number one, then what did?
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Dan, No comment.
     
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Dan, Now it's time for you to stop writing lies! The key point between krosero and BobbyOne on one side and Limpinhitter, you and another poster was a two-folded question (It's a shame that I must explain it to you again): Was the long tournament tour (17 events) the deciding parameter and criterion for determining the No.1 and was Rosewall the No.1 pro in 1964? Of course these two questions are properly only one question. As told the issue of a possible label for the tour such as "World Championship Tour" is not the key point. It's just a secondary matter because the contemporary players, experts and journalists agreed that the tour was the all-determining affair of the pros. We don't know if the tour was labelled in any way. It could be.

    Of course you are free to believe krosero's and my arguments and reports or to not believe them and to ignore the facts. But I hope you will not torture me further in case you still ignore the truth at this matter.
     
  44. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,068
    What evidence do you guys have the there was a bit of bad blood between Laver and Rosewall...
     
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    krosero, Again convincing arguments. Hope they will convince the still doubting colleagues that we can come to a more peaceful discussion...

    Andrew was something like a Co.-author to "Education", pulished 2009.

    Did not know (or forgot) that Buchholz was a regular columnist for World Tennis. But I still could imagine that he would not give a label of the tour even if there was such a label at all. Guess for the players and Butch it was just "the tour". Don't think that a conversation between two participants during the tournament circuit might have been "Hi, how do you do in the "World Champion Tour?". See Butch's words "Who won the tour?" and "Rosewall again won the tour"

    Buchholz stated in his article four times (but in different wordings like "Rosewall is our No.1 player" and "Rosewall again won the tour") that Rosewall is the No.1 player.

    You are right, McCauley has not called the 1964 pro circuit a championship tour (Dan will make a jump of joy). But this does not take away anything from your and mine statements and does not support the "doubters".

    Joe formulated: "Rosewall finished at the top of the points table". In the Results Section he writes: "Pro rankings for 1964" -1 K. Rosewall; 2. R. Laver and so on.
     
  46. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,546
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Cute.;)
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2016
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    krosero, I agree with most you write but cannot agree regarding POY. It's just your own last paragraph which explains that the tournament tour was unique in history (till then), especially as it did not have a rivalry tour as a second parameter for determining the rankings. As you earlier wrote, the case in 1959 was different as there were two circuits in a rivalry to each other. In that sense the 1964 tournament tour was MORE than a classic World Series of the Gonzalez era. Therefore I cannot understand your argumentation here.

    You ask what else did decide who was number one, and we (at least you and me) know: there was no other deciding criterion. Otherwise Rosewall could never have been called the NO.1 for 1964 as he actually has been called so often in 1964 and 1965. I of course refer to your own opinions.

    You are right that even a declared World Championship Tour is not necessarily the deciding measure for the year's ranking.

    But I cannot agree regarding Laver a Co.-No.1 because our whole discussion with Limpinhitter & Co. was about the contemporary determination of the No.1 player and the following players. The points apart from the big tour, such as majors won, hth, are important for a retrospective valuation of the 1964 players but not relevant for our "hot" discussion. The latter went virtually only about "What meant that tour?" and "Was Rosewall or Laver the No.1 in the view of the contemporaries". Sorry but I must point to the fact again that it was probably me who doubted the old ranking from 1964 and about 1964 and who plead for a tied No.1 because Laver has several important points that can match (in a whole) Rosewall's circuit's win.

    The question was: How did the people in 1964 rank the players? Not if the contemporary judgement was justified or not.

    It's clear for me (and I think also for you) that, when the proper tour was over, all eight participants (plus the experts and the media) agreed and knew that Ken Rosewall is the king of 1964. which also meant he was acknowledged as POY (even though he might not have gotten a trophy with the letetrs P.O.Y. engraved. In 1964 Rosewall was the POY. Today serious experts say that thre were two POY in 1964. Both claims are right. I don't see any problem here.

    The modern judging, after studying all available information, is a different matter. The people of 1964 would probably say: Your additional information, modern guys, is not relevant for us as we had our own (maybe a bit unfair) system to determining the final places of the players.

    Thanks for correcting Dan.

    Yes, there would be many questions about that ominous player (I guess Olmedo or Ayala), but I fear we will not get aby additional answers.

    Your key sentence seems to be: "It's the real significance of a tour, not a term that is important" (I 'm quoting along the sense of your words). That is deciding in our discussion.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2016
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,673
    Gary, For instance Rod's "bad" looking on Rosewall at the press conference after their maybe greatest match, Dallas 1972. I believe KG1965 has brought the picture recently.
     
  49. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,973
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Incidentally guys, Joe McCauley's Pro Rankings for 1964 were 1. Rosewall 2. Laver 3. Gonzalez 4. Gimeno 5. Buchholz 6. Hoad 7. Olmedo 8. Ayala.

    The 130 Day 1964 Tour had 1. Rosewall 2. Laver 3. Gonzalez 4. Gimeno 5. Buchholz 6. Hoad 7. Olmedo 8. Ayala which is exactly the same as above. Joe McCauley book erred in called the 130 Pro Tour in 1964 a World Championship Tour so these Pro Ranking are obviously based on the Tour. Since the tour wasn't a World Championship tour post 1795 has perhaps some faulty logic and repeats the same error.

    I actually spoke to Mrs. McCauley today about a few things not related to this tour. She really knows her tennis. A very delightful, articulate and intelligent person. She thinks Djokovic is a fantastic player. We had some discussions about her opinions on past players like Laver, Gonzalez and of course we spoke about Wimbledon. She also spoke about today's racquets versus wood racquets. No doubt she would be a great poster here. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2016
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,984
    Not quite...actually, the 1959 tournament series had more...a first prize of substantial amount...what was the "prize" for winning this 1964 tournament series? Apparently nothing, no formal declaration of world championship, no special prize money for winning the series.
    The 1959 format was more of an accomplished arrangement, with a formal designation of world championship and a big prize for winning.
     
    pc1 likes this.

Share This Page