WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Krosero, I do not think that Kramer was excited about the Ampol world championship series, he gave his imprimatur and approval probably because it was too good a deal to turn down, offered big money to his players and prestigious venues.
    Kramer was practically silent about the Ampol series, even though he was in Australia throughout December of 1959.
    This could explain the complete lack of American press coverage of the Ampol world series, if Kramer did not release anything to the press.
    It is noteworthy that after this 1959 tour, Ampol apparently cut its ties with Kramer. Was it because Kramer downplayed the results of 1959?
    I would like to have heard some of the conversations behind the scenes in Australia in December of 1959.
    Ampol was trying to break open the game into open tennis, thus the name "world open championship" for the 1959 tour.
    Another opportunity lost.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2016
  2. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,967
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Yes but he made such an impression that many consider him the GOAT.
     
  3. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    His peers had the greatest estimation of his skills, not the press.
     
  4. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,967
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    True but the press were in awe also. Richard Evans called him the greatest ever for a long time until Federer. There are many still convinced Hoad was the greatest.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Your mistake in thinking is that you assume only a labelled "world championsip" is an official tour. All sources prove that the 130 days tour was an official tour.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2016
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Of course it was an official tour, but was it labelled the world series or the world pro championship, as in 1959?
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Thought you are Canadian and thus able to understand English written words of American and Australian newspapers...

    But you are right there cannot two declared world champions at the same time (even though two players can be equally good). Only Pancho was the official world champion for 1959.
     
  8. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    I have claimed that Hoad was official number one from Jan 2 1960 until May, when Gonzales won the world series for 1960.
    No matter how much Kramer disliked the Ampol results, he had given his approval...too late to back out.
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    krosero, You are right: I read the Buchholz article the same way as Joe did. I should add that the article is clear and definite as much as an article can be. Butch four times (!) has Rosewall as the winner of the (deciding) tour ("Rosewall again won the tour") or as the No.1 player for 1964 ("our No.1 player" and so on) plus he states that Laver is the No.2. I'm tired to discuss this with Dan and maybe others anymore...
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Just a question: Are you the inventor of the Perpetuum Mobile? Then I can salute you without hesitation.
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, I cannot follow all of your discussions because I'm unable to read all posts here, but let me stress: "possible No.1" is NOT the same as "No.1 during a streak in a given year".

    Even a Rosewall admirer like me does not claim that Muscles was a No.1 in 1958 or in 1966 or in 1968 but it's a fact (see Joe's book) that he was the best player in the world in those three years IN SHORT (or relative short) STREAKS, i. e. for some weeks. That's f.i. the reason why Rosewall was seeded No.1 for the 1966 (and 1967) US Pro.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2016
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Are you sure about 1964?
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Using your measure, Rosewall was consistently great from 1953 till 1968...

    Hoad was No.1 only in 1959 (but not in Kramer's opinion).
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Sorry I meant an official tour with an official ranking for the year.
     
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    well, Bobby, that year saw the only tour in which all three great Aussies played against each other...Hoad won.
     
  16. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    I have performed a perpetuum mobile..will try to upload....hold on to your seats.
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, I thought Hoad plus Laver won. Am I wrong?
     
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, If your machine is as reasonable as many of your posts are, I better should scarper. I still want to live a few years even if only to disprove your wrong claims about Hoad's peak years, about the 1959 world champion and about the 1964 official rankings...
     
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Hoad got first place by beating Laver 3 to 1.
     
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Bobby, I have already proved that Hoad was world champion in 1959...its a done deal...Kramer's own office confirmed it. (His Australian office.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2016
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Thanks. I only remembered that Hoad and Laver has the same number of wins altogether.
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, Are you proud of your kind of logic and intelligence, and of your kind of posting and mocking/insulting serious posters like krosero? Really???
     
  23. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    They were both 7 and 5, Rosewall 6 and 6, Anderson 4 and 8, although Anderson was 2 and 2 against Rosewall (1 and 3 against the other two).
    Hoad was 3 and 1 against Laver, 3 and 1 against Anderson, 1 and 3 against Rosewall.
    Laver was 3 and 1 against Rosewall, 1 and 3 against Hoad, 3 and 1 against Anderson.
    A total of 24 matches.
    Thanks to Andrew Tas.
     
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    No mocking anywhere, just plain facts...I thank Krosero for his superb research, without which I would have no proof of these events.
     
  25. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    We've been asking what Buchholz meant when he referred to a "130-day" tour, but actually his article contains the answer, as I've discovered upon re-reading it.

    "130 days" refers to the overseas portion of the larger tournament circuit -- the overseas portion beginning in mid-July, upon completion of the American tournaments. "Overseas" in this context means Europe, South Africa and the Middle East, since Buchholz was an American writing for an American readership in World Tennis.

    On the second page of Buchholz’s article, he says, “I made $16,000 in 130 days.” He breaks that down: $7,000 or $8,000 in the European tour, $5,000 in South Africa, and “$1,000 a week in France” which must refer to those final weeks in November which ended at Tours, France on November 26. If we presume 3 weeks of play in November, then his total is: $8,000 in Europe, $5,000 in South Africa, $3,000 in France, or $16,000 altogether.

    And in fact from July 20 through November 26 is a span of exactly 130 days.

    I guess he must have started playing in Europe on July 20.

    Longwood (US Pro) ended on July 12. I know Laver had arrived in England by July 14. I don’t know exactly when Buchholz played his first overseas match, but I guess it was July 20.

    The two men (Laver and Buchholz) did not depart for Europe at the same time. I found a report that on July 23 Laver was in Knokke-Le-Zoute, Belgium while Buchholz was in Spain.

    St. Louis Post-Dispatch of July 24:

    St. Louis's Earl Buchholz defeated Luis Ayala of Chile, 4-6, 6-2, 6-4, in the world professional tennis tournament in Barcelona, Spain. Andres Gimeno of Spain beat Australia's Lew Hoad, 6-1, 6-2....

    Pancho Gonzalez defeated Rod Laver, 6-3, 8-6, in the final of a professional tennis tournament in Belgium.​

    McCauley lists those Barcelona matches but strangely, as part of that event, he also lists Gonzalez beating Laver 6-3, 8-6: as if Pancho and Rod were part of a one-day stand in Barcelona featuring many players.

    But I am sure that is a mistake. It looks like a duplicate of the Knokke result where Gonzalez beat Laver 6-3, 8-6.

    Andrew Tas, in his Laver career file, lists both of the Gonzalez-Laver matches because they both appear in McCauley, but I doubt that Gonzalez and Laver were in Barcelona at all. Andrew lists the Barcelona match without a date (because McCauley gave no date); and I think McCauley just duplicated the Knokke result. Perhaps the error originated with World Tennis (McCauley's main source).

    This means that Laver's record against Gonzalez in '64 was probably 5-7, rather than 5-8.

    And in any case, it looks like we now know what “130 days” means: the tours that followed the U.S. tournaments.

    I think Buchholz titled his article “My 130 Days With Rosewall, Laver & Co.” because in his opening paragraphs he's talking as if he's been away from the States on a long tour and he now wishes to tell his American readers what happened.

    He writes:

    When I got back to the States, the three most frequent questions were 1) Who won the tour?, 2) How did you do?, and 3) How was Pancho Gonzales?

    The answers were: Rosewall again won the tour, edging out Rod Laver; I started out in a tie for No. 8 but ended up at No. 5; and Pancho Gonzales not only played pretty well but turned out to be "one of the boys."​

    He says that he himself began at No. 8, which contradicts what he says later in the article: “when the tour started in the States, I was No. 4.”

    But this makes sense, if his opening paragraphs refer only to the overseas portion beginning in July. He began the tournament circuit in the States, ranked No. 4. He ended the American portion tied for No. 8, and headed off to Europe. After Europe, he says that good performances in South Africa lifted him from No. 7 to No. 5, and that was his final ranking for the year.

    All of his statements make sense now.

    And I guess that when he says “Rosewall again won the tour,” he probably is not referring to 1963 as the prior tour, but rather is referring to the U.S. tour of 1964 (which Rosewall certainly did win).

    So all these tours (US, Europe, South Africa) were in some sense separate – but they were to some degree considered a unified whole. When he gives “the final tour ratings as follows” with Rosewall as number one, he certainly means the whole thing, from May to November. And when he says that "the tour began in the States," there, too, he is speaking of "the tour” as a single event.

    I guess it was a single event in that all of its tournaments gave out ranking points. It was a single event, made up of distinct pieces (just like most long tours of the past).

    PC1, I don't know if the player you spoke to clarified the identity of the "130 day tour" but Buchholz certainly used that phrase only to refer to the non-American part of the pro schedule.
     
    treblings likes this.
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    krosero, Thank you for the detailed report and your discovery about what was the "130 day tour". I envy your ability to solve such riddles just by re-reading an article attentively.

    It's now clear that Buchholz "divided" the whole long tour into two big parts, i.e. the U.S. part and the "combined" Europe/South Africa tour.

    However, Your new discoveries don't contradict your and my claim that the tournament tour was the determining parameter for the pro rankings in 1964. In fact, as far as I know, there were no other significant tours that year.

    If I counted correctly, Buchholz called Rosewall four times the No.1 player or the winner of the (whole) tour and described Laver as the No. 2.
     
    krosero likes this.
  27. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    I agree, he spoke of distinct parts of the larger tour, but that by itself indicates nothing one way or another. It was common with any long tour (championship tour or otherwise) to speak of its distinctive parts or phases.

    What the different portions of the larger '64 tournament series had in common is that all of the tournaments offered big prize money and ranking points that were used to determine the players' rankings. Rosewall ended up number one by that point system at the end of '64, and held the formal title "world champion" (the same title given in the past to the winners of the old H2H championship tours) until sometime in '65.

    The tournament series of '64 was brand new so I don't know what its formal designation was when it got started in May, with the tournament at College Park. The US press, at that point, simply spoke of a new US circuit for the tennis pros.

    But whatever the formal designation of the tour, everyone knew that something decisive was about to begin, because there was a flurry of articles previewing the tournament at College Park, one of which carried the headline:

    Rosewall Will Try to Prove He Is Top Pro

    Ken Rosewall will try and prove again that he’s the No. 1 professional player in the world during the $15,000 six day tournament at the Cole Field House, University of Maryland….​

    That is not a typical headline for most tournaments, apart from majors. There is certainly no reason why an everyday tournament at College Park, Maryland, would be described as the event where the top player would set out to prove he was number one in the world.

    The obvious reason for this storyline is that, whatever the formal designation (or non-designation) of the tour, everyone knew that something centrally important was about to begin there, with the tournament at College Park.

    The Cleveland tournament had already been held at that point, but I found another article that suggests that Cleveland, as you've argued in the past, was not part of the series, and that College Park was the true start of the formal series:

    Aussie’s $6,000 Tops Pro Net Cash Derby

    MILWAUKEE (UPI)—Australia’s Ken Rosewall leads the touring tennis professionals in money won, the International Professional Tennis Players Assn. said Friday.

    The IPTPA said Rosewall has won $6,000 in singles competition in five of the six tournaments held so far. The first meet in Cleveland was not included because “it was sort of a warmup affair and not all of our players were there.”​

    That was reported in Pacific Stars and Stripes on June 28 (yet another piece of information that has only been recently uploaded to the internet).

    The report also gave the first day’s results at Milwaukee, so perhaps “six tournaments” is meant to count Milwaukee.

    Stars and Stripes may turn out to be a nice resource. They had an expanded version of the Noordwijk report:

    Gimeno Captures Pro Net Series

    NOORDWIJK-ON-SEA, Netherlands (AP)—Spain’s Andres Gimeno, seeded No. 4, Sunday upset top-seeded Australian tennis pro Ken Rosewall 8-6, 6-2 in the finals of the world championships series here.

    Australian Rod Laver took third place by defeating non-seeded Earl Buchholz of the U.S. 7-5, 8-10, 6-3.

    Buchholz teamed with Laver to beat the Australian double of Lew Hoad and Rosewall 6-4, 8-6 in the finals.

    After the four-day tournament, which was attended by 3,000 fans Sunday, standings in the pro world championships are: 1. Rosewall, 2. Pancho Gonzalez, U.S.; 3. Laver, 4. Gimeno

    I've previously posted the shorter version of that report, but this one shows that there was a series called "pro world championship", with formal point standings being calculated.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    krosero, Thanks again for some clarifying words and your impressive research. Hope that Dan & Co. will be convinced by your arguments.

    I just have difficulties with the newspaper quote that "Rosewall has won Dollars 6000 in singles competition in five of the six tournaments held so far" because Rosewall has participated in all six if we include Milwaukee. If not, they maybe yet meant the Cleveland event as one of six even though Cleveland was not part of the official series.
     
  29. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,051
    Interesting stuff!!!
     
  30. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    I had not noticed that, but I think your solution (your second one) is the correct one. "Six tournaments held so far" is probably meant to include Cleveland, as a full list of all the US tournaments held and completed up to that point. "Five of six" means that the pros made their list of prize money in only 5 of the tournaments; they left out Cleveland for the reasons they said ("warmup affair," not all their players present).

    Since this was at the very start of the newly created circiut, it's possible that not all of the details of the tour format were yet formalized. But even at this early date, the pros had in mind a series of tournaments that they were going to hold as more important than events outside the series.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  31. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    Thanks, always nice to hear!
     
  32. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,967
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    This is interesting. I will tell you I am puzzled by this because the player I communicated with was very clear that it was NOT a World Championship Tour. He understood my question.

    Now of course he could be wrong but I wonder if the newspapers were wrong. That appears unlikely but to me it but is also unlikely to me that the player was wrong. By the way the player I communicated with was Butch Buchholz so he knew what it was all about.

    I have another opportunity to discuss this with another player on this tour so hopefully I can set it up and discuss this more in detail. Hopefully I can talk to him about this over the phone.
     
    Gary Duane, krosero and Dan Lobb like this.
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Good research, Krosero, but again we have no official title for this "tour", perhaps the term "tour" was an ad hoc reference. There was no use of the term "world championship tour" by the director, Rosewall, although you would expect a tour of these dimensions to use that term or "world series".

    Why the reluctance to state the obvious?

    Again, Rosewall was the man in charge, Trabert resigned at the end of 1963, and Rosewall become the business manager...perhaps Rosewall did not know in advance exactly what the dimensions of the 1964 tour would look like, so he was reluctant to use the term "world championship".
    Trabert did not hesitate to use the "world championship" nomenclature for the 1963 event.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Called "pro world championship" by whom? Apparently, by AP, not by an official release from the tour director. That makes the designation less formal than you would like.
     
  35. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,967
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    The newspapers can be wrong. I saw a newspaper which is called Bobby Riggs the world champion (maybe it was number one) for 1949 which was of course incorrect. Jack Kramer was easily number one. The reasoning for that was that the organization which named Riggs Number one concluded that players like Jack Kramer or Pancho Gonzalez did not play enough tournament tennis. That was of course silly because Kramer and Gonzalez were playing head-to-head Tours for the world title!

    Of course to be fair perhaps the player I discussed it with was incorrect.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
    krosero likes this.
  36. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    PC1, thanks for the further details of your talk. Any and all details are helpful including these!

    There may be a possibility of reconciling these sources. I just think the devil's in the details, in particular what any source understands by "championship tour." If we mean a series of events which gave out ranking points, then that may be possible to reconcile with what Buchholz told you -- though I don't know if he went into that level of detail. I know that Bud Collins asked Buchholz a few years ago for the ranking points from '64 and Buchholz did not have them; I think it's likely that the original documentation/paperwork has long since been lost. In that case we'd be trusting to memory, and 52 years is a very long passage of time, if we're talking about anything, but particularly the recall of such details.

    Without speculating about your conversation with Buchholz specifically, I'll just tell you some general reflections I've had about this issue based on the news reports I've been finding.

    The press, when the US tour was formed in the spring of '64, emphasized heavily that Jack Kramer's tennis pros were about to start something new that was quite different from the one-night stands of the past. Kramer himself, the active players who were quoted for stories, and the journalists themselves, all made this point repeatedly. It was not going to be like one of the tours of the past: a very common statement was that professional tennis was now going to have a circuit of tournaments like they had in golf. The subtext of all this, sometimes declared openly, was that this was going to be an improvement over the tours of the past: that this was going to be a step forward for tennis as a modern sport.

    In that light, I think that anyone who participated in the '64 tour or witnessed it closely, though they might no longer remember all details of how the pros were organizing themselves back in '64, would be likely to remember that '64 marked a break with the past tours of one-night stands. And if, for them, the term "championship tour" referred to the old H2H tours, then I think they would be likely to say, No, no, it wasn't a championship tour; we stopped doing those in '64; it was a modern series of tournaments.

    Kramer was in charge of these tournaments (note, Dan: not Rosewall, who was only the treasurer, not the promoter, not the president); and we know that by '64, he had been advocating such a change for some years already. He thought the public was tired of the one-night stands in obscure places and that they would not show up in sufficient numbers for that type of format. I think it's possible that when he did the promotions for the new tour in '64, he would have wanted to be sure that the public understood that these were bona fide tournaments on offer; and in that context I think he would actually have been smart to avoid such a term as "championship tour", because in the United States such a term was closely identified with the mano-a-mano H2H tours of the past.

    Anyway, I don't know what details you guys discussed. I would only emphasize that memory, after this many years, can well be mistaken about details such as ranking points; and that it matters, how a person may define "championship tour". If you get to speak to another one of the players, maybe you could either link them to this debate, or show them the newspaper reports that we know of, like the Cleveland/prize money reports and the Noordwijk report?

    Again, thanks for the further details. Believe me, I'm as hungry as anyone to hear specific information (or any information) about all this.
     
  37. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Krosero, of course, there had already been a world series of tournaments in 1959, the Ampol series, although Kramer did not apparently speak about that himself outside of Australia, where 10 of the 16 events were held. So the American press and tennis audience were apparently unaware of the 1959 series...witness Heldman's remarks in World Tennis, that Ampol points did not refer to any kind of a tour, world tour or otherwise. Heldman was not aware of a first place monetary prize, or any award for the 1959 tour.
     
  38. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    What was new in 1964, was a string of US tournaments, a sort of series leading up to Boston, the new home of the US pro. This series - not unlike the USTA series a few years ago - was rebuilt with the influence of Boston banker Ed Hickey, and the players themselves, like Buchholz and MacKay used personal contacts to set up tournaments. In Europe they had already some tournament tour in 1963, when Trabert in a press report wrote that Laver still could win the Nr. 1 pro ranking shortly before Coubertin (a press statement, which i higly doubt). For 1964 i still cannot believe, that all the Australian and NZ parts of the tour should have been excluded from the rankings, and that so many tournaments (even 8 men tournaments) and tour matches in the US, Europe and South Africa were excluded from the rankings. From the press reports, it seemed that Rosewall won 35ooo$ in 1964, and Laver won i think at least 50000$, because - following different sources- he surpassed his guarantee sum of 110000$ after only two pro years (and had won 60000$ in 1963).
     
  39. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,967
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    To me it's doubtful that a player would forget such an important detail if it was for the World Championship or not. It's just as likely to me for the press to make an error and I am not writing that to help my source. For example I found an article yesterday in the New York Times and I quote "Bobby Riggs named No. 1 in Pro Tennis for 1949" Bobby Riggs of Chicago, who deserted the courts to become a promoter, is ranked no. 1 for this year, it was announced yesterday by the United States Professional Tennis Association.

    Following Riggs, who won the pro title in 1946, 1947 and this year, are Don Budge, Frank Kovacs and Welby Van Horn, in order. Rounding out the first ten are Pancho Segura, Carl Earn, John Nogrady, James Evert, Jack Cushingham and Elwood Cooke.

    Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez and Frank Parker, none of whom played a pro tourney this year, were not ranked due to insufficient data.

    This article was on December 18, 1949.

    Of course they don't take into account that Kramer won Wembley, the Slazenger Pro Champs and played Gonzalez in the World Championship Tour.

    Anyway I hope to get more information soon. I suppose now we can actually say that some ranked Riggs number one in 1949. LOL.

    Kramer was clear number one in 1949.
     
  40. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    When I referred to "details" I meant things like recalling how many rankings points were given out at tournaments, which tournaments gave them out and which did not, etc. If a person today were saying that a tour was or was not a championship tour, based on their recall of such details, I think their memory could likely be mistaken, after 52 years (not mistaken in all details, but some details, at least).

    A broad statement about whether a tour was a championship tour -- a broad statement that's NOT based on specifics like tournament points -- is something else. Such a statement would depend more on what the player believes a championship tour to be.

    The '49 ranking was issued by the USPTA, and there may well have been politics behind it. Or it could be restricted to a US ranking. All of the players listed, I believe, are American. It could have been restricted to events on American soil, which would explain the statement that Kramer and Gonzalez played no pro tournaments all year.

    And the ranking may have been heavily based on who won the US Pro (Jack March, if you recall, made his own yearly rankings, always naming as #1 the winner of his Cleveland event). Riggs won the US Pro in '49 over Budge, with Kramer absent. I have a clipping from American Lawn Tennis which reports:

    Kramer Absent, Riggs Reigns Once Again

    ...Even in absence, Kramer was the dominant figure of the tourney. Riggs won the title, but no one present doubted for a moment that Big Jake is still the pro ruler, National Professional championships notwithstanding.​

    That's quite a different situation from '64, when the pros themselves (not just newspapers or outside organizations!) unanimously declared Rosewall as world champion and did not give that title to Laver until sometime in '65.

    Laver himself is quoted in mid'-65 saying that he is still #2.

    I think it's a mistake to refer to the contemporary sources in one big sweep as "newspapers." That gives the impression that it was journalists giving out their own opinions. Both in the '49 and the '64 cases we're talking about newspapers that reported statements from the pros themselves. In the '49 case, it was a statement only from one pro source (the USPTA, issuing what looks like a ranking list restricted to American tournaments).
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  41. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    Buchholz mentions in his article that the troupe played in Nairobi and Beirut -- which adds to the list of results that are still unknown for this year. I've also found an article in a French newspaper (L'Express) indicating that much of the troupe -- including Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Hoad -- were in Zurich in early September, about a week before the French Pro.

    I don't read French so I'm not entirely certain of the specifics. Two matches are listed, which could be semifinals of a tournament (they are described only as "simple"):

    Gimeno d. Buchholz 12-10, 6-2
    Gonzalez d. Hoad 7-5, 7-5
    Gonzalez/Buchholz d. Gimeno/Hoad 8-6

    The newspaper is dated Sept. 3.

    McCauley lists a tournament in nearby Geneva in late August, followed by a stand in Montreux, Switzerland on Sept. 1. French Pro began on Sept. 8, so conceivably the troupe could have still more unknown activity around this time in Switzerland and France.

    McCauley mentions unknown results in France during an earlier run, from July 28-Aug. 9.

    The problem as always is that French newspapers had very spotty tennis coverage -- and not many have been put online.

    This finding stands out for another reason because it means that not all of Rosewall's activity for the year is yet documented. We've long known that we're missing matches for Laver in the Middle East and in the last run of matches in France in November, but I had thought that nothing was missing for Rosewall.

    I've checked all of Andrew's record for the year against Tennis Base, and my own recent findings. Thus far these are the win/loss records I've compiled, spanning the whole year:

    - Rosewall 73-32, not including missing results in Switzerland (early September, in Zurich and possibly elsewhere) and possible activity in Nairobi (mentioned in the Buchholz article, without a date).

    - Laver 82-28, not including missing results in France (late July, early August, much of November); the Middle East (early November in Beirut, Bahrain and possibly North Africa); Switzerland (early September, in Zurich and possibly elsewhere); and possibly Nairobi.

    Most of the missing results are going to consist of tour stands rather than tournaments -- with the possible exception of the Zurich event. If Zurich was indeed a tournament, then Laver and Rosewall appear to have both lost before the semis.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    urban, If you are right then Buchholz in late 1964 (when he wrote his article) was an idiot as he four times referred only to the 17 tournaments tour when he wrote that Rosewall was the winner of the tour and/or the pros' No.1 and when he wrote about the rankings only determined by the big tournaments.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    krosero, Thanks again for your reasonable argumentation. Unfortunately I don't think that Buchholz has specified that much recently. But more important than possible new statements from him I consider his clear formulations in his contemporary article in World Tennis. Butch did not leave any doubt about his statements or claims.

    In my opinion it's irrelevant for our discussion since weeks if the long tour was labelled or not as "world championship tour" since we (Dan, you, myself and others) discussed the key question who was the acknowledged No.1 pro in 1964, i. e. if Rosewall was the champion or not. Without any doubt Rosewall was the POY, reported by Buchholz and by some other sources you have detected and uncovered. This is true even though we today are considering some Laver achievements as reason to give the Rocket a Co.-No. 1 place for that year.
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    krosero, Thanks for the new Zürich results. They look IMO as tour matches rather than tournament matches or as matches of a 4 man tournament because only four players are involved in singles plus in doubles and the doubles match having been a pro set match. I doubt that Laver and Rosewall participated. Buchholz did not mention Zürich as a part of the tour.

    I also doubt that Rosewall played at Nairobi as he did not participate obviously in the mid-November Cairo tournament which seems to be a 4 man event. The championship series (equal if labelled that way or not labelled) had been decided in South Africa already and I guess that Muscles, as a family man, wanted to stay at home at end-year.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    Dan, The tour was the tour was the tour. Still any doubts? Rosewall was not the business manager in 1964.
     
  46. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    I must sharply reject any notion or insinuation, that i called Buchholz with bad names. That is not my kind of thinking and writing, and i find that kind of "discussion" very disturbing. We should behave like civile people here.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    urban, How would you call a man who repeatedly gave "wrong" information as Buchholz did in your view? Okay, he was not an idiot then, but why did he report so many wrong things???

    The key problem is that you and a few other experts don't concede that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate and that he was acknowledged the POY in 1964. Get real finally!

    By the way, I never wrote that you called Buchholz an idiot. Read carefully!

    EDIT: I just tried to show that I believe Buchholz was right with his statements and you therefore are wrong. It's impossible that Buchholz AND you are right.

    I'm tired to always read doubts and contradictions by yourself, by Dan & Co, to the clear article by Buchholz and to the many reports and discoveries by krosero. It's really time to trust his excellent research!
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2016
  48. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,535
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Buchholz--an idiot?

    Hmmm.
     
  49. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    This is all interesting historical banter regarding personal opinions and unofficial rankings. But, so far, I have not seen any basis to conclude that Laver was not the dominant player in 1964.
     
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,658
    hoodjem, Your question is really justified. Since I don't think that Buchholz was an idiot (or is an idiot now) I critisized urban for his doubts. As I have clarified already I did not write that urban called Butch an idiot. But if urban is right with his arguments, it's the conclusive result that Buchholz was out of his mind or he was lying when writing his clear and outspoken statements and claims. Since I'm sure he was okay and right when writing his report, there is only one solution: urban is wrong with his doubts. That's what I tried to say when I critisized him. Nothing else.

    To say it clear: Buchholz was right and okay whereas urban is wrong. If you remember well, it's me (and krosero) who claim since weeks that Buchholz is a reasonable source. I never would think that he was out of mind when writing his long article in World Tennis. I also don't believe that Butch now considers the 1964 differently than he has done 52 years ago! That's all...
     

Share This Page