Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
France won the Davis Cup over the USA. Cochet beat Tilden.
He also beat Tilden in the final of the French in four sets. Still Tilden reached the French final and Cochet didn't reach the Wimbledon final. Different standards in those days.
Yes, it seems majors + davis cup and h2h were the important factors, the latter two gradually dropping out of favour over time. I actually read a quote recently from a writer at the time (maybe Ned Potter) suggesting more tournaments than just the majors should be considered when deciding who was number 1. This was in the 30's.
"No need" to establish a world championship designation? Of course there is a need to do that, everyone knows that...you yourself have insisted on evidence to show that other tours were important tours, and you have insisted that others present evidence over this issue...of course it is an issue.
You skip the main point...Buchholz did not verify your claim, as you thought he did, Buchholz was your main reference to prove that this was a world championship tour, despite the fact that there was no ceremony, no trophy, no prize money...and now PC1 proved that Buchholz was not making the point that you claimed he was.
In the original article of Buchholz, again, he does not support your claims.
treblings, Your analysis is correct. The whole case is not a difficult one though.
All participants of the tour (including Laver) did know under which rule they played in 1964. They knew the ranking system equal if we now would consider it just or unjust. Rod failed to win the tour thus meaning Rosewall emerged the official No.1 player.
I still am convinced that a tied No.1 is the most reasonable solution (not only for 1964 but also f.i. for 1952, 1959, 1970, 1973, 1982).
I must confess: I also sometimes used the word "We" in order to back up my opinion. I should better avoid it.
Phoenix1983, I congratulate you. You might not be a first-class tennis expert (or one at all) and might not be a gentleman. But you really are first class at being mean and obnoxious. I even can make you the compliment that you arguably surpass Limpinhitter in this respect. Not easy to work out that!
You also miss the main point: The discussion in this thread was mainly one about how the contemporary players and experts ranked the pros and not how we in 2016 consider the rankings for that year.
You must be a clairvoyant: As far as I know my lackey krosero has never stated how he is ranking the 1964 pros. He just provided us with serious sources about the contemporary views and rankings and proved that Buchholz was right when he at end-1964 stated that Rosewall was the undisputed No.1 player in the world.
Dan, Yes, in those days there sometimes was no world championship designation needed, see some years in the 1950s, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967. But even if YOU need such a designation: There was a designation in 1964 in form of the official 17 tournament tour's point system and final ranking headed by Rosewall. So you are twice totally wrong!
There was NO NEED for an official tour to be called a "World Championship Tour". That's all. If there was no trophy for the winner and no extra money, it was okay for the players. They were more open-minded than you are in your stubborn sight. But we even don't know yet if a trophy and extra money was there. Maybe they were.
When I referred to "minor" tours I never insisted that these tours were called "championship tours" as they were not tours of such weight. They neverthesless were important tours even though you refuse that.
But the long 1964 tour DID HAVE THE WEIGHT AND IMPORTANCE OF A CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR!!! So please stop your wrong claims and doubts!
I did NOT have any claim about the 1964 tour. I just reported honestly what Buchholz has written in his long and detailed article where he stated that the (17) tournament tour was the determining tour for the pro and end-year rankings and where he stated five times that Rosewall was the No.1 player. It's absurd that you still doubt what Buchholz has clearly written and what krosero has proved by reporting what the newspapers wrote at that time and what a player with name Rodney George Laver has said himself (that he was No.2 till mid-1965).
I have never claimed that the 5 months tour had a title or trophy! Stay at the truth!
You have not read the article and yet claim wrong things. Disgusting...
It's a big LIE that anybody has proved that Buchholz was not making the point that I claimed he was. The contrary is right: Buchholz did write that Rosewall won the tournament tour and by that he was No.1. I reported correctly. krosero supported that by giving several confirmations by Laver himself and contemporary newspapers. Also the important World of Tennis yearbooks and Joe McCauley have confirmed the Buchholz article. Stop lying!
Buchholz did not state that Rosewall's ranking was the result of this tour, nor did he write that the tour was a world championship event.
PC1 apparently had contact with Buchholz who reaffirmed that no one thought of that 1964 tour as a world championship event.
What more needs to be said? This is important because if the players themselves did not think of that tour as a world championship, they would expend their efforts accordingly.
Dan, You don't understand anything. It's a shame! Buchholz clearly wrote that Rosewall won the tour and that he was No.1 by that as he did not refer to to any other (small) tour!. Is that so difficult to understand? Where else should Muscles have gained his No.1 status if not at the long tour described by Buchholz? Please tell me (us) how Rosewall was the undisputed No.1 without gaining that place (EDIT inside the 17 tournament tour!! Butch did not correct himself recently.His article from 1964/1965 is still valid with all its statements and claims.
How can you judge about the article when not having read it at all????
The fact remains that, looking at all of the data, Laver had the best year over Rosewall in 1964.
Nail on the head for me. Unless there's more to some of those tournaments that Rosewall won than I'm aware of.
Bobby, Rosewall won the 1963, get it?, the 1963 world championship tour, so of course he was regarded as world number one into 1964.
Buchholz does not say that Rosewall attained number one because of that 1964 tour.
Limpin, For your interest: Laver lost the deciding tour to Rosewall. Best year when failing so badly? A wonder...
Waiting for your apology...
NatF, Supporting Limpinhitter when he/she is totally wrong does not mean that you have any expertise on Laver and Rosewall, at least regarding 1964.
Dan, Again a big lie from you: Buchholz did not write that Rosewall won the 1963 tour and therefore was regarded world number one INTO 1964!!! He did write that Rosewall won the deciding 1964 tour, and he wrote that in late 1964/early 1965. Why do you fantasize absurd things (1963)? You are a troll. You even confuse 1963 with 1964.
If you would have read the Buchholz article you would know that Buchholz referred only to one tour: the five months 17 tournament tour!
Your posts are disgusting.
This talk about 1964 has been going round is circles. I think Laver had the better year and by most metrics he did. Limpinhitters and your opinions do very little to shape my thoughts on this.
Here is the vaunted article from World Tennis about the 1964 Tour. I will post it over several posts.
My 130 Days With Rosewall, Laver & Company
By Butch Buchholz
On the night of November 26th, we played the last match of the final segment of the European Pro Tour. It had been a long and very profitable tour, the last night being one of the rare exceptions, but we were all homesick and we had been counting the days until we got back to our wives and children. There were only four of us left on tour, the rest having gone back to their homes in various parts of the world almost four weeks before, at the end of the South African Pro Tour.
Even though there were only 300 people in the stand at Tours on the night of November 26th, it was one of our most exciting evenings. After we finished playing we caught a train for Paris, then got flight connections home. Andres Gimeno headed for Spain, Rod Laver for Australia and I for St. Louis.
We I got back to the States, the three most frequent questions were 1) Who won the tour? 2) How did you do? 3) How was 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.”
The change in Gonzales was pretty surprising. The pros in previous years remembered him as a moody guy who frequently took off on his own and who was anything but cooperative. This year, when he was no longer No. 1, he was pleasant and friendly with everyone. He never had a fight—not even an argument with another player. Everyone liked him, and several evenings he and I stayed up talking until two or even six in the morning.
Pancho is still a great player but he gets tired now. After a couple of hard matches his legs give out. I believe this is much more physical than mental since he is 36 years old, which is well over the peak for a touring pro. He is tough on the court because he plays smart tennis. He never beats himself and his serve is still one of the best in the game. Everyone thinks of Gorgo as an attacker because of his offensive serve and volley but actually he is a superb retriever. He understands the defensive game: he lobs well, scrambles well and the right thing when he gets to the ball. He dinks low, dinks down the middle or lobs so that he gets a chance to hit the ball again. When he is out of position, he does not go for the winner. It is hard for his opponent to put away a ball below net level unless he hits a great volley, and Pancho is quick enough to get to the next shot.
Over the years Pancho has won a reputation for being a tough competitor. If he gets the good breaks, he takes them. He does not feel too sorry if something goes wrong for you; he will fight with all weapons in order not to lose, but he will never cheat you. But Pancho has mellowed a lot; I remember only one incident this year when he got really upset over a bad call. Perhaps there are two factors which have created the change in Gorgo. First, he used to be against the Player’s Association; now he sees how it works and he feels that he is a part of it. Secondly , our No. 1 player, Ken Rosewall, sets an example for all of us by not asking for special favors or appearance money which the Champion might
claim. The crowds still adore Gorgo and he knows it, he is cognizant of his value to the Pro Tour, and he would rather win than eat. But he is no longer the lone wolf, and I believe he is enjoying his popularity with the other players.
I only played Gorgo a few times on the Pro Tour this year. He beat me 10-8 in a pro set in Milwaukee and he won three out of five matches against me in Italy. At the tournament in Noordwijk, I beat him 6-2 6-0 on clay. He had had a tough week in Cannes, where he got to the finals and lost in a long four setter to Rosewall. He had a day off before he played in Nordwijk, but he was very stiff. It rained the first day and he played two matches the next day. It rained again and he stiffened up. By the time he played me, his energy had been sapped. Gorgo beat me at Wembley, but this time I had the excuse. Because of an error in the scheduling which no one bothered to correct, I had to play Ayala and then Gorgo on the same day.
Pancho lost to Ken most of the time. He only beat Muscles twice all year—once at White Plains and once at Geneva. He had a great match against Muscles in Paris, but Ken had the edge when the match went to the extra period. Of the top four players, Pancho did best against Rod Laver. In the States, Rocket beat Gorgo in Washington and Boston, while Pancho beat Rocket in White Plains and Milwaukee. Gonzales won a few tour matches against Rod in England, but the latter beat him in their two overseas tournament meetings. Gorgo beat Rosewall in Geneva and then lost to Rod in the final, an Gorgo beat me at Wembley an then lost to Ro. He returned home to Los Angeles after Wembley.
With the exception only of Laver, all of us are married and have one or more children. It is hard to leave home for a period as long as 130 days, but there are two very good reasons for doing so. First there is a lot of money to be made in these four months, and second, most of us feel that we are young enough, strong enough and talented enough to improve and to become the No. 1 player.
The tournaments in Europe give prize money ranging from $6,000 to $10,000. The winner receives $1,000 to $1,200 and the least you can make is $450 (I am an authority on this figure). Tour matches, not to be confused with turnaments, are more profitable in Italy and England. In eleven days in Italy, eight players grossed $22,000. I played nine matches and made $1,700. Rosewall’s earnings during this period probably totaled $2,700. He played the feature match most of the time, and the winner gets 25%. Rod Laver was Ken’s usual opponent, although Lew Hoad and I each played a few matches against Rod. During our European tour, which does not include the South African segment, I probably made $7,000 or $8,000. The figures are not yet in, but I believe I cleared $5,000 in South Africa and $1,000 a week in France. In other words, I made $16,000 in 130 days. Muscles must have made somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000. We play for money and so the winner gets the largest portion of the jackpot. I was at the bottom of the totem pole along with the donkeys until six weeks ago. Then I started to play better and my earnings went shooting up.
The Pro Rankings
The pros operate on a point system. The winner gets 7 points, the runner-up 4, third place gets 3, fourth place 2, and the quarter-finalists, 1. During the greater part of the tour, my point score was very low. Lew Hoad and Alex (“The Chief”) were ahead of me most of the time. Then I earned 12 points in South Africa and jumped from No. 7 to No. 5. The final tour ratings were as follows;
1. Ken Rosewall
2. Rod Laver
3. Pancho Gonzales
4. Andres Gimeno
5. Butch Buchholz
6. Lew Hoad
7. Alex Olmedo
8. Luis Ayala
We change our seedings every three weeks and if you are not in the First Four, you have to meet a Top Four player in the first round. If you meet Rosewall in the first round in four tournaments in a row, it is not too difficult to be No. 8. When the tour started in the States, I was No. 4. Then I lost to Lew Hoad twice. In the Round Robin tournament in Los Angeles, Andres, Segoo and I tied for the bottom on one side. At the end of three weeks, I was out of the new seedings. It was tough to get back in because I played either Gonzales, Rosewall or Laver in every first round. Here is my American record:
Hoad beat me in Washington in three sets and in New York in three sets. In Los Angeles I tied for bottom of one half with Gimeno and Segura. In St. Louis I beat Laver but lost to Rosewall, in Monterey I lost to Laver, in Milwaukee Gonzales beat me, and in Boston I lost in three sets to Laver.
Then came Europe. I lost to Rosewall in every tournament except Wembley! In Cannes Rosewall beat me in the first round at 9-7 in the third. In Noordwijk I beat Gonzales but lost to Rosewall badly, in Geneva I lost to Rosewall in three sets, in Paris Rosewall beat me badly, and in Wembley I went out to Gonzales in straight sets. I was low numerically in the pro rankings, but I wasn’t discouraged because almost all my losses had been to the No. 1 man.
The situation changed when we got to Africa. I got to the finals of Salisbury in Rhodesia, losing to Rod. Then I beat Muscles and lost to Lew in the semi-finals of Johannesburg. At Capetown I beat both Rod and Lew, losing to Muscles. That raised me two notches in the point system. I wound up No. 5 and, if Gonzales doesn’t play in 1965, I will be in the First Four in the seeding.
It’s A Tough Tour
One has to be young to play pro tennis. On a given night. If you hve the good fortune not to meet Ken Rosewall or Laver, then you only have to beat Gonzales, Gimeno, Hoad, Olmedo or Ayala. If it rains, the schedule is doubled up since we only remain in a city for a limited number of days. In Capetown, one of the tournaments where I did very well, I played Rod at 2:30 in the afternoon and won in three sets. At
7:30 played Hoadie and again won in three long sets. Later that night Rod and I beat Sedgman and Alex. The next afternoon I had to play Muscles. That’s a lot of tennis in twenty-four hours.
I play pro tennis not only because I want to be No. 1 and not just because it gives me the chance to make money by doing what I love best, but also because of the experiences one has in traveling. In Nairobi I had lunch with Jomo Kenyatta, the Prime Minister of Kenya. We met the other ministers and we attended a session of Parliament. I happen to love every part of Africa and I can never get enough of it. It is a great experience to meet a different group of people and see a different way of life. One learns not only toleration but understanding. The only area which I have visited that I neither comprehend not enjoy is the Near East, although this is personal judgment based on matches this yearin Cairo and Beirut.
Are We Buddies?
The eight players or the four players on a particular Pro Tour are thrown together twenty-four hours a day. We room together, eat together, practice together, play our matches against each other, have a couple of beers together and travel each night to the next city. The eight of us who toured together for most of the season were utterly different in personality, character and motivations. It is amazing, particularly since we are so fiercely competitive, that we are able to get along well. The boys are goo sports but they are “hard losers” they all want to win, but the moment the match is over they are friends again. My closest friends in pro tennis are Barry MacKay, Hoad and Laver, but have a lot of admiration for the qualities of the others. It is hard for anyone to get close to Muscles, who is a loner, but if I sent him a cable tonight telling him I desperately needed $2,000, I know I would receive the money tomorrow.
Rocket is the easiest guy of all time. Everyone likes him and he has certainly proved his worth on the Pro Tour. If the pro rankings were based on the playoff between Laver and Rosewall, Laver might well be No. 1. He plays better than any of us agains Ken and he had a lot of wins. The explanation is the Rocket’s return of serve. Muscles cannot hurt Rod on the serve, and the latter hits dipping shots, topspins and slices, never giving Muscles the same shot twice. Ken can never anticipate Rod’s return.
The reason that Rod is not No. 1 is that he does not do as well against the other pros as does Muscles. In tournament competition I beat Rocket in St. Louis, Hanover and Capetown, while he beat me in Monterey, Boston and Salisbury. I had him 9-8 and my serve in the third, but he is always good when he is behind because he can come through with a big one. He is a dangerous player at all times because he can hit winners from any spot in the court. His serve has improved and it will improve even more. Rod Laver only needs to tighten up his game to be No. 1.
Hoadie gets brilliant flashes of playing well but he does not concentrate as well as he used to. This is perhaps a combination of his bad back and all his years of match play. It is hard for him to go through a whole tournament because if he has a lot of tough matches, his back will act up.
Lew has the biggest heart of all time and he loves people. He would give you the shirt off his back. He is also very much a family man, and he is the happiest guy in the world when Jenny is around. We all worry about being away from home for extended periods of time, and Muscles takes it so much to heart that he breaks into a rash when he is away from Wilma.
Hoad and Rosewall have been thrown together since the age of twelve, but they are as different as day and night. They both have pride, they are both competitive and they are both hard losers, but neither holds a grudge once the match is over. This is truly remarkable since here is a lot of money involved every time they play. Lew is an extrovert who likes family, people and tennis in that order. Money is not a goal with him and I believe he could be happy as a beachcomber. Muscles is so quiet that he is almost uncommunicative and he is more of a practical businessman. To say that he is not a big spender is the understatement of the year, but both he and Alex Olmedo would be as generous as Lew Hoad if it came to helping a friend in need.
It is impossible not to admire Rosewall. He is a great player and a fine athlete and he keeps himself in perfect condition. He is the No. 1 player in the world but he asks for no special privileges. He is the treasurer of our Association and as such he handles all the money, writes all the letters and figures out the percentages after each match. This work occupies a lot of his free time; his only motive in doing it is to help the Association.
Ken takes a lot of knowing because basically he is such a quiet guy. If you ask him a question, he doesn’t answer right away because he wants to think before giving a response. He gets upset when he loses but he is a very good sport; he is always humble when he wins. I have never heard Ken belittle anyone, gossip about another player or boast about his victories.
Andres Gimeno is a terrific guy who takes a lot of teasing with remarkable good nature. We josh him about his English and about his driving. The pros say: “Giving a car to Andres is like giving whiskey and guns to the Indians.” Andres, who now driving a Mercedes, is a good competitor and has one of the great attitudes for tennis. He fights for every point and is very consistent. Some days he plays a little better than others, but his game really does not fluctuate that much. His best surface is clay. Gimeno’s strength is his forehand, which is well disguised, his court coverage and his ability to scramble. He plays Percentage Tennis, which means he makes the most of his game: he does not make bad shots nor unnecessary errors.
Alex Olmedo, more commonly known as “The Chief,” had a tough introduction to the pro game. In amateur tennis he depended on his serve and volley. When he turned pro, he had to play the three-bounce rule which put the emphasis on groundstrokes. Alex lost confidence and found it hard to get keyed up for matches. He seldom played his best tennis during his first year as a pro. But The Chief id make the transition and now he is a real professional. He gives his best all the time and is a truly great sport. I have yet to see him complain about a bad call or about playing poorly.
Like Andres, Ken and the rest of us, The Chief gets homesick. During the tour he kept a calendar with him and he would “X” out the days. His wife Ann is both attractive and nice, and Alex adores his kids. Ann writes him every day and sends pictures of the children, and Alex shows the pictures to anyone who will look at them.
Alex’s game is based mainly on his serve. He volleys well and moves beautifully, but if he is not serving well, then his returns become uncertain. He has a good forehand but a rather weak backhand. When his is playing well, he chips the ball low and moves in; if you don’t hit a good return, he will knock the ball down your throat.
Frank Sedgman is another player whom we all admire. He has been at the top and he has enough money to live comfortably, but he is ambitious for the Association. He is the president and participates actively in tour arrangements. Frank is now 36 but still playing well (he defeated Gonzales for third place at Wembley). He stays in magnificent shape and trains very hard. Before he goes overseas he does roadwork and gymnastics. “Sedg” is a great athlete who moves beautifully an with the greatest of ease. He has probably the best court temperament of all the pros. Frank’s whole game is based on speed. He hits the return of serve, comes to net and blankets the court. Age has taken a little of the sting out of his serve and has slowed down his reactions, but he still volleys and moves well. His biggest problem is that, like Gonzales, he gets sore and stiff after a few tough matches.
It is difficult for Sedgman to spend many months on the tour. He spends a great deal of time on his various business, which include a gym where Herb Elliots used to train, a hotel off the coast of Victoria, a partnership in Melbourne in cooperative apartments, and the ownership of tennis and squash courts. He has invested his money well and he has a wide range of interests.
Luis Ayala, who is 31 years old, turned professional four years ago. He was always tough on clay but he was never a power player. He does not have the strokes to hurt his opponent on a fast surface. Luis has won quite a few tour matches, but he hasn’t had a match victory in a tournament in two or three years Anyone else would get discouraged and not work as hard; just the opposite is true of Ayala. Go out any morning and you will see him running around in his sweat suit or doing exercises. He practices more than any other player on the tour!
You have to work to defeat Ayala. He is consistent and he makes you make the shots. Unfortunately he has a bad grip on his backhand (he holds it like a forehand) for if the shot were more orthodox, he would have better results with his practicing. Andres also has a bad backhand grip but he hits through the ball and he hits it in front of him; Luis comes down on the ball and undercuts it heavily. There has never been a time in Luis’ life when he walked out on the court and did not do his best. But there is more to it than that; he takes good care of himself and really prepares for the match. He has the desire and the temperament of a true champion.
So that's the article. On post 2118 I bolded and underlined a paragraph which may confuse some. Note that it states the reasons for leaving home...one reason is the money and the second reason that Buchholz writes and I quote "And second, most of us feel that we are young enough, strong enough and talented enough to improve and to become the No. 1 player." It doesn't say the tour winner becomes number one but that they feel they can improve enough to be number one. Big difference!
Rosewall is referred to as number one because he was number one at the time during the tour. The article doesn't state the winner of the tour became number one but it does state the winner of the tour was Rosewall. There are differences here.
I think Buchholz would have stated that the winner of the tour would be World Champion if that was truly the case but I don't see it mentioned so the obvious conclusion is that it wasn't. It's rather important if it was for the World Title and that would clearly be written if it was. Since it wasn't written you can only conclude it was not for the World Championship.
Anyway posters can now read the entire article and get their own opinions. I had a friend who is a lawyer look at it and he didn't see anything stating the tour winner would be World Champion but lawyers can be wrong too.
To restate, I communicated with Butch Buchholz, the writer of this article just a few weeks ago and he clearly stated it was NOT a World Championship Tour in 1964. The article to me doesn't seem to me to have anything that indicates the 1964 Tour was a World Championship tour.
Dan, as you can see I have the entire article written out in posts above. Judge for yourself.
NatF, You are right: in most metrics. But not in one metric which was the deciding one: The 17 tournaments tour. All participants knew that this who wins the tour will be acknowledged as No.1 pro. Technically only Rosewall deserves the No.1 place. But Laver did so much apart from the tour that every serious expert would give him a tied No.1 spot.
Old laverian, It's just your old wrong claim that Buchholz was just a journeyman. This "Journeyman" has beaten prime Newcombe for example several times.
after all this years you still can´t be bothered to spell the name Buchholz the right way
Most likely this article will not be read before people start arguing, but there is great suff here:
In other words, we don't know much about Pancho, and he was a lot more complicated than most people think...
Let's remember that Rosewall won two majors right before turning 36 and after tuning 36. So this highlights what a feat that was and also hints at what Federer is facing right now.
I wish more people would read this. It shows that what these pros did in those says was so tough that the ones who survived, still playing and still healthy, were not only tougher than the amateurs but probably tougher than anyone playing tennis today.
Hats off to PC1 for posting what was actually said...
To me trying to get a crystal clear view of what happened during the pro years is about like being in a dense fog and then having that fog clear up enough to make things out a bit, but not clearly.
Without a clear points system there is really nothing clear-cut to argue against. Today we can gripe about the ATP and how it ranks. Today no one is going to get far saying that the #1 ranked guy is not the best player in any given year. (Although people still quibble...)
Yet even today fans bring in H2H tallies to make a point. For instance, the biggest knock against Federer is his H2H against Nadal. Fed fans try to ignore it, Nadal fans highlight it, but it has to be some kind of factor.
To say that H2Hs are not a factor, often a huge factor, in rating any player in his own era, is a bit strange.
Every "expert" I've read has a different way of ranking players before the Open era. Not only do we have no sure-fire metric to prove who the best player is now over a decade or more in this century, it becomes hopeless when comparing modern players with huge, light rackets and new strings with players who had only wooden rackets and gut. Those days were gone by the mid 70s.
Some years it is clear who is the best. Laver in 1969, no contest. McEnroe in 1984. Roger Federer in 2006. Borg in at least a couple of his Wimbledon winning years. Connors in at least one year. And so on.
But even in considering Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall/Hoad and Laver - and throw in some others - we are talking about a period from 1921 to 1938. That's a huge age range, and people forget that. It's easiest to compare Hoad and Rosewall because they were (I believe) born in the same month of the same year. I should check that, but I have a lousy cold.
A similar comparison would be to compare Djokovic and Murray to Sampras, as if they are all playing together, then throw in everyone born in between these "book ends". Or throw together Connors (52) and someone born in 69, then talk about them and everyone in between.
That's the problem. People forget that Kramer was born in 21, but Gonzales was born in 28. To compare even those two together you have to pick some selective year when both were clearly as close their peaks as possible. And that's not an easy thing to do.
No one came after Laver to seriously challenge him until his peak was clearly over. Stan Smith was born in 46. Necombe was born in 44. Ashe was born in 43. I don't remember any of these guys being any kind of competition to Laver until well after Laver's prime.
So Laver had a few years to be pretty much THE player of his time, and the only person who consistently challenged him during much of that time was Rosewall.
Rosewall should get huge credit for that alone.
thanks, PC1 for posting the article. very interesting to read as well.
There is something to be said for respecting the conventions of the time. However I feel rating all the tournaments in that tour with equal points lowers it's value as a ranking system. I don't really understand the fuss about 1964 at this point.
You still cannot write Buchholz's name correctly...
Gary, I agree.
Gary, Reasonable thoughts.
Get healthy again soon.
NatF, There should not be any fuss as th rules in 1964 were clear.
Irrelevant. It's clear that a serious points system would probably have given Laver #1 that's enough for me.
I am curious now that the article is out there on whether any of you think the article says that the winner of the tour is World Champion. I was thinking of doing this for a while but it's a lot of typing.
Yes it's interesting to read the scouting reports by Buchholz on the players among other things.
The article (typical of the high quality articles published by World Tennis Magazine), is self explanatory. Rosewall had a slight edge over Laver for the 130 day tour. But, the data indicates that Laver had a slightly bigger edge over Rosewall for the other 235 days of 1964.
It might be a good time right now to think about the guy who never won Wimbledon didn't get to play Wimbledon as a pro until he was closer to 34 than 33, and that this same player was obviously able to play very well on grass in an era when three of the majors were played on grass.
I'm quite happy to leave '64 as a toss up between Laver and Rosewall. I just don't have a problem with that, and it seems fair when so many people are still debating who was best that year.
The problem with that for me Gary is that if the 1964 Tour was not for the World Championship it seems very one-sided to me in favor of Laver. He won more tournaments, more majors, had a much better won-lost record and a much better head to head. And as Buchholz communicated to me, it wasn't a World Championship Tour.
It's like saying a team in American Football having a 16-0 record but the team with the 11-5 record claims a tie for first place in the same division.
Rosewall clearly was a super player. Very efficient in movement and overall strokes. I like that type of player in any sport. Rosewall has been compared to Bach and I would compare him to Capablanca in chess. I think a lot of his efficiency of movement and strokes helped him last so long. Another one of Rosewall's great strengths was his ability to know where to be at the right time to hit the most effective shot. He actually tried to teach that to members of the World Team Tennis team that he coached but I believe one or a few of Rosewall's players mentioned that it was easy for him (Rosewall) implying it wasn't easy for others.
That's a rare quality I believe in tennis. I believe Borg had it, Nastase had it, Laver had it, Gonzalez had it, McEnroe and Connors had it among the past players.
Well said. Further, I am aware of 2 posters who support a #1 ranking for Rosewall in 1964. To my knowledge, everyone else gives Laver the edge over Rosewall in 1964.
And we are the experts no?
Well Buchholz and Laver are experts in this matter. If they are not, nobody is.
Buchholz said there was no 1964 World Championship Tour. Laver wrote in his book that he took over as number one late in 1964.
I'll leave the characterization of my credentials for others to decide. What I won't do is cite myself as an authority.
Perhaps, but I think that the top players of today would have proven just as "tough" if they had to face such a schedule. I'm thinking of guys like Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Ferrer. Top players usually have superb fitness in any era.
Who is the second poster? Is it krosero?
I know about your conversation with Buchholtz, and that part I agree with. But please do not draw me into the civil war here between partisans. From what I have read elsewhere there are guys like McCauley were on one side of the question in 64, and other "experts" were on the other. Perhaps there are new facts that have changed those opinions since then. I know you are doing research right now.
Now you have lost me. I know that the H2H in 64 seems to be easily in favor of Laver. So if you are going only by H2H, I would say that '64 goes to Laver. But it was my understanding that Laver did not dominate everyone and everything that year.
I don't have every tournament that Rosewall and Laver played in during 1964, and I don't have a list of the importance of each tournament. It's not like today where we have 250s, 500s, 1000s, majors.
Unlike some people in this forum I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm still reading and sifting all the info around.
That's a much unappreciated gift.
Christ Evert may have done that as well as any baseliner I've ever seen. It makes players look faster than they really are.
I think it's a different kind of toughness. I think the pros of the pre-Open era had a different kind of toughness based on pure need. Would today's players be as tough if put into the same circumstances?
I think so.
Novak was so damn tough in 2012 Australian Open it was unreal Mental toughness, he was down 2 sets to 1 and Against Murray and he came back and won in 5 hours, and then in the final he was losing the 1set to Rafa OMG.... after having such a tough match with Murray in 5 hours he now has to win 3 sets against a super hungry Rafa ... He still did it... In 6 hours he out lasted Nadal in brutal fashion.
Those two matches were enough to cause me to consider that, perhaps, it's time to eliminate 3 of 5 set matches. With modern equipment and modern methods of play, matches have become too damn long. A 5-6 hour contest in an individual sport is not reasonable in my view.
NatF, Of course rules are never irrelevant for players who play under them. Laver failed in 1964 to win the race under the official rule. That's a historical fact, my friend. Even today, when we try to consider other additional aspects like hth, we still must consider the rule of 1964. And Laver did accept the rule as he conceded he was only No.2 behind Muscles. He stated that even as late as 1965.
Separate names with a comma.