WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Limpin, Finally I can agree with you: The article is self-explanatory. That's what krosero and I write since weeks!

    But you are again wrong: Buchholz stated that Rosewall had an edge over Laver for the WHOLE tour which lasted from May, 24 till end of October which is more than "only" 130 days. I'm sure you have read krosero's post where he explained that the 130 days embrace only the European and South African parts of the tournament tour while the U.S. part had gone from May 19 to July 12! The whole long tour did not last 365 days. The deciding tournament tour was a 185 day tour and was always dominated by Rosewall. Buchholz wrote "Rosewall won again the (130 day) tour" because Muscles had also won before the (55 day) tour in America.

    Buchholz does not or little refer to other tours of the year (Australia, NZL, France, Italy) as they were not part of the determining big tour which produced the year-end rankings.
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, fair enough.

    IMO Rosewall was the second best grasscourter of the 1960s. He was able to beat Laver twice at the US Pro in straight sets.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Limpin, Meanwhile there are probably at least three posters who give Rosewall a (tied) No.1 place for 1964: BobbyOne, Gary Duane and probably krosero.

    The experts of 1964 and 1965 all rated the Little Master as No.1 for 1964.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Limpin, I agree that you are not a tennis expert (see your Laver thread). But I concede you are an authority in mean behaviour (your mocking lie about me and your stubborness regarding your apology).
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Phoenix, If it is krosero you should not be too sad and disappointed because krosero is just my compliant lackey and on my pay-roll!
     
  6. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    I'm not debating the training of today's players. In fact, I think modern training/science explains the age of current slam contenders. There are reasons why older players recover faster and play at a higher % of their peak level at or past the age of 30.

    In this area Rosewall seems to have been decades ahead. Part of it has to be good genetics, but it would interesting to find out how he trained.
     
  7. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,780
    Three quotes from the Buchholz article that i find interesting

    Rosewall again won the tour, edging out Rod Laver
    The reason that Rod is not No. 1 is that he does not do as well against the other pros as does Muscles
    It is impossible not to admire Rosewall......He is the No. 1 player in the world

    I think Buchholz is clearly saying that not only did Rosewall win the tour, but also that he was no.1 in 1964

    the whole debate about whether it was a "world championship tour" and could the winner of the tour be called "world champion"
    is a bit of a deflection imo. we are after all looking for an answer to the question who was no. 1 in 1964, not who was "world champion"

    I can understand why some posters here want to make the case that Laver was no.1 nevertheless, and that the ranking system was flawed.
    Even Bobbyone, who is often accused of being just a Rosewall fan, votes for giving Laver a Co-no.1
     
    krosero and Flash O'Groove like this.
  8. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,544
    I see no opinion by Buchholz, express or implied, that Rosewall was #1 for the whole year of 1964, only for the 130 day tour, and that by a slight margin.

    Nevertheless, whatever Buchholz may have thought at the time, looking at all of the data in retrospect, Laver had the best year in 1964 and deserves the #1 ranking.
     
    Phoenix1983 likes this.
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, I'm not sure that an oldie is recovering faster than a young player.

    Rosewall and other pros played so many matches that they were not forced to train that much. I do know that Muscles used to sleep ten hours every night which fact certainly helped him to play on a constant high level.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    treblings, I'm glad to read a reasonable post after some other ones that distorted Buchholz's opinion, his intention and his clear words.

    I'm sure any player is happy to be called and acknowledged the "No.1 player" equal if he/she is called "world champion" as well...

    The official ranking system of 1964, even if it was flawed when we are considering it today, was the acknowledged criterion in 1964. Rosewall, Laver and the other players did known how they can get the No.1 place for the whole year: winning the long tournament tour.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  11. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,933
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I think no one is questioning that Rosewall was #1 at that point in the year, the issue is whether Laver overtook him after this article was written with a superior end of season.
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Limpin, You forget important things: Buchholz wrote the article for World Tennis AFTER the whole 1964 season, i.e. in December of 1964. Therefore his printed final rankings refer to the whole year, not only to the 185 day tour!! World Tennis there called Rosewall the "unquestionable No.1" in their 1965, January issue!

    You still talk about a 130 day tour although krosero has proved that it was a longer tour (185 days).

    How do you explain why Rosewall was called the No.1 player by Buchholz, by Laver, by several newspapers (krosero's findings), by World of Tennis yearbooks if he did not achieve that place in the long tour? Rosewall did rather little outside of the tour. He won the Trofeo Facis in Italy but lost there his matches against Laver.

    Get real finally and behave like a gentleman (apology!) !
     
    krosero likes this.
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    NatF and the other "experts" who persistently misunderstand the Buchholz article: Please stop writing absurd things! Buchholz did write his article after the whole season which ended in November. Butch wrote it in December and it was published in 1965.

    Laver did win a few tour matches and two smaller tournaments after the long tournament tour but did not beat nor meet his toughest rival, Rosewall, at all. Muscles had finished his season after winning the last event of the big tour (Cape Town) and after losing the small Port Elizabeth tourney and had gone home because he knew he was the No.1 for 1964. Rosewall had won the tour by a probable 10 point margin against Laver, so he could not have been surpassed by Rod even if Laver would win at Port Elizabeth and even if that event would have counted for the rankings (which it did not).
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    krosero likes this.
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    PC1, you have given us the definitive summary, no doubt that this was not a world championship tour.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Bobby, Rosewall was regarded as number one in 1964 BECAUSE of winning the 1963 world championship...until someone knocked him off.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  16. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,544
    The Rosewall campaign is officially out of ammunition for 1964.
     
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Bobby, if that 1964 tour was so important, there would have been some award or trophy to accompany it, some prize money, a presentation ceremony, a major venue to serve as the grand finale....NONE of which happened for that 1964 tour...if that was a world championship, it was the mose closely guarded secret in tennis history...even Buchholz was not aware of it being a world championship...no other player was aware of it being a world championship.
    Rosewall handled all the money. wrote all of the arranging letters for the tour arrangements, worked out the "percentages"...maybe Rosewall did not bother to share any of this information with the media.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Many people beat prime Newcombe...in minor events.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  19. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Of course it's NOT a World Championship Tour. If anything if you read it carefully it clearly indicates that it wasn't. Add the fact the writer of the article said it wasn't and I cannot see any dispute.

    As far as the article is concerned, just remember that magazines in those days could take a month or two to publish an article that was written. It was not the computer age when articles can be emailed immediately. Records have to be calculated by mere humans instead of computers so they can be behind for months or perhaps inaccurate.

    Thing is that some may assume some things about the article because they want it to be true. You can't just assume.

    I am sure this isn't the end of this but that's all I'm going to write about this for at least a while.
     
  20. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,780
    Buchholz writes that the tour ended on November 26th and "they all went home"
    what happened in December of that year? Did they all meet again to play some important tournaments?
     
    krosero likes this.
  21. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    The quote in red also caught my eye.

    Does that mean that Rosewall WAS #1 in the world? That's another matter. But it does appear that this is what the man said, at that time.
     
    krosero likes this.
  22. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    I don't know much about Buchholtz, but he did win the US Pro 1962, and the winners of that tournament in other years are most guys we talk about a lot here. So I would not dismiss him as being a nothing player...
     
  23. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    I had the same thought. I assumed with Buchholz was writing about was pretty darn close to the end of the year.
     
    krosero likes this.
  24. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    Yes, but you are mostly talking to passionate partisans, and they will assume anything that supports conclusions they have already made. ;)
     
    pc1 likes this.
  25. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    I never meant to imply that, at any time. What I am suggesting is that the decline of results of older players today appears to be slower because of modern training methods. This might help older players disproportionately, since young players still have all the advantages of youth.

    You can accept that or go with the "weak era" arguments, which I do not much like.
     
    treblings, pc1 and krosero like this.
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    He beat a very elder statesman of the game, Segura, in a 4-man tourney, no other name player in the draw. Not a major, but then the Cleveland World Pro was never a major.
     
  27. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    Amazing that Segura got that far at that age.

    I'm not lobbying for any great fame for Buchholz. To be honest, until a couple weeks ago he was only a name.
     
  28. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    Here is the only thing I can come up with for Buchholz's position on Rosewall.

    Rosewall was very strong in '63, and he already had a considerable rep built up. In 63 Laver was fresh from the amateurs, and everyone I have read seems to say Laver was rather weak in the pros until he raised his game. That seems to have been happening in 64.

    I don't want to go too far into this, but perhaps if we had a running set of rankings, put out each week, we would have seen Rosewall #1 by 63, then moving from #1 to #2 in 64.

    By 65 it seems pretty clear that Laver had clearly taken over at #1.

    Again, I want to stress the difference in age. When Laver came into the pro tour he was already 24-25, an age we today think of as right for a prime. Rosewall, then 28-29, logically should have been approaching an age when most players decline. There is talk right now that it is happening to Novak, and it certainly happened to both Fed and Nadal.

    There is no logical reason for Rosewall to have ever dominated after 63 - age - so most likely his very fine record after that had more to do with amazing genetics and one of the slowest declines we have ever seen in a player.

    But I have to say that as of this time I would lean towards giving 64 to Laver - though not by a big amount.
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, Can you please avoid to write about an official title "world championship" which is not the issue of our discussion?!

    If I can make you happy: Rosewall probably was not baptized "World Champion". He "only" was baptized the "1964 No.1 player". Have you got it finally???
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, Now you get absurd in extremis! A player CANNOT be regarded as No.1 at the end (AT THE END!!!) of a year because he was winning a championship of the PREVIOUS year! It's just IMPOSSIBLE, you funny guy! You again confuse 1963 with 1964. Buchholz wrote his article not at the begin or in the middle of 1964 (only then your claim would be possible)! He actually wrote his article AFTER all activity of 1964, i. e. in DECEMBER!!! Please stop writing nonsense! Thanks a lot in the name of all serious readers and posters!
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Limpin; You and your colleagues (always the same two or three) have been disproved by krosero's excellent research. You have lost the case.

    It's time now for a gentleman-like apology. (At least for your older lie). I'm waiting................
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, Stop the world championship issue. You just don't understand that a big tour can be deciding LIKE a championship tour even if not being called that way! The 5 months tournament tour of 1964 did have the WEIGHT of a world championship tour! That's the point. Trophies etc. are not necessary for a deciding tour!

    With your last point you could maybe right though!
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, Are you sure? WCT events were not minor events. Buchholz beat Newcombe several times in 1968 and 1969. He also beat Laver at Wembley clearly and at least 12 times Rosewall. Butch was a strong player on fast surfaces. That's the reason why he finished ahead of Hoad and Olmedo in the 1964 rankings.
     
  34. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Segura has always been an interesting figure to me as he would have been to many.
    His forehand was legendary and many say it was the single greatest shot they have ever seen.
    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/v...-pro-tennis-tournement-news-footage/594665767

    Here's a bit of Gonzalez against Rosewall while I'm at it.
    http://www.gettyimages.com/license/594664775

    Here's Hoad and Rosewall winning the Davis Cup.
    http://www.gettyimages.com/license/594653403
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    treblings, Dan Lobb and Limpinhitter like this.
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    treblings, Haven't you heard about a secret report provided by Limpinhitter and his (few) friends where they discovered that the 8 players of the 1964 tour again assembled in December 1964 in New York, Paris and London in order to play three so-called "Tournaments of the Century"? Dan Lobb gave the results of those 100 Million Dollar events that are very interesting: At Big Apple Ayala reached the final; At London Olmedo got to the final; at Paris Hoad was the runner-up. All three events were won by a red-headed, freckled Aussie. Another Aussie, black-headed and without having muscles, unfortunately lost always in the first round... There was a grand ceremony after each of the three championships, celebrated by Lyndon B. Johnson, Harold Macmillan and General de Gaulle...

    After having read those reports I have spontaneously changed my mind about the 1964 rankings:

    I now rank: 1 Laver; 2 Ayala; 3 Olmedo; 4 Hoad; 5 Gonzalez; 6 Gimeno; 7 Buchholz; 8 Rosewall. But I have got some consolation for myself: The Little Master still was a top ten player (!) then, even outplaying strong players like Sedgman and Anderson (who did not participate though). The Umpire of the N.Y. event was a certain Himpinlitter...
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    krosero and treblings like this.
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, You are totally right.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, If you refer to Laver: Rosewall made the same claim as Laver did: that he was the No.1 player in 1964. Truth, as so often, is in the middle...
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, Thanks for explaining the matter. I have misread your statement.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, Strong MacKay was in the draw. Even at 41 Segura was of tremendous strength. He won several fine claycourt tournaments against tough opposition and he even had matchpoint against Rosewall in the 1962 Wembley SFs...
     
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, I have not studied enough the week-for-week domination of Rosewall and Laver but I guess they were pretty even on that field. Buchholz wrote that the seedings changed every three weeks (I erroneously had thought every four weeks) and Rosewall must have dominated several of those periods as he succeeded more than Laver in both parts of that tour. But Laver was better in their early NZL tour and played longer( and well) than Rosewall at end-year.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  41. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,544
    I like Segura's game and have a lot of admiration and respect for him as a player. I can't think of anyone who did more with what they had, including a very difficult childhood, that Segura.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  42. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    That's great, clear footage of Gozales. Most of what we see in YouTube is horribly blurry.

    I'm convinced that Pancho today would be a rockstar. In other words, if this same guy were playing right now, he'd have more than Fed-like adulation. ;)
     
    pc1 likes this.
  43. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    As I said elsewhere, I look at tennis in "periods". The term "era" gets thrown a lot and is confusing. The main three players in mind from the 50s through to the 60s are Gonzales, Hoad/Rosewall, Laver. I remember them as 28, 34, 38, born in those years. Hoad is like some of our modern players who had an amazing peak but a shorter career because of injuries.

    Otherwise I see a Gonzales period followed by a Rosewall period followed by a Laver period. Rosewall was in the shadow of Gonzales, and I don't see that he ever got the better of Pancho until Pancho started to fade. I don't mean that he didn't win matches but rather that Gonzales was so dominant, he sort of "sucked the oxygen out of the room". In a modern system he would have dominated points for a number of years, and he would have been the clear #1 I think.

    Laver came into his own around 1964. Regardless of his unofficial ranking, I think it was pretty clear in 1964 what was going to happen. But in saying this, again I have to point out that Laver was 26 in 64, and Rosewall was 30 at the end of that year.

    I always try to compare things back then to today. Even with all the advantages players have now with diet, surgery, training, physios, and so on, 30 remains a barrier. Before age 30 in most cases we see players losing a half step. Fed's peak years were shortened because of mono. He may even have had some of that starting in 2007. Regardless, his absolute peak was from around 2003-2006. He still had an amazing 2007 in terms of slams and winning, but his stats were dropping. Then he had a resurgence in 2009, but by 2011, around the age of 30, his total dominance was over.

    Now people think Novak will go on winning forever. People are already giving him 18 slams, or more, but some of us have seen cracks this year and think his true peak was in 2011. But he is only 29 right now, just barely.

    Just a couple years back people thought Nadal would go on winning RG every year, but we started seeing major cracks in 2014. Nadal is around 30 right now.

    So Rosewall's peak years should have been up to around age 27 or 28 at the most. Rosewall turned 28 at the end of 1962. That's important.

    Laver's dominance at around age 30-31 in 69 is a very rare thing in tennis and is something that should be more appreciated.
     
  44. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,083
    My feeling is this: in 64 Laver would have or should have still been somewhat in awe of Rosewall. The world did not yet know what he was in the midst of doing. From everything I've read it seems that Laver was a bit in shock when he joined the pro tour. He had been kind of king of the amateur world. I would think playing the pros must have instantly convinced him that the pros simply played on a much higher level. He had to overcome all that, and part of the wall he hit was Rosewall, four years older and already a pro for some time.

    In his position I would probably refer to the older, previously dominant player as "the number one", and likely Rosewall still thought of himself that way until it was clear that there was a new champion. That would have been very clear in 65. 64 in my mind was a transitional year, a "changing of the guard".

    I would only say this about Rosewall: Laver continues to be in GOAT discussions, and for very good reason. I personally think Gonzales was even better and would have dominated Laver if they had been the same age, but that is a personal opinion and not based on facts. Fantasy. However, Rosewall was very VERY close to Laver's level, and being that close to a very dominant #1 is in and of itself important. During Laver's reign it is not as if Rosewall was simply Laver's "pigeon".

    He didn't fall to second place and fade away. He still got key victories, and I really think that eventually Rosewall outlasted Laver. He simply declined more slowly. And his slam record in his 30s is something that remains unique.

    (I also use "slam" and consider it a totally correct word in 2016 to refer to any major. It is easier to type and say.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
    pc1 and treblings like this.
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    No, Bobby, a tour which has the weight of a world championship tour must be labelled a world championship tour...otherwise it does not have the weight of a world championship tour, the players are well aware of that, and Buchholz made that clear in his recent comments to PC1....which you continue to ignore.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    There was no to opponent there other than Segura. McKay was winding down fast, retired that year.
     
  47. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,780
    yes, but does the report mention that Laver was the world champion? or that these tournaments were world championship tournaments?
    otherwise i can´t accept that Laver was world champion of 1964.
     
  48. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,544
    It seems to me that the term "World Championship," was a marketing ploy on the old pro tour, not necessarily intended to be what it purported to be, and that, the term was so overused it was rendered meaningless in any event.
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, No, it's you and your friends who permanently ignore facts, history and truth at several points.

    How would you consider a tour which had not any label, trophy and ceremony (still don't know exactly if the 1964 tour had them or not) but which lasted for more than five months, had a point system, a clear winner and which determined the No.1 player of the year??? Was not it the deciding tour of the year, Dan???

    Buchholz seems to having been asked the wrong question: I'm sure he was asked if the "130 day tour" was a world championship tour or if the long tour was labelled a world championship tour at all. And Butch was right in his answer "NO". Instead he should have been asked the simple question who was the No.1 player for (the whole) year 1964!!! In that case Buchholz would have answered "Rosewall" and maybe he would have added "as I have described in my article of 1965". That way we all would not be bothered by our long and tiring discussion, and even you and your friends would accept that Rosewall was No.1 in 1964!!!
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
  50. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,544
    In my view, the title of World Champion does not fit into the tradition of professional tennis. Traditionally, tennis champions are tournament winners and player status is determined by rankings after assessing player performance in tournament play over the course of a year.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.

Share This Page