Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
Dan, Wrong, Buchholz wrote that Rosewall was the (official) No.1 player and that "unquestionably"!
treblings, No, all the known sources have Rosewall as No.1.
treblings, I also think that Laver had the impression that he was the strongest player in 1964 as he had that clear positive hth against Rosewall. But at least at that time he was aware that he failed at the deciding world tour.
By the way, also Buchholz was aware of that significant hth when writing his article. Nevertheless he cleary wrote that Rosewall was the No.1 in 1964.
Limpin, I trust more to Buchholz, as he was a participant of that long tour, than Budge.
Limpin, Please write that to Butch Buchholz and ask him why he wrote clearly the opposite of your claim!
Limpin, If there were a world championship tour, you would accept that Rosewall was No.1? I'm astonished because you use to say that Laver had the clearly better year.
For your information: The long 1964 tour had at least the WEIGHT and IMPORTANCE of a world championship tour!!
treblings, That's a key question...
70sHollywood, Reasonable thoughts. Yes, a greatly talented player can improve when playing against better players. Some just cannot. I rate Emerson in the Cooper, Anderson (even though a gifted player), Olmedo, Fraser and Stolle.
Dan, Read the Buchholz article again!
Dan, Are you really sure that there was no official world championship tour that year?? Have you studied the 1964 season??
Remember they were called Kikisms.
Buchholz is clear right now. The 130 day tour was not a "world championship" tour and it did not determine the #1 player for the year of 1964. Therefore, there is no basis to support the notion that Rosewall was #1 for 1964. But, even if it was a world championship tour, or, even if it was intended to determine the #1 player for 1964, there is no doubt that, looking at all of the data in retrospect, Laver had a better year than Rosewall and deserves the #1 ranking for 1964.
Hey LH, good to see you on here. Hope you're well!
Thanks, BN1. Good to see you too. I haven't seen you on here since I've been back (to the delight of some and the consternation of others, haha!). Yes, all is well. Thanks for asking.
Limpinhitter, At least two wrong claims.
borg number one, I would have thought you are on a higher level than my opponents...
Bobby, we have been discussing that for quite some time now...
Your reference to the Buchholz article does not support your idea, unless you now have some new evidence.
Bobby, Buchholz turned thumbs down on your idea...I think we went over this with you earlier, did we not?
Glad to see you back my friend!
the Buchholz article is very clear. the tour was probably not the only deciding factor but obviously a major one.
my question still stands, where did you read that the tour did not determine the no.1 player?
i do remember now if there´s one poster who can´t come back under another name it´s him( not that he´s not trying)
i once called him kiks to annoy him a little bit, but he surprised me by saying, that´s what his parents used to call him affectionately
interesting to get this information from you, since you´re a Rosewall fanboy
i wonder, when you had the chance to talk to Mr Buchholz, did you also talk about the 1964 rankings? his opinion on who was no.1 that year and why?
Limpin, krosero has found that the long tournament tour lasted longer than only 130 days. It of course determined the 1964 No.1 player. You can realize that if you read the clear article once more and this time CAREFULLY!!!( as f.i. treblings has done).
Laver was top on several fields but Rosewall was top in the big determining tour. Thus he deserves a No.1 place together with Laver, similary to Gonzalez who deserves a No.1 place for 1961 even though Rosewall won the hth and won the big tournaments. Stay objective!
Dan , You are a troll.
Dan, You are a troll.
treblings, I guess that some posters (only a few ones indeed) have difficulties to understand English language. They distort Buchholz statements in his extremely clear article and they distorted recently also Bud Collins' clear words about GOAT candidate Rosewall ("You can make an argument..."). It's curious and funny that even a non-native English speaker like me can blame Americans (a Canadian) for misinterpreting the words of an American (Butch Buchholz)...
treblings, I had some quarrels with kiki but at least I must concede that he understood English language - unlike to Limpinhitter and Dan...
treblings, I'm not only a (primitive) Rosewall fanboy but I'm also not able to understand English language, especially my friend's Bud's words and Buchholz's statements. I will try to make an IQ test but I fear to get only 49 to 82 IQ points (Rosewall's career years' dates)...
treblings, Yes those would be the two deciding questions but I fear they never have been asked at all...
Buchholz article is very clear. There is a complete absence of any claim that the 130 day tour was for a world championship or that it was intended to determine the #1 ranking for 1964. Further, if, as is obvious, that the 130 day tour was not a world championship, and was not intended to determine the #1 ranking for 1964, then there is no reason for any reliable, knowledgeable commentator to declaim that it wasn't.
My question still stands, where did you read that the 130 day tour determined the #1 player?
Limp, I suspect that your question is not capable of being apprehended by some posters here, who have placed their modality on "automatic pilot" for this issue.
Bobby, are you back on "automatic pilot" again? No point in asking you to get some evidence to overcome Buchholz' rejection of your claims.
Dan, You have your automatic pilot on "not using the brain for logical thinking"...
Limpin, Your still referring to a130 day tour shows clearly to all of your readers that you ignore facts (provided by serious posters) and write nonsense!!
it´s bad form to not answer my question, and at the same time ask me something.
let me quote your original post:I haven't read anyone saying that the tour was insignificant. Only that it did not determine the #1 player for the year.
now that post clearly states that you´ve read somewhere that the tour did not determine the #1 player for the year.
so i asked you a simple question, where did you read that? and you refuse to answer.
i can very well live with that but i certainly won´t on that basis answer your question.
Dan, you´ve avoided my question. This one, remember?
Dan, talking about information to the contrary...are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 or world champion for 1964?
Your friend Limp has done the same. He used an old trick to avoid answering, he asked a question himself
Repeating the same things over and over as if you are on "automatic pilot" sure won´t change my opinion.
New information might well do so, but you don´t seem to have any. That´s o.k.
Thanks PC1! Hope you're good and had fun watching Wimbledon! Good luck with the tennis as well my friend.
Very good! Hope you have a great summer. I look forward to lot of future forum discussions to follow.
treblings, I know you are a very patient and friendly person, at least as a poster here. But now it seems to me as though you, like me, also become a bit annoyed by Limpinhitter's kind of communication or non-communication... ;-)
treblings, I just wonder if Limpinhitter learnt his behaviour from Dan Lobb or Dan learnt from Limpinhitter...
Yes I enjoyed WImbledon although I was surprised Raonic made the final.
I see. My post wasn't clear. I was referring to the article (and posters on TW), not the tour. My question was intended to turn the tables on what I thought was a silly question.
PS: At least you weren't referring to my form on the tennis court.
sorry, seems i misunderstood.
can´t comment on your form on the tennis court, but i know you frequently post in the Tips/Instruction forum.
i seem to remember that you changed your form from classic to modern a while back
I think a lot of us who used the old classic technique (although my form was never remotely classic) have changed their styles to adjust with the new racquet and string tech. I probably hit heavier topspin than I ever used to in the past.
i guess so. i know i´ve changed quite a bit since the Maxply days still like to use heavier racquets though
Limpin, The only person who is asking silly questions is YOU. You and Dan still distort the message of the Buchholz article. Butch did not explicitly write that the long tour was played to determine the No.1 player of the year because HIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS A STATEMENT IN THIS SENSE. The issue was clear enough for Buchholz to not writing explicitly what was completely natural for him and his readers. Butch described the tour rather detailed and gave the tour standings which concured with the pro rankings. He at least four times said that Rosewall was the No.1 directly and a few times indirectly (stating that Laver was No. 2). All that he wrote AFTER the very end of the tour on November 26th! There was no pro tennis match afterward!
Hope I was able now to explain the whole matter satisfying.
Get real finally!
treblings, Kindness is a good thing. But this time i fear your friendly answer is not the proper answer to Limpinhitter who called your answer "silly" and who still distorts the message of the crystal clear Buchholz article. You did not misunderstand his older post but it seems you misunderstood his new post...
I think that PC1 answered your question with some new discoveries...did you miss that?
It is "crystal clear" that Buchholz disagrees with you...PC1 proved that.
Dan, You even cannot answer a clear question! It's a shame. Which are the new discoveries?
Separate names with a comma.