Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
Dan, Nobody disproved any of my claims!!!
your criticism is, as always, appreciated.
my question to limpinhitter was asked, because i thought he had some knowledge to offer.
It sounded like he had additional information about the pro tour of 1964
obviously he doesn´t, regardless of when or if i misunderstood his posts.
Dan, i asked you a simple question because i thought you had information about 1964 that could shed some more light on the situation for me.
I´m participating in this forum to talk with other posters, often in the hope that i might learn something.
If you can´t be bothered to talk with me i´m happy to move on
They were disproved...PC1 disproved them...Buchholz turned thumbs down on your idea.
No one has to disprove anything. The record speaks for itself, and disproves any argument that Rosewall was #1 for 1964. He wasn't because Laver was.
Buchholz is not a troll...get over it.
Dear Limpinhitter: Why did Laver lose the deciding world tour?? And why was Rosewall achnowledged the No.1 player by all experts, journalists AND BY LAVER HIMSELF???????
Dan, Buchholz was very serious when reporting about the deciding tournament tour. YOU are the troll, probably the biggest ever!!
Bobby, Buchholz was very serious when he disagreed with you....accept it.
You are suggesting that a world championship tour does not have to be a world championship tour...nonsense.
Dan, No: I just mean that a deciding world tour is not "obliged" to have the label "world championship tour". Maybe the 1964 tour did not have such a label, but even that is not sure at all! We do know all we must know about the importance of the tournament tour as the deciding tour for the 1964 rankings (thanks Butch for his article) but we still don't know much about label/non-label, trophy etc. But you seem to know all...
Bobby, a "deciding tour" is merely a euphemism for a "world championship tour"..you are just playing with words.
Butch did not say that...he disagrees with you...live with it.
here´s where i stand at the moment.
i agree with Mr Buchholz completely. How could you not, as the man is a contemporary witness and obviously a very capable guy.
he states in his article, more than once, that Rosewall was the no. 1 in the world after the tour had ended.
he explains why that is, even though Laver had an impressive head-to-head against Rosewall.
it didn´t seem to matter to him how the tour was called, btw
The point is, Buchholz did not claim that this was a world championship tour, in fact, he stated that it was NOT a world championship tour...therefore, some other method must be used to determine the number one for 1964...case closed.
Dan, I don't disagree. The tour was, according to Buchholz in 1964/1965, the deciding tour what meant it had the importance and weight of a world championship tour. Exactly that has been claimed since weeks by krosero, treblings and myself! Only a troll would contradict...
Sorry Dan,we cannot agree with you.
Buchholz stated his opinion very clearly in his article. There is no reason to believe that he changed it since then
No, he did not state what you claim...he affirmed that recently...do your homework.
Read PC1's results...
No, Bobby, he did not claim that it was a "deciding" event, those are your own words...get with it.
And give us a definition of what you believe a "troll" is, that might be fun.
My understanding is that a "troll" uses harsh language and epithets rather than making a logical point....hmmm
Buchholz was clear. There was no World Championship Tour in 1964. Laver also wrote he took over as number one in November 1964.
treblings, It's really curious and funny that Dan & Co. ignore logic, facts and truth and rather believe in an absurd version.
Here's where I have stood on the 1964 #1 ranking issue for a while now:
Laver won the most titles in 1964.
Laver won 2 of the 3 most important titles in 1964.
Laver won the most matches 1964.
Laver had the highest winning percentage in 1964.
Laver had a 15-4 H2H advantage over #2 Rosewall in 1964.
and therefore, Laver was the #1 player in 1964.
Would you call this ignoring logic, facts and truth? I'd like to know where you stand on that.
PS: Do you know if, when or where Buchholz (or anyone else), used the words "deciding tour?" I can't find the words "deciding tour," anywhere in Buchholz article. Was the tour itself billed as "The Deciding Tour?" Would making up facts be the same as ignoring logic, facts and truth?
Dan, It seems that your group (youself, LImpin and one or two other posters) is divided: One "group" denies that Rosewall was acknowledged the official No.1 at all while you seem to accept Ken's position but you deny that it was determined by the long tournament tour. At least your last recent posts are suggesting that. Or am I wrong?
Dan, A troll is a person who cannot read or understand a crystal clear article!
"The Magical Mystery [Deciding] Tour,
Is coming to take you away,
Coming to take you away,
Take you today."
Dear Limpinhitter, It's senseless to repeat the Laver achievements over and over again. Note: Laver FAILED to win the most important parameter, i.e. the big tournament tour! Every player did know in early 1964 that the winner of the tournament tour (185 days) would be acknowledged the pro champ. So clear is the whole matter!
Instead of laughing about serious posters you should behave as a serious and intelligent person. Even a ten years old child would understand the words and sense of Buchholz's clear article. I can surprise you in conceding that Buchholz did NOT use the terms "world championship tour" and "deciding tour" and "determining tour"! But only an idiot would need to read those terms or words to understand sense and message of the crystal clear article. As told (but you still ignore all serious posters here) the whole long article was written in order to report about the tournament tour, to state it was the determining and deciding tour (even without using these words, haha!) for the rankings and to state that Rosewall was No.1. Laver No.2 and so on.
Note: When Butch wrote his article he was not able to imagine that there would be a few readers 52 years later who are not able to read carefully and to understand sense and message of his epistle. He surely thought that only intelligent readers would read his report. If he would have imagined that his words would be too difficult for a few readers from Talk Tennis, he most probably would have formulated: "The tournament tour was the deciding and determining tour and measure for ranking the top pros". In fact he "only" wrote that "Rosewall again won the tour" and "Rosewall is the No.1 player" of course meaning that Rosewall got the No.1 spot BY WINNING THE TOUR. As krosero has discovered, Buchholz meant that Rosewall won the 130 day tour in Europe and South Africa after he had won already the U.S. tour, the latter clearly, the former closely.
Get real and stop your stubborness. Thanks a lot.
Limpin, "Life is very short, and there's no time for fussing and fighting, my friend"!!!
No, Bobby, a troll is one who refuses to use logic but resorts to epithets...okay?
Hey, I think that Hoad won the most impressive tour of 1964, the New Zealand tour of the three top Aussies, a 24 match series of intensity, like the old 4 man tours....
No one labelled the later tour as a world championship.
Again, you are substituting your own words for Buchholz, which shows that you have no real evidence to support your claims.
No, I rate Laver as number one for 1964 based on winning the major tournaments, but I give Rosewall number one for 1965 by the same logic.
Dan, I SURRENDER!!! All my endeavour to explain the 1964 matter have failed at yourself, Limpin and one or two others. Even my post 2426 was not able to convince you. I had thought that it was a rather convincing post. It's obvious that I cannot compete with you and Limpinhitter regarding intelligence. Guess my IQ is only 63: maybe a bit over a chimpanzee's...
Dan, Thanks for giving Rosewall the top spot for 1965. You will not find much support for your claim. Some will probably call you a Rosewall fanboy...
But I also say that Muscles possibly deserves a Co.-No.1 place that year.
Dan, The most impressive tour was the "Buchholz tour" consisting of 17 bigger tournaments with the best four players involved plus having Buchholz and Hoad.
1965 was a lopsided year in favor of Laver. Laver won 17 total titles that year, Rosewall won 6. Laver also had a 13-5 H2H advantage over Rosewall.
Limpin, Rosewall won two of the three majors including that with the strongest competition (US Pro). He beat Laver in both of them. He beat Laver in both of them clearly. He also won the best claycourt event, again beating Laver clearly. He also won the US Hardcourt Championships, again over Laver with a clear win... Not as lopsided as you thought!
I think you ignore the fact that while all these stats are obviously correct, Rosewall was still considered no.1 at the time.
By Buchholz and also Laver.
So why is that? Weren´t they able to look at the simple facts the way you do? Or did they put a different value on things?
like winning this tour was more important than other factors.
i don´t mind that you look at these stats and decide for yourself that Laver was the best player in 1964.
i do mind, that you´re trying to ignore the fact, that his peers at the time had Rosewall as the no.1
all my info about the tour comes from the Buchholz article, including that Rosewall won it and was considered no.1 for the year.
i haven´t read the words "deciding tour".
i believe we´re at a point where nobody of us is gonna change his opinion without having additional facts. that´s the reason i asked you
earlier if you had additional info.
Here´s a direct quote from the article: "It is impossible not to admire Rosewall....He is the No. 1 player in the world"
so you see, i´m quoting not claiming
it´s a pity, PC1 didn´t use his phone call with Mr Buchholz to ask him a few more questions.
But you see, he was getting the one he was hoping to get, so why bother.......
i´m doing my homework on the old pro tour. I was recently able to get a copy of McCauleys book and am reading and rereading it at the moment.
What peers? Who says that Rosewall was #1 for all of 1964?
Limpin, Two of his peers who participated in the tour: Earl Buchholz jr. (called "Butch") in his long article in "World Tennis" and a certain Rodney George Laver (called "The Rocket") in at least one interview in 1965. Since you are a non-expert in tennis I don't know if you ever heard of these two players at all (they were born in 1940 and 1938 respectively, by the way, just for your interest).
Mr. or Mrs. Limpinhitter, it seems as though you are able to write in English (albeit often wrong things and wrong claims) but it also seems that you are not able to READ an English written text seriously or to understand its SENSE! You have read the Buchholz article (Rosewall No.1 for whole 1964) in this forum and krosero's reports about Laver's statements that he was No. 2 in 1964, but you still bother serious readers and posters with your absurd statements and questions. With your kind of behaviour you should seriously consider to stop posting at all!!
treblings, Well said and very convincing.
treblings, I agree. Joe McCauley deserves the honour of having been the first who brought a huge amount of pro results. It's a pity that he died shortly after his book was published. I cannot understand that Alan Trengove, the famous Austrlian tennis journalist, has blamed Joe for providing so much results in his book. Jack Kramer liked the book more and ordered ten copies still during Joe's lifetime...
So what? There were no official rankings in 1964 and looking at all of the data in retrospect, it is clear that Laver was #1 for 1964 and that Rosewall was not. And, even if there were official rankings, isn't the purpose of this thread to re-examine each year to determine who the true #1 player was? Or is it merely to repeat what has already said even if it was obviously erroneous?
One thing we have to all realize is that this was 1964/1965 and info wasn't as instantaneous as it is now. Information can be behind by several months or even years. All information was done by hand and of course that is subject to major delays. There was no official statistician for the old professional tour! All I know is this, Rod Laver said that he became number one, taking over from Ken Rosewall in November 1964. While Buchholz also said that while Rosewall was number one during the tour with the keyword DURING it doesn't mean that after all the information is compiled that it is discovered that Laver became number one in November 1964. The media at the time of course will be behind on who is number one until they noticed that Laver is winning a huge amount of tournaments. All the information fits. The tour ended November 1964. Laver wrote in this recent biography that he became number one taking over from Ken Rosewall in November 1964. I don't think it's a coinsidence that the dates conside.
The record seems to clearly state that Rod Laver had to clearly superior record in all important aspects. He won the most tournaments, the most majors, had the highest winning percentage and also beat his strongest opponent by a score of 15 matches to four.
Players like Don Budge and Pancho Gonzalez thought labor was the best player in the late November 1964. Budge clearly believe Laver was the number one player in the world.
I fail to understand why one poster refuses to believe that in 2016 Butch Buchholz was clear that the 1964 tour was not a world championship tour. I will also say that I was not the only one who got this information. There was another person who was in on this and I double checked with this person what Buchholz said. This person confirmed that there is no doubt what Buchholz communicated to us. And what he communicated to us was that there was absolutely no world championship tour in 1964.
i was refering to Buchholz and Laver
i think we are re-examining history,but i would prefer if some of us wouldn´t try to re-write it.
Please be specific. Who is re-writng history and what was re-written?
Laver was and still is a modest man, quick to praise other and to downplay his own great achievements. He has said a lot of players were superior to him but on occasion he will let slip his real thoughts like just a few years ago he said that he felt he could beat anyone if both players had a wood racquet or at least words to that effect.
So when he makes a statement that he took over as number one in November 1964 I would tend to look at it very seriously. I believe it.
I can understand that. But i also take his statement very seriously that Rosewall was no.1 in 1964
You seem to believe that there were tournaments at the end of 1964 that changed the rankings?
Not saying that. I don't believe that there was match play after November 1964. I believe that there is a good chance that once the full records were compiled for 1964 that they realized that Laver was number one for 1964 just as they realize 30 plus years later that Evonne Goolagong was number one for a short period in 1976.
My point is that they didn't have computers in those days for quick instant calculation like we have today. We forget how it was 52 years ago and how much more primitive record keeping was.
We do have several sources including Laver that indicate Laver was number one as of November 1964 which was the date the season apparently ended. The dates make total logical sense. The record seems clearly in favor of Laver. The Tour was clearly not a World Championship Tour. It wouldn't make sense at all if Rosewall was number one based on that information in any year, whether it be 1964, 1954, 1944, 1934 or 2016.
This fits the puzzle totally.
Limpinhitter, How the hell can you claim there were no official rankings??? Haven't you read the long article provided by pc1??? Buchholz gave the rankings (1-8) for 1964 where Rosewall finished first. Forgotten? The long tour was of course an official one. Don't distort tennis history!!
Separate names with a comma.