WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,359
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    In 1960 Gonzalez sat out so much of the year that it feels odd to me that he was #1. But that could be just my modern bias.
     
  2. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,478
    I actually meant Perth and Adelaide, which were played, IIRC, during the last portion of the South Africa tour -- which I am also leaving out.

    Let me give you the whole list and you'll see what I mean.

    To start, here again for those who know it, and for those who don't, is the point schema as reported in McCauley:

    Mal Anderson, writing in World Tennis magazine, stated that Kramer established a tournament points system to decide the best players in the world. The Pros played in 14 tournaments with the winner earning 7 points, the runner-up 4, third place 3, 4th 2 and each quarterfinalist 1 point each. This resulted in the following final positions:-- 1 Hoad, 2 Gonzales, 3 Rosewall, 4 Sedgman, 5 Trabert, 6 Anderson, 7 Segura, 8 Cooper​

    Using Excel to calculate the running point totals, this is what I got last year (you will remember this Dan). I'm listing the tournaments in chronological order.


    1 Melbourne

    2 Brisbane

    3 Perth

    4 Sydney

    5 Adelaide

    My point totals through Adelaide line up with the earliest-available published counts:

    Hoad 20 (published count was 20)
    Gonzalez 14 (published count was 14)
    Rosewall 17 (published count was 18)
    Sedgman 16 (published count was 17)
    Trabert 9
    Anderson 3
    Segura 3
    Cooper 6


    6 Los Angeles Masters

    7 Toronto

    8 Forest Hills

    9 French Pro (RG)


    My counts through RG again line up with the next-available published counts:

    Hoad 35 (published count was 35)
    Gonzalez 32 (published count was 32)
    Rosewall 25 (published count was 25)
    Sedgman 26 (published count was 27)
    Trabert 23 (published count was 23)
    Anderson 5
    Segura 8
    Cooper 10


    10 Wembley

    11 Sydney

    12 Brisbane

    13 Melbourne

    Now here is where I couldn't line up my totals with the final tallies, if you recall. Not if I included South Africa, Perth and Adelaide (all played in the short span between Wembley and Sydney).

    But if I remove all the results of those three tournaments from my Excel sheet, my point totals through Melbourne (the final event) line up almost exactly with those reported by McCauley:

    Hoad 50 (published count was 51)
    Gonzalez 43 (published count was 43)
    Rosewall 42 (published count was 41)
    Sedgman 34 (published count was 32)
    Trabert 25
    Anderson 16
    Segura 16
    Cooper 13

    It's not a perfect solution because it leaves this championship tour with 13 events rather than 14 as reported by Anderson. But like I say this is all detective work by necessity and I always like it when numbers line up so neatly (I think we're actually lucky when we can get numbers to line up so exactly, there being so many variables to consider).
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2016
  3. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,478
    Actually Gary it's not impossible :) All the results are available in McCauley.

    Now, McCauley's results are listed in tables and I've tried scanning/converting them to text; the result was disastrous. I suppose the whole year could be typed out but I'd like to try, maybe, a better scanning option before I resort to that.

    However, Andrew Tas years ago provided full lists for Rosewall's matches (only his matches), and he did the same for Laver (again, a Laver-only list). I could post all their activity, in chronological order, for the entire year. I didn't know there would be such interest in that much hard data but I'm more than glad to do it and Andrew has given me the okay in the past to post his work here.

    I do need to prepare the list because, since these are two lists, one only of Rosewall results, one only of Laver results, such lists won't tell you the full activity of all the Pros. For that you need McCauley, whose results are in tables. But I can put together two lists, for each of Rosewall and Laver, marking off each tournament with the size of the draw (if the size is known), so you at least can know how large or small the tournaments were.

    Andrew's data is the most comprehensive available; I've added a few new results that I've found in recent years. I estimate that around 20 Laver matches are still missing (tour matches, not tournament matches), in France and the Middle East. Possibly some Rosewall results are still missing but that is less likely.

    So these lists won't provide all the data that was available to Buchholz, Rosewall and Laver back then, but they're the closest we currently have.

    Sound good to you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2016
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Dan, I contradict: It's yet of great importance to examine the 1964 season seriously. It's a litmus test if we accept the facts (provided by Buchholz in his clear article and by krosero weeks ago in his many reports from 1964 and 1965) or if we follow our bias (in this case the anti-Rosewall bias).
     
  5. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,478
    Thank you -- my typo. I've corrected it.
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    krosero, A great Thank You for providing your interesting finding. Great work.

    Even though it was clear before your new findings that the "Buchholz tour" was the deciding tour for the pro rankings even though it was not known if the tour was labelled as Dan was demanding, it's yet very important that you found now the "missing link"!! On August, 25, 1964, the newspaper "European Stars and Strips" gave the current "standings in the Pro World Championships". Hope that Dan et al. are satisfied now!
    Thanks also for similary messages from 1965 like "Laver is challenging K. Rosewall for the No. 1 spot in the professional tennis ranks".

    You seem to having made a little mistake: You write about rankings in mid-Novemeber 1965 instead of 1964.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    krosero, I see that you have not yet corrected the mistake regarding mid-November 1964.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    krosero, Thanks again for all these quotings and rankings.

    I wonder that Rosewall was ranked No.1 even till April, 1965. Laver was much better in the Australian tour of January and February and should have surpassed Rosewall by winning that tour.
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Dan, I'm disappointed. You will NEVER learn!! krosero has provided now dozens of reports about Rosewall the winner of the deciding tour, once even about Rosewall leading (after Noordwijk) in the "Pro World Championships". What more do you need to change your wrong opinion??

    The World Pro Championship involved SIX players in the first part. Rosewall finished 1st, then came Laver, Buchholz, Gimeno, MacKay and Ayala. In the second part of the tour Rosewall beat Laver for first place and Gimeno beat Buchholz for third place.
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Dan, KROSERO has found the references. Stop doubting truth!
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Limpin, Are you still writing about a 130 day tour which was NOT identical with the world championship tour? I repeat if for you personally (I don't ask for a tax!): The 130 day tour was only a PART of the world championships of 1964. Get real!!!
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Limpinhitter, You become more and more confused (did not think that would be possible yet!): krosero brought the reports virtually in chronological order. The rankings were NOT putative! Are you able to read and understand English?
     
  13. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,748
    Does anyone dispute pc1's conclusion that Pancho Gonzalez was #1 for 1960 and 1961?
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Gary, The 17 (or rather 18) tournaments of the pro world championship tour are clear (and can be found in McCauley's book) College Park; White Plains; L.A. Masters; St. Louis; Monterey; Milwaukee; US Pro; (most probably Wembley Golden Racquet, 4- man tournament); Cannes; Noordwijk; Geneva; French Pro; Wembley; Munich; Hannover; Salisbury; Johannesburg; Cape Town. All of them 8 or more players.
     
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Gary, To make objective examination it's necessary to realize that the big tournament tour ("Pro world championships") was the key parameter even though we also should consider Laver's achievements.
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Gary, It's great that krosero now has provided many additionally facts. His opponents don't, alas.
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Limpin, Yes, I do: I rank Gonzalez and Rosewall equally for 1960 and 1961. Rosewall has a better claim for 1961 than for 1960. Carlo Colussi even ranked Rosewall alone No.1 for 1961 as he was the only man to win tournaments on three surfaces (clay, wood and grass). krosero has provided us with additional results. Rosewall leads the hth against Gonzalez by 5:4.
     
  18. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,748
    Are there any reasonable, rational, unbiased, observers who dispute pc1's conclusion that Pancho Gonzalez was #1 for 1960 and 1961?
     
  19. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    It makes logical sense NatF however that's not how it worked in those days. If Gonzalez had to play more that year to stay as number one I'm sure he would have.
     
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,125
    Bobby, using your own methodology, Gonzales won the championship tour those years, so should be number one...right?
     
  21. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,125
    The world championship round involved a total of 18 best-of-three set matches, Rosewall winning 14 to 4.
     
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,125
    The problem we had was in trying to identify the 14 tournaments, which would be possible by eliminating both South Africa and Wembley. But that would leave Anderson behind Segura, so apparently Wembley was not excluded.
    I doubt that Anderson could miscount the total number of tournaments, since he was apparently relying upon Kramer's own office to supply the results....the question remains open.
    I think you claimed at one point that the number of points assigned to the events changed throughout the season, that might explain how a lower number of points could be assigned to Perth, Adelaide, and South Africa.
     
    krosero likes this.
  23. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,125
    Krosero, it appears under the thread "Men's Season with the most achievement" that both Perth and Adelaide were included.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Limpin, Yes, read BobbyOne's post above!
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    No, WRONG, Mr. Lobb. How can you claim such a nonsense? When did I write that the winner of the championship tour should be (alone) No.1???

    As you might remember I always said that Rosewall deserves a TIED No.1 for 1964 because he won the deciding, now we even know: the "Pro World Championships" tour" (thanks to krosero who finally found the MISSING LINK which you were a long time waiting for). Laver was great at other parameters, Muscles at the top parameter.

    Gonzalez winning the 1960 and 1961 world tours is just half of the truth. Rosewall won all really big tournamnets in those years.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2016
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Dan, It was, as you rightly say, A ROUND. Six players played the world championship tour, four of them the second round or part.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016
  27. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,469
    No, Bobby. I don't have to examine things in the exact way you do to make an objective examination.
     
  28. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,644
    Krosero, first i want to say, that this discussion is frustrating and fruitless, every time i answer some of Your post, some jack in the box will come out of this box and will Insult people. I only will say, that i don't want to be quoted for things, i didn't write or insinuate. In older discussions, which remained friendly, Jeffrey Neave, Carlo and me all agreed, that given the McCauley book a ranking, based on a selected tournament series for 1964 existed, but we all agreed, that this ranking wasn't decisive nor representative, because simply it covered not enough ground. There were other pro rankings, which were very debatable, in the 1950s and 1960s, and there were other tournament series, with final Rankings, including later the WCT and Grand Prix series. The most similar is the WCT tournament series in 1971, which also had that 10, 7, 4, 2 and 1 Point System, but consisted of 20 tournaments with at least 5 rounds over the whole year. You could play at best 100 matches, and this is a representative amount of activity. On contrast, this Buchholz series of 1964 consisted of at best 51 matches for a player, and at largest of 119 days (17 a 7 days, netto 17 a 4 days). It was not half of the activity, that Laver and Rosewall played in 1964.
    You see, if someone has open eyes, a sharp contrast to 1965, when the tournament series was more established. First The Australian/NZ part of the tour was firmly included, then there were more tournaments in the US, Europe and South Africa, so that we get close to 30 Events for 1965, i can count them on McCauleys basis. 30 Events a 3 rounds makes around 90 possible matches, which is a way more representative number for the overall activity. In 1964, Carlo mentioned 29 tournaments and many tour matches, if those would count in a ranking, he makes his clear point about the evaluation. I am still unconvinced that the Australian circuit was completely shut out for all ranking matters in 1964, and some of those schedules in 1964 are quite odd, see this Trofeo Facis, where Rosewall took part in both sessions, while Laver won all his matches but took only part in the last session. I thought in 2005, that Rosewall would lead Laver in overall stats, despite his hth deficit, but Andrew Tas stats, which came out later, point in the other direction. Laver is matching Rosewall for tournament wins, including the big one at Wembley (and Boston), and leading him massively in hth and clearly in overall matches and win-loss stats.
    Some of the paper reports cited above are plain wrong, including Andersons statement, that Laver lead Rosewall in tournaments for 1964 but had lesser tour matches wins. Note i am not insulting people like Anderson or Buchholz, but i doubt, that they were keepig or being aware of all exact records. They were players, nor researchers or writers. Buchholz was to my knowledge not present on the Australian tour in 1964. Other paper reports like Canberra Times note in begin February 1965, that Laver "maintained" the edge over Rosewall. Problem with the old pro tour is, that all records were not well kept and many press people had some information deficits. As someone said, it was clear like mud.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2016
    Dan Lobb, krosero, NatF and 2 others like this.
  29. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,748
    Anyone?

    Going once! Going twice . . .
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Gary, Why? As you can see at this example (1964 tour), only krosero's exact examination was able to find the definitive answer (even though a few stubborn posters still don't recognize truth).
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016
  31. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,622
    You posing as the "objective" or "definitive" arbiter of this matter is kinda like Trump claiming to be a magnanimous supporter of women. Sometimes one needs to let things go and move onto other things that can prove more fruitful.
     
    pc1 and NatF like this.
  32. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,359
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Of course but my point was looking at it through a modern lens.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    urban, I'm sorry that I was a jack in the box and insulted you. I'm not sorry that I was sharp toward Limpinhitter & Co. because this small group uses to write nonsense very often, at least regarding the 1964 tour. They distort tennis history and even krosero's fine and huge examination (instead of respect his work).

    You should not wonder that I contradict you rather often as you also use to write wrong things rather often.

    This time you erroneously claim that the 1965 series was more established than the 1964 series. What proofs do you have? I doubt that the Australian series was included in the 1965 series. For 1966 I do know that the Aussie events did not count for the points series.

    You still doubt that the 1964 series was an official world championship tour? After all what krosero has found? Strange.

    This discussion might be frustrating and fruitless but mostly because a few stubborn posters repeat their wrong opinions day after day (I exclude you from that group).
     
    krosero likes this.
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    NonP, You blame me but not your few friends like Limpinhitter and Dan. Very just...
     
  35. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,748
    urban, thank you for being the voice of unbiased reason in this debate and for consistently upholding the spirit of this thread - to look at all of the data that can be found and decide who really deserves to be ranked #1 for each year. It is greatly appreciated.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  36. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Understood. :)
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,910
    Limpin, It's just a great pity that you are NOT the voice of unbiased reason! Remember your many wrong numbers in your Laver thread, your stubborness regarding the official world championship tour and your mean behaviour toward me (your big lie, not addressing me etc).

    Ranking Rosewall at No.18 or worse does not show unbiased attitude...
     
  38. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,622
    Again you really need to learn when to let things go. If this is any consolation I do think your "enemies" (who BTW aren't my "friends") are too stubborn to accept that your boy's victory on that 1964 "world championship tour" (or whatever the hell you wanna call it) was indeed a big deal. I fully believe pc1 when he reports having been told recently by Buchholz himself that there was no such thing, but the various contemporary reports dug up by krosero are just too numerous and explicit for any honest observer to rule out the likelihood that Rosewall was viewed by many as the world #1 as late as the following year.

    But like I said some time ago all this focus on the exact nature of the tour is really a red herring. Again it's a documented fact that Laver was at the very least just behind Rosewall in the tour rankings, and not only did he win two pro majors that year to Ken's one (at both of which he defeated his rival) he also led their H2H by a huge margin. To me the oft-made distinction between best and most achieved is a false dichotomy, and the results do tell me that Rod had reached a higher sustained peak than Ken by '64, just Sampras did over Agassi in '99.

    Now if you want to argue that the tour's point-ranking system is a more objective way to rank its participants that's fine by me. But it's clear many posters don't agree, and even clearer that nobody's going to change his mind at this point. It's time for you to accept that and move on. You're not going to get everyone to agree with you all the time. That's just a fact of life.
     
  39. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,359
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    This ^^^

    The majority of reports at the time obviously paint Rosewall as #1, but I also think looking independently at the results that year lead to the conclusion that actually Laver was #1.

    At this point if everyone would just agree to disagree, perhaps there are other years which haven't been done to death that might benefit from exploring.
     
    Dan Lobb, Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
  40. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Amen.

    Anyone for 1927?
     
  41. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,359
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Not familiar with 1927, care to get us started? :) :D
     
  42. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,622
    Exactly. And the fact that particular years have gotten so much scrutiny while others linger in obscurity is quite indicative of our pro/anti bias.

    Lacoste. It's true cuz Wiki tells us so.
     
    NatF likes this.
  43. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Okay.

    By the way I think we should stick to non-Rosewall playing years. I'm not trying to be mean but we do have problems in Rosewall years. I'm content to agree Rosewall was number one in any year just to get it out of the way.

    Actually I made an error I was thinking of 1930 in which Henri Cochet was ranked number one to Bill Tilden's number two. That particular year Cochet won the French over Bill Tilden in the final in four sets. Cochet also defeated Tilden in the Davis Cup in four sets.

    However Tilden, even for Tilden had one of his greatest years. Tilden won a fantastic 18 tournaments including Wimbledon. Tilden won the championships of five countries. They were WImbledon, the Italian, the Austrian, the German and the Dutch. Tilden also won the Newport Casino and in Monte Carlo. WImbledon was clearly more prestigious than the French and Tilden was in the finals of the French while Cochet didn't reach the finals of Wimbledon.

    A superficial study to me seems that Tilden was easily number one that year. However it was very much opinion in those days and at that point Cochet owned Tilden. I suppose at that point it was a matchup problem. Tilden eventually dominated Cochet in the pros.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016
  44. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    LOL.

    I goofed up and wrote 1927 when I meant 1930. Tilden lost to Cochet in 1927 in a great match at Wimbledon in the semi. That is one of the matches from the past I would have loved to have seen in person.
     
  45. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,748
    Exactly!

    Okay, how about 1970? JK!!!
     
  46. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Non-Rosewall playing years. :mad::mad:;)
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  47. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,748
    NonP, well said. But, I want to add something.

    I think I've written this a few times already, and I'm going to repeat, that even if the magical, mystery, tour was a World Championship tour, and I have seen no evidence that it was, and even if it was intended to determine the year end rankings, and I have seen no evidence of that either, and even if every single player and commentator declaimed that Rosewall was the #1 player for 1964, and I have seen no evidence of that either, for the purposes of this thread, all of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, looking back at all of the data, it is clear that Laver was the best player in 1964, and had the best year in 1964, and, therefore, deserves the #1 ranking for 1964.

    Your friend,

    Limpinhitter :D
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  48. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,359
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I was thinking 1977 but Rosewall was still on the tour then :eek::mad:
     
    pc1 likes this.
  49. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    We could try 1983. I think McEnroe was number one but I think Wilander has a possible claim.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016
  50. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,478
    NonP, you've made a few points here that are very much appreciated and you have my personal thanks. I don't agree with all your points but I won't go into those, since you've suggested -- in a very reasonable way -- that we all take a break. I agree we should. That's not because I think the debate itself can go too long -- I would delve into it as long as necessary -- but I'd much rather do so with willing participants and with cool heads. Sometimes you just need a break and let everyone cool off.

    I will have one more post for Urban, who at least deserves that I address the issue of how I represented his views (I don't want to misrepresent them).

    Bobby, I personally don't need anyone to agree with me about the data I've presented. I know its value and I'm proud (I believe, with justification) of the research I've done and my choice to make it public. As I've said to you by email, it's not that I don't care AT ALL whether my immediate debate opponents agree with me (who could possibly claim that?), but for me the importance of historical material is that it be put out there, for anyone, today or in the future, to pick up and study. It's a matter of creating a historical record, much more than it is about the immediate debate. Sure, I care about how the immediate debate (who wouldn't?), but if the people I'm talking to have told me explicitly that they don't wish to discuss it at this time, there is nothing I can do about that. I may not like or agree with their decision to leave the debate, but that is their choice and there is nothing I can do about it. I would MUCH RATHER open up this topic at a later date, either with the cooler heads, or with different participants who do wish to speak about it.

    There is still the matter of Andrew's data for 1964, that I've offered to post. If no one explicitly takes me up on the offer to post it, I won't do so. I am more than happy to give the data to anyone who is still interested in seeing it and I could do so by email if you send me a personal message.
     
    Dan Lobb and treblings like this.

Share This Page