WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    Urban, first of all my apologies if I misrepresented your views in any way. Since I define a world championship tour as a set of events used to determine year-end rankings, and I wanted to get PC1's definition about it, I mentioned in my post to him that Carlo also believed a 17-tournament (exact number debated) series was established in '64 to determine the year-end rankings. And I mentioned that you and Jeffrey also believed it, at least years ago when you were all here and posting about the topic. I didn't participate in the topic then because I knew too little about it, but I remember the posts. And like I've said to you in the recent past, I once found your discussions at Wikipedia with Carlo and Jeffrey, and I remember them still because they impressed me as very good discussions, focused hard on details but remaining civil.

    I did not mean to imply that you, Jeffrey and Carlo all referred to the 17-tournament series as a "championship tour" or that you all embraced it as an ideal system. In fact the one thing I remember most is that you all had criticisms of the series for not including more tournaments. Here's an example from Jeffrey: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-laver-new-article.442302/page-9#post-7039602

    On that point I would actually tend to agree with all three of you. You've seen that for some years now PC1 and I have had a running disagreement about how heavily to weight championship tours. I don't think any of them were fully representative and I think all of them can come under the same criticism that has always been directed at the 1964 series -- even more so. If it's a big deal that the '64 tour lasted only about 180 days, well, the Budge-Vines tour of '39 lasted only 63 days. If it's a big deal that the '64 tour included all the 8-man tournaments but left out the 4-man tournaments, well no previous championship tour had ever included any tournament of any kind.

    That's why, I agree with you that later tournament circuits and ranking systems were better than those in '64, but imo '64 was better than any that came before -- in the messy world of the old pro tour.

    I risk saying that, at this moment when we've all suggested taking a break, not to stir things up but simply because this is an issue that's going to return again and again when we study other years, even those before Rosewall had ever picked up a racquet.

    I still agree we should take a break. Urban, I'd like at some point to continue discussing this with you. You get into the nuts-and-bolts and details which I appreciate. And I miss Jeffrey and Carlo's presence on this board, even if they did pick Laver as sole #1 for '64 :)
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    NatF, We cannot disagree about historical facts! The 1964 tournament tour was for world championship and the most important parameter of that year.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    NonP, We should try to examine every doubtful year as exactly as we (especially krosero) did regarding 1964. There are so many years that did not have a clear-cut No.1.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    NatF, You are not far from truth: Rosewall in some moments of 1977 was actually an absolute top player, f.i. when he beat world's No.3, Gerulaitis, in straight sets and gave Connors a magnificent fight one day later...
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016 at 2:55 PM
  5. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,080
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Perhaps but that fact is irrelevant to me looking back with hindsight. The 1964 tournament tour was a flawed system.

    You could apply this across so many years though. All ATG's are able to show flashes of brilliance at young and old ages.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    krosero, On one hand I can understand your frustration about some (to call them mildly) "negative" reactions and to stop posting in this thread, on the other hand I regret this your ( ultimate?) decision because it's always refreshing to read your findings, quotings and opinions and because those who find your illuminate discoveries and your explaining posts superfluous or even negative could think that you would agree with their negative judgment and that you would realize that you were wrong at your opinions and your (extremely mild!!) criticism. Truth should always prevail over bias and wrong claims!!

    It's good to know that you are proud of your huge work and of presenting it to your readers. I'm sure you are frustrated but you nevertheless are convinced that you did not wrong or write anything wrong (apart from your misinterpretation of a statement from urban).

    As written in my fundamental post to NonP, I yet claim that all posters and readers should agree about your great findings and historical facts and truth.

    I wonder a bit about your sentence that you don't need anyone (in this case me?) to agree with. I think you enjoy any positive reaction and support from your readers (even from myself ;-) ). So I hope my agreement and positive reaction was not unpleasant for you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016 at 2:13 PM
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    krosero, I don't think that the 1965 tour was more established than the 1964 tour. Both were well organized. But maybe I'm wrong.
     
  8. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,767
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    That's true, generally speaking I would think. Look at Federer in recent years. He has been superb and a threat to win every major.

    Gonzalez was great when he was young and won tournaments like the Howard Hughes in 1969 and 1970 defeating players like Roche, Ashe, Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver during those two years. And Gonzalez was 42 in 1970.

    Andres Gimeno won the French in 1972 in a year he would be 35.

    Laver even in a year he was 39 defeat Gerulaitis in the WCT Challenge Cup. I vaguely remember one of the points was a particularly athletic point by Laver in which he twisted his body in mid air to somehow put away a volley. Vic Braden couldn't believe it. Could be wrong but that's what I remember.

    McEnroe a few years ago almost beat Roddick in WTT. And McEnroe was in his fifties.
    http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Andy-Roddick,-John-McEnroe-Deliver-Crowd-Pleasing-.aspx

    Agassi was fantastic in his later thirties and of course as a teen.

    I don't think it's a coincidence that some of these players played on the Old Pro Tour. They learned how to conserve energy and play within the game because of the constant playing in the old days. It probably served them in good stead as they aged.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016 at 2:21 PM
    Limpinhitter and NatF like this.
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    NatF, A world championship is never irrelevant even though I agree that it's not the lone parameter to judge a year like 1964. The tour was not flawed. It was as it was. Even if it would be flawed, all players knew they had to succeed in that "flawed" system. It's a fact that Laver failed to win the tour and he knew it even as late as mid-1965. I trust the contemporary Rocket more than the recent "old" Rocket. Laver might be influenced recently by Joe's results (November 1964) and by Andrew's statistics. As earlier written, Laver's newer claim is as "objective" as Rosewall's claim from 1992 or 1993 when I talked to him. It's fitting that both Aussies claim to having been No.1 in 1964. That fits exactly to my old claim that both were No.1 that year...

    Rosewall's feats in 1977 are at least more impressing than those of others because he was 43 years old when he achieved them...
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    NonP, Hours ago I sent you a longer post but it has vanished soon. Don't know why. I will try a second version.

    I don't want to call the 1964 tour this way or that way. I only tried to report facts: that the tour was the deciding tour for determining the pro end-year ranks. Weeks later the great researcher krosero found what I call the MISSING LINK which was demanded by Dan and others so strictly: that the 17 (or rather 18) tournament tour was the official "pro world championships" (a newspaper on August 25, see krosero's post).

    Your sentence is not right that Rosewall was "viewed by many as No.1". In fact Rosewall was the acknowledged 1964 pro champion, sanctioned by pro association, IPTPA! That's a difference between opinion, even reasonable opinion, and historical fact!

    I find it a scandal of high degree that after krosero's discoveries there still are a few posters (partly even you) who ignore his huge work and still claim Rosewall was not the official No.1. If I were krosero, I perhaps would think now: "Why have I done all that time-consuming examination of tennis history about the 1964 season and why have I found and published the "missing link" of that whole issue when still some people doubt or contradict my task, partly even with inadequate words?" But of course krosero is not me and I'm aware from one of his posts above that he probably does not regret his endeavour to find all that stuff and that he is still proud of his work (and that justified!).

    Please note: Every person is entitled to have his or her opinions. We can discuss if Rosewall or Gonzalez was the better player. We can discuss if Gimeno was stronger or Santana, if Jürgen Melzer is better or Gerald Melzer. But we just cannot discuss or disagree about well-known facts: that N.Y.C. is in the USA and not in Poland; that an elephant is bigger than an ant, and so on. The same way we cannot disagree that the 1964 tournament tour was the main parameter for the pro rankings and that Rosewall was the acknowledged No.1 pro. It's a clear fact! This even if we rightly can say from a modern point of view that Laver deserves a Co.-No.1 place for that year because he achieved very much in 1964. But we cannot ignore the fact that the Rocket failed at the main parameter of the year.

    I don't want to force all people of the world (or at least all posters in this forum) to accept my opinions (even though I nevertheless hope to being able to convince some people that Rosewall is a true GOAT candidate at least). I just demand (horribile dictu!) that every poster in this forum is ready to accept facts of tennis history equally if they are provided by krosero, by myself, by Dan, by Limpinhitter or by any other person who provides us with a true historical fact. And this even if a fact is pleasant for us or not! We can discuss if Ivanisevic had the better service or Sampras but we CANNOT discuss if Ivanisevic served more aces or Santoro! The latter is a fact!

    Hope you understand what I mean. Thanks.

    EDIT: I have corrected 1963 pro champion into 1964 pro champion (third paragraph)
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM
    treblings likes this.
  11. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,767
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    I was going to look at 1983 and McEnroe versus Wilander but I realized in looking at the stats that McEnroe clearly looked better. McEnroe won Wimbledon, WCT and the Year End Masters. A super year. I'll try another disputed year tomorrow.
     
  12. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,592
    Krosero, maybe we can - and i would be glad - to resume this discussion about the realities and mechanics of the old pro tour later on, when the smoke has cleared a bit. You know, that i appreciate Your research very much. If i would be better equipped with Internet sources, i would do the same, to find more contemporary sources. I am more a paper than an Internet man, but I know two things from other historical fields: every researcher is as good as his archive. And you have to do critical evaluations and analyses of those sources. Maybe we can get the solution, i wrote many years ago on the wiki article on Laver, that 1964 was a disputed year with Claims here and there, and Laver was undisputed pro champ in 1965.
    One thing i find most interesting among those press reports, is a statement by Laver given by Gerald Williams in 1964, that he (Laver) wants to play Wimbledon again. Remember this is 1964 and open Tennis light years away. Maybe Laver could see the future, or just maybe - this is a speculation - he had talked already with Herman David. David was the chairman of the All England Club and always present at Wembley, and he was eager to see Laver again at Wimbledon. And he was the chief influence of the 1967 Wimbledon pro and later the open Wimbledon.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2016 at 3:15 AM
    krosero and pc1 like this.
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    urban, I'm a bit disappointed that you did not react to my apology.
     
  14. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,402
    Urban, there was nothing in the rest of that article about Herman David but I'll look for more material about the '64 Wembley and see what I can find.

    Thanks for your words about my research and yes, I hope we can figure out further specifics of the puzzle in much the same way as we've tried to do with the '59 series, or really with any other year. I find historical research to be very much detective work (that is not my actual line of work though someone once said I should have worked for Scotland Yard!) And I find it thrilling. I try to find clues in every little number and every little statement or word -- which is why I ask so many questions about source material and interviews. I like the way you and Jeffrey and Carlo worked through the material in what I have seen of your discussions and that's the kind of thing I'd like to be involved in.

    And I'm glad that you appreciate contemporary sources to the degree that you do. This is really something that I believe is revolutionizing the study of tennis history -- the uploading of so many newspaper archives to the internet. (Andrew's work, most notably, would not have been possible without this.) There are so many fields in academia where the historians would kill to have a daily newspaper record of the events they study, such as we are fortunate to now have for tennis.

    And what's been put online thus far is just the tip of the iceberg of what will eventually be available. Countless reports that I've posted here about one tour or another have only been uploaded recently to the internet. Six years ago we had very little apart from what we could find in books. So give it another 6 years and you can imagine how much more will be available.

    Even the archives I've looked through are just a piece of what's currently available. There are many archives from Europe that I simply don't have access to and which I would have trouble analyzing anyway because I don't know the various languages -- to say nothing of sources from other continents that the pros played in.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,784
    Bobby, still with that "official" tour stuff? If it had been an official world championship tour, Buchholz would certainly have remembered it that way. If there had been an award, a trophy presentation, money, you can rest assured that Buchholz would have recalled that...didn't.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  16. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,105
    If it's not too much trouble, please post it.
     
  17. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,105
    Hermann Göring's method was, repeat the same lie often enough, and the public will eventually accept it as the truth.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,784
    At this point, it seems clear that there was no trophy or money prize or presentation ceremony at the final event in Nice....in other words, the point system was not being used to qualify for anything.
    That means that the "tour" championship was being played for precisely nothing, no reason...this cannot qualify as a genuine world championship, no matter how confused some of the newspaper reporters were.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    Mrs. or Mr. Limpinhitter, It's the greatest joke of the century that JUST YOU blame a serious poster for making a lie as you are the biggest liar yourself in this forum as you and all readers know. It's your next big lie that the tour of 1964 was not an official world championship tour. You have surely read krosero's many reports and quotings!! Your lies are obnoxious and utterly disgusting! Your comparison with Göring is mean and vile!!!
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2016 at 2:52 PM
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    Mr. Lobb, I'm stopping now to answer people WHO CANNOT READ serious posts (about the 1964 world championships)! Bye.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,154
    urban, 1964 IS a disputed year. It WAS not a disputed year to be exact. In 1964 and early 1965 there was NO discussion about the status of Rosewall and Laver. From our modern point of view it IS a year to be disputed.
     

Share This Page