WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,084
    For the record, and for the rest of the forum, I wrote:

    "What happened to that "pride" after 1971?

    Repeating for everyone else....

    Between 1971 and 1976:

    Laver played once at the AO,in 1971.
    He did not play at RG at all.
    He played at Wimbledon in 71 and 72.
    He only made regular appearances at the USO.

    Laver was still ranked very high as late as 1974.

    Please explain to us why he chose to play zero majors that year.

    The answer is quite obvious. Today majors play huge amounts of money. In the early 70s they did not.
     
  2. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Bobby, you may have got the wrong impression from Krosero's remarks...I did not get the impression that Krosero disagreed with this interpretation.
    Bud seems to support my interpretation of what his criteria are to support Rosewall...LONGEVITY...that supports my understanding of Bud's position.
     
  3. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Bobby, Bud used the terms "YOU" in the sense of "SOMEONE" who could make an argument for Rosewall, and it would have to be on the basis of longevity, it could not be on the basis of level of play...most people think of greatness in sport in terms of level of play, tennis or any other sport.
     
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    "YOU could make an argument" is definitely weaker than "I believe", or " I would argue".
    In the second usage, the speaker identifies himself with the argument, in the first case "YOU could argue" does not tie the speaker into the argument...no doubt about this issue, my friend.
     
  5. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,583
    1 ) the Emerson "record " was not interested to Laver and .. to nobody .
    2 ) Laver had been the number one for many years but ... he had not enriched .
    3 ) the slam tournamente had ... a prize money laughable
    4 ) even after 1973 ATP does not give many points to slam compared to other tournaments
    5 ) the slam had prestige ( less than now ) but Laver had such prestige that could skip them.
    6 ) it was coming from a period where slam were amateurs ... then were cheap (to me zero)
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
    Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
  6. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,659
    It is, I suppose, a "pet issue" of mine - and not to get into a debate about this, but it's only the repressed Western way of thinking which states that talking about death and mortality is "in very poor taste".

    I wonder what BobbyOne would make of rituals such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famadihana ?
     
  7. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,933
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I suppose the pertinent question is what would Rosewall think?

    :D sorry couldn't resist.

    Bad Phoenix (my cats name is actually Phoenix - so this takes on a dual meaning for me)!
     
  8. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,659
    Not literally of course, but I think that he valued the ability to create greater financial prosperity for his family higher than winning the majors, after 1969.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  9. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,659
    LOL......dude is now writing essays to support his best chum BobbyOne.

    How anyone on this forum can maintain that 'Saint Krosero' is an objective poster, when most of his existence these days is defending the most biased fanboy on this site, is beyond me.

    Of course Saint Krosero will refuse to acknowledge me, since he is a coward.
     
  10. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,583
    Seems easy..
    must see Fedalovic win a little money to slam & Master if they accept a circuit or exhibitions or invitationals that gives them 1,000,000.00 dollars.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  11. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,780
    A friendly end was certainly more than i was daring to hope. after all, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, even in the light of new evidence.
    the new material presented a test for some posters, to show whether they are flexible enough to overthink and maybe even change their position.

    by now we know that didn´t happen. my conclusion is, that there is probably too much ego involved, and that prevented a friendly discussion of the new material.

    btw, you get a "like" from me for changing from "enemies" to "opponents" . i think that´s a good decision from you.
     
    krosero and pc1 like this.
  12. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,933
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I'm not sure what the issue truly is at this point. I think it's obvious that generally the majority regarded Rosewall as #1. In hindsight though that does not seem correct. For me the nature of the tour that year etc...is just a side point.
     
    treblings, Dan Lobb and pc1 like this.
  13. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,659
    OK, I will make a deal with BobbyOne.

    I will stop mentioning Rosewall's impending death, if he concedes that Rosewall isn't the GOAT.
     
  14. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,549
    I can't believe that you really believe that. In my view, you must know, and the more likely scenario is, that Bobby was being such a persistent pest about Rosewall (as he demostrates he is able and willing to be nearly every single day on TW boards), that Bud Collins was willing to tell him what he wanted to hear so that he would just go away, or at least change the subject.
     
  15. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,659
    Yes, it's so obvious that this was the case.

    Krosero is either the ultimate diplomat (willing to overlook the possibility of a friend - in this case BobbyOne - ever doing anything wrong); or he is an active collaborator in promoting the Rosewall GOAT myth.
     
  16. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,562
    OK, now you're either being willfully obtuse or just plain confused. Since this seems possibly a language-barrier issue I'll cut you some slack and go with the latter. Here's what I said:

    Again, I never called for your ban but simply wondered whether everyone might be better off if you stayed away from this forum either permanently or for an extended period of time. This wasn't an assertion, but a mere questioning of the current state of affairs. And note I never called for everyone else to be banned. That's another misreading or "lie" on your part.

    But as for the others I'm going to be less generous, because I don't see how anyone who like you speaks passable English can get this wrong:

    Again, Gary said you should be banned IF you keep personally attacking people who don't agree with you (mostly regarding your hero). That's not the same thing as "pleading" for your ban.

    And here's what your "enemy" Limpin said:

    This time I'll grant that he did say you deserve to be banned, but implicit even here is the general distaste about your personal attacks in response to the slightest slight you perceive with respect to your darling and your obsessive advocacy for him. He didn't say you should be gone forever even if you somehow managed to change your ways.

    That's the overall point I was trying to make, not this textual hairsplitting you're too quick to use in an effort to prove others wrong. You have said before you like disproving wrong claims made by others. Well, that's the very mentality you need to ditch if you want to get along with people in life. Again it's not healthy for everyone involved. Be more secure in your opinions and know when to let things go. I'm almost certain I'm not the first to tell you this.

    This is another one of your paranoid fantasies. FYI when I said "Graf fanatics" I was thinking of the banned poster Joe Pike (who was even more obsessive than you, if that were possible) and several others I've seen here, not the literally deranged fanboy who committed that despicable crime against his goddess' rival for something as trivial as tennis. And while I don't remember exactly what Limpin said (in fact I don't recall seeing it) I'm pretty sure he was being somewhat facetious as usual about the Parche comparison and you chose to take it in the most negative way.

    Which brings me to another main point: you shouldn't be too quick to assume the worst intentions from the people you meet. While I share your stated misanthropy about our species in general I do think most individuals try to do the right thing even if they don't necessarily succeed (actually reality tends to be quite the opposite). And your insistence on your use of the term "hate" to describe your "enemies" shows a childish impulse to paint the "other side" in the worst possible light. That's something you expect from 12-year-olds, not near 70-somthings like you, and though the media share much of the blame in fanning these tribal tensions by adopting this very infantile terminology (everyone seems to be a "hater" these days) that's no excuse for grown-ups like us who should know better.

    And one last thing. If I really "hated" you I wouldn't be bothering to tell you all this. Indifference is in many ways worse than hate if not synonymous with it, and you should be thankful there are still some people who try to set you on the right course of action.

    Yes, I'm sure you already know even recordings of "live" performances undergo extensive edits before being released to the public. But it's impossible to completely ignore the technical aspects of the Hammerklavier as they're very much part of what makes it a worthwhile endeavor on the part of both the performer and the listener, and I daresay Perahia handled them as well as his mentor probably ever did, if not even better.

    And I don't usually fuss over definitions or categories myself, as the best music tends to incorporate various elements from different periods or genres, much like the best films tend to straddle both fiction and documentary. What really galled me about this particular case, though (well, apart from who I was dealing with), is that jazz is essentially an African-American music and Bobby's denial of its rightful origins (in another one of his attempts to be proven right, go figure) struck me as an especially egregious instance of cultural appropriation. (Though I don't know Bobby personally I take it that he's an old white dude living in a posh community of Vienna.) I mean, have some respect for history. That's almost as bad as the college kids wailing about "wage slavery" just because they've read some Chomsky and think they know how the world economy works.

    BTW one of the things I'd like to do before leaving this earth is to work as an ethnomusicologist and travel around the world collecting samples while meeting different peoples and cultures. Another is to coach a basketball team in a quasi-competition and preferably lead them to a title. ;)
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, We did not talk about 1974. We talked about 1970 to 72 or 73. In 1974 Laver might have been too old to participate in GS tournaments. Too much stress.

    Laver did not play 1972 Wimbledon.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Gary, I re-read what krosero has written to me in early May in an e-mail about the Bud's formulation on TV (Tennis Channel) "You could make an argument..."

    krosero then wrote, as I posted yesterday, that "I can make" is hardly used and is weaker than "You could make". He adds: "You can make is a general, inclusive formulation meaning "one" or "everyone" (not literally everyone, of course, but people in general). So krosero supported my "version" which is not a version but clear English understanding, and I wondered that he yesterday gave you a "like" to your post where you, like Dan and others, brought a wrong version of Bud's statement. I told krosero, who I hold in high esteem because of his intelligence and his fantastic researching abilities and his friendly manner, my disappointment.
     
  19. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    I don't want to be mean to Krosero but he's not an English teacher or grammarian. He's smart but not the final cited authority in terminology. Nor would I be.



    Perhaps we should discuss this with Henry Higgins. Does Henry Higgins know anything about tennis?



    This is actually quite funny because we are discussing what is more forceful as far as grammar is concerned.

    I'm not stating my views here. Just wanted to make that point.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
    Phoenix1983 and NatF like this.
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Bobby, just simple English..."YOU could argue" is similar to "it could be argued", which, as you admitted, is a general statement and does not commit the speaker to the evaluation.
    If you wanted to make a personal statement of belief, you would use an entirely different construction, such as, "It seems to me.." or "I would argue..", which are the common forms of expressing personal belief.

    End of story.
     
  21. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,933
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I think it's fairly obvious that Bud believed Laver was the GOAT, so obviously he wouldn't personally argue that Rosewall was the GOAT - though he obviously thought an argument could be made. What is there to discuss?
     
  22. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Absolutely true. This way we don't have to go through all these English lessons.

    Do you get the feeling recently that this forum is now looking at interpretations of articles and how to decided who terminology is more forceful. Sound a bit like something you would study in a Law School. By the way I was silly enough to have a lawyer buddy of mine look at said article for his interpretation of it in case I missed something. Being that I play tennis with him he didn't mind.

    We should start a seminar call Law+Tennis 101.
     
  23. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,933
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I prefer to look at the big picture on these big points of contention, trying to argue what an article written 50 years ago meant for this long is crazy, especially it has no real barring on our opinions. The crux of it is that many of us believe Laver has the more compelling case to #1 in 1964 than Rosewall going off what both achieved that year. I should think all these same people are aware that Rosewall was considered #1 at the time. No amount of news paper clippings from the time will sway us because the fundamentals of our opinions are the results.

    Regarding Bud's words, again obviously he thought Rosewall had a case for GOAT primarily due to his longevity (as said on the Tennis Channel and to Bobby) and also his big wins in Dallas (just to Bobby). However recognising that an argument can be made is not the same as supporting the argument and you've made it clear yourself pc1 that Bud considering Laver #1 - much less the writing from Bud on the matter says the same thing. Bud considered Laver the GOAT but that a case could be made for Rosewall and presumably others.

    Honestly have no clue what is left to discuss on these 2 issues.
     
    Phoenix1983, Dan Lobb and pc1 like this.
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, I'm able to understand clearly spoken English words: by Buchholz, Collins, krosero. If I would not be able I would not dare to post in a tennis forum where English is the common language. Also you have an ability: distorting English words and sentences.
     
  25. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    There is nothing to discuss as you and I well know. Bud told me when he was still lucid a few years ago that he still considered Laver the GOAT. It was clear. There was no doubt about what he meant.

    By the way. The part of your post that I put in bold and underlined summarizes everything. Really superb wording.
     
    Dan Lobb and NatF like this.
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    No comment.
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    You funny guy have the ability to distort EVERY statement made by krosero and myself. When I will end to post in this forum I will not miss Limpinhitter or Phoenix, but I will miss YOU very strongly. You made me laugh so often...
     
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    I have not "distorted" English words, only made an attempt to educate you as to proper English phrases and word usage...you are not my most successful student.
     
    Phoenix1983 and pc1 like this.
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    If at any time a poster should have been banned forever, it's Phoenix1983. I find Limpinhitter and a few others mean and nasty but you are of a special category. Shame on you!!!
     
  30. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    To say I understand is an understatement. I have tried to give him some advice in the past which wasn't used to put it nicely.
     
    Dan Lobb and NatF like this.
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    treblings, In those discussions much bias (anti-Rosewall bias) and much hate against one poster are involved.

    As for me, I have accepted that Laver deserves a No.1 place for 1964. I have suggested this in times when other posters and "experts" did not even know who Gimeno or Nüsslein are and that Rosewall won 25 majors in singles and 25 in doubles...
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    NatF, Rosewall was the official No.1 player in 1964. But at least I'm glad that you accept truth of 1964/65 more than my opponents do.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Phoenix, Are you real? Are you a human being or a zombie? You can't be real...
     
  34. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    I'm glad you'll using the term opponent instead of your old term. Keep this up and I'll set you up as a diplomat.

    Now if you can eliminate the word "hate" and use "disagree" or "dislike" or "don't care for" instead it would help.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Mrs. or Mr. Limpin, I do hope that there is no heaven and that Bud is not able to read your obnoxious insult against him. Shame on you!!!
     
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Bobby, we are not your "opponents", we are trying to interpret the evidence to the best of our ability.
    There is no need to attempt to distract attention from the main issues by introducing a personal angle into the discussion.
     
    NatF and pc1 like this.
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Phoenix1983, Hope you have a longer life than Rafael Osuna but I do hope you stop producing such crap!
     
  38. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    What I would like Bobby to do on occasion is if he knows the disagreement is not going anywhere is to just let it be and drop it.
     
    Phoenix1983, NatF and Dan Lobb like this.
  39. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    That would be great, I am not really interested in someone's personal pique, what we are trying to do here is to share information and research.
    Personal animosities have no place here, they are merely a distraction from the purpose of the threads.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    NonP, Just a short answer (I'm too tired to react to all you wrote): Sorry regarding Graf fanatics. I did not know Joe Pike at all. Possible only a few know him. However, it's dangerous making comparisons between posters and Graf fanatics because most people might have the association of Günter Parche. As told Limpinhitter once compared me with him.

    I'm not a fanatic. Neither regarding Rosewall nor regarding any other person or thing.

    Jazz is not an issue of different cultures. There are black, white and Chinese Jazz musicians. And Beethoven was white and nevertheless invented Jazz. FYI: I consider Boogie-Woogie a kind of Jazz. It is not classic nor popular music (traditional). I agree with Strawinsky.

    I dislike your arrogance and your patronizing me.
     
  41. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,990
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Dan,

    You and I disagree on many things but at least we are willing to look at what the other one writes and keep an open mind. You have changed my mind on a number of matters in tennis over the years. This is what we want. The world would be so boring if we just agreed with everyone else and acted like sheep.

    Yes we do share information and I think we have to have independent thought. Just because one may not hold one player in as high esteem as another poster or doesn't have exactly the same opinion does not mean that poster is bad.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
    treblings and Dan Lobb like this.
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Dan, Don't insult krosero anymore. He has explained that "difficult" English matter and yet you distort his words and Bud's statement. It's disgusting!!!
     
  43. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    Bobby,, I have attempted to introduce a note of sanity into our discussions...this discussion is not about your personal feelings of outrage or whether or not Krosero is a master of the English language.
    You should accept that people will disagree with your assessment of Rosewall in good faith after a reasoned examination of the evidence...that is reality, and it is not intended to challenge your status or self-respect.
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    NatF, Your best post since a longer while. Thanks. But please tell that to my opponents, especially to Dan, who are not willing to accept facts and who distort Bud's clear words.
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,995
    I agree with NatF's post, as do you. What is there for you to feel outraged about?
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    NatF, You are wrong: The crux was or is that some ignorant people did not accept nor do it now that Rosewall was considered No.1 at the time! Have you forgotten all those hot debates about Buchholz article, krosero's contributions etc. between Dan, LImpinhitter and others vs. BobbyOne? I got not furious for nothing! I'm not an idiot!

    Every serious reader knows what the old Buchholz article meant. It was written in a "crystal clear" way as treblings rightly has written several times.

    Yes, Bud probably rated Laver the GOAT. But as most experts, he had a list of GOAT candidates: Laver, Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Federer, Borg, Sampras. We all know what the term "GOAT" means: I have my favourite (or two favourites as in my case) but I would not be upset if another person would pick another of my candidates. I just would contradict if the other person would pick none of my candidates.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    End of the discussion. It's senseless to discuss with people like you.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    I don't need your kind of nasty "education". I'm old enough to know who and how you are!!
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    No comment.
     
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,705
    Stop teasing krosero and me!!!
     

Share This Page