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:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Awful thread, marginally worse than the "Murray would be the worst #1" thread.

    I should hope no one would read this thread, it's an embarrassment :D
     
  2. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,740
    Yet you can go through several dozen of pages and only find well written, informative and educative posts on a very interesting subject of tennis history, on which is the "official history" is very poor. I'm pretty sure it could be useful for all the people who have some interest for the past greats.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  3. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    It's useful up until it became just about 1964 since then it's a lot of bickering with some interesting information scattered here and there.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NatF, I disagree.
     
  5. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    I think so, too, treblings, and it's to his credit.

    Bobby I don't want to tell you what to do; and you and I have debated issues about communication many times, by email; but let me share something here.

    I recall on some forum -- I don't believe it was this one -- reading in the forum rules, something along these lines:

    "Don't call a fellow poster terms like 'delusional' (even if you believe they're true)".

    That stayed with me because I thought it struck a realistic balance. Realistically, in heated debate, we do often believe that some people we are talking to are "delusional"; or at least, the thought crosses our minds. I think that's entirely natural. Some of us even think in terms of having enemies. Myself, I use the term "opponent" -- meaning, debate opponents. For me it's a specific term and it doesn't carry the negative connotation of personally opposing myself to you. But in heated moments I have more negative thoughts -- and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. There's really no way to suppress that. What we do have control over is what we do with it.

    What I like about that forum rule is the nice balance it struck: as if it's saying, "Look, we know at some point you're going to feel that some people you encounter are delusional; but even if you think so, it's counter-productive to say it."

    Now, everyone has to make a judgment call about how nice or how blunt they wish to be. Bobby, I know you feel strongly about expressing what you feel is the truth. I know you feel you have enemies and that you have reasons for viewing things that way. But I believe that the term "enemies" will always be more damaging than helpful -- even if (to echo that forum rule I quoted) in certain instances it's true ;)

    I will also add generally (don't know, Bobby, if I've said this to you in particular), that I think diplomacy goes a long way. I don't mean merely the platitude that we should all get along (although it's true that we should try). I mean it goes a long way in debates -- in persuading people of your view/argument. Antagonizing them with harsh words (even words that might be true! ha), they close their ears to anything you have to say, even before you say it. No chance that they will hear you, much less reflect at length about the ways you might be right. To the contrary they will only be reflecting about all the ways in which you might be wrong!

    Holding back some of the most inflammatory words (again, even if they might be true! ha), there's a chance their minds will stay open to what you have to say.

    (End speech, take it or leave it)
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
    Dan Lobb, NatF and pc1 like this.
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Flash, Thanks for your advice. At least I'm grateful that you don't join my opponents one-sided. You never showed any hate against me.

    I'm very disappointed that my serious arguments have not caused better results. I have overrated the ability of Limpinhitter, Dan etc. to deal with my serious arguments and my Rosewall admiration seriously and in a human way.

    I'm especially disappointed that my opponents made mean lies, that they doubted and contradicted ALL my serious arguments (not some of them as it would be normal), that they belittled the great Ken Rosewall myriads of times and that they distorted clear English written words in the Buchholz article, in the Tennis Channel statement and even in the krosero mail about Bud's statement. Especially obnoxious was and is Phoenix' behaviour toward krosero.

    Some readers here will be happy that I will probably make a pause of quit posting at all in near future. Possibly I will not be forced to make a decision because one of my friendly opponents (who behave as true enemies) will report me...
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    No comment.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    I have already corrected me: I don't agree with NatF's post.
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, No explanation needed.
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, Rosewall did not rank himself.

    There is at least one person who respects Muscles more than you do: A certain BobbyOne: I rate him the GOAT...
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    treblings, Thank you. But I must confess I yet need some support from time to time from good-willing people. If I never would get any "like" or supporting post, I would leave that forum immediately (or would have left it long ago). I'm convinced that every human being needs acknowledgement by other people to survive this aggressive and inhuman world we live in...
     
    xFedal, krosero and treblings like this.
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    There is more than this which you don't understand, f.i. that it's obnoxious to call a fellow poster (one of the most serious to boot) a "lackey"...
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    krosero, I'm very disappointed by your post. You critisize ONLY me and NOT any of my opponents in this matter. Have you not realized that some posters here were aggressive against me BEFORE I ever had attacked them???????????? Thought you are a exact reader and thinking objectively!!!

    It's not about delusional or not delusional. It's about lies, obnoxious behaviour, attacks without reason, aggression, HATE, teasing, MOCKING, belittling a great player (a GOAT candidate), distorting my words, doubting that I am a friend of Rosewall and was a friend of Bud, that I wrote books, that I was called the Vienna Visionary, that Bud praised Rosewall without just echoing me, distorting the statements of Buchholz, Collins, of yourself!!!

    As I have told you in an e-mail I was disappointed that you gave a like just to a post where the poster distorted Bud's statement even though you had assured me that the version of my opponents about "You could make an argument..." is wrong and my version is right.

    Thought you are my friend.

    My fault was that I used to answer any stupid and hateful post, sometimes myself reacting aggressively and cynically.

    I will try to improve. The best way for me would be to write in other forums, maybe about politics, religion and classical music...

    It's telling that your post (a post yet to tell me what to do!!) is liked by one of my opponents...

    treblings' and even Flash's newest posts were more obliging and less rebuking than this your new post!

    It's a pity. But your post has one advantage (at least for you): Phoenix1983 will not call you my lackey anymore...

    EDIT: krosero, In the moment where my "fight" with my ENEMIES got to its most dramatic phase, in the time when I really speculate with my retirement and when four of my friendly enemies want that I got banned for the next and final time, I would have needed your support, not your one-sided attack against me (your criticism)!!!
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
  15. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    What do you think my opinion of Rosewall is?

    I don't agree with your suggestion that Bobby be encouraged to reserve his Rosewall lobbying for new members. There is nothing good that can come from it. Bobby's ridiculous premises eg: that Rosewall was #1 for 9 years, or that Rosewall won 25 majors implying that they were of equal prestige to Federer's 17 majors does a disservice to the tennis community as a whole, and should not, and cannot, go uncorrected by knowledgable posters.
     
    KG1965 and Phoenix1983 like this.
  16. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    715
  17. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,041
    Yes. I saw that and did not understand it.
    I have also never asked for anyone to be banned. I did make a comment about Bobby deserving a ban because of his responses. I wish I could take that back because I truly don't like people to be cut off that way. You are right. There is an ignore button for a reason.

    However, I will also point out that there are days when ignoring a poster is useless because there are replies to that user that can go on forever. In fact, my irritation was about the continuous back and forth between a few posters simply repeating the same talking points over and over again.

    And you are quite right. This sub-forum became as toxic or more toxic than any other sub-forum on this site.
    In fact, I totally skipped reading here for awhile, and I *am* interested in these discussions. It was more like an obsessive/compulsive section than a former players section. I started looking everywhere else to try to get more info.

    I am interested in research and facts, like you. ;)
     
    treblings and krosero like this.
  18. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,041
    For the record:

    http://www.franksedgman.com.au/

    "He took just five years to win 22 major titles in singles, doubles and mixed doubles, including Wimbledon and two American and two Australian championships, as well as proving virtually unbeatable in the Davis Cup."

    There is something similar in Wiki.

    Granted, a lot of those "majors" are in doubles, but it is not usual to throw in "professional majors" into the "major" count.

    So if you count up Rosewall's sum in a similar way, there are 15 "pro majors" to go with 4 amateur slams and 4 Open era slams.

    It is not unusual for people to stress the accomplishments of any player they are behind.

    I have not seen Bobby's claim that Rosewall won 25 slams or the equivlalent, nor have I seen his claim that Rosewall was #1 9 years. I don't agree with 9 years at #1, but adding up in the manner done for Sedgman comes to 23, if I did not add incorrectly.
     
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Limpin, I wrote about 25 majors. You even increased that number to 36 (Laver) and 40 (Rosewall). Talking about "disservice" and "knowledgable posters"...

    One of the reasons why I got furious was your impertinent lie (40 m.), another was that almost no other poster has damned you for your mean behaviour!!!!

    For your interest and that of your readers: I NEVER claimed that it's sure for me that Rosewall was No.1 for 9 years!!! Your next, about sixth lie...
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
    treblings and krosero like this.
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Gary, Thanks that you made a comment about BobbyOne deserving a ban. I'm aware you only wrote that because you love him and his posts.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Gary, Thanks.

    Rosewall has won 25 majors because I add his two very important WCT Finals.. Even most of my opponents rate them as majors. At least we can say that the Dallas Finals were rather majors than the 1972 AO was.
     
  22. George K

    George K New User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2015
    Messages:
    37
     
  23. George K

    George K New User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2015
    Messages:
    37
    A few points about the list: If you give a player a shared number one for a particular year, it should only count half. In short two shared number ones equals one not two. This applies most obviously to 1934-37.

    !931: Tilden was the number 2 amateur in 1930 before he turned pro. No reason to equate him with vines in 1931.

    1934 -37 See above note

    1937: Should be Vines/Budge. How do you figure Perry? He lost the '37 pro tour to Vines.

    1940, 1941: As in boxing, the defending world #1 remains so until dethroned. As Riggs lost to Budge in '42, no way Riggs can be considered as #1 anytime before 1943.

    1943 - 45: Don't know the exact numbers, so can't comment.

    1947: Just as Budge beat Vines and Perry in '39, making a good case for the #1 amateur (Budge) being world#1 in 1938, so Kramer beat Riggs on the '48 tour, making the same case for #1 amateur (Kramer) being world #1 in 1947. Can't have it both ways. I agree with Budge, '38 and suggest Kramer '47.

    Sedgeman: How do you figure Sedgeman as world #1 anytime? He lost to Kramer on the '53 tour. There are only two instances where the amateur champion beat the pro champion (Budge, Kramer) where the case can be made that they were world #1 as amateurs (Budge '38, Kramer '47). As to '58, I don't see it there either.

    1961: A retired Gonzales? How do you figure that?.

    1970: I don't think there's ever been a year where a player was considered #1 without winning a single major. Laver skipped the Australian (for good reason .... damned cheap AND contemptuous [of the pros in 1969] Aussies), skipped the French (like quite a few others), lost at Wimbledon, the US Open AND the 1970 Masters!

    Rosewall had the best record at the big ones winning the US Open and reaching the Wimbledon finals. In 1966, Stolle was ranked amateur #1 with less. He didn't reach the Wimbledon final. Rosewall in '70.

    1978: Size does matter! Destroying Connors at Wimbledon (the BIG one) matters a lot .... and then there's the two majors to one thing. Borg alone in '78!

    OFF TOPIC EDITORIAL: Watching McEnroe's touch volleys was a gift from Heaven. Listening to McEnroe's gamesmanship was a curse from Hell ....His opponents unanimously agree that Mac only had fits when he needed to cool off a hot opponent, NOT otherwise! Disgusting!. And what a whiny voice. I can hardly bear to listen to him speak on TV. Touch volleys not withstanding, can't stand him as a person! I'm breaking out in hives just mentioning his name!
     
    Flash O'Groove likes this.
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    George K, Some interesting remarks in your post.

    Please write "Sedgman". I agree regarding 1952.

    Pancho Gonzalez (or Gonzales) was nor retired in 1961. Only in 1962 and 1963.

    Laver was not allowed to play the 1970 AO and French Open (WCT contract). But I agree that it's strange to give him a lone No.1. I plead for a three-way: Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan Lobb, For the last time I will (this time clamly) try to explain you and the other "English native speakers" what Bud's sentence is saying: "Maybe it's not my, Bud's, choice to pick Rosewall No.1 but such a claim can generally be made without much contradiction from my side. I'm open-minded to such a claim, as I am also regarding a claim about Tilden, Gonzalez, Borg, Sampras and Federer. I'm ready to listen to serious arguments from other people who could be able to convince me that Rosewall or another of my GOAT candidates are equal with Laver or even better" THAT ALL was included in Bud's statement and phrase as it is a common idiomatic phrase in English speaking countries. Also in German we have about the same phrase: "Man könnte sagen, dass Rosewall der GOAT ist". That is: "Many people could say that, could claim that, could make a case, could make an argument that Rosewall is the GOAT and I (Bud) would not contradict significantly to it as the claim is within the area of reasonable arguments and opinions, even though I have personally another player as No.1. But I would disagree at any other great player one would mention, such as Doherty, Cochet, Lacoste, Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Sedgman, Hoad, Segura, Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Safin, Courier, Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic". Maybe if Bud would live today he would add Novak to his GOAT candidate as many experts do.

    CASE CLOSED for me.

    If krosero would contradict me, I would ask for a ticket for a rocket to get to the moon where there are not troubles with hateful posters and with native English speakers whom an Austrian must help to understand clear English words such as those in the Buchholz article and in Bud Collins' official statement...

    I'm especially self-confident in this matter as my good friend, Bud, has once assured me that my choice of Rosewall the GOAT is REASONABLE because of his longevity (which is a main parameter just as peak play!!, as I add) and the Dallas Finals.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
    treblings likes this.
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NonP, Anger and even reasonable hate are important expressions of human soul. If you never feel anger about or hate against crime, unreasonable hate and injustice you cannot feel also love and satisfaction. Always trying to be nice with anyone, even with your enemies or with people who insult your friends, is a bad thing for you and the world (and even for your enemies). For instance I hate religions that bring much terror over the world. Note: I'm not 12 years old. I do know what and how I write.

    EDIT: You err: I don't live in a posh community in Vienna. I live in a worker's district.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NonP, Laver did not have a better year than Rosewall in 1964 as he lost the by far most important parameter of the year: the world pro championships. He was best in several other categories, thus it's fair to give both a No.1 place as I plead for since decades.
     
  28. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    I think you are out of line here. Do you not recall that in the beginning pc1 was reluctant to even disclose the name of the inverviewee altogether. Did you not understand that he may have had good reasons for that, and was it not fairly obvious what those reasons were? Does it not occur to you that for the same reasons he may not have wanted to discuss details about it, not that details were even necessary? Does it further not occur to you that there are good reasons why pc1's proffer was more readily and kindly accepted than Bobby's? How about these: 1) perhaps, unlike Bobby's proffer, pc1's proffer was not susceptible of more than one interpretation, and 2) perhaps, for obvious reasons, pc1 has more credibility than Bobby, which is no fault of pc1.
     
  29. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,558
    Has it not occurred to you that you and Dan may both be right (in part)? When I say you (meaning somebody) could make an argument for your boy as the GOAT I'm not necessarily agreeing with it, but I do see why one would think that way. (Yes, I do say your darling is a GOAT candidate, even though you as usual took offense at that tongue-in-cheek comment of mine by taking it literally and I personally wouldn't have him in my own top 10.) Dan is emphasizing the former half of this interpretation while you're pushing for the latter, for obvious reasons. The fact that you two are all but ignoring the other half says a lot about your respective agenda.

    As I told you earlier Dan is in some ways even more stubborn than you are (I've yet to see him admit to having made an error in anything) and he's not going to let you win here. It's well past time for you to drop it.

    I never said you should try to be nice with everybody all the time. Sometimes letting somebody have it is necessary, just like I sometimes do with you. :D Also you're talking about anger and hate with regard to particular things and issues, not fellow human beings. Even as a dyed-in-the-wool misanthrope myself I try to treat every individual equally well. I say that's a pretty important distinction, or two.

    I stand corrected. But my overall point stands, unless you think your background is in any way comparable to the African-American experience in the pre-civil rights era (I sure hope not).

    In your opinion. Again I along with many others don't agree with it, though I can see why you and others would think that way. FYI I also don't think the Laverites have a strong case regarding '71 and @70sHollywood has already spelled out several reasons why, but you don't see anyone getting on his case about that, do you? Why do you think that is? If you don't see how that's a rhetorical question you need to think harder.
     
  30. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,771
    Krosero,

    you mentioned in your post that you found a full quote from Rod Laver after his win in Wembley in 1964, where he also talks about the point system.
    I didn´t notice that sentence at first, because i thought it was the quote where Laver said that he is still behind Rosewall.
    But it now seems to me that you´ve found more.

    Do you mind posting it?
     
    krosero likes this.
  31. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,041
    I would agree 100% with that German. ;)

    This was exactly what I was saying myself. Both "one" and "you" are used in the same sense in English.

    "One/you could say that Rosewall is the GOAT."

    The meaning to me is that such a statement is not unreasonable and has merit.
     
    krosero and treblings like this.
  32. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,041
    I would also like to see that...
     
    krosero and treblings like this.
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,977
    Don't worry about Bobby's epithets...they are not real.
     
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,977
    Bobby, puffery is not respect...two different things.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Limpin, You err. The 2016 interview did not bring a clear statement as the question was wrong as krosero has shown in his post. The interviewer used the same wrong term as you use, i. e the "130 day tour". As I have explained it to you (but you don't accept abything I ever have written) the 130 day tour was NOT the whole tour and therefore NOT the world championship.

    Of all posters you have the least credibility.
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NonP, Thanks for your trying to stay serious (unlike to a few other posters, my famous "enemies").

    Dan has the opposite interpretation than mine. I don't want to discuss this issue anymore. I have explained my point of view very detailed yesterday.

    It does not honour you that you don't have Rosewall in your top ten. Even most of my opponents have him in their top 10.

    You are right regarding Dan's stubborness. You are the first one (besides of me) who stated that "officially".

    I would not treat Hitler the same way I would treat Mother Teresa.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    treblings, I think that Laver's statement directly after Wembley has not too much weight because the tour went on after Wembley. Laver's words had even more weight in Rosewall's favour that he spoke in 1965.
     
    treblings likes this.
  38. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,655
    True enough.

    If Hitler agreed with you that Rosewall as GOAT, and Mother Teresa was a staunch opponent of that stance, you would no doubt praise Hitler as "a good guy" and castigate Mother Teresa as an "enemy" and "ignoramus".
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Gary, That's what I wrote since days and even earlier. Dan is wrong with his version.
     
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Phoenix, I must laugh when reading your post. You are the best proof for my thesis that hate (just as love, religion and ideology) can cause softening of the brain. You are unique! I just love you!
     
  41. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,771
    i understand.
    krosero mentioned that Laver talked about the point system they had in 1964.
    i was interested to learn what Laver had to say about that.
     
    krosero likes this.
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    treblings, I understand. Yes, it would be interesting if Laver has confirmed Buchholz's explanation of the point system. I'm sure he has.
     
    krosero likes this.
  43. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,977
    Bobby, you thought that NatF's post was great until you realized that I agreed with it....some logic.
     
  44. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,616
    When reading some of the posts above (to read all the crap here would be intellectual torture), i must say, this subforum is turning into a therapy session. If someone likes this, okay, i don't, i find it terrible, ridiculous and embarrassing. Only thing that i have to say, how some can find pc1's clear statement about the Buchholz article doubtful, is beyond me.
     
  45. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Can someone give me a clear argument for why the point system should actually mean anything in hindsight - beyond respecting the conventions of the time.

    We have Laver winning 2/3 of the very biggest events, yet these would count as exactly the same as the smallest events in the tour. For me that devalues it as a system immensely. IIRC on the tour Rosewall won 7 of the biggest events compared to 6 for Laver? If that is the case then surely the fact that 2 of Laver's 6 are fabled Pro Majors should surely at least somewhat balance the extra event Rosewall won. The fact that Laver leads in other important metrics like tournaments won, win/loss record and head to head meetings is surely enough of a tiebreaker.

    Again this is in hindsight, the fact that Rosewall was the apparant official #1 has limited weight with me. Just like it does with Connors in 1977.
     
    Phoenix1983 and Dan Lobb like this.
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,977
    Part of Laver's hth edge over Rosewall for 1964 includes events earlier in the season, such as the New Zealand tour, where Laver held a 3 to 1 edge over Rosewall. This was before the "points" tournaments began.
     
    Limpinhitter and NatF like this.
  47. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Thanks for the info. Does anyone have their h2h in the points tour? That would be interesting.
     
  48. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,655
    ..in other words, I was right.
     
  49. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,771
    NatF,
    i asked about the Laver quote and what he had to say about the point system because i am truly interested in what Laver had to say.
    i am, as obviously you are too, quite convinced that Rosewall was apparently the official no 1 for 1964.

    if you come to the conclusion, that Laver should nevertheless be ranked no. 1 because of his achievements, that´s your privilege
     
  50. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    For a second I thought you said you had asked Laver about the points system :D

    Indeed, I think logically Laver was the best player in 1964. I would debate this with someone to a certain point but I also don't think it's completely unreasonable to stick with the official ranking. Just FYI I would also retroactively look at all tennis years in this sort of manner no matter the system in place.
     
    Dan Lobb and treblings like this.

Share This Page