WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Limpin, You are a genius. I can't cope with your detective abilities: I never read any of krosero's many posts where I found any bias, neither a pro nor an anti bias.
    May I give you a friendly advice? Please abstain from such insults against serious and calm posters. I rather understand that you want to insult me as I am this who attacks you often for your bad behaviour. krosero was always noble enough to avoid attacks against you (I sometimes blame him a bit for his noblesse toward anyone...). With your unreasonable attacks even against krosero you will probably lose most of your friends!
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2016 at 7:14 PM
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Mrs. Limpinhitter (or Mr. Limpinhitter), I guess the number 130 has been burnt into your brain which might the reason that you always invent stories about a "130 day magical mystery tour" even though there WAS NO 130 day tour as the deciding tour for 1964!!

    You want to have krosero serious and non-biased but you are totally biased without any reason yourself. It's really disgusting, and I guess there ar many posters and readers here who also dislike your childish behaviour.

    Yes, we must correct you as you have missed quite a lot: Firstly the long Buchholz article with the official 1964 rankings and the term "Rosewall the unquestionable No.1 player", secondly all those many quotings and official rankings found and provided by a very serious poster.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    krosero, Many thanks for that report. Peter Wilson has watched almost all Wimbledon finals since 1929 including the maybe greatest (till at least 1971) of Crawford and Vines, so his word has some weight. I believe that that Wembley final was one of the few Laver/Rosewall encounters valued by Laver (and probably also Rosewall) as better than their 1972 Dallas match. I think the others were their 1963 French Pro final, the 1966 US Pro final (their best according to Bud Collins) and the 1967 Wembley final. Altogether five extremely good finals of tennis history.

    That Wembley final was so close (Rosewall leading two sets to one, winning the only clear set and so on) that I would say that both players were equal good, just as they were in the 1972 WCT Finals with reverse result. In both matches it's bold to say that one player was better than the other...

    It will be interesting if Limpin now will blame you as a man with a pro Laver bias because you have brought Rod's great win...
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Phoenix, Laver IS universally admired. The problem is that another player who is about in the same category is sometimes belittled by Limpin, you and maybe a few others...
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    ...and Limpinhitter has a non-subtle bias pro Laver and a non-subtle bias anti Rosewall and an attitude of senseless hate against serious posters...

    Re krosero: because of his pro-Rosewall bias he has provided us with the glorious Laver win at Wembley...Bad boy krosero :-(((
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2016 at 7:16 PM
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Bobby, it looks like there was not an agreement or negotiations here...Rosewall declared the tour over WITH NO FANFARE...picked up his marbles, and went home...Laver and the others played on, and Laver at some point claimed to have surpassed Rosewall BEFORE 1965 came around....
     
    Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    No, it was "O Holy Night", the English translation of Adam's noel carol...with the climactic high G (below high C) for the tenor lead, which I was fortunate to sting on pitch...great feeling, and I got a strong response of applause...a unique experience for me. My wife and I had taken singing lessons from an opera singer.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  8. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,041
    So do I, but that's the way the world works. ;)
     
  9. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,041
    That was a short, unusual period when players were able to win two slams in the same year on clay. ;)
     
  10. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,655
    I think Rosewall is admired as well, but he's not generally thought of as the GOAT. That's the main difference.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  11. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I always defer to Becker that year as the ATP did when they awarded him the player of the year award. I'm glad I'm thought provoking at least :p

    2003 is an interesting year, I've thought about bringing it up for. Federer has a good case for 2003, he was probably the best player that year after his incredible YEC performance - beating all his #1 challengers during the tournament. Federer had the best win/loss, most titles and best record against the top players. But Roddick had the better record in the majors, Ferrero actually had the best record in the majors but had the weakest win/loss, number of titles etc...Roddick is somewhere between the 2 of them. I tend to defer to the ranking because Roddick is one of my favourites and I think he deserves the nod but if someone thought Federer was really #1 I wouldn't argue too strongly, Federer confirmed it at the AO the next year anyway.

    Agreed on your last paragraph.

    It is of course possible for two players to have the same number of points but it's unlikely that they would have the exact same results. There will always be something to differentiate them. Even mathematically across such an expansive tour having the exact same points will be extremely improbable. Hypotheticals don't matter to me so much.
     
    eldanger25 and Phoenix1983 like this.
  12. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    Looking at the whole picture objectively, Laver probably passed Rosewall before Rosewall went home early in 1964.
     
  13. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,771
    there is no reason to believe that the rankings that Butch Buchholz gave in his excellent article were incomplete or based on opinion rather that facts.
    i choose to believe him
    what we have is several sources like World Tennis for example who published rankings that had Ken Rosewall as no. 1 for 1964
    what we don´t have are official or unofficial rankings that had Rod Laver as no. 1 for 1964, or am i missing something?;)

    btw, what is that "magical mystery tour" that you are talking about? could you provide us with more information?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2016 at 11:51 AM
    krosero likes this.
  14. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    It appears that you are being intentionally obtuse and evasive. Germane to this thread, all we really have is a year in which Laver lead Rosewall in every single material respect:

    - Laver lead Rosewall in total titles 11-10,
    - Laver lead Rosewall in pro major titles 2-1,
    - Laver lead Rosewall in total matches won 81 to 69,
    - Laver lead Rosewall in winning percentage 75% (81-27) to 70% (69-30),
    - Laver lead Rosewall in H2H matches by a dominating 15-4.

    What we don't have is a competent official, unofficial or opinion ranking that Rosewall was #1 for 1964. You are pretending not to understand that Buchholz article referred only to the 130 day magical mystery tour, not the entire 365 days of 1964.

    Once again, treblings, you said: "i [sic] am, as obviously you are too, quite convinced that Rosewall was apparently the official no 1 for 1964." [Emphasis added]. So, if you are "quite convinced" that Rosewall was the "official" #1 for 1964, please produce evidence of the official ranking for the entire year of 1964, now.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2016 at 12:35 PM
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Treb, it looks like the parameters of that 1964 points tour were rather arbitrary, and excluded some very important results.
     
  16. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Here is the foremost recording of Adolphe Adam's "Cantique de Noel", recorded in 1959 by Toscanini's favourite tenor, Jussi Bjorling.
    I doubt that I matched this level.



    Adam also composed the famous ballet, "Giselle".
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, Your opinions are totally absurd. Buchholz has described all tournaments that constituted the world championship. He did not refer to the November events ( a few 4 man tournaments and tour matches) because they did not count to the tour. He also did not mention all events prior to the tour (Australia and New Zealand) for ther same reason. It's really a scandal that a cultured man like you is not able or willing to accept historical facts and to read a clear article properly!!

    Note, strange guy: Ken Rosewall never was a dictator who could decide important things about the 8 participants without negotiating with them and IPTPA. Sedgman was its president, as krosero has uncovered, and would not have allowed Muscles to make nasty things.

    It's not right that "the others" played on. Hoad and Ayala did not.

    Laver did not "claim at some point". He only claimed it 50 years later. As late as mid-1965 he claimed that Rosewall was the No.1 player!
     
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, You should have stayed to singing instead of posting absurd things in a tennis forum.
     
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Phoenix1983, Rosewall is admired by you, especially when dying soon...
     
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NatF, For several years (pretty many of them) it's virtually impossible to value which achievement is greater, that of one player or that of another player. Take 1959: Some can plead for Gonzalez because he won the world series plus US Pro, some others (Dan included) can plead for Hoad because he won the important tournament tour plus edged out Pancho on their hth series. It would be unfair to decide for only one of them. Here a tied No.1 is justified and the best solution.

    We also had the division between amateurs and pros. Can you say to 100% if Emerson was greater in 1964 or Gimeno???
     
    treblings and krosero like this.
  21. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Across tours is a completely separate discussion. I care less when it comes to ranks below #1, but it is important to have a sole #1 place.

    And I disagree about it being virtually impossible. I don't share your indecision ;) :D
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Limpin, You are going even further than the current Laver goes. Rod said in his new book that he surpassed Rosewall only in November, i.e. AFTER Rosewall quit his activity. Of course you are not biased pro Laver...

    Rosewall did not go home EARLY in 1964. In fact he went home on November 1st, a few weeks before Laver & Co. finished their activity.

    In your imagination Laver passed Rosewall probably already on January 1st...
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    treblings, Good question. But I fear we will never get a satisfying answer...
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Limpin, You forgot ONE important category: Rosewall's win of the world championship tour.

    treblings probably does not want to be a parrot to krosero. The latter has brought all those MANY quotings and rankings for 1964 and there is no need to repeat them. You have read them.

    It's your next lie that Buchholz referred only to a 130 man tour. In fact he describes also those tournaments that came BEFORE the 130 man tour,i.e. the US tour beginning with College Park (May 19). The 130 man tour only began in July.

    This shows your readers that you cannot read properly a clear English written article.

    Limpin, We now know that you are aware of a fine song from the Beatles. But why do you bore us always again with that m. m. tour??
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016 at 8:28 AM
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Which ones???
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, Thanks for the video. I only heard the half of it because I don't like kitsch. Silent night and White Christmas are much better.

    Adam was a second-class composer. Saint-Saens was much greater. I don't know any fine work from Adam but very many from Saint-Saens.

    I rate Toscanini as a second-class conductor (too fast interpretation).

    Björling seems to have had a great voice.
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NatF, Why across tours a separate discussion? Don't understand.

    Your fixation to No.1 place is not logical. Mathematic rules are not limited to only No.1 places. My thesis is valid for any position from 1 to 1000 (or how many players ever are compared). I don't believe that there are 999 borders between all 1000 players. Often it will occur that two or ven more players are equal in their achievements.

    The same is right at all-time comparisons: It's very difficult or impossible to say if Budge or Kramer is greater, Nüsslein or von Cramm, yes, Laver or Rosewall, and so on.

    It's also difficult to decide if Wilander or Lendl is greater as a claycourter.
     
  28. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,827
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    It's separate because you can't directly compared results against the same field.

    I wouldn't give tied any places but the principle is that much more important when looking at the #1 - it is afterall the most important placing of the year.

    Lendl is greater - next :p
     
    Phoenix1983 and pc1 like this.
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NatF, Exactly that's why we cannot decide if Gonzalez or Hoad deserve the No.1 spot.
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Limpin, You still have not realized how the old pro scene worked. The winner of the world championship was the acknowledged No.1 player for the whole year, equally if that tour lastened three months or more than five months as in 1964, and equally if we now value the system justified or not.

    Would have thought you have known that Gonzalez was acknowledged world champion from 1954 to 1961 even though he sometimes did not play much more than the world series (in 1960 even nothing else). Do you also doubt Pancho's No.1 position or only the 1964 No.1 position of your object of hate????
     
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    They did not count on the points tour by Rosewall's discretion, who was the tour director and manager, and could make ad hoc decisions on the parameters of the tour.
    Buchholz and the other players were not aware that the points tour was a world championship...weird, eh?
    Rosewall did not have to consult Sedgman...show us evidence of that...Rosewall suggests that the other players chose to play on by their own choice...although, and this is strange, it would presumably have been Rosewall as tour manager who arranged these further events, and then decided to terminate the tour and not play further himself....ooooohh..........
     
  32. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Hey, both are fun...if you get a chance, join a singing group and sing to the seniors, it is enormously uplifting, you will never find a more appreciative audience.
     
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Not a ballet fan? Adam's "Giselle" is a standard.
    Funny, I don't see Bjorling or Pavarotti recording Saint-Saens or Irving Berlin.
     
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Kramer himself was adamant that Rosewall and Laver were not among the greatest players...too small?
     
  35. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    "Their activity"? This was not "their" activity...this was the remainder of the tour, presumably arranged by none other than Rosewall himself, the tour director.
    I don't see how Rosewall could walk away from the remaining events.
    It sounds like a sudden decision to terminate the tour.
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, They did not count? Are you crazy? You make senseless ad hoc statements...

    Buchholz and the other seven players DID BE AWARE that they played in a world championship. Your claims are weird.

    In your opinion Sedgman was a zombie prsident. It's really time to ignore your abstruse statements!!!
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, When I discuss I await that my partner has a certain minimum level of IQ!!!
     
  38. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    NatF, a fine post, just the kind that I think makes for a better debate. Let me try and answer your questions, and just bear with me if I get verbose, which is definitely a weakness of mine. But some of the issues are semi-technical and do require getting into the details.

    Yes in my Nov. 1 count I was including all tournaments played since Jan. 1, without reference to whether they gave out ranking points or anything else.

    McCauley counted all titles, too, in his introduction to his ’64 chapter: he gave 11 titles each to Rosewall and Laver. In the results section in the back of his book, there are only 10 wins for Rosewall in conventional tournaments, which is why the Trofeo Facis series has been suggested as Rosewall’s 11th title.

    It’s possible that McCauley just miscounted when he specified 11, but I tend to think not in this case. With Rod and Ken so close in total titles, and McCauley counting these titles as part of his discussion of who ended up as #1 for the year, I doubt that McCauley would have made anything less than a careful count.

    Anyway that’s only a matter of 1 title and it’s not a decisive issue. The point you made about the pro majors getting fewer points than they should have gotten is imo the strongest argument in your post; and that issue has been raised by others, namely on the Wikipedia page for world #1’s by year. Laver has a 2-1 edge in the majors, and if the majors had been given more points Laver would have closed some of the gap – but only some of it.

    There were 17 tournaments that were always regarded as forming the championship tour (or “points tour” if you like). If we take those and apply the point system that was described by Buchholz (7 points to the winner, 4 to the runner-up, 3 for third place, 2 for fourth, and 1 for each quarterfinalist), Rosewall finished the year with a 78-66 edge over Laver, a 12-point gap.

    We could give the winner of each major 19 points instead of 7, a twelve-point increase. But the runner-up also has to get more points in this scenario; so Rosewall as runner-up at Wembley would get, let’s say 12 points, instead of the 4 he actually got. So even increasing the pro majors from 7 points to 19 points in the winner’s column (which I think is too much of an increase for the pro majors), Laver only makes up 4 points, in the original 12-point gap; he’s still 8 points behind.

    If we imagine all matches for the entire year included in a point system, Laver can make up the gap. Now we’d be adding 4-man tournaments and all the one-night stands played throughout the year.

    As you said, in a system today all tennis events would count. But my biggest issue with making this modern-day criticism is that if there were matches or events back in ’64 (or any year) which did not give out ranking points, then they were less important to the players of that time, for that reason. We can say, today, that those matches should have been assigned weight; and we could try to assign them some weight retroactively; but if they didn’t carry that weight back then, it means that they were less important to the players, back then. A player could, in fact, skip those events/matches, without hurting his ranking – which is why I think this issue of Rosewall ending his season on October 31 is important.

    In fact Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman and Ayala all ended their season on Oct. 31, leaving only half the troupe still active: Laver, Buchholz, Gimeno and Olmedo. Those four men went to North Africa but it appears that Olmedo then went home, leaving only Rod, Butch and Andres playing the final weeks in France. Those three men stuck it out till the bitter end, I think very likely for the money. And Rod, unlike everyone else, was still a bachelor with absolutely no attachments (I have a funny news clipping about that), so it was no problem for him to go on playing as long as he wanted.

    (But I want to note, he may have been carrying a slight injury during that last month of play, in November. The BLT article I posted above, from January ’65, said that he was coming back from a back injury. And if he was playing injured in November, I wonder if that was a factor in the two-day stand in Saudi Arabia that I found recently. He lost both of his matches there, and I thought for him to lose on both days seemed a little un-Laver like.)

    Like you said, Rosewall not playing in November shouldn’t be held against him and Laver playing in November should get some credit for what he did.

    But this is a bit of dilemma. One player ends up at the top of the points system (however it may have been constituted), winning precisely enough of the matches/events that offered points for him to end up at the top of the system. His troupe-mates tell him, “You can go home, you’ve clinched the tour regardless of anything else that happens this year; you’re world champion and that’s what we’re going to call you until next year when we try to take your title away.” The #2 player goes on to play further tennis in November, and we give him credit for it: but if this credit means that we now don’t call Rosewall world champion anymore, well then we are “holding it against him” for not playing in November.

    For me the fairest solution is to give them co-number one’s. I know you don’t go for co-number one’s on principle, but I’ve seen them used by historians I respect, and not just Bobby, but also for example Ray Bowers, in his great studies of the Budge/Vines/Perry years.

    But if you choose not to use co-number one’s and you go with Laver as sole number one for ’64, of course I have no problem with that.

    One thing I’d like to find out -- and I’ll post it if I find it – is what that Challenge Match on October 31 was all about, and what was the exact situation with the point standings as of that moment. All I have is the bare data of the South Africa tour (dates, scores, win/losses), with a few brief newspaper reports; but what I’m looking for is a South African newspaper with in-depth coverage. That’s the likeliest place to find out what the situation was when Rosewall decided to call it a season on Oct. 31. Was he safe because the November events didn’t offer ranking points? (I don’t think they did but that’s never been confirmed.) Or did they offer ranking points, but Rosewall was too far ahead for Laver to catch him? Did the Challenge Match on Oct. 31 offer any ranking points? Etc.
     
    eldanger25, NatF and treblings like this.
  39. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    Dan, there's no evidence at all that Rosewall, or anyone else, could suddenly end a tour in the manner you're suggesting. Rosewall, Hoad and Ayala all chose to go home directly from South Africa on October 31. They all made that personal decision, undoubtedly because they all had families at home; but I find it hard to believe that they did so at the last-minute. If those men, and particularly Hoad with his star power, were scheduled to play in November but suddenly dropped out, it would have caused all manner of havoc for the pros and their entire operation.

    I can't recall if I posted it, but back in '59 when Gonzalez suddenly decided not to play the European tour, Kramer told the LA Times just how much havoc that sudden decision had caused. He had to reshuffle draws and such, but far more importantly he was breaking commitments with local tournaments who had expected to see Pancho. Kramer had to renegotiate with many of these tournaments, and even when he "patched" everything up, the damage had been done to the Kramer pros' reputation among local promoters. And of course Gonzalez earned himself a lot of hostility among his fellow pros because his absence hurt the box-office and therefore hurt them all.

    No doubt Gonzalez had it in for Kramer; and that was not the only time he seemed to take a decision at least partly motivated by his feud with Kramer.

    If Hoad and Rosewall had been expected to be seen by fans in November 1964, but they suddenly dropped out, they would quickly have alienated the rest of the troupe. But there is no sign of such a thing in the Buchholz article, where Hoad is spoken of positively and Ken is praised for all the work that he does for the group.

    There was another article in World Tennis in early '65. It was written by Mal Anderson, who noted explicitly that Pancho was still a bit of a lone wolf who wouldn't go out of his way to do anything for the pro troupe that the other players were doing (like press interviews, to generate publicity). He wrote:

    Pancho is basically not a “Pro Tour” man; he is an individualist. The Pro Tour comes first with Rod and Muscles simply because any lack of effort on their part will mean disaster for the professionals.​

    Anderson also noted:

    What Ken likes best is to be at home with his wife and kids. He has a beautiful home, a beautiful car and he does everything for his family. But last year he didn’t get to see his kids for eight months and the previous year he didn’t get to see them for ten months. He deliberately sacrifices his home life to keep the tour going. He can’t get himself to say “No” to the group. That’s one of the reasons why I have a very soft spot for Ken.​

    It's far more likely that Rosewall, Hoad and Ayala simply went home on Oct. 31 as scheduled, and that some other players continued to the Middle East and France, as scheduled.

    (If Ken had decided, for whatever reason, that he wanted or needed to play in November, he could then easily have added himself to the schedule with minor fuss; and of course the troupe would have been happy to have him.)

    In McCauley's book, four players have no more activity after Oct. 31: Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman and Ayala. That left Laver, Gimeno, Buchholz and Olmedo, who took off for North Africa and the Middle East. But it appears that Olmedo then went home too, because there is no record of him playing the final matches in France.

    Laver, as noted by Buchholz, was the only bachelor in the troupe; so he had no reason not to keep going until there was nothing left to play. Gimeno stuck it out in France but that's right next door to Spain, where he lived. Buchholz continued right to the end but maybe you recall that in his article he made a point of discussing why a player like him would stay away from home for a period as long as 130 days -- by which he meant the overseas portion, from mid-July to the very end of November. As an American that portion of the tour took him away from his home and family. The first reason he gives for doing this portion of the tour -- for staying right through the end -- is the money that was available to be made. He also notes that doing so can help a player improve and become #1 one day.

    I do have questions about what the exact point standings were on October 31 when Rosewall -- along with Hoad, Sedgman and Ayala -- went home. But beyond that there's no reason to presume anything unusual about what they were doing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2016 at 9:30 PM
    treblings likes this.
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Buchholz has apparently clarified that point, and stated that this was not a world championship as far as he knew, and by extension, the other players knew.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  41. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    And yet we have this curious controversy, with Laver claiming to surpass Rosewall after Rosewall left the tour...Hoad was only a part-time player at this point and not a significant player.
    Ayala and Sedgman were also marginal to the tour at this stage. Gonzales also part-time.
    The main players were Rosewall Laver, Gimeno, Buchholz.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  42. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,771
    Dan, there is no reason to believe that.
     
  43. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,771
    There is really no need to repeat all the data that krosero has produced.
    I obviously understand the clear Buchholz article better than you. again, where does he mention anything about a magical mystery tour?
    what we don´t have are any rankings of that year(official, unofficial,...) that show Rod Laver as no. 1

    the stats that you repeatedly post show how strong Laver already was in 1964.
    imo, these stats are proof for the fact that the pros valued some events more than others.
    obviously the tour results with it´s point system where considered deciding.
     
    krosero likes this.
  44. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,771
    it´s not my ambition in this forum to convince posters who don´t want to be convinced.
    therefore i don´t need satisfying answers:)
    which is fortunate, because i agree with you, we won´t get them
     
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Dan, Perhaps you can write Rosewall a letter where you blame him for leaving the tour too early.
     
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Treb, there is good reason to believe that.
     
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Bobby, there is no "blame" for anyone, do not get carried away again...the tour director could make these decisions within his normal range of duty.
    But do you not think that it is strange that the post-points tour events, apparently arranged by Rosewall, should be without Rosewall, but include the three other major pro tennis players?
    It has the appearance of a change of plans.
    Also, this would account for the absence of any points tour presentation ceremony, trophy, or prize money...it looks like it didn't quite come off.
     
  48. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    Krosero, when you use quotation marks, you are representing that you have quoted someone else's words exactly as they were stated or written. Further, it is a convention of serious researchers to cite the sources of his/her quotations. Please cite the source of your quote below indicated by the internal quotation marks:

    "His [Rosewall's} troupe-mates tell him, 'You can go home, you’ve clinched the tour regardless of anything else that happens this year; you’re world champion and that’s what we’re going to call you until next year when we try to take your title away. . . .'" - krosero

    PS: I also find it odd that you and your friend, Bobby, continuously refer to the 130 tour as a World championship tour after pc1 established, by and through one of the players on that tour, that there was no world championship tour in 1964.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016 at 11:07 AM
  49. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    krosero produced none of that data. I obtained some of it independently and some of it from urban who posted it in response to false statements by the Rosewall campaign.

    There is a very good reason to repeat it. The stats for 1964 objectively and conclusively show that Laver was the #1 player for the year 1964.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016 at 9:20 AM
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,979
    Krosero, it may have been impossible to air any differences between Rosewall and Laver over scheduling and tour parameters, for exactly the reasons you mention above.
    The pros in the mid-1960's, probably earned far less money than in the late fifties, the amateur circuit was booming, Emerson was apparently earning more than Rosewall and Laver put together, a serious embarrassment for the "pros". They could not allow any disagreements over scheduling to interfere with progress.
    That does not mean that everything was smooth sailing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016 at 5:08 PM

Share This Page