WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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

  1. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Unfortunately no. It may have been one of those days I just forgot about watching the match. Just my luck that it was a great match. :(
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2009
  2. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Couldn't tell you.
     
  3. Harry_Wild

    Harry_Wild Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,198
    Poncho Gonzales is their with the greats. I use to have a Poncho Gonzales Spaliding Tennis Racket. It was red and the thead was natural. I just did not know he was so accomplished. It looks like he is close to Laver based on the chart by year.
     
  4. Q&M son

    Q&M son Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    925
    Location:
    Trenque Lauquen, BA, Argentina.
    Great post, simply as that
     
  5. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Gonzalez is clearly one of the all time greats. The number of years he was number one is subject to debate but he was number one for many years. For example in 1960 Gonzalez won a World Championship Tour over Ken Rosewall, Pancho Segura and Alex Olmedo by an astounding score of 49 wins and only 8 losses. Rosewall was 32-25, Segura 22-28 and Olmedo 11-44. I would guess there were some substitutions on occasion to account for the won lost records not totaling an even .500 record. Still Gonzalez was clearly dominant on this tour but Rosewall won two majors and more overall tournaments. Some call Rosewall number one for that year despite the fact Gonzalez won the tour by an overwhelming margin. People close to Gonzalez have said that Gonzalez thought the tour was the most important and once he won that to establish he was World Champion, the rest of the year didn't matter. It's tough you can rank Gonzalez or Rosewall number one for that year. It's very debatable.

    How do the people in this forum rank the year 1960?
     
  6. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    PC, I think you are quite correct: Gonzales is one of the greatest. His eight years as world no. 1 (IMO) rank him in the top-five of GOATS.

    Tough call on 1960. I have both Rosewall and Pancho co-ranked as no. 1s. (I'm waiting for wiser historians to duke it out verbally with countering opinions.)
     
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Hoodjem,

    I always found 1960 to be a very tough year to rank. Gonzalez clearly dominated the tour yet he didn't play the next part of the year I believe so how can you rank a person number one who didn't play the full year. That being said it was a different time and you can't necessarily judge by today's standards.

    Rosewall won two majors plus other tournaments. Does that put him ahead of Gonzalez?

    The awesome winning percentage of that tour against great players won by Gonzalez is immensely impressive. The man won about 86% of the matches against all time greats. That's just incredible. Rosewall was at his peak or at worst close to it and yet he was destroyed.

    Yet I don't know the surfaces that they played on. Gonzalez was the best in the world on indoor canvas and it's a possibility that they played most of the matches on indoor canvas or at worst on an indoor court which Gonzalez was great on also. Come to think of it, Gonzalez was great on every surface but he was especially strong indoors.

    We also don't know the physical status of the players. Was Rosewall hurt? Was Segura and Olmedo healthy?

    It may have been different if they played on clay or some slower surfaces. I would think Rosewall would win the tour if the majority was played on clay.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Hoodjem,

    I decided to quote these two posts from another thread because I think it fits very well here.

     
  9. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,380
    In the old pro days, it was like boxing: You had to knock out the defending champion, means: beat him in a long head to head series, to be crowned champion. Often players were seen as champions by their peers, although the didn't have the best record for the year. In 1952, most people at the time still ranked Kramer top dog, although he set out almost the whole year (like Dempsey in the twenties). Sedgman with his great amateur record has a good claim for 1952, because the pro tour was really struggling. In 1960 maybe Gonzalez by a whisker, because he didn't enter the late year pro majors, while in 1961 he got beaten there.
     
  10. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I've read that the "head to head" matchups (where they would play about 100 matches total during a year against each other) with folks like Trabert and Kramer occurred during the 1950's, am I right?

    Folks, I'm asking: weren't those primarily played indoors on a fast surface (carpet?) or other hard surfaces?

    If so, that would have definitely helped as far as matchups with folks like Hoad, Rosewall, and Trabert. When he faced off against Kramer, he was just a "rookie", while Kramer was a seasoned veteran, so he definitely got some great "tennis lessons" in the process.

    Having said that, I tend to agree that PG was an incredible and great player. Perhaps HE was the greatest serve and volleyer in the History of the Game? Mcenroe vs. Gonzales?

    There's a reason why so many know his name. What personality and flair to back up incredible talent!
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    That's why I tend to give less credence to the fact that people point out that because Jack Kramer crushed Pancho Gonzalez on tour 96 matches to 27 that Kramer deserves a higher place among the GOAT candidates than Gonzalez. Gonzalez was young, inexperienced against a veteran many years older.

    Gonzalez was a gifted player, tall about 6'3 and a half inches tall, very mobile, strong and with possibly the greatest serve in the history of tennis. It's like Agassi said about Sampras, Pete can play badly for 42 minutes, have one good minute and win the set. I think you could say the same about Gonzalez.

    I know Arthur Ashe in the late 1970's ranked Pancho Gonzalez's serve as the best he had ever seen.
     
  12. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    I've gone in there myself just now and change the spelling of Steve Flink's name (from Fink).

    Carlo, I don't remember where, but we were talking about how Lendl said he slowed down the pace of his play after learning it from certain players. I wasn't able to find the quote I'd remembered, but I found it by dumb luck tonight, reading about the (Jan.) 1986 Masters final with Becker:

     
  13. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    Most of the time the North American (and not US because I think (not certain) that Canada was always visited) tours were played
    on canvas (faster than XXth century grass) laid on wooden or even ice grounds (for instance you can watch photos of the Gonzales-Rosewall opener in the US at the MSG on Feb. 17, 1957 showing the ice rink beneath the canvas)
    or on wood (some wooden floors being themselves faster than canvas) for example at the 7th Regiment Armory in New York.
    Of course there were some "spring" stops on outdoor clay or cement courts but in winter most of the one-night stands were, for obvious reasons of weather, played indoors.

    For instance in the Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman-Budge (Earn-Riggs) tour in 1954, the event at Peeble Beach, California (February 22) was the (about) 28th 4-man tournament of the tour (most of these events were one-day tournaments played in pro sets; the best-of-three set tournaments with two 1st round meetings and a final round and a third place match were played on 2 successive days; the round-robin affair at Philadelphia lasted even 3 days, on January 5-7)
    and was the first held outdoors. For instance the previous one was held indoors on a fast surface at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles.
    For the little story here are the results :
    February 19-20, 1954
    Los Angeles, Olympic Auditorium, $10,000
    according to Budge : a fast indoor court (but I don't know if it was on canvas or wood)
    1R Budge d. Gonzales 86 64
    1R Segura d. Sedgman 97 97
    3rd place : Gonzales d. Sedgman 62 64
    F Segura (first prize $4,000) d. Budge d 63 57 75.
    Budge, near 39 years old, played at least 44 matches (and possibly more) in that tour from January 3 to March 25
    and his only tour win was that Gonzales's defeat at Los Angeles after 34 previous losses against the trio of Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman.
    Then Carl Earn replaced Budge in the 4-man tour until the World Pro Champs (US Pro) held at Cleveland, April 28-May 2, where Budge made a short tennis competition return beating there Riggs and Earn, before losing to Gonzales in the semis.
    Then the 4-man tour resumed for a month with this time Riggs replacing Earn.
    Riggs, 36 years old, lost his first 12 meetings then in his 13th tour match he beat Gonzales 8-6 (before losing 8-1 to Sedgman in the final) in Victoria (Canada, British Columbia) on May 20, 1954.

    The bad habit of playing indoor events on true hard surfaces has come in modern times and especially in 2009 when all the indoor events of the main circuit were held for the first time exclusively on those surfaces which hurt very strongly the players' articulations : there is no more indoor synthetic or carpet courts except in the Futures (and perhaps) Challenger tourneys.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
  14. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    Thank you for the precision and for correcting my original thought.
     
  15. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Thanks Carlo for that clarification and verification. I appreciate it. It's a wonder that those guys could play so fast and SO MANY matches head to head against strong rivals. That takes a lot of "mettle", because back then, they would try to win for $1 and pride alone (I'm being somewhat facetious)! Yes, it would be a different game on such fast surfaces. Players in the open/modern era would definitely have to make major adjustments if such indoor events existed.
     
  16. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    1952

    a tie between gonzales and sedgman is a good judgement. In 1953 sedgman after his great amateur 1952, turned pro and lost a close tour 54-41 against kramer. later in the year sedgman beat gonzales 3-0 in europan tournaments. in '52 gonzales had been the dominant pro with a 3-0 record against kramer and 5-2 against segura. therefore its not clear who was the best player in '52 given the results in '53.

    jeffrey
     
  17. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Was McEnroe world no. 1 for four years until 1985?

    1980—Borg(4)
    1981—McEnroe
    1982—Connors(3)
    1983—McEnroe/Wilander
    1984—McEnroe(3)
    1985—Lendl
     
  18. Tomaz Bellucci

    Tomaz Bellucci Rookie

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Sao Paulo, Brasil
    Clear, wise post!
     
  19. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Someone brought up Rosewall's lack of years of no. 1 dominance so I thought I might bump this thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
  20. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Really? That's insane. He was #1 arguably five years in a row from 1960 to 1964. Without a doubt 1961 to 1963.
     
  21. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    It was egn. I do think this view is at the very least a misapprehension of the facts, and at worst terribly unfair to Rosewall.
     
  22. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Rosewall and Gonzalez are both great players and GOAT candidates. A lot of Pancho's victories over Rosewall was on fast indoor canvas which favored the huge Gonzalez serve and volley game. It may have been different on some other surfaces. Rosewall clearly has a better record in Pro Majors and Regular Majors. I rank Rosewall clearly number one by far in 1962 and 1963 and I think he was number one in 1961. Many ranked Laver number one for 1964 but Rosewall was officially number one that year so you have to rank him number one. In 1960 Rosewall won the two Pro Majors he entered and did not enter the US Pro which Olmedo won over Tony Trabert so there is a great argument he was number one that year too.

    If you compare Rosewall and Gonzalez at their absolute best. Subjectively I find it hard to see who is better on various surfaces. Clearly Rosewall is better on clay but Gonzalez was a great clay player also. On a fast indoor surface you would favor Gonzalez but Rosewall was pretty good there also. On grass you would think it favors Gonzalez and his big serve but I'm not so sure of that. Grass would make Ken's serve more effective and his return and sliced backhand were made for grass. Overall I rank Rosewall higher than Gonzalez but it's tough.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  23. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Me too. I have it pretty close with Muscles at no. 2 and Ricardo Alonso at no. 4.

    (But watch out Fed is coming on strong this year.)
     
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    The final with Federer and Murray should be interesting. Murray doesn't seem to any major weaknesses and he moves really well.

    Hey, since Serena Williams won today we should see who the top females are year by year. Henin was clearly number one in 2007. In the 1980's it was usually Evert and Navratilova. In the 1970's it was Court, King, Evert, Goolagong and Navratilova and maybe Austin.

    Here's the Collins' Encyclopedia list of number one females since 1921.
    1921 to 1926-Lenglen
    1927 to 1933-Helen Wills
    1934-Dorothy Round
    1934-1936-Helen Wills
    1937-Anita Lizana
    1938-Helen Wills
    1939-Alice Marble
    Interruption by WWII
    1946-Pauline Betz-Jack Kramer considers her to be the best he has seen next to Helen Wills. As usual with Kramer, she was a good friend of his. He always seems to rank his friends as all time greats.
    1947-1950-Margaret Osborne DuPont
    1951-Doris Hart
    1952-1954-Maureen Connolly
    1955-Louise Brough
    1956-Shirley Fry
    1957-1958-Althea Gibson
    1959-1960-Maria Bueno
    1961-Angela Mortimer
    1962-1965-Margaret Smith (Court)
    1966-1968-Billie Jean King
    1969-1970-Margaret Court
    1971-1972-Billie Jean King
    1973-Margaret Court
    1974-Billie Jean King-This seems very odd to me because I think Chris Evert was number one with the French and Wimbledon.
    1975-1977-Chris Evert
    1978-1979-Martina Navratilova
    1980-1981-Chris Evert
    1982-1986-Martina Navratilova
    1987-1990-Steffi Graf
    1991-1992-Monica Seles
    1993-1996-Steffi Graf
    1997-Martina Hingis
    1998-Lindsay Davenport
    1999-2000-Martina Hingis
    2001-Lindsay Davenport
    2002-Serena Williams
    2003-Justine Henin
    2004-2005-Lindsay Davenport
    2006-2007-Justine Henin

    A lot of these rankings are odd because of the ATP computer. There is no way in some of these years that I consider Davenport better than the Williams, Henin or Clijsters for example but I guess she was officially number one.

    This list can be a great starting point for a Female GOAT list.
     
  25. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Do you mean the WTA computer? (But yes, this list seems quite odd. Maybe you could start a thread where we create our own female world no. 1 list, and then debate the assignations.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Some of it I guess was from the WTA computer. I think I will start a thread on it to debate the points.
     
  27. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    rosewall no1

    egn's record of rosewall is correct. Rosewall deserved only to share 1960 with gonzales.In '61 rosewall just sneaked out number one because of his win at the french pro over gonxales, but Gonzales won 6 events including the world series to Rosewall's 4 which included the 2 majors at london and paris. In '62 and '63 rosewall was truly dominant and easily number one. In '64 laver was number one clearly. He won 11 events to rosewall's 10, won 2 majors to rosewall's one, beat rosewall 15-4 in head to head matches,and had a superior win-loss percentage. rosewall topped a stupid ranking system which gave no extra points for majors and missed out at least 11 events. just as the atp ranking system of the 70s produced stupid results so did the 1964 ranking system. Nobody thinks connors was no1 from 74-78 (ashe was no1 in 75, borg/vilas in '77 and borg '78) but stupid atp ranking gave it to him. Dumb ranking systems should be consigned to oblivion and that's where the 1964 system and atp ranking system of the 70s belong.

    jeffrey
     
  28. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Jeffrey,

    I would love to see your opinions about the female number ones in my Woman's Number One thread.
     
  29. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I agree entirely. This why I have put Laver as world no. 1 in 1964, and see no valid reason to change. IMO, by all measures the Rocket edges out Muscles as the world's best tennis player in 1964.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2010
  30. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    I) The so-called importance of the supposed big events

    These so-called importances were pure fantasy among experts and players. Perhaps they gave that order of importance in interviews but they didn’t really meant it. It was possibly a wish but not the reality in particular for the Australian, the Italian, the German and the South African Opens and even for the French Open.

    In those years there were only 2 great undisputable events : Wimby clearly the greatest one and the USO which was certainly not far behind Wimbledon as you suggest.

    The French was clearly behind these two events and certainly not on a par with the USO as said above. I do not agree with Bud Collins who wrote in early 1976 in the USLTA Guide that a modern Slam would be “the WCT Finals - Wimbledon - the US Open - the Masters” but I do not completely disagree with this statement. He wanted to say that the French Slam and above all the Australian Slam couldn’t be compared with the British and American Opens and in particular that the Australian didn’t deserve at all, at the time, the label “Grand Slam tournament”. Besides his 4 “modern Slam” events Collins, in the USLTA Guides, listed his 4 other more important events in 1975-1976 (in no particular order) as follows : Roland Garros, the US Pro Indoor, the Italian Open, the US Pro. Once again I don’t wholly concur with his opinion but I agree in part.
    In the first decade of the Open era, the US Open had every year without any single exception a better field than the French Open which proved the real importance of the two events. This established fact lasted until 1978. The French Open got his first superb field only in 1979.
    There were several reasons that made the US Open more important than the French at the time :
    - The US had a longer tradition than the French : created years before (1881 versus 1891) and open to international players decades before (XIXth century against 1925)
    - The US had been played on grass, then the most important surface by far, for more than 9 decades, while the French was held on clay.
    - The US Champs had very much greater economic outlooks than the French,
    - The US event, and not Garros, was the last Slam tourney of the year with all the implications that it implies : a) the last occasion in the year for a player to win a major, b) often the event which names the #1 of the year, …

    You can note it by the fact that WTT dared to face RG but didn’t dare to face the US Open (and naturally Wimby the most prestigious event by the way). And in 1979 RG had for the first time a superb draw with all the top players because WTT began to decline.

    So in conclusion in 1975-1976 Wimby was undoubtedly the biggest event but certainly not far ahead of the US Open.
    And the latter had (and still has) great economic outlook which made it probably more important than RG.
     
  31. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    The Australian wasn’t certainly as important in the mid-70’s as the Masters or the WCT Finals. The AO was a very ordinary tournament with never more than 4 Top20 players each year from 1972 to 1982 that is for more than a decade.
    People at the time liked to talk about the Australian as a Slam event possibly as a tribute to the past great Australian players
    but in reality the AO wasn’t worth a damn. Laver and Emerson though native, neglected their own championship since 1972. Were there many U.S., British or French champions who skipped their own national slam event as great Australians did with their own championship ? You can tell me that Laver and Emerson were US residents then but I can retort you that many French champions live in foreign countries (mainly in Switzerland or in Florida as Grosjean) but they never miss Garros except when they are injured.
    So the Australian Champs were more or less popular but the events showed that in reality very few players attached importance to that tourney. This situation makes me think about famous artists who are popular enough because of their character or personality (humour, wit, intelligence, etc …) but not really because of their art. For instance John Lennon was very popular in the US in the 70’s however he didn’t sell many records in that country and had numerous commercial flops there.
    To come back to tennis the Australian Championship was an “attractive concept” in players’ and officials’ and public’s minds but no one except the Australian Federation tried to reinstate the Australian as a true major and in particular the players neglected the tournament and preferred to skip it in order to have a rest and celebrate Christmas and New Year’s Day.
    Had the Australian Federation not changed the dates and the location and worked hard to promote his tourney, the Australian Champs would be now perhaps (I recognize in extreme circumstances) a simple Futures tournament or even disappeared. So from 1972 to 1982 the Australian Open was in theory an important tournament but in reality a very ordinary tournament. Imagine that Edmondson, the 212th player in the ATP ranking, won the 1976 Australian where only 3 Top20 players entered (Rosewall, Roche and Newcombe).
    The lowest ranked player ever to have won a Open Wimby-US-RG Slam tournament is Kuerten (66th in the ATP ranking) at Garros 97, who not only beat 3 RG champions in that tourney (Muster, Kafelnikov and Bruguera) but also became a World #1 player in 2000
    whereas Edmondson beat only Rosewall and Newcombe in that 1976 Australian Open who were much less good players then than Muster & al were in 1997, and “Edo” just became a good player (Top20) in 1981-1982 but never a champion as Guga.
    In a true important major event the best ever Edmondson’s performance was his semi-final at Wimby 1982.

    The Italian was very likely more important than the Australian (and the South African and the German) in those times : just look at the draws. Nastase, Kodes, Orantes, Borg, Ramirez, Panatta, who all won the Italian, played many more times the Italian than the Australian (if I’m not wrong Nastase entered the AO in 1981, Orantes in 1968, Borg in 1974, Panatta in 1969, and Kodes and Ramirez never played it). And how many other great champions before this generation of Italian Champs aficionados never played or played only once the Australian ? The Renshaws, the Dohertys, William Larned, Malcolm Whitman, Maurice McLoughlin, Beals Wright, Bill Johnston, Bill Tilden, René Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Bobby Riggs, Jack Kramer, Ted Schroeder, Pancho Gonzales, Budge Patty, Manuel Santana, and others that I forget, while Brookes though a native, Ellsworth Vines, Jaroslav Drobny just came once.
    The German and the South African too were very overrated events.
    In a World Tennis magazine of the mid-50’s they listed the best performances of the top amateurs of the time considering what was the so-called great championships and selected the 4 Slam events plus the Italian, the German and the South African Champs.
    You could see in these lists that many many amateur players had never entered one or two or even the three amateur championships of Italy, Germany, and South Africa. I once again take Rosewall’s example : he never played the South African amateur and the German amateur and he entered only once the Italian amateur in 1953 (beaten in the semis by Drobny) so in 5 World amateur tours he played only once out of 15 ( = 5 * 3) occasions these events.
    Please don’t tell me they were great events, you could make me laugh.

    Here is what I wrote about the South African Champs in my post, http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3160594&postcount=315 :
    Just a detail about the South African Champs. Those one were very overrated, entitled as "The little Wimbledon" or the "Wimbledon of the Southern hemisphere" but before 1966 the entry were truly weak.
    For example :
    - in 1955 the best players who entered the SA amateur champs were Sturgess, (the old) Bromwich, Russell Seymour (the future winner) and George Worthington (seeded in that order)
    - 1956 : Sven Davidson (though seeded behind the home champion Sturgess), Sturgess, Torsten Johansson, Vermaak, Forbes
    - 1957 : Neale Fraser, Sturgess, Forbes
    - 1961 : Forbes, Vermaak, Robert Mark
    - 1962 : Robert Mark, Forbes, Pietrangeli, Merlo, Vermaak
    The least one can say is that it wasn’t impressive at all.
    Imagine that such great Australian players as Crawford, Bromwich (until 1954 included), Quist, Pails, Sedgman, McGregor, Rosewall or Hoad, though living in the Southern Hemisphere (and so having much less problem than Americans or Europeans to get to South Africa) never played the South African amateur Champs (Rosewall played only the open editions in 1971 and 1974 more than 20 years after his career’s start).

    The heydays of this event were between 1966 and 1974 (however with ups and downs). In 1966 Owen Williams became the tournament director and with 125,000 spectators took its attendance to second behind Wimbledon (250,000), well ahead of the US (30,000), the French (25,000) and the Australian (16,000) Championships (however these last numbers seem pretty low).
    In 1966 players such as Emerson, Stolle, Drysdale, Darmon, Graebner, Hewitt, Wilson, Diepraam entered the amateur event (however the Australian amateur champs that year had a slightly better field (Emerson, Ashe, Stolle, Graebner, Newcombe, Roche, Riessen, Bowrey, …).
    In this year at the South African Emerson beat Bob Hewitt 6-3 2-6 3-6 6-4 7-5 and Billie Jean Moffitt King overcame Margaret Smith 6-3 6-2. But even in 1969 (for the first South African open) the entry was really weaker than the Australian's though Laver in his autobiography considered that the South African should be ranked higher than the Australian.
    The WCT circuit dealt a serious blow to the South African event in 1972 (conflicting with the Dallas final), so they changed the date to late Nov in 1973, and managed to have Connors and Ashe for 2 years. After 1974 its importance dwindled rapidly.


    The German Champs had also weak fields though generally better than the South African’s.

    While the US Pro indoor at Philadelphia had always great fields from 1969 (the first open edition) to 1978 and even into the mid-1980’s (note : it became officially the US Pro Indoor in 1972, before it was the Philadelphia Open in 1969, the IPTA tournament in 1970-71).
    In particular there were superb fields in 1969, 1970, 1974 and from 1976 to 1978 when both Borg and Connors entered the event. These fields were so much greater than those of the Australian, Italian, German, South African fields in the same era that it is very bold to consider the last events as supposedly more important than the Philadelphia tourney then. In those years Philadelphia was truly considered as the first great event of the year and not the Australian even though the latter had a sort of “affective appeal” because of his official Slam status.
    Tradition (in this case Slam concept) is one thing but when fields are weak for several successive years that tradition doesn’t mean much in reality. This is why for instance I’m not sure at all that the WCT Finals were more important as the US Pro Indoor in 1976.
    Therefore I repeat :
    From 1975 to 1978 the two greatest events were by far Wimby and the USO with the former undoubtedly the 1st one and far behind them RG then fighting for the 4th place the Masters, the WCT Finals and the US Pro Indoor (in 1977 I even consider the Masters as more important than RG).
    I recall my own subjective list :
    1975 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, then far behind 3) Roland Garros Open, 4) the Masters ( 5) the WCT Finals-Dallas)
    1976 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, then far behind 3) Roland Garros Open, far behind 4) the U.S. Pro Indoor-Philadelphia (and perhaps the WCT Finals-Dallas)
    1977 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) the Masters, 4) Roland Garros Open ( 5) perhaps the U.S. Pro Indoor-Philadelphia and the WCT Finals-Dallas)
    1978 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) Roland Garros Open, 4) the U.S. Pro Indoor-Philadelphia
    So in these years the very best players couldn’t skip Wimby and Forest which were clearly the most important events by far whereas the other events were more or less fragile and had sometimes depleted fields and in reality their importance evolved more or less according to the quality of the present players. And in particular the Australian, the South African and the Germany Opens were more ordinary events than true great events in 1975-1976 (the German having possibly the better draws among these tourneys).
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010
  32. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    II) Hellberg’s point system

    I do not agree Hellberg’s point system at all (see a few posts above).
    First he grants as many points to a Wimby final and a US Open win : 3 in each case. I can’t agree, a US Open win is much more important than a simple Wimby final loss, there is no comparison at all because there is a huge difference and a US Open victory is almost as important as a Wimby win and above all much greater than a Wimby final loss : Connors has won the USO while Nastase has lost Wimby in 1976 and that makes a very great difference.
    In that logic Vilas wasn’t the co-No.1 but the single No.1 and Connors eventually the No.2 with his Slam finals at Wimby and Forest plus his wins at Dallas and MSG and Borg was only behind at the 3rd place.
    Once again if we consider Hellberg’s point system as very good then Connors was ahead of Borg in 1977 without any problem and even ahead of Vilas :
    1) Connors 1977 = 3 pts (Wimby final) + 2 pts (USO final) + 2 points (WCT win) + 2 points (Masters win) = 9 pts in Hellberg’s system
    2) Vilas 1977 = 3 pts (USO win) + 3 pts (RG win) + 1 pt (AO final) = 7 pts
    3) Borg 1977 = 4 pts (Wimby final) + 1 pt (Masters final) = 5 pts

    That point system ranking completely contradicts your own ranking Borgforever and even more this point system elaborated by Hellberg contradicts his own “affective” ranking because he seems, according to you, to rank Borg and Vilas co-No 1.. However I noticed recently that you don’t concur with his No. 1 choice for 1977.

    I guess you take into account Nastase’s win at the Masters 1975 because in my memory Borg slightly led Ilie in 1976 in H2H. Idem for Vilas’s single win from Borg at the same Masters 1975

    Wrong assertions of yours : though Connors had strong difficulties with these players between 1975 and 1977 he had his fair share of wins contrary to what you state. Connors was even with Orantes and Connors led Panatta during these years, 1975-1977. Besides these players never met Connors on grass where they would have almost no chance to win against Jimbo.
    This is another example of your biased opinion towards Borg whenever you compare him with others because you almost always underrate the latter. In conclusion Connors had a very much better H2H win-loss record than you suggest.
    Here are the 1975-1977 H2H between Connors and the two Mediterranean players :


    US 1975 : Orantes winner
    Las Vegas 1976 (challenge match) : Connors winner
    Pepsi Grand Slam (Boca Raton) : Connors winner (but I recognize a lucky Jimbo’s win because the final score was 67 62 55 15-40 ret’d)
    Indianapolis 1977 : Orantes winner
    US 1977 : Connors winner
    Masters 1977 (Jan 1978 ) : Connors winner.
    Therefore Orantes-Connors 1975-1977 H2H = 3-3 and not 3-0.

    Stockholm 1975 : Panatta winner
    Caracas (4-man invitational) 1976 : Connors winner (76 36 75)
    WCT Challenge Cup Las Vegas Dec. 1976 (and Apr.10, 1977) : Connors winner (76 63 on Dec. 4, 1976)
    Houston 1977 : Panatta winner
    WCT Finals 1977 : Connors winner
    Therefore Panatta-Connors 1975-1977 H2H = 2-3 and not 2-0.

    So
    has to be changed in
    …4. Panatta (B:4-2 C:2-0) …8-10. Orantes (B:2-0 C:1-0) with Connors beating Panatta 76 36 75 at Caracas in October 76 and 76 63 in the WCT Challenge Cup in Dec. 76 in Las Vegas AND Orantes in the challenge match in February still at Vegas. So Connors led both players together 3-0 in 1976 which changes from your original wrong perspective about Connors’s H2H record and especially when it is compared with Borg’s.

    So wrong as proved by the stats above and in particular in 1976 Jimbo never lost to both players, Panatta and Orantes, in 3 meetings.

    Nastase too was saved because both players were even, 1-all, in the decisive set so Connors wasn’t in such a bad position as you claim in your statement “saved by the weather” : Jimbo wasn’t led at all when the match was stopped.

    Elsewhere you seemed to state that Borg wasn’t at his best form at the USO (and this is probably right) because previously he had been away for a full month after his Wimby injury but in the quote just above you claim that Borg was playing his best at Boston which was held that year the week before the USO. This is not logic because it is very likely that Borg was in a better form at the USO than at the US Pro, thanks to his extra week of competition and training. So I don’t think as you that Borg was at his best at Boston.

    This is I who wrote this in Wiki in November 2006. Wiki is an encyclopedia and therefore you are supposed to be the most neutral possible. However I wanted to explain in that article that the ATP ranking at its debut wasn’t considered as the Bible as it is nowadays : in those times journalists’ opinions were more respected than the computer’s verdict. In particular in 1975 except Rino Tommasi and a minority of tennis followers no one put Connors at the 1st place. So this is what I explained in the article.
    Now if I express my own personal opinion I’m not so sure I would place Ashe #1 that year (and Becker in 1989) because the American had many downs in his 1975 record : Ashe has never been a versatile player and 1975 was no exception : that year also he played poorly on slow surfaces as demonstrated by his poor performance at the USO on har-tru clay.
    And as you said in your post Jimbo was miles stronger in consistency that year and was possibly (as you I haven’t yet studied it) leading Arthur in the H2H domain. So I’m not so sure that Ashe was the true #1 in 1975 (and in 1989 Becker was the clear leader in the greatest events but Lendl was miles away ahead of Becker in “ordinary” events so Becker’s supremacy in 1989 can be strongly contradicted too).

    No this is Tennis Magazine (France) who chose Borg while Tennis de France at the end of the year considered Connors as the #1.
     
  33. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    Wrong this is you who were aggressive in the first place
    as soon as you wrote to me in Wikipedia
    and here in TW once again you were the first one, once again, to use rude words towards me in the http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3160813&postcount=317 post with your “Totally riduclous” expression wrongly spelt (written by you on Feb. 24, 2009).
    And in that quote (Nov. 3, 2009) you were insincere whereas 4 days before (Oct. 29) you asked me
    (though you didn’t explicitly mentioned my name)
    to give you extra results about the 1964 Rosewall-Laver head-to-head statistics.
    Not the nicest behaviour.

    So you can attack the first contrary to what you claim.

    And I wasn’t rightly criticized for my so-called rudeness and arrogance about my world ranking methodology.
    Though I don’t know anyone who grants 4 more points to a modern Slam tourney than to a “Masters 1000” (only twice in the ATP ranking and) as I do
    I think it is closer to the “truth”
    than the “2:1” weight used by the 2000’s-2010’s ATP rankings or the stupid 1970 Grand Prix weight of “15:11”.
    Everyone thinks that the modern Slam events are much more important than the “Masters 1000” but unfortunately it isn’t transcribed in point system rankings.
    In the 2000’s a player’s level is judged mostly by his performances in the Slam events. These tournaments are what really counts and the “Masters 1000” are clearly below. No one really thinks that 2 “Masters 1000” are equal to 1 Slam tourney.
    Ask anyone if he prefers to win either Indian Wells and Miami or (in the exclusive meaning) a Slam tourney and he will automatically choose the second option. The “2:1” weight is ridiculously low.
     
  34. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    Comparison between WCT Finals and US Pro Indoor : answer to Borgforever

    The WCT Finals weren't WITHOUT ANY DOUBT more important than the US Pro Indoor in 1976 as you state Borgforever.

    Originally the Fernbergers took in charge a tournament in Philadelphia circa 1962 if I'm not wrong and gradually they succeeded in attracting more and more top amateur players.
    Then for the first open tournament in 1969, from memory, only Gonzales and Drysdale (to be checked) among the top players were absent.
    And in the following years whenever a top player (in particular a top player on indoor courts) desired to enter this tourney he usually played it :
    some years it was impossible because it was restricted to WCT players as in 1971, 1972, 1973 (that year it was even restricted to the WCT players of the group A alone) (and I think in 1974 and perhaps in 1975).
    But in particular as soon as 1976 even a non-WCT player could enter it (as in 1969 and 1970 a non-contract pro also could).
    Apparently the Fernbergers were very good organizers and some years the draws were big (something like 96 entrants in 1974, to be checked too).

    From 1976 to 1978 almost all the top players on indoor courts were present at Philadelphia and in particular both Borg and Connors were there.

    The US Pro indoor event began to decline as soon as Borg didn't play it and in 1998 the last edition was held.

    After all the Philadelphia tournament "had more tradition" than the WCT Finals were created only in 1971.
    What made the WCT Finals important ?
    The fact that they were the climax of the WCT season of the outcast pros under contract with a manager who were more or less banned from the traditional circuit.
    In 1971 the first year of that edition the WCT players were not really banned from the circuit however the rivalry between Hunt and the ILTF made many WCT players decide not to play the French and the US Opens. Therefore for the WCT players the WCT Finals became one the most important events of the year (however Wimbledon was clearly at the top of the head).
    And because among the WCT players you had Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe who each one had a claim for the world #1 place whereas their only rival among the independant players was Smith
    then the WCT Finals in 1971 became important.
    In 1972 that event was even more important because this time the WCT players were completely banned from the traditional circuit until after Wimby.
    However as soon as 1973, the WCT players weren't banned from the traditional circuit and could enter every Grand Prix circuit tournament (in particular the Slam events, the Grand Prix Masters and even the Davis Cup). So this one of the reason why the WCT Finals lost some of their importance. The other reason why this event lost importance is what I suggested a little above :
    in 1971 Newcombe, Laver and Rosewall were very close to the #1 spot so a climax event with these players was very important,
    in early 1972 Laver and Rosewall were still very near that place (Newcombe had a temporary down) and in May when the Finals were held they were still superb players rivalling at distance with Smith and Nastase.
    But as soon as 1973 Rosewall and Laver weren't anymore contenders for the first place (though they could beat anyone on any match and any surface).
    In 1973 Nastase, Newcombe the very best players in the world were absent from the WCT circuit and Connors who was the player in ascent at the time was absent too. This is another reason why the WCT Finals lost a little their importance.
    In 1974 Connors and Rosewall were absent which is a huge hole.
    In 1975 Connors and Nastase didn't play the circuit.
    In 1976 I'm not sure Connors was a WCT player and he played few WCT tournaments and even Nastase who was under contract with WCT played less tournaments ( 8 ) than the others (10) which prevented him surely to qualify for the play-offs.
    In 1977 Borg broke his contract and Vilas didn't play too : another huge hole.
    In 1978 WCT clearly collapsed because the WCT circuit ( 8 tournaments) was completely a part of the Grand Prix circuit and besides Connors didn't play the former,
    etc ...,
    in 1982 the WCT circuit became a clearly depleted circuit and in the following years many top players didn't enter it and in 1989 the last edition was played (the ATP tour replaced all the previous circuits in 1990).

    To summarize
    1) the WCT Finals were very important in 1971 and above all in 1972 when very few top players didn't play the WCT circuit.
    But as soon as 1973 when
    a) the WCT pros were not banned
    and b) Laver and Rosewall declined and couldn't fight anymore for the #1 spot
    2) the US Pro indoor attracted most of the top players in 1969-1970 (when it was called the Philadelphia Open in 1969 and the IPTA tournament in 1970), in 1974 and from 1976 to 1978.

    In the end as soon as both events didn't attract the best players they declined and particularly quickly given that they hadn't long tradition as the Davis Cup or the Slam events (you can note that the Davis Cup declines but much less faster because it has a long tradition).

    So in conclusion
    the WCT Finals weren't that much important than the US Pro Indoor.
    As long as these events attracted top players they survived
    but as soon as top players skipped these events the WCT Finals and the US Pro Indoor became less important.

    However there is no clear evidence that the WCT Finals were more important in the mid-late 70's than the US Pro Indoor
    because too many top players on any given year didn't play throughout the entire WCT circuit.


    Wimby was without any doubt much more important than the US Pro Indoor but Dallas was not.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2010
  35. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Some great posts here. I just wanted to throw in one thought about debates on the value of tournaments.

    While I agree that the French Open was not quite on par with WCT/Wimbledon/US Open in the mid-70s, Borg's clay court accomplishments then were nevertheless quite great and not to be ignored.

    I have a problem with ignoring those results. For example, some people will list a number of events in those years in order of importance, but decide to leave out the French - let's say Wimbledon-US Open-Dallas-Masters. The problem is that such a list is completely devoid of red clay court events and the spring clay court season was a huge part of the sport then.

    My personal approach to looking at players is less specific-tourney-driven and looks more at an individual year as consisting of 'abstract stages'. For example, I will look at the carpet events in the spring, followed by the clay court season, Wimbledon, har-tru in the summer, and the fall carpet (sometimes clay) stretch. Of course there are some occasional exceptions to such an abstraction, but the point is that we can look at an individual season more holistically rather than focussing strictly on the biggest event.

    So, accounting for 1975 - if we're interested in red clay, we don't have to just look at Roland Garros, but can also observe what players accomplished in other big events like Monte Carlo and Rome. In 1974, Borg's Rome + RG double is hard to ignore and, in combination, is arguably as impressive as winning Dallas or even the US Open.

    Ultimately, rather than asking who won the four biggest titles, we could instead be asking a) who was the best player on grass, b) who was the best player on carpet, c) who was the best player on har-tru, d) who was the best player on red clay, etc. All of this is important.

    Of course, we wouldn't care as much about har-tru after 1977 when the US Open moved to Flushing and Boston declined in importance. So we constantly adjust the way we think abstractly about players' accomplishments.

    P.S. The debate about Vilas and Borg in 1977 is a good example in the differences in terms of the way I think and some other people think. Some people will just compare Vilas's two majors with Borg's one. But I will counter that, in abstract terms, Borg is superior on red clay, grass and carpet than Vilas, who was only superior on har-tru.
     
  36. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    There is so much great info here, it is just amazing to read:)
     
  37. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Damn.

    I'll have to put down War and Peace and turn off Mahler's 8th to read all of this.
     
  38. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    response to carlo's comments of 4/7/2010

    1) My comments on the points system underlying carlo's world ranking methodolgy were perfectly legitimate. At no point did i make any comments personally attacking carlo. All i did was state that one apsect of the points system when taken to its logical conclusion produced very silly results. The fact that carlo lost his temper over this and started personally attacking me, including negative remarks on my spelling, just shows what bad tempered and unpleasant man carlo is.

    2) I personally dislike carlo. The fact that my comment to him on the Laver/Rosewall head to head of 1964 was polite but not friendly, was an examlpe of good behaviour by me. On this forum you are suppose to be civil even to people you dislike.

    3) Carlo's opinions on the ratio of points awarded to slams relative to super 9s just shows what an arrogant man he is. He states that the ratio of 4 is the truth. Its nothing of the sort. Its just the pure personal opinion of carlo. Nothing more nothing less. The fact is that in the last 50 years no tennis authority has used a ratio of 4. The ITF, whose events the slams are , have been happy with the ratio of 2 over the last 10 years. That's the ratio which should be used for world rankings which are going to be presented to a wide audience.

    jeffrey
     
  39. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    Answer to jeffrey

    1) Wrong : you personally attacked me contrary to what you are claiming.
    And besides this system doesn’t produce silly results but this is your interpretation of the system which is silly.
    In http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3163671&postcount=321 I wrote in particular this :
    Firstly I have never talk of any event which would count 32768 points (= 2**15 = 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2) that is a 16 round-event (and not a 15 round-event) with the first round granting 1 point (and with each successive round giving twice as many points as the previous one). My system, as inaccurate as it can be, doesn’t multiply but divides which is slightly different because I never exceed a high level. If a Slam counts 400 points (that is the winner receives 400 points), given that it is the most important event, there will never be any event which will distribute 32768 points even if there are 16 rounds to win that tournament. The slight difference in my system (compared to what you’ve interpreted about my system) is that eventually if one day there’s a Slam with 16 rounds, the winner will always be granted 400 points (and certainly not your absurd fantasized 32768 points) and first round losers will receive 400 points divided by 32768, that makes only 0,01220703125 point.
    Secondly you wrote about my system “That's the logic of your system; a win streak does no end with an tournament finish”. Where have you seen, in any of my statement, that a player cumulated points from the previous tournament ? Once again I don’t cumulate anything. On a given tournament I give X points for the winner and I divide those points by two at each round. So the loser of a first round receives X/(2**(n-1) rounds) points.
    So if X = 100 and n = 5 rounds then the loser of the first round will receive 100/(2**(5-1)) = 100/(2**4) = 100/16 = 6.25 points.


    About remarks about your spelling I didn't know at the time that you have problems.

    And apparently you are not aware of your horrible behaviour.
    If I am unpleasant then compared to you I’m particularly nice.

    2) I dislike you too without any reservation.
    At least on one point we have the same feeling.

    3) There is no arrogance in my ratios
    and I don’t say that my ratio of 4 is the truth.
    I’d rather say that the ratio of 2 is not the truth.
    You say that my ratio of 4 is a pure personal opinion and I agree
    but don’t tell me that the ratio of 2 is not a pure personal opinion.
    Someone (I don’t know who) once chose that ratio and apparently no one contradicted it but it doesn’t prove it isn’t pure convention.
    Besides whenever I say that 2 “Masters 1000” aren’t equal to 1 Slam event (for instance that no one thinks that Toronto/Montréal + Cincinatti is worth the US Open)
    you never contradict that assertion
    and above all you never give me a strong argument showing that I’m wrong.

    And stop claiming that no tennis authority has used this ratio in the last 50 years
    because you whenever you make a world ranking of the 50's
    you never use tennis authorities’ methodology in these years
    which roughly considered that only the major events counted and in particular the World pro tours in the pro circuit and the Davis Cup and Wimbledon in the amateur circuit.
    About the old rankings, before the ATP rankings, you once stated they were “Old fashioned lazy rankings”.
    You use a combination of the WCT ratios and the modern ATP system to make your own rankings of the ancient years when at the time it wasn’t clearly approved by all.
    Besides you never stop criticizing the old ATP ranking system so why don’t you continue now even if the modern system has improved but is far from being satisfying :
    the greatest imperfection today is the few points awarded to the players by the Davis Cup, less than a "500 tournament" which is not very satisfying, to say the least.
    In conclusion to make your own rankings and statements you very often criticize the tennis authorities
    so stop using the latter as an argument when you wish to contradict one of my statements.

    And as I’ve said before
    you have no lesson of politeness, behaviour of civility to give to anyone.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2010
  40. cristiano

    cristiano New User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    84
    As usual, thank you tu Carlo for his contributions, with which I have to agree 100%
     
  41. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,051
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    It would seem reasonable to insert Roddick/Ferrero/Federer as even top players for 2003.
     
  42. KAndersonFan

    KAndersonFan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    415
    I thought of this myself, at least in the case of Federer/Roddick being co-#1s. Roddick did better in the slams he didn't win and had two MS titles to Fed's none, but Fed did win the TMC, most prestigious title after a major, had more titles, more wins, a better W-L%, a better W-L% against top players.
     
  43. anointedone

    anointedone Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    I think at years end it was pretty clear Federer was the Worlds best player that year. Roddick benefited from some cushy draws at both hard court slams, and some blatantly biased organizing and at times officiating of that years U.S Open. Roddick also benefited much more from the absence of Safin, Haas, and the injury inflicted slump of Hewitt, than did Federer. Since Federer did much better vs both guys than Roddick anyway, and Federer wasnt consistent enough to dominate on hard courts yet anyway. However those guys being away meant that other than an old Agassi, and Federer when he actually got to Roddick, Roddick had no competition on hard courts that year really and he was already consistent enough to dominate if he didnt meet that handful of players that he had alot of trouble beating, and several of them being virtually away made a big difference.

    Roddick's only truly big head to head win of the year was beating Federer in Canada where Roger admits he got tight towards the end thinking of being #1 for the first time. He lost his other 2 meetings with Roger concivcingly, he didnt beat Agassi, he didnt even play Hewitt, Haas, or Safin, and he only played Ferrero on a very fast court.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
  44. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    Thank you too
     
  45. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    1972—Smith
    1973—Nastase
    1974—Connors
    1975—Ashe
    1976—Connors
    1977—Borg/Vilas
    1978—Borg
    1979—Borg
    1980—Borg(4)
    1981—McEnroe
    1982—Connors(3)
    1983—McEnroe/Wilander
    1984—McEnroe(3)
    1985—Lendl
    1986—Lendl
    1987—Lendl
    1988—Wilander
    1989—Becker/Lendl
    1990—Edberg/Lendl(5)
    1991—Edberg(2)
    1992—Courier
    1993—Sampras
    1994—Sampras
    1995—Sampras
    1996—Sampras
    1997—Sampras
    1998—Sampras(6)
    1999—Agassi
    2000—Kuerten
    2001—Hewitt
    2002—Hewitt(2)
    2003—Roddick
    2004—Federer
    2005—Federer
    2006—Federer
    2007—Federer
    2008—Nadal
    2009—Federer

    Was Connors year-end World no. 1 for five years?

    In 2003, the ITF named Roddick as its World Champion. The members of the ATP voted Roddick "Player of The Year." Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Roddick first, Ferrero second, Agassi third, and Federer fourth. In the ATP's year-ending rankings, Roddick finished first, Federer second, Ferrero third, and Agassi fourth.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2010
  46. Scott_tennis

    Scott_tennis New User

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    55
    Regarding US Pro Indoors

    Carlo raises interesting points regarding the US Pro Indoors in Philadelphia. The event started in 1962, moved to the Spectrum in 1968 and started with prize money in 1969. A recap of the events from 1969 to 1979 follows:
    US Pro Indoor Tennis notes from 1969 to 1979

    1969
    Philadelphia International Indoor Open
    Held 2/3 – 2/9; Draw 32
    F Laver d Roche
    Seeds
    1 Laver 2 Ashe 3 Roche 4 Rosewall 5 Newcombe 6 Okker 7 Gonzales 8 Emerson
    Attendance 8,542 at final; total 44,583
    World’s first indoor open
    Same week as: Buffalo – F Graebner d Cox

    1970
    ITPA Open Indoor Tournament/Championships
    Held 2/2 – 2/8; Draw 48 men and 8 women
    F Laver d Roche and Court d King
    Seeds
    1 Laver 2 Roche 3 Newcombe 4 Okker 5 Rosewall 6 Gimeno 7 Stolle 8 Ashe
    Attendance 9,301 at final; total 49,817
    First major tournament to use 12 point tiebreaker
    Same week as Buffalo – F Graebner d Lutz (both were early round losers in Philadelphia)

    1971
    Philadelphia International Indoor Tennis Championships
    Held 2/9 – 2/14; Draw 32 men and 16 women
    F Newcombe d Laver and Casals d Durr
    Seeds
    1 Laver 2 Rosewall 3 Newcombe 4 Roche 5 Ashe 6 Emerson 7 Okker 8 Gimeno
    Attendance 8,760 at final; total 50,199
    First event on WCT 1971 tour
    Same week as Clean Air Classic in Hawthorne NJ and NYC – F Franulovic d Graebner

    1972
    US Pro Indoors
    Held 2/8 – 2/13; Draw 32 men
    F Laver d Rosewall
    Seeds
    1 Rosewall 2 Laver 3 Okker 4 Ashe 5 Drysdale 6 Lutz 7 Riessen 8 Newcombe
    Attendance 11,813 at final; total 57,282
    WCT event
    Same week as May Co tournament in Los Angeles – F Gimeno d Barthes

    1973
    US Pro Indoors
    Held 2/6 – 2/11; Draw 32 men
    F Smith d Lutz
    Seeds
    1 Laver 2 Dibley 3 Smith 4 Stockton 5 Alexander 6 Emerson 7 Lutz 8 Richey
    Attendance 11,049 at final; total 60,055
    WCT Group A event
    Same week as Salt Lake City – F Connors d Gerken (“Off week” for WCT Group B)

    1974
    US Pro Indoors
    Held 1/21 – 1/27; Draw 84 men
    F Laver d Ashe
    Seeds
    1 Nastase 2 Newcombe 3 Okker 4 Smith 5 Orantes 6 Laver 7 Kodes 8 Ashe
    Attendance 12,466 at final; total 71,834
    WCT event – only regular WCT 1974 tour event to host all three WCT “groups”
    Nastase and Newcombe both withdrew due to injuries
    Same week as Omaha Midlands – F Meiler d Connors

    1975
    US Pro Indoors
    Held 1/20- 1/26; Draw 84 men
    F Riessen d Gerulaitis
    Seeds
    1 Borg 2 Laver 3 Vilas 4 Okker 5 Ashe 6 Smith 7 Riessen 8 Metreveli
    Attendance 8,869 at final; total 59,857
    WCT event – only regular WCT 1975 tour event to host all three WCT “groups”
    Same week as Birmingham – F Connors d Martin

    1976
    US Pro Indoors
    Held 1/26 – 2/1; Draw 54 men
    F Connors d Borg
    Seeds
    1 Connors 2 Borg 3 Ashe 4 Nastase 5 Alexander 6 Tanner 7 Laver 8 Okker
    Attendance 14,021 at final; total 79,916
    WCT event
    Same week as Cleveland – F Rahim d Metreveli

    1977
    INA US Pro Indoors
    Held 1/24 – 1/30; Draw 50 men
    F Stockton d Connors
    Seeds
    1 Connors 2 Borg 3 Nastase 4 Orantes 5 Panatta 6 Solomon 7 Dibbs 8 Gottfried
    Attendance 14,571 at final; total 81,798
    WCT World Series of Tennis event
    Same week as: no other WCT or Grand Prix events

    1978
    INA US Pro Indoors
    Held 1/23 – 1/29; Draw 48 men
    F Connors d Tanner
    Seeds
    1 Connors 2 Borg 3 Gottfried 4 Gerulaitis 5 Orantes 6 Dibbs 7 Ramirez 8 Nastase
    Attendance 15,673 at final; total 85,928
    WCT World Series of Tennis and Colgate Grand Prix event
    Same week as: Sarasota – F Smid d Saviano

    1979
    INA US Pro Indoors
    Held 1/22 – 1/28; Draw 48 men
    F Connors d Ashe
    Seeds
    1 Connors 2 Vilas 3 McEnroe 4 Gerulaitis 5 Dibbs 6 Gottfried 7 Solomon 8 Barazzutti
    Attendance 15,587 at final; total 84,033
    WCT World Series of Tennis and Colgate Grand Prix event
    Same week as: no other WCT or Grand Prix events
     
  47. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,661
    Laver's Seeding - especially look at 1971

    What I find most interesting about this is the seeding. Look at Laver's seeding throughout those years. Does this provide evidence that Laver was considered number 1 into 1971 ? (In that year Rosewall and Newcombe were listed seeds and they were the players that were in the discussion for number 1 at the time.
     
  48. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,771
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I believe that Newcombe himself regarded Laver as the no. 1 player of 1971.
     
  49. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,380
    Thanks for the info, Scott. The Philadelphia event was a very important event of the early open era, promoted by the pair of Ed and Marylin Fernberger. They always had the best fields and drew astonishing crowds. I think it was played on parallel courts laid in the Spectrum. For some time it rivalled the AO for real importance as leading winter event. Before 1969, the US pro indoors was played in New York, at a hall called Old Armory Centre. Laver and Gonzales had there important finals in 1965 and 1967. The latter final was highlighted by a shouting match between the two, when Gorgo accused Laver of early serving.
     
  50. jerriy

    jerriy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,076
    In that case why put Agassi over Sampras in 1999? Sampras outperformed in almost every thing better than his rival from Las Vegas (including H2H he repeatedly beat him that year) however Agassi won 2 slams as opposed to Sampras' one. If just one more slam is good enough to put Agassi ahead the it sure is good enough to put Borg ahead of connors.

    Based on an unbiased measurement stick Borg comes out on top both in 1977 & 1978.
     

Share This Page