Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   WORLD NO. 1 (by year) (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=295675)

hoodjem 10-30-2009 08:28 AM

WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
 
Tennis WORLD NO. 1
Male Singles Player (by year)

1877—Gore
1878—Hadow
1879—Hartley
1880—Hartley
1881—W. Renshaw
1882—W. Renshaw
1883—W. Renshaw
1884—W. Renshaw
1885—W. Renshaw
1886—W. Renshaw
1887—W. Renshaw/Lawford
1888—E. Renshaw
1889—W. Renshaw/Hamilton
1890—Hamilton/Pim
1891—Lewis/Baddeley/Pim
1892—E. Renshaw/Baddeley
1893—Pim
1894—Pim
1895—Pim
1896—Baddeley
1897—R.F. Doherty
1898—R.F. Doherty
1899—R.F. Doherty
1900—R.F. Doherty
1901—Larned
1902—H.L. Doherty
1903—H.L. Doherty
1904—H.L. Doherty
1905—H.L. Doherty
1906—H.L. Doherty
1907—Brookes
1908—Larned
1909—Larned
1910—Larned
1911—Wilding
1912—Wilding
1913—Wilding
1914—McLoughlin
1915—Johnston
1916—Williams
1917—Murray
1918—Murray
1919—Patterson/Johnston
1920—Tilden
1921—Tilden
1922—Tilden/Johnston
1923—Tilden
1924—Tilden
1925—Tilden
1926—Lacoste
1927—Lacoste
1928—Cochet
1929—Cochet
1930—Cochet
1931—Tilden(7)/Vines
1932—Vines
1933—Crawford
1934—Perry
1935—Perry/Vines
1936—Perry/Vines
1937—Perry/Vines(5)/Budge
1938—Budge
1939—Budge
1940—Budge
1941—Perry/Riggs/Kovacs
1942—Budge
1943—Riggs/Kovacs
1944—Kovacs/Riggs
1945—Riggs
1946—Riggs
1947—Riggs(6)/Kramer
1948—Kramer
1949—Kramer
1950—Kramer/Segura
1951—Kramer
1952—Gonzales/Sedgman
1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(2)
1954—Gonzales
1955—Gonzales
1956—Gonzales
1957—Gonzales
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman(2)
1959—Gonzales(7)/Hoad
1960—Rosewall
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver(7)/Rosewall(5)
1971—Newcombe
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 (5)
2010—Nadal
2011—Djokovic
2012—Djokovic (2)
2013—Nadal (3)
2014—

I post this separately here for convenience. I post it also primarily for discussion, illumination, and enlightenment--not because it is definitive or proclamatory.

David_86 10-30-2009 09:28 AM

Some thoughts

1983 I might give to Wilander. He did have a 3-0 record against McEnroe that year, more tournament wins, fewer losses, performed better at 3 of the 4 major touraments, a better Davis Cup record. Are you including the Masters played in January 84 as part of your argument? I tend to include it in 1984 since that's when it's played even though the Masters is supposed to be the season ending event.

Also I would discount Connors from the 1977 argument. However, I agree with you splitting Connors/Borg in 1978. Most people just tend to see Borg 2 majors to Connors 1 but I would say they performed pretty evenly throughout the year.

timnz 10-30-2009 11:26 AM

1964?
 
Hello,

I have to say I really like the list. You can tell by the co-number 1 years that you have spent a lot of time and thought in it.

Comparing your list to Wikipedia's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_n...layer_rankings

In 1964 it has them as co-number 1's. I'd like to see a list of both of their tournament wins so I could make up my mind. On the face of it though Laver seems to nod. (Dominant head to head plus 2 out of 3 of the majors). I wonder why the ranking voters at the time had Rosewall out on front or at least equal to Laver?

urban 10-30-2009 12:03 PM

In 1964, the pros had an internal point system on a 18 or 20 tournament basis, with no difference between the status of the events. Many matches and some tournaments, especially on the South African tour late in the year, were not counted. Rosewall, who led the US tour until July 1964, finished on top in a close race under this system. But Laver had a 15-4 head to head, won US pro and Wembley, the two pro biggies, and won 11 events to Rosewalls 10, and if one looks closely, it seems, that Laver surpassed Rosewall with his Wembley win in September and closed out the year with his domination of the South African tour.
Overall a good list, Hoodjem, closely following the Wikipedia list, made by Carlo and others. Some years are always debatable: For instance, i would give Connors 1976 and Borg alone 1978, Newcombe 1971 or Smith alone 1972.

pc1 10-30-2009 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban (Post 4067544)
In 1964, the pros had an internal point system on a 18 or 20 tournament basis, with no difference between the status of the events. Many matches and some tournaments, especially on the South African tour late in the year, were not counted. Rosewall, who led the US tour until July 1964, finished on top in a close race under this system. But Laver had a 15-4 head to head, won US pro and Wembley, the two pro biggies, and won 11 events to Rosewalls 10, and if one looks closely, it seems, that Laver surpassed Rosewall with his Wembley win in September and closed out the year with his domination of the South African tour.
Overall a good list, Hoodjem, closely following the Wikipedia list, made by Carlo and others. Some years are always debatable: For instance, i would give Connors 1976 and Borg alone 1978, Newcombe 1971 or Smith alone 1972.

I like the list. The thing I find very interesting is that Kovacs, who has been known mainly as a clown is on the list three times. He fascinates me to a certain degree because it's almost universally accepted by those who see him how gifted he was. Bobby Riggs has hinted that when Kovacs was on his game that he was perhaps the greatest. Kramer mentioned in his book how he was in awe of Kovacs and how Kovacs was one of the few who returned so well that he couldn't serve and volley against him. I know some have argue for Kovacs to be in the Hall of Fame.

On the year 1964, while I do think Laver was number one for the year based on record, Rosewall was considered (perhaps incorrectly) number one. However since "officially" Rosewall was number one I do think it is reasonable for Muscles to be considered co-number one for that year. The records, despite Laver's great head to head advantage were very comparable which means that Rosewall must have done much better than Laver against the other players.

And yes I think Borg was clearly the best in 1978. In fact it's quite possible 1978 was Borg's best year.

CyBorg 10-30-2009 02:51 PM

mostly agreed, except
- Rosewall in 1960 (Gonzales didn't play enough)
- Rosewall in 1964, or at least a tie
- imo, Ashe a clear best in 1975
- Borg a clear #1 in 1978
- Agassi a tie with Sampras in 1995
- Sampras equal or greater than Agassi in 1999

pc1 10-30-2009 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 4067950)
mostly agreed, except
- Rosewall in 1960 (Gonzales didn't play enough)
- Rosewall in 1964, or at least a tie
- imo, Ashe a clear best in 1975
- Borg a clear #1 in 1978
- Agassi a tie with Sampras in 1995
- Sampras equal or greater than Agassi in 1999

Borg in 1978 won the Italian, the French and Wimbledon plus he was in the final of the US Open against Connors and lost badly due to an injury. He had the highest Games Won Percentage of the Open Era with an incredible number over 66%!

jean pierre 10-31-2009 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4066978)
Tennis WORLD NO. 1
Male Singles Player (by year)

1877—Gore
1878—Hadow
1879—Hartley
1880—Hartley
1881—W. Renshaw
1882—W. Renshaw
1883—W. Renshaw
1884—W. Renshaw
1885—W. Renshaw
1886—W. Renshaw
1887—W. Renshaw/Lawford
1888—E. Renshaw
1889—W. Renshaw/Hamilton
1890—Hamilton/Pim
1891—Lewis/Baddeley/Pim
1892—E. Renshaw/Baddeley
1893—Pim
1894—Pim
1895—Pim
1896—Baddeley
1897—R.F. Doherty
1898—R.F. Doherty
1899—R.F. Doherty
1900—R.F. Doherty
1901—Larned
1902—H.L. Doherty
1903—H.L. Doherty
1904—H.L. Doherty
1905—H.L. Doherty
1906—H.L. Doherty
1907—Brookes
1908—Larned
1909—Larned
1910—Larned
1911—Wilding
1912—Wilding
1913—Wilding
1914—McLoughlin
1915—
1916—
1917—
1918—
1919—Patterson/Johnston
1920—Tilden
1921—Tilden
1922—Tilden/Johnston
1923—Tilden
1924—Tilden
1925—Tilden
1926—Lacoste
1927—Lacoste
1928—Cochet
1929—Cochet
1930—Cochet
1931—Tilden/Vines
1932—Vines
1933—Crawford
1934—Perry
1935—Perry/Vines
1936—Perry/Vines
1937—Perry/Vines(5)/Budge
1938—Budge
1939—Budge
1940—Budge
1941—Perry/Riggs/Kovacs
1942—Budge
1943—Riggs/Kovacs
1944—Kovacs/Riggs
1945—Riggs
1946—Riggs
1947—Riggs(6)/Kramer
1948—Kramer
1949—Kramer
1950—Kramer/Segura
1951—Kramer
1952—Gonzales/Segura/Sedgman
1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(3)
1954—Gonzales
1955—Gonzales
1956—Gonzales
1957—Gonzales
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman(2)
1959—Gonzales/Hoad
1960—Gonzales(8 )/Rosewall
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—Laver(8 )/Rosewall(5)/Newcombe
1972—Newcombe/Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Connors/Ashe
1976—Connors/Borg
1977—Connors/Borg/Vilas
1978—Connors/Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg(5)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(6)
1983—McEnroe
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(5)

I post this separately here for convenience. I post it also primarily for discussion, illumination, and enlightenment--not because it is definitive or proclamatory.


In 1977, Vilas is the N°1. No doubt about that : he won 2 GS (+ 1 Final), 16 tournaments, 46 matches consecutively. ATP's computer was absurd at this time !!

hoodjem 10-31-2009 05:36 AM

1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I originally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

jeffreyneave 10-31-2009 06:02 AM

i think the list is solid, but on some of the shared years i think there are definite winners.

In 1952 I would eliminate segura because gonzales won wembley and had 5-2 edge on segura leaving a shared ranking for sedgman and gonzales

in 1958 i would choose sedgman because of 2 major wins wembley (the most important0 and aussie pro to gonzales one win at forest hills, and 4-2 head to head advntage for sedgman including both 5 set matches they played.

in 1959 i would choose be cause his overall win-loss percentage is better than hoad who had lot poor results in europe. gonzales won the us tour over haod. both players are otherwise egual with 5 event wins and one major each.


in 1972 i domn't see newcombe as a contender , the race is between nastase (winner of 12 events from over 30 starts and the biggest event forest hills) against smith (9 wins from 21 starts, wimbledon and the davis cup) with vote going smith because of his 4-1 edge over nastase.

in 1975 everybody but the atp choose ashe. ashe won 9 events including wimbledon and wct finals and won his only match against connors, who was ru at wimbledon and forset hills and won 9 minor events.

in 1976 connors deserves because he won 12 events to borg's 6 and had a 3-0 head to head over borg.

in 1977 i agree its betwee borg and vilas. I would choose vilas because he won 2majors and was runner up in the aussie to borg's one major. outside the majors vilas won 16 events to borg's 10. borg's 3-0 head to head is his only claim and is not sufficient on its own.

in 1978 i would choose borg with 2 majors to connor's 1 and 3-2 head to head advantage.

in 1989 i would choose becker with 2 majors to one for lendl, and becker's big davis cup win and his 2-0 head to head edge on lendl. lendl 's only claim are 10 event wins to becker's 6


jeffrey

jean pierre 10-31-2009 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4069013)
1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I orginally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.


Yes, Borg 3-0 agains Vilas, but Vilas's results are very very very better than Borg's, so Vilas is the n°1 (Federer has been a long time n°1 even if he lost against Nadal, because his results were better). With the ATP computer of today, Vilas would be n°1 during several monthes. It's absurd that Connors was n°1 ATP this year.

hoodjem 10-31-2009 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave (Post 4069051)
i think the list is solid, but on some of the shared years i think there are definite winners.

In 1952 I would eliminate segura because gonzales won wembley and had 5-2 edge on segura leaving a shared ranking for sedgman and gonzales

in 1958 i would choose sedgman because of 2 major wins wembley (the most important0 and aussie pro to gonzales one win at forest hills, and 4-2 head to head advntage for sedgman including both 5 set matches they played.

in 1959 i would choose be cause his overall win-loss percentage is better than hoad who had lot poor results in europe. gonzales won the us tour over haod. both players are otherwise egual with 5 event wins and one major each.


in 1972 i domn't see newcombe as a contender , the race is between nastase (winner of 12 events from over 30 starts and the biggest event forest hills) against smith (9 wins from 21 starts, wimbledon and the davis cup) with vote going smith because of his 4-1 edge over nastase.

in 1975 everybody but the atp choose ashe. ashe won 9 events including wimbledon and wct finals and won his only match against connors, who was ru at wimbledon and forset hills and won 9 minor events.

in 1976 connors deserves because he won 12 events to borg's 6 and had a 3-0 head to head over borg.

in 1977 i agree its betwee borg and vilas. I would choose vilas because he won 2majors and was runner up in the aussie to borg's one major. outside the majors vilas won 16 events to borg's 10. borg's 3-0 head to head is his only claim and is not sufficient on its own.

in 1978 i would choose borg with 2 majors to connor's 1 and 3-2 head to head advantage.

in 1989 i would choose becker with 2 majors to one for lendl, and becker's big davis cup win and his 2-0 head to head edge on lendl. lendl 's only claim are 10 event wins to becker's 6
jeffrey

All good points. I'll start sifting and weighing.

(I do want to try to parse it down to one name per year, whenever logically possible.)

CyBorg 10-31-2009 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4069013)
1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I orginally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

I'm not sure exactly when Gonzales retired in 1960. But going by McCauley's book (I admit I'm going on memory) he's just not present at most of the big events. I seem to recall about Gonzales retiring early in the year, but I don't have exact info on me.

1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver. Next year Laver wins more titles, but the major count is 2-1 Rosewall. In my opinion, Rosewall should get credit for one of these years or as co-#1 for both. Personally I think that Rosewall was better in 1964, but blew it at Wembley and the US Pro. EDIT: Got my facts wrong here - elaboration later.

Ashe/Connors. It's just hard to ignore Ashe winning Wimbledon and Dallas, both of which are top-5 events, along with the masters. Connors won no top-five events, although he had more consistent results. Ashe had a poor second half. I think Connors was the better player, but had a worse year.

1995 - Agassi had a consistent lead on Pete in points that year, one he surrendered by not playing the indoor season. That gets him at least a co-#1 in my books. In 1999, Pete seemed better in every respect, but gave Agassi a shot to win the US Open due to injury. Otherwise Pete still dominated Wimbledon and then took the Masters.

timnz 10-31-2009 12:59 PM

[quote=CyBorg;4069588]
1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver. Next year Laver wins more titles, but the major count is 2-1 Rosewall. In my opinion, Rosewall should get credit for one of these years or as co-#1 for both. Personally I think that Rosewall was better in 1964, but blew it at Wembley and the US Pro.
QUOTE]

In 1964 I thought Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. (He also had a 15-4 head to head against Rosewall and won 2 out of the 3 majors). What tournaments do you have Rosewall winning that year when you say he has twice as many tournaments? (Be great to know :) )

CyBorg 10-31-2009 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 4069859)
In 1964 I thought Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. (He also had a 15-4 head to head against Rosewall and won 2 out of the 3 majors). What tournaments do you have Rosewall winning that year when you say he has twice as many tournaments? (Be great to know :) )

You might be right. I have this number in my head - 15-7. That may have been the ratio of Rod's to Ken's tourney wins in 1965.

In which case, I stand corrected.

Edit: according to wiki, Laver won 17 in 1965 and Rosewall 6. I'm being sloppy, I know, but I don't have my McCauley book on me at the moment.

All things considered, Rosewall is still in play as at least a co-#1 in these two years.

timnz 10-31-2009 01:15 PM

1964 again
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 4069881)
You might be right. I have this number in my head - 15-7. That may have been the ratio of Rod's to Ken's tourney wins in 1965.

In which case, I stand corrected.

Edit: according to wiki, Laver won 17 in 1965 and Rosewall 6. I'm being sloppy, I know, but I don't have my McCauley book on me at the moment.

All things considered, Rosewall is still in play as at least a co-#1 in these two years.

So in 1964 Laver is a clear number 1. More tournaments wins, more Major wins and dominant head to head. What I don't understand is why some commentators at the time had Rosewall as number 1 - he doesn't seem to be under any criteria. Any ideas anyone?

hoodjem 10-31-2009 01:46 PM

I've wondered that myself. The statistics seem to suggest Laver by a hair, or co-equal number 1.

"Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10; Laver beat Rosewall 15-4 in head-to-head matches."

"A point system for 19 pro tournaments (excluding at least 10 other tournaments) also resulted in Rosewall being No. 1 to Laver's No. 2 but that system granted each tournament the same points and then was unfair to the big events where Laver was superior to Rosewall : Laver beat Rosewall & Gonzales in U.S. Pro; Laver again beat Rosewall in Wembley Pro; Rosewall beat Laver in French Pro."

Maybe it is this "unfair" point system.?

hoodjem 10-31-2009 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 4069588)
1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver.

In 1964, I have Laver: 11 and Rosewall: 10. CyB or Tim--can you enumerate how Rosewall wins "twice as many"?

When are the 1960 World Series Round Robin matches?

timnz 11-01-2009 12:58 AM

11-10
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4069952)
In 1964, I have Laver: 11 and Rosewall: 10. CyB or Tim--can you enumerate how Rosewall wins "twice as many"?

When are the 1960 World Series Round Robin matches?

No I have 11-10 to Laver too.

pc1 11-01-2009 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 4070858)
No I have 11-10 to Laver too.

According to the McCauley book, it's 11 to 11. Of course there are some errors in that great book.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse