View Single Post
Old 11-16-2012, 09:34 AM   #383
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
 
hoodjem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bierlandt
Posts: 11,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreyneave View Post
World rankings are based on total play; the organised series did consist of 19 tournaments(I have counted up Rosewall's 78 points) but that did not cover all 31 tournaments played in 1964. The series is faulty also because it gave no extra points to the pro majors. Just because the pro tour organises a serires does not mean we abandon standard world rankings procedures. Laver was ahead on all the standard measures of world ranings. He won more tournaments; he won more majors; he crushed rosewall 15-4 in the head to head. Just being ahead in two of these categories meand you desreve the no1; being ahead in all three means laver is a certainty. laver also had a superior win loss percentage of 74.8% compared to Rosewall's 69.5%. Just because Rosewall won one best of five set match in south africa in no way compensates for Laver's 15 wins which included 2 best of 5 set wins.

jeffrey
Well-stated.
__________________
When you are content to be simply yourself and don't compare or compete, everyone will respect you.
hoodjem is offline   Reply With Quote