Originally Posted by jeffreyneave
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.
I only counted 14 tournaments.
The No.1 player of the pros (and therefore of the world) was every year determinated by who won the world tour (world series). That's tennis history. By the way, I was one of the first ones who ranked Laver tied No.1 with Rosewall for 1964 while most or all sources had only Rosewall at No.1...