Originally Posted by Dan Lobb
I would suggest that a better ranking would be to take the winner of the most important showdown of each year, one big match.
1948 Kramer (U.S. Pro) over Riggs
1949 Kramer (Wembley) over Riggs
1950 Gonzales (Philadelphia) over Kramer
1951 Kramer (Philadelphia) over Gonzales
1952 Gonzales (Wembley) over Kramer
1953 Sedgman (Wembley) over Gonzales
1954 Gonzales (MSG) over Segura
1955 Gonzales (Slazenger) over Segura
1956 Gonzales (Wembley) over Sedgman
1957 Gonzales (Forest Hills) over Sedgman
1958 Hoad (Kooyong) over Gonzales
1959 Hoad (Forest Hills) over Gonzales
1960 Hoad (Kooyong) over Rosewall
1961 Rosewall (Wembley) over Hoad
1962 Rosewall (Wembley) over Hoad
1963 Rosewall (Forest Hills) over Laver
1964 Laver (Wembley) over Rosewall
1965 Rosewall (Longwood) over Laver
1966 Laver (Longwood) over Rosewall
1967 Laver (Wimbledon Pro) over Rosewall
This is the High Noon period of pro tennis.
By this standard, Kramer gets 3 years, Gonzales gets 6 years, Sedgman gets 1 year, Hoad gets 3 years, Rosewall gets 4 years, Laver gets 3 years in pro tennis, plus 2 more in the open era.
High Noon. Good movie.
I'm not sure one can declare a world no. 1 for an entire year based on one, single "big match". Interesting idea, though.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are aggressively certain, while the intelligent are full of doubt.