|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-04-2009, 04:48 AM
|
#41 |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 230
|
OK, as people are commenting on the old list, but as I don't approve of everything in it anymore, I decided to put the new one here, even if (VERY important) it is still a work in progress.
Some methodology points: -no more surface criteria (ie one clay major per year) as it led to too much twisting of the reality of what was and was not a great tournament. -a system of coefficients for majors: *only the true, undisputed majors get a coefficient of 1: this includes the traditional Slam majors, the Pro slam majors, and the '19th-century- Slam' (Wimbledon-Irish-Northern) majors, the Davis Cup, the New York Masters, and only a few others... *the rest of the tournaments have coefficients. An example: the year 1970. Wimbledon and the USO were definitely true majors so they get a coef. 1. There are still 2 'slots' to fill. The PSW LA, Philadelphia, Sydney, and Tokyo Masters were all great tournaments, but none on the majors level. So each one of them gets a 1/2 coef. 2*1+4*1/2=4, so we got it right. Final result: 1970 0.5 Sydney Laver 0.5 Philadelphia Laver 0.5 PSW Los Angeles Laver 0.5 Masters Smith 1 Wim Newcombe 1 USO Rosewall So Laver has gained 1.5 'points' during that year, rosewall and Newcombe 1 and Smith 0.5. *the coef system let me be much more flexible concerning the pro/amateur divide for the really ambiguous years, such as 1934-1936 for instance. In that case I can apply coefs not only for tournaments but also the pro field vs the amateur field. I can give further details another time, this is just to explain why some coefs can seem very 'strange' and unintuitive for some of these years. This system is obviously more complex than the previous one, but probably fairer too, and lets us take into account a bit of the complexity of tennis history. Here's the list... Last edited by SgtJohn : 02-04-2009 at 04:59 AM. |
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 04:49 AM
|
#42 |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 230
|
2008
1 AO Djokovic 1 RG Nadal 1 Wim Nadal 1 USO Federer 2007 1 AO Federer 1 RG Nadal 1 Wim Federer 1 USO Federer 2006 1 AO Federer 1 RG Nadal 1 Wim Federer 1 USO Federer 2005 1 AO Safin 1 RG Nadal 1 Wim Federer 1 USO Federer 2004 1 AO Federer 1 RG Gaudio 1 Wim Federer 1 USO Federer 2003 1 AO Agassi 1 RG Ferrero 1 Wim Federer 1 USO Roddick 2002 1 AO Johansson 1 RG Costa 1 Wim Hewitt 1 USO Sampras 2001 1 AO Agassi 1 RG Kuerten 1 Wim Ivanisevic 1 USO Hewitt 2000 1 AO Agassi 1 RG Kuerten 1 Wim Sampras 1 USO Safin 1999 1 AO Kafelnikov 1 RG Agassi 1 Wim Sampras 1 USO Agassi 1998 1 AO Korda 1 RG Moya 1 Wim Sampras 1 USO Rafter 1997 1 AO Sampras 1 RG Kuerten 1 Wim Sampras 1 USO Rafter 1996 1 AO Becker 1 RG Kafelnikov 1 Wim Krajicek 1 USO Sampras 1995 1 AO Agassi 1 RG Muster 1 Wim Sampras 1 USO Sampras 1994 1 AO Sampras 1 RG Bruguera 1 Wim Sampras 1 USO Agassi 1993 1 AO Courier 1 RG Bruguera 1 Wim Sampras 1 USO Sampras 1992 1 AO Courier 1 RG Courier 1 Wim Agassi 1 USO Edberg 1991 1 AO Becker 1 RG Courier 1 Wim Stich 1 USO Edberg 1990 1 AO Lendl 1 RG Gomez 1 Wim Edberg 1 USO Sampras 1989 0.5 AO Lendl 0.5 Masters Edberg 1 RG Chang 1 Wim Becker 1 USO Becker 1988 0.5 AO Wilander 0.5 Masters Becker 1 RG Wilander 1 Wim Edberg 1 USO Wilander 1987 0.5 AO Edberg 0.5 Masters Lendl 1 RG Lendl 1 Wim Cash 1 USO Lendl 1986 0.5 Masters Lendl 0.5 B. Raton Lendl 1 RG Lendl 1 Wim Becker 1 USO Lendl 1985 0.5 AO Edberg 0.5 Masters Lendl 1 RG Wilander 1 Wim Becker 1 USO Lendl 1984 0.5 AO Wilander 0.5 Masters McEnroe 1 RG Lendl 1 Wim McEnroe 1 USO McEnroe 1983 0.5 AO Wilander 0.5 Masters McEnroe 1 RG Noah 1 Wim McEnroe 1 USO Connors 1982 1 Masters Lendl 1 RG Wilander 1 Wim Connors 1 USO Connors 1981 1 Masters Lendl 1 RG Borg 1 Wim McEnroe 1 USO McEnroe 1980 1 Masters Borg 1 RG Borg 1 Wim Borg 1 USO McEnroe 1979 1 Masters Borg 1 RG Borg 1 Wim Borg 1 USO McEnroe 1978 0.5 Philadelphia Connors 0.5 Masters McEnroe 1 RG Borg 1 Wim Borg 1 USO Connors 1977 1 Masters Connors 0.5 RG Vilas 0.5 Philadelphia Stockton 1 Wim Borg 1 USO Vilas 1976 0.5 Philadelphia Connors 0.5 WCT Borg 0.5 RG Panatta 0.5 Masters Orantes 1 Wim Borg 1 USO Connors 1975 0.5 Masters Nastase 0.5 WCT Ashe 0.5 RG Borg 0.5 Philadelphia Riessen 1 Wim Ashe 1 USO Orantes 1974 0.5 Masters Vilas 0.5 WCT Newcombe 0.5 RG Borg 0.5 Philadelphia Laver 1 Wim Connors 1 USO Connors 1973 0.5 Masters Nastase 0.5 WCT Smith 1 RG Nastase 0.5 Rome Nastase 0.5 Davis Cup Laver 1 USO Newcombe 1972 1 PSW Los Angeles Smith 0.5 Davis Cup Stan Smith 0.5 WCT Rosewall 0.5 Wimbledon Smith 0.5 Masters Nastase 1 USO Nastase 1971 1 AO Rosewall 0.5 Rome Laver 0.5 WCT Rosewall 1 Wim Newcombe 1 USO Smith 1970 0.5 Sydney Laver 0.5 Philadelphia Laver 0.5 PSW Los Angeles Laver 0.5 Masters Smith 1 Wim Newcombe 1 USO Rosewall 1969 1 AO Laver 1 RG Laver 1 Wim Laver 1 USO Laver 1968 1 PSW Laver 0.5 RG Rosewall 0.5 French Pro Laver 1 Wim Laver 1 USO Ashe |
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 04:50 AM
|
#43 |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 230
|
1967
1 Wimbledon Pro Laver 1 Wembley Laver 1 French Pro Laver 1 US Pro Laver 1966 1 Wembley Laver 1 French Pro Rosewall 1 US Pro Laver 0.5 Barcelona Gimeno 0.5 MSG Pro Rosewall 1965 1 Wembley Laver 0.5 US Pro Hardcourt Rosewall 0.5 US Pro Indoors Laver 1 US Pro Rosewall 1 French Pro Rosewall 1964 1 Wembley Laver 0.5 US Pro Indoors Gonzales 0.5 US Pro Hardcourt Rosewall 1 French Pro Rosewall 1 US Pro Laver 1963 1 Wembley Rosewall 1 World Championship Series Rosewall 1 French Pro Rosewall 1 US Pro Rosewall 1962 1 Wembley Rosewall 1 French Pro Rosewall 0.5 Wimbledon Laver 0.5 Forest Hills Fraser 0.5 Geneva Gold Trophy Rosewall 0.5 Milano Pro Rosewall 1961 1 Wembley Rosewall 1 French Pro Rosewall 0.5 Copenhagen Pro Gonzales 0.5 Vienna Pro Gonzales 1 World Championship Series Gonzales 1960 1 Wembley Rosewall 1 French Pro Rosewall 1 World Pro Series Gonzales 0.5 Australian Pro Indoor Rosewall 0.5 Victorian Pro Hoad 1959 1 Forest Hills Tournament of Champions Hoad 1 L.A. Masters Round Robin Gonzales 0.5 French Pro Trabert 0.5 Wembley Pro Anderson 1 World Pro Series Gonzales 1958 0.8 Wembley Sedgman 0.8 French Pro Rosewall 0.8 Forest Hills Tournament of Champions Gonzales 0.8 L.A. Masters Round Robin Segura 0.8 Australian Pro Sedgman 1957 0.8 Forest Hill Tournament of Champions Gonzales 0.8 Australian Pro Segura 0.8 Wembley Rosewall 0.8 L.A. Masters Round Robin Gonzales 0.8 US Pro Gonzales 1956 1 L.A. Tournament of Champions Gonzales 1 French Pro Trabert 1 Wembley Gonzales 0.5 Davis Cup Hoad 0.5 Davis Cup Rosewall 1955 0.5 US Pro Hardcourt Gonzales 0.5 Scarborough Pro Gonzales 1 Australian Tour Gonzales 0.5 Wimbledon Trabert 0.5 Forest Hills Trabert 1 Davis Cup Rosewall 1954 0.75 US Pro Gonzales 0.75 World Series Gonzales 0.75 Australian Pro Sedgman 0.375 US Pro Hardcourt Gonzales 0.375 Far East Pro Tour Gonzales 1 Davis Cup Trabert 1953 0.75 World Championship Series Kramer 0.75 Australian Tour Gonzales 0.75 Wembley Sedgman 0.1875 New York Pro Indoors Kramer 0.1875 Chicago Pro Kramer 0.1875 Paris Pro Sedgman 0.1875 Caracas RR Segura 1 Davis Cup Hoad 1952 1 Wembley Gonzales 1 US Pro Segura 1 Philadelphia Pro Round Robin Gonzales 1 Davis Cup Sedgman 1951 0.75 US Pro Segura 0.375 Berlin Pro Segura 0.375 World Championship Series Kramer 0.75 Philadelphia Pro Round Robin Kramer 1 Davis Cup Sedgman 0.75 Wembley Gonzales 1950 1 Philadelphia Pro Gonzales 1 US Pro Segura 0.5 Paris Pro Indoors Segura 0.5 Wembley Gonzales 1 Davis Cup Sedgman 1949 1 Wembley Kramer 0.5 Davis Cup Gonzales 0.5 Davis Cup Schroeder 0.5 US Pro Riggs 0.5 Scarborough Pro Kramer 0.5 Wimbledon Schroeder 0.5 Forest Hills Gonzales 1948 1 US Pro Kramer 0.5 Davis Cup Schroeder 0.5 Davis Cup Parker 1 World Championship Tour Kramer 0.5 Wimbledon Falkenburg 0.5 Forest Hills Gonzales 1947 1 US Pro Riggs 0.5 US Indoor Pro Riggs 0.5 US Challenge Series Riggs 0.5 Wimbledon Kramer 0.5 Forest Hills Kramer 0.5 Davis Cup Kramer 0.5 Davis Cup Schroeder 1946 1 USA Tour Series Riggs 0.5 Southern Pro Budge 0.5 New England Championships Riggs 1 US Pro Riggs 1 US Pro Hardcourt Riggs 1943-1945 1 US Pro Hardcourt (’45) Riggs 0.5 Forest Hills ‘44 Parker 0.5 Forest Hills ‘45 Parker 1942 1 USA Tour Series (’42) Budge 1 US Pro (’42) Budge 1941 0.5 Forest Hills Pro ‘41 Perry 1 US Pro ‘41 Perry 0.5 Forest Hills ‘41 Riggs 1940 1 US Pro ‘40 Budge 0.5 West Coast Pro ‘40 Perry 0.5 Forest Hills ‘40 McNeill 1939 1 USA Tour Series Budge 1 French Pro Budge 0.5 Wembley Round Robin Budge 0.5 Southport Round Robin Budge 0.5 Southport Pro Nusslein 0.5 US Pro Vines 1938 1 Davis Cup Budge 1 US Tour Series Vines 1 Wimbledon Budge 1 Forest Hills Budge 1937 0.8 USA Tour Series Vines 0.8 GB Tour Perry 0.8 Davis Cup Budge 0.8 Wimbledon Budge 0.8 Forest Hills Budge 1936 1 Davis Cup Perry 1 Roland Garros Von Cramm 1 Wimbledon Perry 1 Forest Hills Perry 1935 0.35 Davis Cup Perry 0.35 Davis Cup Austin 0.7 Roland Garros Perry 0.6 French Pro Vines 0.7 Wimbledon Perry 0.6 Wembley Vines 0.7 Forest Hills Allison 1934 0.35 Davis Cup Perry 0.35 Davis Cup Austin 0.7 Roland Garros Von Cramm 0.6 US Pro Nusslein 0.7 Wimbledon Perry 0.6 Wembley Vines 0.7 Forest Hills Perry 1933 0.7 Davis Cup Perry 0.7 Roland Garros Crawford 0.6 World Pro Nusslein 0.7 Wimbledon Crawford 0.6 US Tour Nusslein 0.7 Forest Hills Perry 1932 0.7 Davis Cup Borotra 0.7 Roland Garros Cochet 0.6 US Pro Kozeluh 0.7 Wimbledon Vines 0.6 US Tour Tilden 0.7 Forest Hills Vines 1931 0.7 Davis Cup Cochet 0.7 Roland Garros Borotra 0.7 Forest Hills Vines 0.7 Wimbledon Wood 0.6 US Tour Tilden 0.6 US Pro Tilden 1930 1 Davis Cup Cochet 1 Roland Garros Cochet 1 Wimbledon Tilden 1 Forest Hills Doeg 1929 1 Davis Cup Cochet 1 Roland Garros Lacoste 1 Wimbledon Cochet 1 Forest Hills Tilden 1928 1 Davis Cup Cochet 1 Roland Garros Cochet 1 Wimbledon Lacoste 1 Forest Hills Cochet 1927 1 Davis Cup Lacoste 1 French Int’ls Lacoste 1 Wimbledon Cochet 1 Forest Hills Lacoste 1926 1 Davis Cup Johnston 0.5 French Int’ls Cochet 0.5 Newport Tilden 1 Wimbledon Borotra 1 Forest Hills Lacoste 1925 0.5 Davis Cup Tilden 0.5 Davis Cup Johnston 0.5 French Int'ls Lacoste 0.5 Newport Johnston 1 Wimbledon Lacoste 1 Forest Hills Tilden 1924 0.5 Davis Cup Tilden 0.5 Davis Cup Richards 0.5 Paris Olympics Richards 0.5 Newport Johnston 1 Wimbledon Borotra 1 Forest Hills Tilden 1923 1 Davis Cup Tilden 0.5 Paris World HC Championships Johnston 0.5 Newport Kinsey 1 Wimbledon Johnston 1 Forest Hills Tilden 1922 0.5 Davis Cup Tilden 0.5 Davis Cup Johnston 0.5 Paris World HC Championships Cochet 0.5 Newport Johnston 1 Wimbledon Patterson 1 Forest Hills Tilden 1921 0.5 Davis Cup Tilden 0.5 Davis Cup Johnston 0.5 Paris World HC Championships Tilden 0.5 Newport Washburn 1 Wimbledon Tilden 1 Forest Hills Tilden 1920 0.5 Davis Cup Tilden 0.5 Davis Cup Johnston 0.5 Paris World HC Championships Laurentz 0.5 Newport Griffin 1 Wimbledon Tilden 1 Forest Hills Tilden 1919 0.5 International Match Tilden 0.5 International Match Johnston 0.5 US Claycourt Championhships Johnston 0.5 Newport Tilden 1 Wimbledon Patterson 1 Forest Hills Johnston |
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 04:51 AM
|
#44 |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 230
|
1915-1918
1 Forest Hills ‘15 Johnston 1 Forest Hills ‘16 Williams 0.5 Newport ‘15 Williams 0.5 Newport ‘16 Kumagae 0.5 Forest Hills ‘17 Murray 0.5 Forest Hills ‘18 Murray 1914 0.5 Davis Cup McLoughlin 0.25 Davis Cup Brookes 0.25 Davis Cup Wilding 0.5 Paris World HC Championships Wilding 0.5 Longwood Bowl McLoughlin 1 Wimbledon Brookes 1 Newport Williams 1913 0.5 Davis Cup Parke 0.25 Davis Cup McLoughlin 0.25 Davis Cup Williams 0.5 Paris World HC Championships Wilding 0.5 Longwood Bowl Johnston 1 Wimbledon Wilding 1 Newport McLoughlin 1912 1 Davis Cup Parke 0.5 Indoor Olympics Gobert 0.5 Longwood Bowl McLoughlin 1 Wimbledon Wilding 1 Newport McLoughlin 1911 1 Davis Cup Brookes 0.5 British Covered Courts Gobert 0.5 Longwood Bowl EP Larned 1 Wimbledon Wilding 1 Newport Larned 1910 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 0.5 Queen’s Wilding 0.5 British Covered Courts Lowe 0.5 London Covered Courts Wilding 1 Wimbledon Wilding 1 Newport Larned 1909 0.5 Davis Cup Brookes 0.5 Davis Cup Wilding 0.5 British Covered Courts Ritchie 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 1 Wimbledon Gore 1 Newport Larned 1908 0.5 Davis Cup Wright 0.25 Davis Cup Brookes 0.25 Davis Cup Wilding 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 0.5 Indoor Olympics Gore 1 Wimbledon Gore 1 Newport Larned 1907 1 Davis Cup Brookes 0.5 British Covered Courts Wilding 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 1 Wimbledon Brookes 1 Newport Larned 1906 0.5 Davis Cup L Doherty 0.5 Davis Cup S Smith 0.5 British Covered Courts L Doherty 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 1 Wimbledon L Doherty 1 Newport Clothier 1905 0.5 Davis Cup L Doherty 0.5 Davis Cup S Smith 0.5 British Covered Courts L Doherty 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 1 Wimbledon L Doherty 1 Newport Wright 1904 0.5 Davis Cup Riseley 0.5 Davis Cup L Doherty 0.5 British Covered Courts L Doherty 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 1 Wimbledon L Doherty 1 Newport Ward 1903 1 Davis Cup L Doherty 0.5 British Covered Courts L Doherty 0.5 Longwood Bowl Larned 1 Wimbledon L Doherty 1 Newport L Doherty 1902 1 Davis Cup Whitman 0.5 Irish L Doherty 0.5 British Covered Courts L Doherty 1 Wimbledon L Doherty 1 Newport Larned 1901 1 Irish R Doherty 0.5 Northern S Smith 0.5 British Covered Courts L Doherty 1 Wimbledon Gore 1 Newport Larned 1900 1 Irish R Doherty 0.5 British Covered Courts Gore 0.5 Northern S Smith 1 Wimbledon R Doherty 0.5 Newport Whitman 0.5 Paris Olympics L Doherty 1899 1 Irish R Doherty 1 Northern S Smith 1 Wimbledon R Doherty 0.5 Newport Whitman 0.5 British Covered Courts Eaves 1898 1 Irish Mahony 1 Northern L Doherty 1 Wimbledon R Doherty 0.5 Newport Whitman 0.5 British Covered Courts Eaves 1897 1 Irish Eaves 1 Northern Baddeley 1 Wimbledon R Doherty 0.5 Newport Wrenn 0.5 British Covered Courts Eaves 1896 1 Irish Baddeley 1 Northern Baddeley 1 Wimbledon Mahony 0.5 Newport Wrenn 0.5 British Covered Courts Lewis 1895 1 Irish Pim 1 Northern Baddeley 1 Wimbledon Baddeley 0.5 West Newton International RR Pim 0.5 British Covered Courts Lewis 1894 1 Irish Pim 1 Northern Baddeley 1 Wimbledon Pim 0.5 London Championships Mahony 0.5 British Covered Courts Mahony 1893 1 Irish Pim 1 Northern Pim 1 Wimbledon Pim 0.5 London Championships Pim 0.5 British Covered Courts Mahony 1892 1 Irish E Renshaw 1 Northern Pim 1 Wimbledon Baddeley 0.5 London Championships Lewis 0.5 British Covered Courts Meers 1891 1 Irish Lewis 1 Northern Pim 1 Wimbledon Baddeley 0.5 London Championships Barlow 0.5 British Covered Courts Lewis 1890 1 Irish Lewis 1 Northern Pim 1 Wimbledon Hamilton 0.5 London Championships Barlow 0.5 British Covered Courts Lewis 1889 1 Irish Hamilton 1 Northern Hamilton 1 Wimbledon W Renshaw 0.5 London Championships Barlow 0.5 British Covered Courts Lewis 1888 1 Irish E Renshaw 1 Northern Hamilton 1 Wimbledon E Renshaw 0.5 London Championships Lewis 0.5 British Covered Courts Lewis 1887 1 Irish E Renshaw 1 Northern Grove 1 Wimbledon Lawford 0.5 London Championships Lewis 0.5 British Covered Courts Lewis 1886 1 Irish Lawford 1 Northern Grove 1 Wimbledon W Renshaw 0.5 London Championships Lewis 0.5 British Covered Courts EL Williams 1885 1 Irish Lawford 1 Northern Dwight 1 Wimbledon W Renshaw 0.5 London Championships Ross 0.5 British Covered Courts Lawford 1884 1 Irish Lawford 1 Northern Stewart 1 Wimbledon W Renshaw 0.5 West of England Browne 0.5 South of England EL Williams 1883 1 Irish E Renshaw 1 Northern Wilberforce 1 Wimbledon W Renshaw 1 Prince’s Championships Lawford 1882 1 Irish W Renshaw 1 Northern Richardson 1 Wimbledon W Renshaw 1 Prince’s Championships Lawford 1881 1 Irish W Renshaw 0.5 Cheltenham E Renshaw 0.5 Northern Richardson 1 Wimbledon W Renshaw 1 Prince’s Championships W Renshaw 1880 1 Irish W Renshaw 1 Wimbledon Hartley 1 Prince’s Championships Lawford 1879 1 Irish Goold 1 Wimbledon Hartley 1878 1 Wimbledon Hadow 1877 1 Wimbledon S Gore |
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 10:18 AM
|
#45 |
|
Legend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 5,270
|
That's very well done, Jonathan and pretty valuable abstraction for the purposes of getting at what the best events were and who won them.
I caution others though not to assume that this approach is fool-proof towards deciding who the most accomplished player of all time is. 1965 is a good example - while Jonathan's numbers favour Rosewall, they do not account for the fact that Laver otherwise dominated h2h against his rival and won, if memory serves, almost twice the overall titles. Again, what matters is how we use this information. |
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 11:04 AM
|
#46 |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,735
|
The list is good, although some events remain debatable. The idea, to give half points in some cases seems fair to me. But as Cy Borg said, its not the whole picture. Overall numbers of events won, head-to-head results, match records, prize money won etc. should be included in a fair analysis.
On the old pro tour there wasn't the stabil structure, we have on today's ATP tour. The old pros never had the time, to focus on 4 preeminent major events, which were played in a certain nice schedule, distributed over the season. For instance, the Paris pro event was mostly played just one week before the Wembley event, which was seen by the pros as unofficial world champs. St. John had in another thread a list of Super Nine events or their equivalents. That list could give a good complementary view on many years. Some small correction from first sight: In 1962 not Fraser, but Laver won Forest Hills. |
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 12:16 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Legend
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,566
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 12:28 PM
|
#48 | |
|
Legend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 5,270
|
Quote:
If clay events, for the most part, carried no (or little) prestige at the time (some would know better about this than me), then it's quite hard to account for slower surfaces. The best we can do then is acknowledge that tennis was a fast-surface game at the time, because of the way the tour was organized. The business aspects of sports always control everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 01:36 PM
|
#49 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 230
|
Quote:
Thanks urban about 1962, it's now corrected in my file. Right point by Cyborg too about the way we use the list. It's not intended to solve the GOAT 'issue' or any other. It's just a tool to be used in discussing these questions, precisely. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2009, 10:49 PM
|
#50 |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Hello SgtJohn,
In a very quick glance I've seen "1953 0.75 Australian Tour Gonzales". I'm not sure at all there was an Australian tour at the end of 1953. In McCauley's book there is one but with results quite similar to those of 1954. In Tennis de France in late 1953, Sedgman said that after Geneva and Lyon he would come back to Australia to support the Davis Cup team (Hoad and Rosewall) but he didn't make any reference to pro matches Down Under against Gonzales or Segura. Could you give some precisions ? AndrewTas has perhaps an answer. Thank you. Last edited by Carlo Giovanni Colussi : 02-04-2009 at 10:51 PM. |
|
|
|
|
02-05-2009, 12:36 AM
|
#51 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 230
|
Quote:
Quite honestly, this year is awfully hard to rank because Kramer and Gonzales never played in the same event, so having as much of a balance as possible between the events that these 2 participated in seemed quite fair and might have influenced my choice. Of course if the tour did not take place in 1953 at all this is not legitimate, and I'll remove this from the list. i'll try to do some research on this, if at all possible... Jonathan |
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2009, 04:34 AM
|
#52 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
Segura-Kramer : 1-1, Segura-Gonzales 1-1, Segura-Sedgman 7-3 Kramer-Sedgman : 56-41 (including 2-0 in tournaments) Sedgman-Gonzales 3-0 (Kramer-Gonzales 0-0) |
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2009, 05:22 AM
|
#53 |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 230
|
aussie tour 53 or 54 ?
I think the results reported by macauley, are so similar for 53 and 54 that there was only one tour, probably in '54, because the players played auusie pro and continued to play in australia in early '55 (Earn repacing Macgregor) for another tour (L'm not sure about this early '55 tour either because Macauley does not provide any overall results, only a few results showing sedgman and Gonzales tied for wins- therefore there is no '55 aussie win for Gonzales without extra results).
Gonzlaes overall record in the late '54 was 16-9 against sedgman, 15-0against macgregor ,and 4-2 against segura. Macauley reports Gonzales record as 15-9 against , total domination against macgregor and anedge over segura. This is so similar to 54 withthe same players, i strongly suspect there is only one tour. jeffrey |
|
|
|
|
02-06-2009, 06:39 PM
|
#54 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sedona, AZ, usa
Posts: 841
|
 I think for a player to be considered great they would have won on various surfaces and over more than just a few years. I think I read that the Australian Open used to be grass years ago. A lot of player did not travel there then either .... cost? And what about Nadal getting a Gold at Olympics and that not being figured in ... but it must have taken its toll physically and mentally. What about players like the Williams Sisters who don't play in much of anything except Slams? Which amounts to resting up while others are defending their points. It is a bit uneven as well that we now have something called the Open period when players like Pancho Gonzales beat just about everyone they played for years, up until he was 42 years old and the records really do not reflect that.
__________________
"Whoever said 'It's not whether you win or lose that counts' probably lost!" ~ Martina Navratilova |
|
|
|
|
02-06-2009, 07:06 PM
|
#55 | |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,643
|
Love these lists - but why does AO only rate 0.5 from 83 through 89?
Quote:
I understand it was a relatively weak tournament between 1972 to 1982 inclusive. But from 1983 through to 1989 it had a strong field (I know there was no AO in 1986). I certainly don't see a lot of difference from 1989 to 1990 - the latter year you give it 1.0. Curious as to your reasoning. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2009, 03:07 AM
|
#56 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 230
|
Quote:
Actually the change is relative to the Masters rather than the AO. I consider the Masters a great event while it was played in NY. Its decline started with the new 1990 ATP-controlled tour when it started being moved around... As at the same time the AO started consistently having all the top players participating if healthy, this is the reason for the change. Of course this evolution was progressive on the period 1988-1995 probably, but you have to draw a line somewhere and the year of the big organizational change with the ATP take-over is a good line, I thought. Jonathan |
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2009, 11:23 AM
|
#57 |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,643
|
Masters
Jonathan,
I have seen your posts around this bulletin board, and I have to say I really respect your opinion and knowledge. But I saw most of the ATP finals of the 90's (on TV) and they were top notch, with all the best players in them. There was no decrease in depth or quality from when it was in New York. I do agree though that Madison Square Garden in New York has a huge tradition to tennis. Famous tennis matches there go back to the time of Tilden, Vines and Budge. It was a big Pro event in the 60's with Laver, Rosewall etc. too. Hence, I would, along with Ivan Lendl, like to see it back there. |
|
|
|
|
02-07-2009, 11:25 AM
|
#58 |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,643
|
Masters continued
Sorry I should clarify... it wasn't the Masters in the days pre-1970 with Tilden, Budge, Vines (30's, 40's) , Laver, Rosewall (60's)... but I was simply saying that the venue had cache.
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2009, 11:27 AM
|
#59 |
|
Legend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 5,270
|
Still, Jonathan's thinking here makes sense. In 1990 there was a pretty major change with the tour, which seemed to solidify the AO standing, which made the masters a clear #5. Perhaps the change was more gradual, but it's hard to account for that.
The other option would be to count the Australian as a clear #4 starting with 1987 - the move of the event to january. |
|
|
|
|
02-07-2009, 01:46 PM
|
#60 |
|
New User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 84
|
About the masters in the '90s.
This event was in general definitely less important tha in the 80's and more important than now. But it was actually very different between players. For some players it was also very very important, for other it was less. And remember that in the 90's we had a lot of great carpet players who could compete to win the masters but were not competitive for three slams. For them, it was a central event. For others, it was less. c. |
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 AM.