WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

facsis event is not a touranment it was tour of italy of one night stands. it 11 to 10 for tournaments ; whether you count as extra win for tours is another matter. the official 1964 rankings are stupid just as the atp rankings in 1977 with connors number one are.

I'm not necessarily counting the Facis event but I was trying to understand where Joe McCauley found eleven tournament victories for Rosewall. The Facis trophy seemed to be the most logical reason.

Originally Posted by urban

The 1964 Facis series was a series of matches, divided in two parts, one in summer (when Laver didn't participate) and one in autumn, when Laver dominated Rosewall. Overall Rosewall won the series, because he played the whole series. On wikipedia discussions going on the basis of McCauley alone, i pleaded at least for a co-ranking of Laver and Rosewall, and i think Jeffrey did the same. I am contend with a co- ranking, no problem for me.
The internal ranking of the pros was always a bit problematic and eclectic, in 1959 for instance, Hoad came on top of this point race of 15-18 events, which all got the same number of points, while most people saw Gonzales as the World Champ. But speaking of now, because of Andrew Tas new findings, Laver's claim for 1964 imo gets even stronger. It seems that Laver had the best of the Australian/ NZ tour in spring over Hoad and Rosewall, then Rosewall won the US tour in spring and early summer (Gonzales second and Laver third), but Laver won the climactic event at Boston (Rosewall had a bout with foot poisening in the sf). In Europe in the summer, Laver and Rosewall were close, with Laver winning the World Champs at Wembley. Then at last, the South African tour was dominated by Laver. One other factor besides the head to head in favor of Laver is the the overall win-loss percentage (Jeffrey mentioned it), which Andrew Tas put on another thread. I wrote it down somewhere, but for the moment cannot find it. Maybe Carlo or Andrew Tas can put it here.

I have some more detailed information on 1964 and I'll check it tonight when I have some time.

It's a matter of semantics. I think Laver had the best year yet at the same time I believe Rosewall has a claim since he was officially the number one player. Push comes to shove I would pick Laver as number one for 1964.

Either way the discussion on this year is very interesting.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by krosero

I agree you with about 1995 and 1999: like you said, Agassi and Sampras can be described as strong #2’s in those years. I think Borg can safely be described as a strong #2 in 1976, not because there’s no case for him as #1: but Borg had not beaten Connors in three years and their U.S. Open meeting was in many ways the match that decided #1; it showed that Connors was still dominant over Borg.

Good point. Edit made.

Originally Posted by krosero

Wilander in 1983 does have important wins over McEnroe at the French and Australian, though I would still describe him as a strong #2 for the year because McEnroe won the January 1984 Masters and beat Wilander decisively there.

Lendl had said McEnroe was #1 for the year even before he met him in the Masters final. After McEnroe won the final, Bud Collins told him there could be no doubt left about who was #1 for ’83.

In Bud’s book he still says McEnroe settled the issue at the January Masters, in what he describes as the 13th month of the season. He's ambiguous about it, though, because he says that for “breadth of accomplishment” Wilander was “Player of the Year” (then he goes on to list everything Mats did in the calendar year).

Yet for all that, I still can’t put Wilander as #1 because he was not regarded as rising to #1 in the world until 1988. Until then there were still questions about how hard he wanted to work to become #1, questions about his confidence. In all that there was the assumption that he had not yet made it to #1.

I find this also to be a strong argument. Edit made.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

Hoodjem -- overall an excellent list of world no. 1s throughout recorded tennis history. I have just a few minor nit-pickings but, as usual, great work by you.

Jeffrey Neave -- as much as I respect his undeniable knowledge and fine posts here displays above -- IMO -- severe Laver-bias of the fatal and consistent kind that has become his trademark, besides overall harsh comments to posters disagreeing with him.

As regards to Laver as No. 1 in 1964, he is that too in my book, but not with Jeffrey cocky adamant stance which lacks credibility just with the basis of his arguments.

Remember Jeffrey Neave had Vilas as No. 1 in 1977, certainly a very debatable year, but Borg's biggest triumphs and H2Hs with Vilas was devastating -- in a way resembling 1964 and Laver and Rosewall.

BF, let's please leave the perceived biases or personalities of posters out of this debate.

Let us try to proceed with the stats first, or the opinions of so-called experts second. Please.

So did I have Vilas no. 1 in 1977 before I learned more fully and deeply. These are not sins.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by urban

The internal ranking of the pros was always a bit problematic and eclectic, in 1959 for instance, Hoad came on top of this point race of 15-18 events, which all got the same number of points, while most people saw Gonzales as the World Champ. But speaking of now, because of Andrew Tas new findings, Laver's claim for 1964 imo gets even stronger. It seems that Laver had the best of the Australian/ NZ tour in spring over Hoad and Rosewall, then Rosewall won the US tour in spring and early summer (Gonzales second and Laver third), but Laver won the climactic event at Boston (Rosewall had a bout with foot poisoning in the sf). In Europe in the summer, Laver and Rosewall were close, with Laver winning the World Champs at Wembley. Then at last, the South African tour was dominated by Laver. One other factor besides the head to head in favor of Laver is the the overall win-loss percentage (Jeffrey mentioned it), which Andrew Tas put on another thread. I wrote it down somewhere, but for the moment cannot find it. Maybe Carlo or Andrew Tas can put it here.

1964
"In 1964 Rosewall won one main tournament: the French Pro over Laver on wood (at Coubertin). At the end of the South African tour, Rosewall also beat Laver 6–4 6–1 6–4 in a Challenge Match held in Ellis Park, Johannesburg. In the official pro points rankings (7 points for the winner, 4 points for the finalist, 3 points for the third player, 2 for the fourth one and 1 point to each quarter-finalists) taking into account 19 pro tournaments, Rosewall ended #1 in 1964 with 78 points beating #2 Laver (70 points) and #3 Gonzales (48 points). Nevertheless that ranking brushed aside at least 10 tournaments because McCauley has traced at least 29 pro tournaments played by the touring pros (plus some minor tournaments) and several short tours. It also granted each tournament the same points and thus was unfair to the big events where Laver was globally superior to Rosewall.

Laver had a great season and could also claim the top rank. Rocket has captured two very great tournaments: 1) the U.S. Pro over Rosewall and Gonzales and 2) the Wembley Pro over Rosewall in one of their best match ever (Gonzales won the probably fourth greatest tournament of that year, the U.S. Pro Indoors, at White Plains, defeating in succession Anderson, Laver, Hoad and Rosewall). Laver was equal to Rosewall in big direct confrontations, 2 all (Coubertin and Johannesburg for Rosewall, US Pro and Wembley for Laver).

Laver won one more tournament (including small 4-man events) than Rosewall (11 to 10) and above all Rocket was clearly superior to Rosewall in minor direct confrontations, defeating Rosewall eleven times out of thirteen in these smaller events, making thus a 1964 Laver-Rosewall win-loss record of 13-4. So the pro leadership began to change."

I believe that for much of 1964 things were equal, but by the end of the year Laver was on top. It appears that this odd point system is skewed to minimize Laver's more important wins. A head-to-head of 13-4 (or 14-5) is not even close and--when everything else is almost--rather decisive in my estimation.

[Borgforever]

Point taken Hood -- it just irks me that such a fine poster as Jeffrey resorts to such statements that I just pointed out -- his arguments are strong enough in his posts and he doesn't need to enhance them with ridicule without back-up.

My comments regarding Jeffrey Neave's tone were made in an effort to better the debate climate and I hope this is quite clear.

Regarding the thread -- could you please motivate for me Hoodjem how Jimbo in your opinion could be considered lone No. 1 in 1976 and not Borg -- while at the same time you have Mac as lone No. 1 in 1983 and Vilas co-No. 1 in 1977?

As for stats Borg won in 1976 the WCT-finals, Wimby without set-loss and went to the QF at RG losing to eventual winner Panatta -- and he crushed everybody else including Nastase who was something like 500-1 against Jimbo in H2Hs by that time.

When it comes to stats and records in majors and such in 1976 Borg vastly outclasses Jimmy Connors record for that year, it's not even close -- Jimbo who had a great year, sure, but he didn't beat a peak form Borg. If that's the ruling logic around here I guess Del Potro's Shanghai'results lately weighs more than his USO-win and that Rafael Nadal must be playing his best tennis right now...

To heck with context, truth, facts, serious experts, records, history, nuance or arguments...

That's even better than Mac in 1983 and Ashe in 1975!

Those stats in the majors are miles better than Jimbo's that year. Same thing goes for 1983. Mac was 0-3 against Mats on red clay, HC cement and fast Aussie grass at Kooyong.

ALL STATS FAVOR BORG IN 1976 AND MATS IN 1983. That is the stats.

As for opinions for Borg as LONE No. 1 in 1976 John Barrett has changed his mind and has Borg for lone No. 1 as Björn Hellberg even back in 1976. Many tennis magazines had Borg as lone No. 1 that year also plus that all lists by sportwriters all over the world had Borg on their short list of the greatest athletes, regardless of sport, for that year.

FYI John Barrett has Laver as GOAT and so has Björn Hellberg who covered and personally saw every single tourney and big match almost from 1963-1990s -- and are pretty involved still. He sends his greeting by the way.

He also has Wilander as lone No. 1 in 1983 by a wide margin. Mac wasn't consistent enough. That simple.

In 1977 Vilas, who had -- by lucky fortune, excellence and the finest classic major record for 1977 -- even though he was worse off in H2H against Borg that year than Borg had against Jimbo in 1976, while he was injured.

You see after Wimby -- Borg didn't hold racquet for 30 days straights, hardly any other exercise since his stomach-muscles healed so slowly that he hardly could stand upright. Borg's form, as you can see on the videos from Wimby 1976 to USO 1976, is like night and day.

Stat-time again. Borg had like 15 winners in the USO 1976-final and he wasn't that far from winning that too. Very impressive stat.

As a contrast of form for Björn he had about 52 winners in three sets against an experienced, 18-0 sets into the final Nastase.

Anyone see a form difference? Did Jimbo beat the best Borg.

As for krosero's arguments for Jimbo beating Borg for 3 years, well, he almost lost USO 1976 to a mediocre Borg and he was beaten by Borg just a few months later and continued to be slaughtered by Fortress for five years straight -- only capping a fine win at YEC Masters-final played in January 1978 then blown to smithereens like 10 times in a row or something.

Hood, do you think krosero's arguments above is so expert that they trump Barrett's, Hellberg's and a whole slew of great sportwriters, as regards to 1976?

I certainly don't.

If H2H's is so big Jimbo should be after Nastase in 1976 and Mac should be ranked behind Lendl in 1981 -- since the famous Czech mutilated Mac, what was it -- 4 times in 1981. He wasn't even close.

You must address these issues -- this thread is too great to marred by such faux pas, however few...

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

As for krosero's arguments for Jimbo beating Borg for 3 years, well, he almost lost USO 1976 to a mediocre Borg and he was beaten by Borg just a few months later and continued to be slaughtered by Fortress for five years straight (only capping a fine win at YEC Masters-final played in January 197.

Hood, do you think krosero's arguments above is so expert that they trump Barrett's, Hellberg's and a whole slew of great sportwriters, as regards to 1976?

I certainly don't.

Sorry, your knowledge of these other experts is more encyclopaedic than mine. (Salut to Meister Hellberg.) I do find Krosero's points rather credible. But perhaps I should go back to my double listing strategy.

Lots of fine opinions and difficult sifting going on.

[Borgforever]

If you want to Hood, I can post Hellberg's year end article about who's No. 1 in 1976.

It's quite brilliant...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

If you want to Hood, I can post Hellberg's year end article about who's No. 1 in 1976.

It's quite brilliant...

I would love to see it.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by timnz

I only have 10 tournament wins for Rosewall in 1964. Do you know what the 11th is?

1. Melbourne Pro (4-man tournament)
2. Masters Round Robin Pro (Los Angeles)
3. Saint Louis Volkswagen Pro Championships
4. Schiltz Pro Championships (Milwaukee)
5. San Remo Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
6. Venice Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
7. Cannes Pro
8. French Pro (Paris-Coubertin)
9. Hannover Pro
10. Western Province Pro (Cape Town)

Should we add the Challenge Match held in Ellis Park, Johannesburg to this list as no. 11?

[Borgforever]

Hood, if you put Mac and Mats as co-No. 1s in 1983 and BB and JC as the same in 1976 -- I have no issues. I would go with Mats and Borg alone for those years -- but, it's debatable, and to leave some room for error is a very sound idea IMO.

I mean the list you presented here is, if we exclude these very few debatable years, perfect. The finest I've seen.

Sgt John has made some stunningly great lists also -- but this one by you Hoodjem is just sublime. Especially since you leave room for error and do not restrict yourself to one name per year if there's a legit debate to be had about those years.

The next step would be a thread about the strongest No. 2s throughout history. Not everything is about being the top dog...

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

If you want to Hood, I can post Hellberg's year end article about who's No. 1 in 1976.

It's quite brilliant...

Yes, certainly. (We admire brilliance.)

[Borgforever]

Okey, Mr. Pc1. I will start writing it now. Expect it here in about an hour...

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

QED

Co-No. 1 is okey for 1976 -- be diplomatic when things are very close -- but put Borg's name first Hood -- firstly B in Borg comes before C as in Connors in the alphabet and the momentum for Jimbo as No. 1 during the time came from the fact that Jimbo had been dominant in 1974 and great in 1975 and great in 1976 and considered only becoming better and better AND since his H2H with Fortress was quite in THE BELLEVILLE BASHER'S favor many saw that as strong arguments ...

And some say you don't have a sense of humor. Your wit makes the Wilkinson Sword Co. blush with envy.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

Hood, if you put Mac and Mats as co-No. 1s in 1983 and BB and JC as the same in 1976 -- I have no issues. I would go with Mats and Borg alone for those years -- but, it's debatable, and to leave some room for error is a very sound idea IMO.

I mean the list you presented here is, if we exclude these very few debatable years, perfect. The finest I've seen.

Sgt John has made some stunningly great lists also -- but this one by you Hoodjem is just sublime. Especially since you leave room for error and do not restrict yourself to one name per year if there's a legit debate to be had about those years.

The next step would be a thread about the strongest No. 2s throughout history. Not everything is about being the top dog...

The idea about the strongest number two players in history sounds very interesting. Jimmy Connors had some superb years in the late 1970's and so did Borg of course.

We can also examine Rosewall and Laver in the 1960's like the year 1964 that we were all discussing.

Lendl in 1982 had a fantastic year but didn't win any majors so I believe Connors was number one.

Perhaps the 1920's with Tilden and the French Musketeers would have been interesting. Perhaps they may have all have had great records for some years.

[hoodjem]

Good idea, but someone else . . . .

One problem I have when creating a list like this is listening to all the arguments and sifting all the stats and opposing points, then I finally think I have it all down to the one name by that certain year, so I put it down.

Then a few months later, someone will make a really good point, and I think "So why did I put that name and not the other one?" . . . because I have forgotten all the rationales and reasoning behind the assignations.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

If you want to Hood, I can post Hellberg's year end article about who's No. 1 in 1976.

It's quite brilliant...

That would be great, to have the written sources to work with.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Good idea, but someone else . . . .

One problem I have when creating a list like this is listening to all the arguments and sifting all the stats and opposing points, then I finally think I have it all down to the one name by that certain year, so I put it down.

Then a few months later, someone will make a really good point, and I think "So why did I put that name and not the other one?" . . . because I have forgotten all the rationales and reasoning behind the assignations.

Understandable. The great about tennis history now is that we have so much more information available to us now that wasn't there just several years ago. The negative is that we often have information overload and we have to find a way to use the information correctly.

I'm with you, it's tough to remember the reasoning for something you wrote a while ago.

Nevertheless a thread like this is great for gathering information and opinions.

Anyway you can always change your mind based on new info. There's no shame in that.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

When it comes to stats and records in majors and such in 1976 Borg vastly outclasses Jimmy Connors record for that year, it's not even close -- Jimbo who had a great year, sure, but he didn't beat a peak form Borg. If that's the ruling logic around here I guess Del Potro's Shanghai'results lately weighs more than his USO-win and that Rafael Nadal must be playing his best tennis right now...

That's really the key here, is identifying what logic we use when we name a #1: what criteria. Not everyone has the same criteria. The biggest contrast is the priority different people give to day-in-day-out consistency on the one hand and big events on the other. And there are other differences, everyone knows what they are.

I'll tell you, though, the problem I have with the criteria of having to beat a player at his peak (your example of Connors not beating a peak Borg). IMO that has its place when we're trying to judge who the better play was; or analyzing the level of play in particular matches, etc. But who was #1 for the year is primarily about results. It may be that Connors did not defeat Borg at his peak in 1976. But he did defeat him, and the turnaround in the rivalry did not come until the following year. That's the only place it can count. 1977 gives some perspective -- tells us that Borg was almost there in 1976, that the rivalry was about to change. But it didn't change. Not yet. Borg came close -- that's what your arguments point to -- but that's it, just close. That makes him a strong #2 (a close #2).

In 1976 perhaps, as you say, casual observers saw the 3-year-old winning streak that Connors had over Borg and casually judged that Connors was going to be the reigning champion for some time. That always happens; we tend to glorify the champion of the moment. But none of my arguments depend on those casual overheated judgments of the moment. My argument about 1976 is that is was simply close but no cigar. Borg did not start beating Connors until 1977.

And when he did it at the Pepsi Grand Slam, since Tennis Channel broadcast it recently it's plain to me that Connors was not at his best in that match. Borg was. And what does that matter, exactly? It doesn't matter to me -- not as far as judging the results and who was #1 for the year.

As I say, your arguments about level of play carry some weight, for deciding whether Borg was better than Connors. And that criteria -- who was better -- is a factor, for instance when we say that Borg was a better player than Vilas as of 1977. That's great -- but Borg showed it with actual results over Vilas. He's got no victories over Connors in 1976, and if we speculate that in peak form he could have beaten Connors, then we're merely talking about matches that did not occur. If the argument is that he came close, then that's all we have -- close but no cigar. I see no way, with these arguments, to lift Borg over Connors in 1976.

But there may be a way by judging what he did over the course of the year, against other opponents, and comparing it to Jimmy's record. If Hellborg's arguments go down that road, then I might see the logic. But Borg, even then, would be given #1 for the year without any concrete indication that he was better than Connors (in actual matches as they were), and for that reason alone I can't see myself giving him more than a co-#1 for the year. To give it to Borg alone, and leave out the man who beat him every time they met?

Each man has 1 Slam, and while I understand that according to traditionalist arguments Borg was named #1 because he won Wimbledon, we are free to disagree with that tradition. Wimbledon was the biggest tournament, that I don't dispute. But Borg won it without facing Connors, which is the one thing -- the only thing -- that can be said against his dominating victory there. But it's an important thing. With Connors in the final Borg would almost surely not have swept the tournament in straight sets, which is why I can only go so far in judging his straight-set victory as a measure of his dominance. When he did meet Connors, on a surface favorable to him, he came close but lost, and I just think that's hugely significant. I can imagine different results for that day (Borg could have tried different tactics), but the only sure result is the one that happened.

[Borgforever]

Great points Hood. But that's why we start these threads.

The debate, the exchange of perspective, experiences, discipline, judgments and opinions is truly the vital foundation -- the important factor on the long and winding road to greater understanding and serious development. I re-read a lot, memory needs exercise, I see the "the little grey cells" as an abstract muscle that needs strengthening every day.

All these minor nuances and gazillion details cannot be mastered all the time. But our posts remain. And the texts don't forget.

I am writing the Hellberg-article now. Soon done. I translate freely. I also found some seriously great Laver-articles by Hellberg that I feel very tempted to write in here too.

I mean Björn Hellberg sat a few yards away from Gonzalez, Rosewall and "The Rocket" when they fought their most shining battles. His memory is nothing short of, well, nothing!?

His recollections a liquid gold. If you want to I'll write some of them too. Hellberg's brain, tennis-understanding, eye for the most minute detail without ever losing the overall pivotal aspects in tennis-analysis and writing skill is excellent.

To say the least. He's a true hero of mine. Strange as it may sound -- since I was 8 years old in fact...

His books and articles about tennis was one of the first things I read voraciously as a kid. He got me into reading Rex Bellamy, Tingay, studying Hopman -- you name them...

[krosero]

At least two posters have said that a Masters tournament in January should not count for the previous calendar year, and I can't think of a better thread to debate that question.

In '83 it's critical, because if the Masters is counted as the true fourth major, then McEnroe has two majors, Wilander only one. I've already shown that a lot of people saw that tournament as huge -- and it was indisputably the biggest tournament indoors, which is an important thing to look at (particularly if Mats gets credit, as he often does, for his surface variety that year; you've also got to look at his weak surfaces).

Even it's it's only the fifth biggest tournament, that's a lot of weight in McEnroe's corner.

I'm going to make the case that a January Masters did count for the previous calendar year and that we should count it that way, but it's debateable. The ITF lists the Masters tournament of January 1984, for example, as 1984. The ATP counts it as the 1983 Masters -- and Bud Collins in his book continues to treat those Masters tournaments from January as counting for the previous calendar year.

The calendar by itself is not a decisive argument, because some Australian Opens have started in December and carried over into January. I know the 1975 final was played on New Year's Day. So just because most of the tournament was played in 1974, does not mean that that the first six rounds should be left as part of 1974 season. It was clearly a 1975 tournament: the calendar by itself can't definitely decide what season a tournament belongs to.

The problem I have with counting the January 1984 Masters as part of the 1984 season is that the players themselves went into it thinking that it could potentially settle the question of #1 for 1983. It was thought of as a season-ending championship, even if there were questions about its exact importance (it did not count in the computer rankings, for example). And a season-ending championship is what the Masters was earlier when it was held in December; that's what the tournament's successor is today, a season-ending event. Is the date of January by itself enough to make those few editions in the late 70s and 80s into season-opening championships? Not in my opinion.

And if we do treat them as season-openers according to our own choice, what I'd like to see is some source from the time that did the same. Did anyone go into the January 1984 Masters thinking that it had no bearing on the 1983 season, that the new season was simply getting underway? That would be important to know, because if Wilander, for example, thought that way, then his loss to McEnroe takes on a new light.

However that would not change the fact that both McEnroe and Wilander knew that they were in a tight race; they knew that for a lot of people (at least) the Masters was part of the 1983 season and would decide which of them was #1. So even if someone played the tournament thinking it wasn't important, that would not change the fact that expectations were on him from other people. The pressure was there, regardless of what any single player thought.

So I'd like to see more sources about the Masters, from that time period.