WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[timnz]

Originally Posted by krosero

The problem I see with this is that it will leave many individual years in the 1970s and 80s with more than 4 majors. Then it becomes a problem comparing the greats of that time period with other eras in which players had, at most, 4 opportunities per year to play a major. You wouldn't be able to compare McEnroe fairly to Budge, or to Federer. You couldn't even compare him fairly to Laver.

However I agree with you that not all majors are Grand Slam tournaments. The pro majors were obviously not Slams, but they were the majors of the pro tour; and not counting them as majors would leave large numbers of alltime greats, like Pancho and Trabert and Rosewall, playing numerous years without any majors at all.

I feel that it is better to have more than 4 majors a year in some years compared to what we have at the moment which is that Pancho Gonzales only won 2 majors. Does that fairly represent his career? Should he be regarded as achieving similarly to Johan Kriek? I don't think the number 4 is sacrosanct. Yes, there is the issue of fairness but I think that is a far better situation than what we have at present.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by timnz

I feel that it is better to have more than 4 majors a year in some years compared to what we have at the moment which is that Pancho Gonzales only won 2 majors. Does that fairly represent his career? Should he be regarded as achieving similarly to Johan Kriek? I don't think the number 4 is sacrosanct. Yes, there is the issue of fairness but I think that is a far better situation than what we have at present.

Gonzales is way above players like Kriek.

Gonzales won 2 US Championships in a row as an amateur, but why would we ignore Gonzales' professional achievements? He won 7 world pro tours in a row against the toughest competitors, won 8 US Pros in 9 years, won 4 Wembley Pros (3 of which were consecutive) and won 3 Tournament of Champions in a row as well. If there's a criticism to make of Gonzales', it can only be his failure to win Wimbledon in 1949 and not winning the French Pro title. We can hardly criticise anything he did in the open era, as he was in his 40s by then.

Gonzales the amateur seems a very different person, almost like an easy going Kuerten personality. His crushing loss to Jack Kramer on the 1950 world pro tour changed him as a person and he became a loner, a scowler, and a winning machine, and the sacrifices Gonzales made on top of what he felt was under payment for his profession, obviously made made him even more bitter and even more determined to carry on winning.

It's a shame for him that open tennis didn't come in 1960, as it very nearly did.

Pancho Segura and Hans Nusslein are other great professional players who had big achievements years before the open era. Segura did last until the open era, but he was 46 when it arrived and he had been in semi retirement for nearly 6 years by then.

[slice bh compliment]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales is way above players like Kriek....

Kriek's family would even agree. That's like comparing Green Day to the Beatles.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

I feel that it is better to have more than 4 majors a year in some years compared to what we have at the moment which is that Pancho Gonzales only won 2 majors. Does that fairly represent his career? Should he be regarded as achieving similarly to Johan Kriek? I don't think the number 4 is sacrosanct. Yes, there is the issue of fairness but I think that is a far better situation than what we have at present.

Pancho won far more than 2 majors, if his pro majors are counted -- and as I said, I have no problem with counting pro majors. What I'm referring to is when a player has more than 4 opportunities to play a major in a single year, which is how you gave McEnroe a total of 15 majors: by counting all his WCT Finals and Masters titles, on top of the Slams. Under that system, McEnroe gets as many as 6 opportunities per year to play a major. And that's inherently unfair to most players in tennis history, because in most eras, at least from the 1920s onward, no one had more than 4 opportunities to play a major in a single year.

Pancho, for example, never had more than 4 opportunities per year. He either had opportunities to play amateur majors, or pro majors, but never both in the same year. Amateurs and pros played separately, so no one could win more than 4 majors per year.

But you gave McEnroe 15 majors by counting all of his WCT Finals and Masters titles. That means in every year of his career he had 4 opportunities to win majors, at the Slams, plus two more opportunities in Dallas and New York. He gets to play 6 majors per year. That's inherently unfair to players from most other eras in tennis history -- at least since Tilden's era.

That's why I think it's important to designate the 4 most important tournaments of the year, at most, as majors. It's not because there's anything sacroscant about the number 4, but simply because you can't compare champions from different eras unless you put them all on a level playing field.

There's no way McEnroe is only 1 major behind Federer. McEnroe's number, like Federer's, has to be calculated from 4 opportunities per year -- if you're going to compare the two players in any meaningful sense.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by krosero

There's no way McEnroe is only 1 major behind Federer. McEnroe's number, like Federer's, has to be calculated from 4 opportunities per year -- if you're going to compare the two players in any meaningful sense.

Definitely agree.
In my rankings the fourth Major is:
WCT Finals from 1972 to 1976
Masters from 1977 to 1982 (in 1977 the Masters went to New York and became a classic, staying there until 1989. In addition, that year its field slightly overtaken the WCT Finals in quality).
[Translating that in numbers: McEnroe 8 Majors overall (7 Slam + 1978 Masters), Connors 8 (8 Slam, excluding the 1974 AO + 1977 Masters), Lendl 11 (8 Slam + 1981, 1982, 1986 Masters), Borg 14 (11 Slam + 1976 WCT Finals + 1979-80 Masters). Obviously this is only my personal vision, but I think it's pretty accurate]

I really can not count the 1972-82 AO as an effective Major.
I prefer to judge tournament's effective value, because my target is to estabilish who were the stronger players, not to give credit to the ATP foolishness.
Watch its fields: they seem an equivalent to today's ATP 500 fields (even worse, because in the ATP 500 tournaments you can also find the no. 1 player sometimes, while back in 1972-82 only Connors in 1975 entered the tournament as the world no. 1).
It was really a laughable tournament back in the days (no one of the sport commentators considered it. I repeat, just go and watch the WCT Finals 1975 movie, the speaker cleary said that it was Ashe's first major victory from 1968: he didn't mentioned the 1970 AO at all!
They couldn't care less about AO in the 70s, that's history! No big money, no big fields, no big media coverage, nothing at all!)

[Mustard]

The 1975 Australian Open final was big, though, with Newcombe finally getting to meet Connors after it failed to materialise in 1974. And what's your view of the 1971 WCT Dallas event?

I'm sorry, but I stick by my belief that the majors with weaker fields were due to the politics of the age, but they were still majors. The WCT Dallas and Masters events were big events that were more professionally run and up to date with open tennis, but they were not majors. But I also have no problem with someone using these big events to bolster a person's claim to a great calendar year.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by krosero

There's no way McEnroe is only 1 major behind Federer. McEnroe's number, like Federer's, has to be calculated from 4 opportunities per year -- if you're going to compare the two players in any meaningful sense.

I wasn't saying that McEnroe (at 15) was 1 behind Federer. I said that Federer was on 22 (16 + 6 masters cups). And when you think about it - that's feels about right yes? 15 vs 22.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The 1975 Australian Open final was big, though, with Newcombe finally getting to meet Connors after it failed to materialise in 1974. And what's your view of the 1971 WCT Dallas event?

I'm sorry, but I stick by my belief that the majors with weaker fields were due to the politics of the age, but they were still majors. The WCT Dallas and Masters events were big events that were more professionally run, but they were not majors.

I can understand that point of view. (I do think the 1972 and 1973 Wimbledon's should be counted as Major even though they had relatively weak fields). I don't agree with your view, but I understand the logic of what you are saying. My only question is why do you recognize Pro Majors as Majors but not WCT Finals and Masters Cup? Why do Pro Majors qualify but WCT finals and Masters Cup not?

[timnz]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Definitely agree.
In my rankings the fourth Major is:
WCT Finals from 1972 to 1976
Masters from 1977 to 1982 (in 1977 the Masters went to New York and became a classic, staying there until 1989. In addition, that year its field slightly overtaken the WCT Finals in quality).
[Translating that in numbers: McEnroe 8 Majors overall (7 Slam + 1978 Masters), Connors 8 (8 Slam, excluding the 1974 AO + 1977 Masters), Lendl 11 (8 Slam + 1981, 1982, 1986 Masters), Borg 14 (11 Slam + 1976 WCT Finals + 1979-80 Masters). Obviously this is only my personal vision, but I think it's pretty accurate]

So you include 1986 Masters because there was no Australian that year - correct?

I'd also be interested in your cut off date of 1977/1978 between the WCT finals and Masters. I know the 1978 WCT field was weaker. But that seemed an aberation. The WCT finals seemed to have great fields for many years afterwards eg consider the great final of 1983 between McEnroe and Lendl.

For those who say 4 is the limit of majors per year - what do we do with 1977 - which Australian Open should count?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by timnz

I can understand that point of view. I don't agree, but I understand the logic of what you are saying. My only question is why do you recognize Pro Majors as Majors but not WCT Finals and Masters Cup? Why do Pro Majors qualify but WCT finals and Masters Cup not?

Because the professionals before the open era were forbidden to play at the Australian Championships, French Championships, Wimbledon and the US Championships, which were amateur only tournaments.

The WCT Dallas and Masters events are year-end championships. Okay, they were much bigger back in their heyday than they later became, but the four majors of amateur/open tennis have always been the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US going back to 1924/1925.

Although, it's also true that the contracted professionals missed many majors in the early 1970s for one reason or another, usually due to disputes the WCT had with the ILTF, or the issues the ATP players had with the ILTF, or WTT vs. the French Tennis Federation, but the personal opportunity for an individual to enter was always there. That wasn't the case before the open era, where if a player turned professional, he had burned all his bridges with the tennis mainstream (i.e. amateur tennis). They were fighting for their professional lives back then.

When Gonzales was thrashed 96-27 by Kramer in the 1950 world pro tour, the promotor, Bobby Riggs, told Gonzales that he was "dead meat" as an attraction for future tours, and that he didn't want Gonzales near future tours. Gonzales could have crumbled under that pressure, and he couldn't have gone back to the amateurs because all the bridges had been burned. He would either fold, or play in some tournaments and patiently wait another chance. When it eventually arrived, Gonzales made sure he'd never fail again. Other players, like Ashley Cooper, didn't respond quite so positively.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by timnz

So you include 1986 Masters because there was no Australian that year - correct?

Sure!

Originally Posted by Mustard

The 1975 Australian Open final was big, though, with Newcombe finally getting to meet Connors after it failed to materialise in 1974.

If I have to save a match from AO '72-'82, it would surely be that one. Great victory from Newcombe.
But a great match doesn't save eleven years and twelve editions with weak fields. Look at the 1975 edition that we are saying: it was a five rounds tournament (like an actual ATP 500).
The top-4 seeded were Jimmy Connors (the world #1), John Newcombe (#2), Tony Roche (#26) and John Alexander (#27). The third and fourth seeded were not even in the top-25! (And remember that it was the only time that the world no. 1 entered it).
What if at the 2012 AO the top-4 seeded were Djokovic, Nadal, Monaco and Granollers? With no Federer, Murray, Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, Delpo, Tipsarevic... ahahah.

And what's your view of the 1971 WCT Dallas event?

Great tournament, even if Rod Laver said that it had not so much media coverage, because it was crushed between other sport events. Anyway in 1971 the Australian Open was amazing, even better than Roland Garros, so the WCT was probably the 5th tournament that season.

I'm sorry, but I stick by my belief that the majors with weaker fields were due to the politics of the age, but they were still majors.

We are speaking two different languages (not a bad thing tough, I like confrontation).

What is official and what is not is secondary in my opinion.
Just look at the Grand Slam Cup: at the time it wasn't considered official, but the players considered it as important as the Masters and they fought the hell out of each other to win it (a lot of 5-set epic matches!).
After the tournament was dismissed the ATP changed its mind and declared that it was official: that's simply ridiculous. How can something became official after it was played?

Another example: the E.C.C. Antwerp. It was one hell of a tournament. Its first prize in the mid 80s was 200.000 dollars (when the richest Slam prize, the US Open one, was around 180-190.000 dollars). In addition, they offered a Gold Raquet estimated at around 700.000 dollars, in the case of three victories in five years. When Ivan Lendl won it for the third time in 1985, he received a combined amount of over 900.000 dollars (nearly 5 times the US Open first prize). Guess what? The ATP said it wasn't official. But now they're discussing about making it official: 20 years after it was dismissed!

Obviously Grand Slam Cup and E.C.C. Antwerp wouldn't have been Majors even if they were official, but they were still two of the greatest tournaments after the four Slam. That's why I think you don't have to give all that credit to ATP: it doesn't help you in any kind of way to estabilish who were the greatest players.

I'm not interested in piecing together all the nominal majors in tennis history: we don't need to do it, we already know which ones are nominally indicated as Majors and which ones aren't.
Australian Open is nominally a major since 1924 (when it was still called Australasian Championship).
My point is: if a tournament is a Major only in theory, but not de facto, it can't be helpful to estabilish who were the stronger players of the year (which is what we are discussing here).
To estabilish that, I need to find the four effective greatest tournament, the biggest events with lots of money and high level of players (these two seem to work together: just look at the money difference between the bad 1970 AO and the great 1971 edition with the biggest players).

Nobody said officially that the late 70s-early 80s Masters was a Major, but if fact everybody considered it the big one after the first three Slam. Just look some old matches and hear the commentary to understand what I'm saying. I repeat, it's just to understand who was the best player, not to re-write ATP rules (I couldn't care less ;D ).

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by timnz

The WCT finals seemed to have great fields for many years afterwards eg consider the great final of 1983 between McEnroe and Lendl.

One of the greatest matches ever!*
But for 1983 the question is meaningless: the Australian Open was finally back that year, so I don't have to choose between Masters and WCT Finals.

*It was probably the best match between those two (after the Rolad Garros final). Such a pity that McEnroe's match point wasn't regular... poor Ivan, he tried to ask explanations to the judge, but he didn't answer.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by slice bh compliment

Kriek's family would even agree. That's like comparing Green Day to the Beatles.

Or Beethoven to Boccherini.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

I feel that it is better to have more than 4 majors a year in some years compared to what we have at the moment which is that Pancho Gonzales only won 2 majors. Does that fairly represent his career? Should he be regarded as achieving similarly to Johan Kriek? I don't think the number 4 is sacrosanct. Yes, there is the issue of fairness but I think that is a far better situation than what we have at present.

It would be nice to have four majors every year, but that should not blind us to reality and cause us to "pretend" that four majors existed every year when in fact they did not, and the players themselves did not regard the pro circuit as having four majors every year, and some years no majors.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales is way above players like Kriek.

Gonzales won 2 US Championships in a row as an amateur, but why would we ignore Gonzales' professional achievements? He won 7 world pro tours in a row against the toughest competitors, won 8 US Pros in 9 years, won 4 Wembley Pros (3 of which were consecutive) and won 3 Tournament of Champions in a row as well. If there's a criticism to make of Gonzales', it can only be his failure to win Wimbledon in 1949 and not winning the French Pro title. We can hardly criticise anything he did in the open era, as he was in his 40s by then.

Gonzales the amateur seems a very different person, almost like an easy going Kuerten personality. His crushing loss to Jack Kramer on the 1950 world pro tour changed him as a person and he became a loner, a scowler, and a winning machine, and the sacrifices Gonzales made on top of what he felt was under payment for his profession, obviously made made him even more bitter and even more determined to carry on winning.

It's a shame for him that open tennis didn't come in 1960, as it very nearly did.

Pancho Segura and Hans Nusslein are other great professional players who had big achievements years before the open era. Segura did last until the open era, but he was 46 when it arrived and he had been in semi retirement for nearly 6 years by then.

It is a shame that the pros played so few major tournaments, and really only the Forest Hills T of C, the Roland Garros pros, and the 1967 Wimbledon can really be regarded as majors. Why? Because of the venues, and the press coverage.
A pity that Kramer refused TV contracts, for fear of hurting ticket sales.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Pancho won far more than 2 majors, if his pro majors are counted -- and as I said, I have no problem with counting pro majors. What I'm referring to is when a player has more than 4 opportunities to play a major in a single year, which is how you gave McEnroe a total of 15 majors: by counting all his WCT Finals and Masters titles, on top of the Slams. Under that system, McEnroe gets as many as 6 opportunities per year to play a major. And that's inherently unfair to most players in tennis history, because in most eras, at least from the 1920s onward, no one had more than 4 opportunities to play a major in a single year.

Pancho, for example, never had more than 4 opportunities per year. He either had opportunities to play amateur majors, or pro majors, but never both in the same year. Amateurs and pros played separately, so no one could win more than 4 majors per year.

But you gave McEnroe 15 majors by counting all of his WCT Finals and Masters titles. That means in every year of his career he had 4 opportunities to win majors, at the Slams, plus two more opportunities in Dallas and New York. He gets to play 6 majors per year. That's inherently unfair to players from most other eras in tennis history -- at least since Tilden's era.

That's why I think it's important to designate the 4 most important tournaments of the year, at most, as majors. It's not because there's anything sacroscant about the number 4, but simply because you can't compare champions from different eras unless you put them all on a level playing field.

There's no way McEnroe is only 1 major behind Federer. McEnroe's number, like Federer's, has to be calculated from 4 opportunities per year -- if you're going to compare the two players in any meaningful sense.

The problem is to choose the top four events.
For example, in 1958 and 1959, the "US Pro" and Wembley were much less lucrative and well-attended than either the Sydney or Kooyong events, and the latter were played in major outdoor facilities rather than indoor smoke dens.
I would suggest looking at major venues, Forest Hills, Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Kooyong, White City, and rating whatever pro events were held there as majors, and this would mean that some years would have no majors.
This is a shame, and a disadvantage to Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman and others who had no major to play in some years, but we should not ignore realities. Some years really had no pro majors!

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

A pity that Kramer refused TV contracts, for fear of hurting ticket sales.

A very silly decision on Kramer's part, in hindsight. TV coverage would have helped to raise the profile and popularity of professional tennis, and people would have been able to clearly see how much better the professional players were as a whole. I mean, how many people watched Wimbledon on the BBC in the amateur only days and thought these were the best tennis players in the world? Most surely would have, considering that the professionals were seldom mentioned, although Kramer was hired as a commentator for the BBC in 1960.

If Bryan Cowgill hadn't had approached Kramer during 1966 Wimbledon about the idea of hosting a professional tournament at Wimbledon for the following year, how much longer would the pre-open era had gone on for? We know how much TV coverage of the best tennis players in the 1970s made the sport boom.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The problem is to choose the top four events.
For example, in 1958 and 1959, the "US Pro" and Wembley were much less lucrative and well-attended than either the Sydney or Kooyong events, and the latter were played in major outdoor facilities rather than indoor smoke dens.
I would suggest looking at major venues, Forest Hills, Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Kooyong, White City, and rating whatever pro events were held there as majors, and this would mean that some years would have no majors.
This is a shame, and a disadvantage to Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman and others who had no major to play in some years, but we should not ignore realities. Some years really had no pro majors!

I can't agree.

Take 1959 Wembley. Mal Anderson beat Sedgman, Rosewall and Segura in succession to win the title, the latter two in five sets. That's brilliant, and surely the best moment of Anderson's career.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Great tournament, even if Rod Laver said that it had not so much media coverage, because it was crushed between other sport events. Anyway in 1971 the Australian Open was amazing, even better than Roland Garros, so the WCT was probably the 5th tournament that season.

The 1971 WCT Dallas event certainly seems bigger than the 1971 French Open. Heck, even 1971 Rome was probably bigger than the 1971 French Open. The 1971 French Open, however, is the only one of those 3 events to be a major. The politics of that era, I'm afraid.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

I wasn't saying that McEnroe (at 15) was 1 behind Federer. I said that Federer was on 22 (16 + 6 masters cups). And when you think about it - that's feels about right yes? 15 vs 22.

But Federer gets to 22 majors with 5 opportunities per year, while McEnroe still has 6. Still not right.

5 today is too many, anyway, because the Masters Cup just doesn't have anything like the prestige of the Slams. Okay, sure, there's debate about how much weight the year-end championship carries. But these days the Slams are king. No debate whatsoever about their importance. The year-end championship is clearly a level below them.

And trying to find 5 or 6 top tournaments per year going back through tennis history would be a nightmare, I think. Agreeing on the top 4 is difficult enough.