WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by elegos7

What do you think?
This system is crude, but it gives an opportunity to evaluate events during the whole course of tennis history, using the same criteria. I am ready for the years 1977-2012, and slowly working my way backwards, but I can give you the obtained points for any tournaments you are particularly interested.
Perhaps giving the same weight to prestige as the draw quality is not fair. In this way the AUS Open (and many amateur slams) already gets 4 points, even without a Top8 participant.

I think this system is too rude.
In 1975 you put the Australian Open ahead the WCT Finals only because it was entered by no. 1 and no. 2. What about the fact that the third seeded was the world no. 26? There are really no reasons to put the 1975 Australian Open over the WCT Finals that year.
I also don't like the 1970-72 scores.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Gonzales didn't show up for Wembley? He won four times there! Come on!
It was definitely one of the best tournaments, if I'm not wrong Rod Laver said that his favourite match against Ken Rosewall was the 1964 Wembley final.
A lot of journalists of the time also pointed at the 1956 final between Gonzales and Sedgman as the greatest Pro match of the era...
I really can't see your arguments, this sounds to me like if you have a personal idiosyncrasy to that tournament, with no real reasons.

Wembley was just about the only tournament of significance in 1952, 1953, 1956, so of course it had to be important in those years.
Starting in 1957, with a strong contingent of players, Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong, White City easily surpassed it.
Several of the Wembley finals were decided by the buildup of heavy smoke, which caused the players to develop exhaustion due to lack of oxygen (especially 1952, 1962, 1964, 1967).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

My choices would be:
1971 - Australian Open (no way: a Slam with a great field will always overcome other events from my point of view)
1972 - WCT Finals
1973 - WCT Finals & the Masters (we need two tournaments that year: Wimbledon was just insignificant, only one top-10 player in its field)
1974 - WCT Finals
1975 - WCT Finals
1976 - WCT Finals (if you prefer the prestige & a partially depleted but still nice field), Philadelphia (if your prefer strong fields & 3-out-of-5 finals) or Palm Springs (if you prefer strong fields & great money prizes) [No way for the Masters Finals that year, they were weaker than the WCT Finals]
1977 - Masters
1978 - Masters (without any kind of doubt, at least from my point of view. The Masters was not strong as in 1977 that year, but it was still having Connors, McEnroe and five other top-10 players, the only difference was Borg, who lose in the Philadelphia quarterfinals to Tanner and didn't enter the Masters: it's definitely not fair in my opinion to put Philadelphia over a prestigious Masters).
1979 - Masters
1980 - Masters
1981 - Masters
1982 - Masters

1970 is more complicated, we need two substitutes because that year the Roland Garros had only one top-10 player, but there are a lot of strong tournaments. My four favourite are Torneo Godò, the Dunlop Internationals, the Tennis Classic round robin and the Masters.
If I have to pick two, I'll say the Masters (for two reasons: 1. it was the first edition of a great historical tournament; 2. Stan Smith defeated Rosewall and Laver to win it: he deserves some consideration for such a feat) and Torneo Godò (to pick up a great clay tournament as a Roland Garros substitute).
But if you prefer the Tennis Classic or the Dunlop tournament, I accept it without problems: they were definitely big ones!
I think there's really no way to estabilish a "real truth" about 1970.


Yes I think it was: the only top player who keeps his Australian Open boycott was Jimmy Connors, all the other players regularly entered it, except McEnroe in 1984 because he was defaulted after the Stockholm accident. Surely the Masters was still really important during the 1983-87 years, but I think that the really can't understimate the AO Slam status after it was rehabilitated.


Yes, but even with strong WCT fields, the Masters was slightly superior to the WCT Finals after 1977.
In 1986, when there was no Australian Open, all journalists considered the Masters as a fourth tournament.

Sorry but Dallas had 3 OUT OF 5 from the very first round.And it was a KO event, not a round robin event like Masters ( with all that tanking and arrangements)

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by kiki

Sorry but Dallas had 3 OUT OF 5 from the very first round.And it was a KO event, not a round robin event like Masters ( with all that tanking and arrangements)

To win the Masters you have to play five matches, to win the WCT Finals you have to play three.

You just have to see the most important event, and since the Masters was played in New York its prestige esponentially increased year after year.
Go and watch the 1986 Masters final between Lendl and Becker.
If the fourth tournament was the WCT Finals (won by Jarryd) like you are saying, the Masters wouldn't have be so important to decide the world no. 1, because Lendl would have overtaken Becker anyway (RG&USO against WIM).
On the contrary, if the Masters was the fourth tournament (and it was, because the commentators clearly said "this is a sort of Slam"), a Becker victory would have created a draw situation (RG&USO against WIM&Masters) and Becker would have been the world no. 1 thanks to the head-to-head score (4-1): this was what all the commentators were saying.
(I don't agree with that, because even counting the Masters as a Major in 1986, and even presupposing a Beck victory, it would have been 2 Majors each, but Lendl had a stronger season overall. Nonetheless, this anecdote demonstrates without any kind of doubt which tournament was seen as most important).

In my opinion there is no way to consider the WCT Finals more than the 5th tournament of the year after 1977.

Wembley was just about the only tournament of significance in 1952, 1953, 1956, so of course it had to be important in those years.
Starting in 1957, with a strong contingent of players, Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong, White City easily surpassed it.
Several of the Wembley finals were decided by the buildup of heavy smoke, which caused the players to develop exhaustion due to lack of oxygen (especially 1952, 1962, 1964, 1967).

The Pro Majors weren't always played where you are saying: the French Pro was played at RG only until 1962. The Australian Pro had no less than four different locations.
Sorry, but I'm convinced that your avversion to this tournament has not real motivations. Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall both consider it a great tournament, so excuse me if I give more credit to their opinions, as they were there and playing. ;P

[FedericRoma83]

[wrong post]

[kiki]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

To win the Masters you have to play five matches, to win the WCT Finals you have to play three.

You just have to see the most important event, and since the Masters was played in New York its prestige esponentially increased year after year.
Go and watch the 1986 Masters final between Lendl and Becker.
If the fourth tournament was the WCT Finals (won by Jarryd) like you are saying, the Masters wouldn't have be so important to decide the world no. 1, because Lendl would have overtaken Becker anyway (RG&USO against WIM).
On the contrary, if the Masters was the fourth tournament (and it was, because the commentators clearly said "this is a sort of Slam"), a Becker victory would have created a draw situation (RG&USO against WIM&Masters) and Becker would have been the world no. 1 thanks to the head-to-head score (4-1): this was what all the commentators were saying.
(I don't agree with that, because even counting the Masters as a Major in 1986, and even presupposing a Beck victory, it would have been 2 Majors each, but Lendl had a stronger season overall. Nonetheless, this anecdote demonstrates without any kind of doubt which tournament was seen as most important).

In my opinion there is no way to consider the WCT Finals more than the 5th tournament of the year after 1977.


The Pro Majors weren't always played were you are saying: the French Pro was played at RG only until 1962. The Australian Pro had no less than four different locations.
Sorry, but I'm convinced that your avversion to this tournament has not real motivations. Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall both consider it a great tournament, so excuse me if I give more credit to their opinions, as they were there and playing. ;P

I already posted before that WCT was the 4th event from 71 till 76, Masters from 77 till 82 and AO regained its status from 83 on.But 83 WCT Finals ( with that unforgetable final ) and 83 Masters, as well as 84 WCT and Masters were as good if not better than AO those 2 years.

1979 was alos a very good year for both, Dallas annd MSG.Even when Masters was behind WCt or the other way back, both were premium tournaments.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

So your list for 4th event of the 1970's through to the 1982 season is:

1970 - Dunlop and Masters as 3rd and 4th
1971 - AO is fine, but Rome over RG
1972 - WCT Finals
1973 - WCT Finals
1974 - WCT Finals
1975 - WCT Finals
1976 - Philadelphia
1977 - Masters
1978 - Philadelphia (very close call w/ the Masters)
1979 - Masters
1980 - Masters
1981 - Masters
1982 - Masters

I've gone with Philly in '76 and '78 because in each case it had a couple more top tenners in the draw -- including the world #1 -- than the other tournament in question (Dallas and the Masters respectively).

Originally Posted by timnz

Also be interesting on your view of the 4th event from 1983 through 1987. My belief is that from 1988 the Australian Open was definitely up to full slam status again being in the new stadium and 128 draw and very deep field. I know top players started coming back in 1983 but did it still have the depth from 1983 through 1987? (I know it was much better than 1972 to 1982 - but was it up to full slam speed from 1983 through 1987?).

I agree with what FedericRoma83 said, the AO fields were still missing players but these fields were not as weak as those up to 1982. And he and I would both like to include the Slams except in the most extreme cases.

It's a close call with the Masters, though.

The AO's prestige at this time was still extremely low, if you go by the comments of players like Lendl in '85 who pointedly said it was not one of the top tournaments. The AO had been in the doldrums for so long that its reputation was still very low, even as the top players were returning to it. They returned but in cases like Lendl, after losing they would say the tournament meant nothing. However, I doubt they would say that if they won the tournament. So all in all I'm inclined to consider these AO's as majors.

Originally Posted by timnz

Regarding the 1976 WCT Finals. I know the Pepsi Grand Slam organizers for their tournament in early 1977 regarded the WCT finals as one of the majors they used to select participants for their event. It was rated by them before the Masters. The Philadelphia event doesn't get a mention.

Yes they called the Big 3 Slams, and Dallas, the most prestigious events. It makes sense that if the Pepsi Grand Slam were looking for the most prestigious events, they would choose a "big name" tournament like the WCT Finals. But I tend to weight strength of draw more than prestige.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

To win the Masters you have to play five matches, to win the WCT Finals you have to play three.

You just have to see the most important event, and since the Masters was played in New York its prestige esponentially increased year after year.
Go and watch the 1986 Masters final between Lendl and Becker.
If the fourth tournament was the WCT Finals (won by Jarryd) like you are saying, the Masters wouldn't have be so important to decide the world no. 1, because Lendl would have overtaken Becker anyway (RG&USO against WIM).
On the contrary, if the Masters was the fourth tournament (and it was, because the commentators clearly said "this is a sort of Slam"), a Becker victory would have created a draw situation (RG&USO against WIM&Masters) and Becker would have been the world no. 1 thanks to the head-to-head score (4-1): this was what all the commentators were saying.
(I don't agree with that, because even counting the Masters as a Major in 1986, and even presupposing a Beck victory, it would have been 2 Majors each, but Lendl had a stronger season overall. Nonetheless, this anecdote demonstrates without any kind of doubt which tournament was seen as most important).

In my opinion there is no way to consider the WCT Finals more than the 5th tournament of the year after 1977.


The Pro Majors weren't always played were you are saying: the French Pro was played at RG only until 1962. The Australian Pro had no less than four different locations.
Sorry, but I'm convinced that your avversion to this tournament has not real motivations. Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall both consider it a great tournament, so excuse me if I give more credit to their opinions, as they were there and playing. ;P

Exactly, the French Pro was only at RG in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968.
It moved to an indoor smoke-house in 1963 known as Stade Coubertin, another oxygen-deprived gas chamber, and no fit location for a major anything.
Why the move? Because the pros wanted to breathe some deep fumes?
No, because Stade Coubertin was cheaper than Roland Garros, and the pro game hit a financial dead zone after Gonzales and Hoad semi-retired. These guys WERE the pro game.
Why Wembley? Because the pros wanted to play in dense smoke?
No, because Wimbledon would not allow the pros to use their premises until 1967.
So, the best players were forced to play in third-rate facilities. Third-rate facilities do not qualify as a major.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

1970 - Dunlop and Masters as 3rd and 4th
1971 - AO is fine, but Rome over RG
1972 - WCT Finals
1973 - WCT Finals
1974 - WCT Finals
1975 - WCT Finals
1976 - Philadelphia
1977 - Masters
1978 - Philadelphia (very close call w/ the Masters)
1979 - Masters
1980 - Masters
1981 - Masters
1982 - Masters

I've gone with Philly in '76 and '78 because in each case it had a couple more top tenners in the draw -- including the world #1 -- than the other tournament in question (Dallas and the Masters respectively).

I agree with what FedericRoma83 said, the AO fields were still missing players but these fields were not as weak as those up to 1982. And he and I would both like to include the Slams except in the most extreme cases.

It's a close call with the Masters, though.

The AO's prestige at this time was still extremely low, if you go by the comments of players like Lendl in '85 who pointedly said it was not one of the top tournaments. The AO had been in the doldrums for so long that its reputation was still very low, even as the top players were returning to it. They returned but in cases like Lendl, after losing they would say the tournament meant nothing. However, I doubt they would say that if they won the tournament. So all in all I'm inclined to consider these AO's as majors.

Yes they called the Big 3 Slams, and Dallas, the most prestigious events. It makes sense that if the Pepsi Grand Slam were looking for the most prestigious events, they would choose a "big name" tournament like the WCT Finals. But I tend to weight strength of draw more than prestige.

You just can´t have more than 8 toptenners at the Masters or WCT finals..so Philadelphia may have been favoured because of its gigantic draw

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

You just can´t have more than 8 toptenners at the Masters or WCT finals..so Philadelphia may have been favoured because of its gigantic draw

That's a good point, you can't just count the top tenners at Dallas in an absolute sense. Instead you could say, in '76, that of the 8 players at Dallas, 5 were year-end top-tenners. At Philadelphia, 7 of the top 10 were present. Numerically it's very comparable.

What tips me in favor of Philly is the presence of Connors and Nastase. Borg was the top player at Dallas. The next highest of the year-end top tenners was #5 Ramirez, followed by #6 Vilas. Philadelphia had #1, 2 and 3: Connors, Borg, Nastase.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Exactly, the French Pro was only at RG in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968.
It moved to an indoor smoke-house in 1963 known as Stade Coubertin, another oxygen-deprived gas chamber, and no fit location for a major anything.
Why the move? Because the pros wanted to breathe some deep fumes?
No, because Stade Coubertin was cheaper than Roland Garros, and the pro game hit a financial dead zone after Gonzales and Hoad semi-retired. These guys WERE the pro game.
Why Wembley? Because the pros wanted to play in dense smoke?
No, because Wimbledon would not allow the pros to use their premises until 1967.
So, the best players were forced to play in third-rate facilities. Third-rate facilities do not qualify as a major.

And yet Wembley is considered the 'World Pro Championship' by tennis writers commenting on this event. eg

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2148

I don't like smoking at all. However, it doesn't invalidate these events.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Exactly, the French Pro was only at RG in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968.
It moved to an indoor smoke-house in 1963 known as Stade Coubertin, another oxygen-deprived gas chamber, and no fit location for a major anything.
Why the move? Because the pros wanted to breathe some deep fumes?
No, because Stade Coubertin was cheaper than Roland Garros, and the pro game hit a financial dead zone after Gonzales and Hoad semi-retired. These guys WERE the pro game.
Why Wembley? Because the pros wanted to play in dense smoke?
No, because Wimbledon would not allow the pros to use their premises until 1967.
So, the best players were forced to play in third-rate facilities. Third-rate facilities do not qualify as a major.

Oxygen? Fumes? Smoke? Facilities?

Are we talking about a tennis tournament or a health spa?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Exactly, the French Pro was only at RG in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968.
It moved to an indoor smoke-house in 1963 known as Stade Coubertin, another oxygen-deprived gas chamber, and no fit location for a major anything.
Why the move? Because the pros wanted to breathe some deep fumes?
No, because Stade Coubertin was cheaper than Roland Garros, and the pro game hit a financial dead zone after Gonzales and Hoad semi-retired. These guys WERE the pro game.
Why Wembley? Because the pros wanted to play in dense smoke?
No, because Wimbledon would not allow the pros to use their premises until 1967.
So, the best players were forced to play in third-rate facilities. Third-rate facilities do not qualify as a major.

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Oxygen? Fumes? Smoke? Facilities?

Are we talking about a tennis tournament or a health spa?

That' interesting. I've read players saying very negative things about the US Open and the Australian and yet they remain majors.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

And yet Wembley is considered the 'World Pro Championship' by tennis writers commenting on this event. eg

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2148

I don't like smoking at all. However, it doesn't invalidate these events.

This is good old Mr. Collins, and he doesn't capitalize "world pro championship", as you did above. This term was applied to a number of different events including a minor stop in Cleveland and one in Oklahoma City! We need something more substantial than this.
Actually, Wembley was billed as the World Professional Indoor Tennis Championships, a self-proclaimed billing.
The key is "Indoor", which immediately reduces the prestige of the event.
There is no doubt from press coverage and player participation that the major pro events were held at the sites of the Slam tournaments, Wimbledon (1967 only), Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong.
These events carried the prestige.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Oxygen? Fumes? Smoke? Facilities?

Are we talking about a tennis tournament or a health spa?

It makes a difference if the outcomes of matches are determined by smoke and lack of oxygen, as in 1952 Wembley final, 1962 Wembley final, also 1964 and 1967 Wenbley final (according to the London Times coverage).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

That' interesting. I've read players saying very negative things about the US Open and the Australian and yet they remain majors.

Because they receive big-league coverage, money, national titles, etc. and are played in major venues, not indoor. Makes a difference.

[TMF]

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6 (record)
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3

Consecutive weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 237 (record)
2. Jimmy Connors 160
3. Ivan Lendl 157
4. Pete Sampras 102

Most weeks at #1
1. Pete Sampras 286 (record)
2. Roger Federer 285 (active)
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6 (record)
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3

Consecutive weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 237 (record)
2. Jimmy Connors 160
3. Ivan Lendl 157
4. Pete Sampras 102

Most weeks at #1
1. Pete Sampras 286 (record)
2. Roger Federer 285 (active)
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170

That's only since the ATP computer was founded in 1973. And Connors had 5 years as ATP number 1 (1974-1978 ), however controversial, and Borg had 2 (1979-1980).

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That's only since the ATP computer was founded in 1973. And Connors had 5 years as ATP number 1 (1974-1978 ), however controversial, and Borg had 2 (1979-1980).

No. Connors has 3 years(1974, 1976, 1982).

[pc1]

Delete post.