WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

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

Look, I have Connors as the best player in the world only for 1974, 1976 and 1982. The ATP computer, on the other hand, has Connors as number 1 for every year from 1974-1978, and puts McEnroe at number 1 for 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ingles_players

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Look, I have Connors as the best player in the world only for 1974, 1976 and 1982. The ATP computer, on the other hand, has Connors as number 1 for every year from 1974-1978, and puts McEnroe at number 1 for 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ingles_players

In 1977, Connors was n°1 ATP, without winning a Grand Slam. Totally absurd.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

In 1977, Connors was n°1 ATP, without winning a Grand Slam. Totally absurd.

1975 as well. McEnroe in 1982 is another one.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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).

Who cares? It was just a condition of the field, like wind, humidity, temperature... if there was smoke, there was smoke for every players.

The 1964 final that you are trying to disqualify was pointed by Rod Laver as his best match ever against Ken Rosewall (who also pointed it as his favourite Pro tournament). I assume that you know that tournament better than Rocket and Muscles.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Who cares? It was just a condition of the field, like wind, humidity, temperature... if there was smoke, there was smoke for every players.

The 1964 final that you are trying to disqualify was pointed by Rod Laver as his best match ever against Ken Rosewall (who also pointed it as his favourite Pro tournament). I assume that you know that tournament better than Rocket and Muscles.

The London Times review pointed out that Rosewall noticeably tired at the end of the match (from smoke and lack of oxygen).
Sure, this was a hazard of the conditions, but not what you would find in a major outdoor facility, such as Wimbledon or Forest Hills.
The only reason the pros were playing at Wembley was because they could not get into Wimbledon.
That is, Wembley was not a location of choice, but of default. Second rate.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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).

You mean that the loser was not defeated by his opponent, but by the atmospheric conditions.? Outrageous.

I'll be danged!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

You mean that the loser was not defeated by his opponent, but by the atmospheric conditions.? Outrageous.

I'll be danged!

Jack Kramer had Gonzales on the ropes in the 1952 Wembley final, 5 to 2 in the fifth set, when the smoke and lack of oxygen caught up with him, and he suddenly became exhausted. He lost the last five games of the match.
What did Gonzales have to do with that victory? He stayed alive until the smoke worked for him.
I am not saying that Kramer's opponent had nothing to do with the outcome, but that the bigger man (Kramer was 185 pounds, Gonzales 180) had greater oxygen requirements, and didn't get them.
Would Kramer have won if that match had been outdoors? Probably.

[Mustard]

Gonzales beat Kramer in the 1952 Wembley Pro final, because he was better than Kramer that day.

Smoke? LOL. What did Gonzales breathe then?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales beat Kramer in the 1952 Wembley Pro final, because he was better than Kramer that day.

Smoke? LOL. What did Gonzales breathe then?

There was an age difference of about seven years, which favoured the younger man when oxygen is scarce, and which is less of an advantage when oxygen is not scarce (such as at Wimbledon or Forest Hills).
Further, Kramer was coming back from a long layoff, caused by back problems. His conditioning was below Gonzales, who was himself rusty from lack of play (there was no pro tour in 1952, indeed, the pro game had virtually ceased to exist).
Actually, overall, I would say that Kramer was the better player that day, and would probably have won at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.
What's the old song, "Smoke gets in your eyes...", but also into your lungs and bloodstream.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Jack Kramer had Gonzales on the ropes in the 1952 Wembley final, 5 to 2 in the fifth set, when the smoke and lack of oxygen caught up with him, and he suddenly became exhausted. He lost the last five games of the match.
What did Gonzales have to do with that victory? He stayed alive until the smoke worked for him.
I am not saying that Kramer's opponent had nothing to do with the outcome, but that the bigger man (Kramer was 185 pounds, Gonzales 180) had greater oxygen requirements, and didn't get them.
Would Kramer have won if that match had been outdoors? Probably.

What a hot steamy pile of horse pucky!

[urban]

Doubles final should have been Hillary and Tenzing vs. Mallory and Irvin.

[kiki]

well, pros had that charm.They used to play under the msot unbelievable circumstances.parkings,Highways,countries in the middle of a military coup d´etat, wood...one must wonder if modern era players could stand it like they did.


Not to mention they had to drive during many hours, play the event and pick up the car again.On road show 24/7

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Jack Kramer had Gonzales on the ropes in the 1952 Wembley final, 5 to 2 in the fifth set, when the smoke and lack of oxygen caught up with him, and he suddenly became exhausted. He lost the last five games of the match.
What did Gonzales have to do with that victory? He stayed alive until the smoke worked for him.
I am not saying that Kramer's opponent had nothing to do with the outcome, but that the bigger man (Kramer was 185 pounds, Gonzales 180) had greater oxygen requirements, and didn't get them.
Would Kramer have won if that match had been outdoors? Probably.

Great fiction: "the smoke and lack of oxygen caught up with him, and he suddenly became exhausted".

You're hilarious; keep those surrealist tales coming. Love it!

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Jack Kramer had Gonzales on the ropes in the 1952 Wembley final, 5 to 2 in the fifth set, when the smoke and lack of oxygen caught up with him, and he suddenly became exhausted. He lost the last five games of the match.
What did Gonzales have to do with that victory? He stayed alive until the smoke worked for him.
I am not saying that Kramer's opponent had nothing to do with the outcome, but that the bigger man (Kramer was 185 pounds, Gonzales 180) had greater oxygen requirements, and didn't get them.
Would Kramer have won if that match had been outdoors? Probably.

Here's another great one along these same lines: Djokovic was not beaten by Fed at the 2007 USO, it was the gluten.

What did Fed have to do with that victory? He kept the match alive until Djoker's pasta supper of the night before worked for him.

Too funny.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

1975 as well. McEnroe in 1982 is another one.

and Lendl in 89.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

What a hot steamy pile of horse pucky!

Welcome back, Limp. Haven't heard from you for a while. And thanks for your usual stream of compliments.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Here's another great one along these same lines: Djokovic was not beaten by Fed at the 2007 USO, it was the gluten.

What did Fed have to do with that victory? He kept the match alive until Djoker's pasta supper of the night before worked for him.

Too funny.

Here's another Kramer story.
In the 1943 US final, Kramer lost to Hunt in four sets, supposedly because he ate uncooked clams the night before and was suffering from food poisoning. The scores seem to bear that out.
Today, a player would default before the match.
Does this give Kramer an excuse for losing? No, but it provides some explanation for an unexpected result.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Great fiction: "the smoke and lack of oxygen caught up with him, and he suddenly became exhausted".

You're hilarious; keep those surrealist tales coming. Love it!

The "surrealist tales" were sourced from Kramer's own recollections and the London Times accounts.
Perhaps you should have said "realistic tales".

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The "surrealist tales" were sourced from Kramer's own recollections and the London Times accounts.
Perhaps you should have said "realistic tales".

Sure, happy to. Keep those rose-colored, sour-grapes tales coming.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Does this give Kramer an excuse for losing? No, but it provides some explanation for an unexpected result.

If this is all you're doing, then I support you.

I'm sure tennis history is full of such stories of non-court, non-competition factors influencing the outcome of a match.

pace the last leg of Hoad's 1956 Grand Slam attempt at the US Championships--losing to Muscles

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales beat Kramer in the 1952 Wembley Pro final, because he was better than Kramer that day.

Smoke? LOL. What did Gonzales breathe then?

I was thinking the same thing myself.

Many indoor arenas were smoke filled in those days. They didn't have the smoking regulations of today and I would think more people smoked in those days because people didn't know the health risks.