Is Rosewall a GOAT Candidate?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Yes. Of course I'm the guy who knows nothing about the technique of past players, so I have to claim immense ignorance. So I will spend the day researching the history of the high one handed backhand spank slice shot with the high finish. Though I have not found one yet, so I need help from all of you here. ;)
More snark. Do you have anything else to contribute?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes. Of course I'm the guy who knows nothing about the technique of past players, so I have to claim immense ignorance. So I will spend the day researching the history of the high one handed backhand spank slice shot with the high finish. Though I have not found one yet, so I need help from all of you here. ;)

I don't think I'll be able to help myself from saying, "Spank the slice! Spank the slice!" next time Federer plays Nadal.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
We'll never agree on the slice, I do agree that Federer improved his approach to the net under Edberg. He always had great touch and in his early years he was certainly good at the net, he became much more one dimensional from 2006 onwards. Edberg has helped him get into the net more, helped him improve his instincts there and positioning etc...
I don't think any of us ever said that Federer's backhand could not use some improvement, or that what Edberg did as a coach did not improve it. As I have said before, I think Rosewall was a magnificent player and deserves all the credit he gets and maybe more. I also think he had just about the most aesthetically pleasing backhand I've ever seen.

And I would think that would be safe enough to say to stay out of trouble!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I don't think any of us ever said that Federer's backhand could not use some improvement, or that what Edberg did as a coach did not improve it. As I have said before, I think Rosewall was a magnificent player and deserves all the credit he gets and maybe more. I also think he had just about the most aesthetically pleasing backhand I've ever seen.

And I would think that would be safe enough to say to stay out of trouble!

I think his backhand is a bit underrated in some of his peak years, but it's never been an Edberg, Rosewall, Kuerten etc...level backhand.

Rosewall does indeed deserve more credit, I disagree with some (alot) of what Bobby says but Rosewall is a largely unknown great who achieved some incredible things that no one else has done.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I think his backhand is a bit underrated in some of his peak years, but it's never been an Edberg, Rosewall, Kuerten etc...level backhand.

Rosewall does indeed deserve more credit, I disagree with some (alot) of what Bobby says but Rosewall is a largely unknown great who achieved some incredible things that no one else has done.
I agree totally. I usually just hang out here a bit. I'm awed by some of the research done by people and the facts they are unearthing.

I don't see the point of getting all hot and bothered over conjecture. In tennis we have the Open era in which a standard was created, little by little, that helps settle some debates. To me a lot was hidden from the time pros started to disappear rather early from amateur tennis for the very real reason that there was next to no money in amateur tennis. I heard Fred Stolle talking about the "barnstorming" era today - on Tennis Channel during the rain - and to me the main point has always been about money.

The pros have always gone where the money is. So I look at the area from the 50s through the late 60s as sort of a "hidden era", and everything gets murky. Then beginning in 1968 or so it became a free-for-all, almost chaotic. Today it is almost impossible to try to understand how Borg had to skip RG one year because of a Team Tennis contract, but he was going where the money was then.

I think we can always learn from past masters, and that includes sports, music, so many other things. Not everything that is great was born last year or in the last decade, but I don't think it is wise to worship the past either.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I agree totally. I usually just hang out here a bit. I'm awed by some of the research done by people and the facts they are unearthing.

I don't see the point of getting all hot and bothered over conjecture. In tennis we have the Open era in which a standard was created, little by little, that helps settle some debates. To me a lot was hidden from the time pros started to disappear rather early from amateur tennis for the very real reason that there was next to no money in amateur tennis. I heard Fred Stolle talking about the "barnstorming" era today - on Tennis Channel during the rain - and to me the main point has always been about money.

The pros have always gone where the money is. So I look at the area from the 50s through the late 60s as sort of a "hidden era", and everything gets murky. Then beginning in 1968 or so it became a free-for-all, almost chaotic. Today it is almost impossible to try to understand how Borg had to skip RG one year because of a Team Tennis contract, but he was going where the money was then.

I think we can always learn from past masters, and that includes sports, music, so many other things. Not everything that is great was born last year or in the last decade, but I don't think it is wise to worship the past either.
Very intelligent post.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Very intelligent post.
The point I was trying to make - unsuccessfully - is that common vocabulary for describing what goes on in anything will always be horrendously incomplete.

For instance, we can divide groundstrokes into forehands and backhands. But that does not even begin to describe all the variations in those shots that happen when players decide to play closer to the baselines or farther back.

Any reasonable amount of spin can happen in all groundstrokes, and they are hit from around the knees to shoulder high and sometimes even higher. If we start talking about slice shots and chop shots, first we have to define those terms. Then we have to consider how many useful gradations we want to use from an insane amount of slice to a ball that is very nearly flat.

To that add the speed of the shots.

Today we have technology to tell us how many times per minute a ball spins. Slow motion replays allow us to clearly see the ball spinning. There are readouts measuring the speed of the average backhand and forehand.

I believe of the top players Wawrinka was listed to day as hitting his backhand closest to the speed of his forehand, and Fed was close to the last one in the list. But this is relative. None of the guys are hitting backhands that are hugely slower than forehands.

What do we have for the past?

Bits and pieces of rather poor video footage. We are left to make snap judgements purely on feel, from very poor images. Those who actually saw these old players play also have not seen them play in many decades, so they are depending on memory, and memory can be biased - always.

So when we talk about a lot of what we talk about here we are truly in a "fact-free zone" when we talk about the amount of spin, the speed of shots and so on Unlike many people I don't trust my own impressions when they are not backed up with fact.

Years ago it was common to talk about "coming over the ball" for topspin. That may be a useful analogy for players based on feel - though I don't think even that is the best idea - but it was disproved decades ago with slo-mo. We found out, for instance, that players who hit a lot of top spin always swing from low to high and that actually closing the racket face even a little bit guarantees a shot right into the net.

Today we can see this in every slo-mo replay. Where is the racket face upon contact with the ball? How long is the ball "on the strings" (in contact with the strings? What is the path of the racket head directly before and after it strikes the ball?

And from that we can see what players do with racket preparation and follow through. We can separate preparation and follow through to see how both both help players develop strokes that are repeatable. We can even compare a JMac type player, short preparation and almost ridiculous lack of follow through with other players, but if JMac were playing today, we would be able to analyze his play style much better. Most likely we would conclude that it is a fantastically compact way of stroke production that would utterly fail for 99.9% of all players on the planet because it demands perfect timing and almost super-human reflexes.

So that's all I was talking about.

You can talk about what shots do, which is the bottom line, then you can talk about how they are produced. If the production leads to better shots - also repeatable results - that becomes extremely important. If, for example, Rosewall's classic backhand would not only be the best for today's top players but also the average player, that becomes incredibly important.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Thanks. I was looking for a split between amateur and pro years. I'm going by the idea that Rosewall's pro career basically started in 1957. I've never been much interested in the amateur careers of any of the greats of this period because at all times the best players in the world were playing separately on pro tours. It's not like the Open era when we can examine how future stars were doing from the very beginning as they tried to break into the pro tour.
Ah, but you forget...we must include Rosewall's amateur slams in this thread....forget the other amateur slams.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan, I don't have any of the stats you guys have, but I am aware in a sort of "big picture" way that Hoad was incredibly dominant early in his career.

Do you know how the H2H stacks up for Hoad and Rosewall both before and after they both turned pro? Also, how long did the Hoad dominance last? My impression is that Hoad was just about the most unbeatable guy around when he was hot but not particularly consistent in that he could have sudden lapses.

Gary, Thanks for contacting me the other way but I cannot answer you that way.

Regarding Rosewall vs. Hoad: After going through Andrew Tasiopoulos' Rosewall record I found:

Rosewall: Hoad 69:45 matches (amateur and pro matches together)

Rosewall:Hoad as amateurs 8:13 matches.

Rosewall:Hoad as pros 61:32 matches.

Rosewall:Hoad during Hoad's peak years 1957 to 1960: 34:26. This last hth disproves the claim that peak Hoad dominated peak Rosewall (edit: or almost- peak Rosewall).
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Gary, Thanks for contacting me the other way but I cannot answer you that way.

Regarding Rosewall vs. Hoad: After going through Andrew Tasiopoulos' Rosewall record I found:

Rosewall: Hoad 69:45 matches (amateur and pro matches together)

Rosewall:Hoad as amateurs 8:13 matches.

Rosewall:Hoad as pros 61:32 matches.

Rosewall:Hoad during Hoad's peak years 1957 to 1960: 34:26. This last hth disproves the claim that peak Hoad dominated peak Rosewall (edit: or almost- peak Rosewall).
In tournament play, Hoad led about 2 to 1 for 1952 to 1960...including lifetime hth edge on clay.
They only played each other once in a world championship tour, both players in peak form, result Hoad 6 to 2 over Rosewall...'nuff said.
The only way to get respectable numbers for Rosewall is to include minor tour matches and exhibitions, which were not the same thing as tournament results.

Again, I am puzzled as to how you could suggest Rosewall was co-number one for 1959. The numbers suggest otherwise, unless you give weight to very minor matches outside the championship tour.

But of course, I know that you normally give preponderant consideration to the championship tour, as you showed for your estimation of 1964, where you give the championship tour the determining weight.
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Gary, Thanks for contacting me the other way but I cannot answer you that way.

Regarding Rosewall vs. Hoad: After going through Andrew Tasiopoulos' Rosewall record I found:

Rosewall: Hoad 69:45 matches (amateur and pro matches together)

Rosewall:Hoad as amateurs 8:13 matches.

Rosewall:Hoad as pros 61:32 matches.

Rosewall:Hoad during Hoad's peak years 1957 to 1960: 34:26. This last hth disproves the claim that peak Hoad dominated peak Rosewall (edit: or almost- peak Rosewall).
That's what I was looking for. Hoad led a bit in the H2H during their amateur years, but really not later, right?

So yes, that would certainly seem to show that Hoad was not dominant over Rosewall after they became pros...
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
In tournament play, Hoad led about 2 to 1 for 1952 to 1960...including lifetime hth edge on clay.
They only played each other once in a world championship tour, both players in peak form, result Hoad 6 to 2 over Rosewall...'nuff said.
The only way to get respectable numbers for Rosewall is to include minor tour matches and exhibitions, which were not the same thing as tournament results.

Again, I am puzzled as to how you could suggest Rosewall was co-number one for 1959. The numbers suggest otherwise, unless you give weight to very minor matches outside the championship tour.

But of course, I know that you normally give preponderant consideration to the championship tour, as you showed for your estimation of 1964, where you give the championship tour the determining weight.
Well obviously your figures are contradicting BobbyOne. Since I do not have the whole list I'll assume at this time that people argue the H2H both ways...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
In tournament play, Hoad led about 2 to 1 for 1952 to 1960...including lifetime hth edge on clay.
They only played each other once in a world championship tour, both players in peak form, result Hoad 6 to 2 over Rosewall...'nuff said.
The only way to get respectable numbers for Rosewall is to include minor tour matches and exhibitions, which were not the same thing as tournament results.

Again, I am puzzled as to how you could suggest Rosewall was co-number one for 1959. The numbers suggest otherwise, unless you give weight to very minor matches outside the championship tour.

But of course, I know that you normally give preponderant consideration to the championship tour, as you showed for your estimation of 1964, where you give the championship tour the determining weight.

Dan, Ken Rosewall said that he had the best balance in 1959. It's a fact that the hth of Rosewall vs. Gonzalez was 8:4.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Any sport that has nicknames like Bitsy and Gonzilla does have a sense of humor. The Old Aussies themselves weren't super serious all the time.
Certainly Hopman was, coming up with nicknames like "Muscles" and "Rocket".
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Well obviously your figures are contradicting BobbyOne. Since I do not have the whole list I'll assume at this time that people argue the H2H both ways...

Gary, I gave the overall match balances, Dan gave the 1952 to 1960 tournament balance where he is right and the general clay balance where I'm not sure if he is right because Dan still refuses to count matches from "minor" tours such as 1958 Perrier Trophy and 1959 Grand Prix series.

Here the hth of Rosewall vs. Hoad in the four peak years of Lew:

1957: Rosewall leads probably 16:15
1958: Rosewall leads 9:3 !
1959: Rosewall and Hoad are even at 6:6
1960: Rosewall leads 5:4

In their last common amateur year, 1956, they had been even at 3:3
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall was actually pretty muscular in his legs and right arm, but also very skinny. I would estimate 135-140 lbs. max.

I am fairly certain that "The Rocket" arose from the fact that Laver was such a hard hitter from the beginning. Laver's himself said that his approach to tennis was to hit big then learn to control it, rather than to learn to control it, and then learn to hit big. Further, speed is very much inherent. It isn't learned. Moreover, prime Laver was widely considered the fastest player in the game according to World Tennis Magazine, and is still considered by some to be the greatest overall athlete to ever play. It is not realistic that Laver was slow as a junior and somehow learned to be fast as an adult. It just doesn't work that way.

PS: BTW, prime Laver was very muscular from head to toe, and also skinny.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

krosero

Legend
You can always guess who might have been champion if a tour were held, but there could be no OFFICIAL champion (as opposed to a privately rated top player) before 1963.

This begs the question of whether or not the 1964 tour was an official world championship tour...I am waiting for Bobby to give us a quote on that.

The article for World Tennis doesn't say anything that the 1964 tour was an official world championship tour. I think Bobby just assumed it was from the wording. Here's a quote from the article which I can see would mislead some into thinking it may have been a World Championship Tour--"With the exception of Laver, all of us are married and have one or more children. It is hard to leave home for a period as long as 130 days, but there are two very good reasons for doing so. First there is a lot of money to be made in these four months, and second, most of us feel that we are young enough, strong enough and talented enough to improve to become the No. 1 player."

Buchholz (who wrote the article) mentions two reasons above and yet he failed to write that the winner becomes the number one player. This is very important to note.

Later when Buchholz discusses Ken Rosewall he writes "It is impossible not to admire Rosewall. He is a great player and a fine athlete and he keeps himself condition. He is the No. 1 player in the world, but he asks for no special privileges. He is the treasurer of our Association and as such he handles all the money, writes all the letters and figures out the percentages after each match. This work occupies a lot of his free time; his only motive in doing it is to help the Association.

Ken takes a lot of knowing because he basically he is such a quiet guy. If you ask him a question, he doesn't answer right away because he wants to think before giving a response. He gets upset when he loses but he is a very good sport; he is always humble when he wins. I have never heard Ken belittle anyone, gossip about another player or boast about his victories."


As you can see here that Buchholz mentions Rosewall is the number one player and of course he was but it doesn't say he became the number one player because of the tour.

Rosewall won the tour over Laver and in order 3. Gonzalez 4. Gimeno 5. Buchholz 6. Hoad 7. Olmedo and 8. Ayala. I cannot find anything in the article that leads me to believe it was a World Championship Tour.

It's obvious to me that the 1964 tour was NOT for the World Championship but simply a tour. Buchholz mentions two reasons, the first is money and the second to IMPROVE enough to be number one. Nowhere does Buchholz write that the winner of the tour becomes the number one player in the world. I think Buchholz would write that if that was the case. This probable error in understanding affects the McCauley book which indicates Rosewall was World Champion in 1964 because of the tour.

This would make total sense since Rod Laver himself wrote that he took over as number one late in 1964.

Dan, It's not possible to resolve this issue because you don't trust my statements and Buchholz' clear words. Butch wrote: "Rosewall again won the tour". That's clear enough for most people... Buchholz did NOT refer to a tour in Southwest Asia, not to a tour in Styria and Carinthia, not to a tour in New York downtown from Queens to Manhatten and Long Island. Please note that!

The 1964 tour was the 1964 tour was the 1964 tour. Amen.
Dan and PC1, the Buchholz article in World Tennis reports that Rosewall was the winner of the '64 tour and that he is still unquestionably the number one player in the world; Buchholz even explains that Laver would be number one if he had done better against the rest of the field.

But here's the question, if the tour Buchholz refers to was not designated as a world championship tour, then what could Rosewall's number one ranking be based on? Buchholz reports that Rosewall won the most points on the tour in question, with Laver finishing second. If anything Laver holds the edge over Rosewall on any activity that falls outside the tour, so on what basis could Rosewall have been named number one in the world if not for what he did on the tour?

The phrase 'world championship series' was used for the tour (as it was for the '59 tournament series). It was used at least once, to describe the final at the Noordwijk tournament, which Buchholz lists as part of the tour:

Andres Gimeno of Spain, seeded fourth, upset top-seeded Ken Rosewall of Australia 8-6, 6-2 yesterday in the final of a world professional tennis championship series here. (AP report)​

How much weight to give to the tour is debatable, but I don't think it's to be doubted that there was a '64 championship series and that Rosewall won it.

And that was made clear in any case by this article that I posted a couple of months ago, from a press report on Nov. 18, 1964:

Laver Takes Second in Pro Net Rankings

NICE, France--UPI--Rod Laver of Australia finished in second place in the 1964 world professional tennis rankings when he beat Spain's Andres Gimeno 6-4, 6-3, in the final of the Nice Professional Tennis Tourney last night.

Ken Rosewall finished the season in first place ahead of Laver and Gimeno is officially ranked third.​

Bobby, since you've studied the Buchholz article and the '64 situation so closely, I'd like to get your opinion on what Buchholz means by "130 days". The span from the first tournament to the very last stand in Tours, France on Nov. 26 is far longer (close to 200 days). Could he mean total number of days of activity on the tour?

I'm just wondering that, because we know we're missing a good deal of Laver's activity for the year, primarily in the Middle East and France at the end of the year. We have 110 matches documented for Laver, covering the entire year (January-November). Do you think it's possible that the missing matches might bring him to a total of around 130?
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall was actually pretty muscular in his legs and right arm, but also very skinny. I would estimate 135-140 lbs. max.

I am fairly certain that "The Rocket" arose from the fact that Laver was such a hard hitter from the beginning. Laver's himself said that his approach to tennis was to hit big then learn to control it, rather than to learn to control it, and then learn to hit big. Further, speed is very much inherent. It isn't learned. Moreover, prime Laver was widely considered the fastest player in the game according to World Tennis Magazine, and is still considered by some to be the greatest overall athlete to ever play. It is not realistic that Laver was slow as a junior and somehow learned to be fast as an adult. It just doesn't work that way.

PS: BTW, prime Laver was very muscular from head to toe, and also skinny.

Limpin and pc1, I can only report what I have read about Hopman and Laver. Don't remember where, at least for the moment.

Hopman was well-known for his sarcasm.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Gary, I gave the overall match balances, Dan gave the 1952 to 1960 tournament balance where he is right and the general clay balance where I'm not sure if he is right because Dan still refuses to count matches from "minor" tours such as 1958 Perrier Trophy and 1959 Grand Prix series.

Here the hth of Rosewall vs. Hoad in the four peak years of Lew:

1957: Rosewall leads probably 16:15
1958: Rosewall leads 9:3 !
1959: Rosewall and Hoad are even at 6:6
1960: Rosewall leads 5:4

In their last common amateur year, 1956, they had been even at 3:3
My takeaway from all this is that they were pretty close until later on. Obviously Rosewall had a much longer career and ended up playing better than just about everyone after 1969 except for the young guns of that time (like Connors).
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Dan and PC1, the Buchholz article in World Tennis reports that Rosewall was the winner of the '64 tour and that he is still unquestionably the number one player in the world; Buchholz even explains that Laver would be number one if he had done better against the rest of the field.

But here's the question, if the tour Buchholz refers to was not designated as a world championship tour, then what could Rosewall's number one ranking be based on? Buchholz reports that Rosewall won the most points on the tour in question, with Laver finishing second. If anything Laver holds the edge over Rosewall on any activity that falls outside the tour, so on what basis could Rosewall have been named number one in the world if not for what he did on the tour?

The phrase 'world championship series' was used for the tour (as it was for the '59 tournament series). It was used at least once, to describe the final at the Noordwijk tournament, which Buchholz lists as part of the tour:

Andres Gimeno of Spain, seeded fourth, upset top-seeded Ken Rosewall of Australia 8-6, 6-2 yesterday in the final of a world professional tennis championship series here. (AP report)​

How much weight to give to the tour is debatable, but I don't think it's to be doubted that there was a '64 championship series and that Rosewall won it.

And that was made clear in any case by this article that I posted a couple of months ago, from a press report on Nov. 18, 1964:

Laver Takes Second in Pro Net Rankings

NICE, France--UPI--Rod Laver of Australia finished in second place in the 1964 world professional tennis rankings when he beat Spain's Andres Gimeno 6-4, 6-3, in the final of the Nice Professional Tennis Tourney last night.

Ken Rosewall finished the season in first place ahead of Laver and Gimeno is officially ranked third.​

Bobby, since you've studied the Buchholz article and the '64 situation so closely, I'd like to get your opinion on what Buchholz means by "130 days". The span from the first tournament to the very last stand in Tours, France on Nov. 26 is far longer (close to 200 days). Could he mean total number of days of activity on the tour?

I'm just wondering that, because we know we're missing a good deal of Laver's activity for the year, primarily in the Middle East and France at the end of the year. We have 110 matches documented for Laver, covering the entire year (January-November). Do you think it's possible that the missing matches might bring him to a total of around 130?
Krosero,
I've gone over the article very very carefully and it's obvious to me that Rosewall was considered to be the number one player at that moment. Yes he won the tour which only solidified his position as number one a bit however Buchholz doesn't outright say it's for the World Championship.

The UPI article may very well have erred in terminology confusing season with the end of the tour.

There were more matches to be played and I would tend to believe Laver when he states he took over number one late in the year.
 
Last edited:

krosero

Legend
Krosero,
I've gone over the article very very carefully and it's obvious to me that Rosewall was considered to be the number one player at that moment. Yes he won the tour which only solidified his position as number one a bit however Buchholz doesn't outright say it's for the World Championship.

There were more matches to be played and I would tend to believe Laver when he states he took over number one late in the year.
There were no more matches to be played at the time of the article. Buchholz says that the troupe disbanded after the final stand on Nov. 26 and everyone went home.

With Buchholz not stating outright that the tour was for the championship, you're using an argument from silence -- which is always a very problematic type of argument. One great problem is that something may not be stated outright if it is understood universally. And that report from Noordwijk refers to that event (listed by Buchholz as one of the tour events) as part of a world championship series.

On top of that there is the question of how Rosewall could possibly be named number one player in the world if the tour merely solidified his position, as you say. He didn't have much activity beyond the events named by Buchholz -- certainly nothing comparable to the long series of big tournaments that the tour comprised. There was nothing else on the calendar comparable in importance to such a year-long series of tournaments (which included the top tournaments then in existence; I think only Cleveland was left out).

Laver's statement does not have to mean that there was no championship series in '64. It probably just means that in his opinion, considering everything (championship tour and all other tour matches), he had the best record for the year. A lot of us here have made that same judgment without also concluding that there was no championship series.

And Laver's statement is counterbalanced by Rosewall's statement in '93 that he (Ken) was number one for '64. They had different opinions (just like Borg and Vilas did in '77). That does not necessitate the conclusion that there was no championship tour.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Here's a quote from the article "With the exception only of Laver, all of us are married and have one or more children. It is hard to leave home for a period of more than 130 days, but there are two very good reasons for doing so. First, there is a lot of money to be made in these four months, and second most of us feel that we are young enough, strong enough and talented enough to improve and become the number one player."

A few things here, first of all Buchholz (who wrote the article and was a member of the tour) doesn't say that the tour winner is the definitive World Champion. It says that the players figure they can be the number one player and that is one of the two reasons they are playing the tour. To my point of view it means the tour is a step toward reaching of goal of number one player occupied at that moment by Ken Rosewall. If the tour was the World Championship I would tend to think Buchholz would mention that. So the reasons to me are number one, monetary and second, a step toward being number one.
 
Last edited:

krosero

Legend
Here's a quote from the article "With the exception only of Laver, all of us are married and have one or more children. It is hard to leave home for a period of more than 130 days, but there are two very good reasons for doing so. First, there is a lot of money to be made in these four months, and second most of us feel that we are young enough, strong enough and talented enough to improve and become the number one player."

A few things here, first of all Buchholz (who wrote the article and was a member of the tour) doesn't say that the tour winner is the definitive World Champion. It says that the players figure they can be the number one player and that is one of the two reasons they are playing the tour. To my point of view it means the tour is a step toward reaching of goal of number one player occupied at that moment by Ken Rosewall. If the tour was the World Championship I would tend to think Buchholz would mention that. So the reasons to me are number one, monetary and second, a step toward being number one.
Buchholz there is speaking of the troupe as a whole. For most of them, becoming number one in '64 was not a realistic goal; he's simply saying that going on the '64 tour would improve them as players (a step toward possibly becoming number one in the future) and bring in a good income. If he were speaking exclusively of why Laver and Rosewall chose to play this series, that would be something else; but here he's clearly speaking of the group as a whole.

I just don't think the conclusion that there was no championship series in '64 fits all of the evidence. Rosewall's statement that he was number one for 1964 would be inexplicable, because he didn't have much activity beyond the tour referred to by Buchholz. Buchholz's statement that Rosewall was number one at the end of '64, when all tennis for the year had been played, would be likewise inexplicable, for the same reason: he says that Rosewall finished with the most points on the tour, but if it was just another tour, then he would have said that Rosewall won the tour; but he would not have said that Rosewall was still unquestionably number one in the world; there was no basis for saying so, apart from the tour he describes.

Also, in this scenario, the report from Noordwijk would have to be an inexplicable mistake: if Noordwijk was not part of a "world championship series", then what championship series is being referred to?

This scenario would explain Laver's statement, but nothing else.

But if there was a championship tour, then all the evidence, including Laver's statement, is explained. All of these statements (Laver and Rosewall's personal statements; the Noordwijk report; the AP year-end report; the Buchholz article) then would have a logical basis.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
You're assuming he said that about the group as a whole but I read this and believe that this were their thoughts before the tour was started, when any of the players could win.

Laver's statement was very clear also, that he took over number one at the end of 1964.

This is not clear cut to me. I need something more definitive.
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
Doesn't Laver in his recent book say that he and Ken won 7 tournaments each in 1964?
 

krosero

Legend
You're assuming he said that about the group as a whole but I read this and believe that this were their thoughts before the tour was started, when any of the players could win.

Laver's statement was very clear also, that he took over number one at the end of 1964.

This is not clear cut to me. I need something more definitive.
I read it that way too: as their thoughts before the tour began. But realistically most of the troupe were not expecting to topple both Laver and Rosewall and grab the top spot in '64 (if ever). For a second-tier pro you'd need some more reasons, other than chasing the #1 ranking, if you're going to spend that much time away from family. Improving as a player (with the eventual goal of reaching number one) and grabbing a piece of all the money on hand make excellent reasons.

Laver's statement was clear but it does not require the absence of a championship tour. Eliminating the championship tour just creates more problems, in the other statements.

I do think many of the details of the tour are still unknown, for example we don't have a definitive list of what tournaments comprised the tour. We have the tournaments listed by Buchholz, which leaves (only) a few other tournaments that year with questionable status (ie, were they part of the tour or not?)
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I read it that way too: as their thoughts before the tour began. But realistically most of the troupe were not expecting to topple both Laver and Rosewall and grab the top spot in '64 (if ever). For a second-tier pro you'd need some more reasons, other than chasing the #1 ranking, if you're going to spend that much time away from family. Improving as a player (with the eventual goal of reaching number one) and grabbing a piece of all the money on hand make excellent reasons.

Laver's statement was clear but it does not require the absence of a championship tour. Eliminating the championship tour just creates more problems, in the other statements.

I do think many of the details of the tour are still unknown, for example we don't have a definitive list of what tournaments comprised the tour. We have the tournaments listed by Buchholz, which leaves (only) a few other tournaments that year to be accounted for (ie, were they part of the tour or not?)
The key to this is that it's really not definitive and Gonzalez of course, even at that late age would be considered a contender. He definitely would think he would have a chance at age 36.

I have looked at some other areas in which we hopefully can find the truth. A lot of this doesn't make sense. By today's standards Laver clearly had a superior record but that's by today's standards. If it was a World Championship Tour than Rosewall is World Champion, no ifs ands or buts. Yet the wording in the article makes me think it's just a regular tour and Rosewall was the winner of the tour.
 

krosero

Legend
The key to this is that it's really not definitive and Gonzalez of course, even at that late age would be considered a contender. He definitely would think he would have a chance at age 36.

I have looked at some other areas in which we hopefully can find the truth. A lot of this doesn't make sense. By today's standards Laver clearly had a superior record but that's by today's standards. If it was a World Championship Tour than Rosewall is World Champion, no ifs ands or buts. Yet the wording in the article makes me think it's just a regular tour and Rosewall was the winner of the tour.
Buchholz describes a great change in Gonzalez (much more mellowed out) and he seems to connect it to the fact that he is "no longer number one" and is now "well over the peak for a touring pro."

Technically he still had a shot at number one and he did have a winning record over Laver (but a terrible one against Rosewall), on this tour. Of course, this was still unknown, when the tour began. Gonzalez was just coming out of a long retirement, when the tour started (his sole match at '63 US Pro the exception). Eventually, if I recall correctly, he dropped out of the last events of the tour.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Doesn't Laver in his recent book say that he and Ken won 7 tournaments each in 1964?
He wrote they both won seven IMPORTANT Pro titles. Laver actually won 11 tournaments that year out of 28 played with 1 shared. Laver had a total record of 81-27. Rosewall won 10 tournaments out of 26 with 1 shared. Rosewall had a total record of 69-30.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Buchholz describes a great change in Gonzalez (much more mellowed out) and he seems to connect it to the fact that he is "no longer number one" and is now "well over the peak for a touring pro."

Technically he still had a shot at number one and he did have a winning record over Laver (but a terrible one against Rosewall), on this tour. Of course, this was still unknown, when the tour began. Gonzalez was just coming out of a long retirement, when the tour started (his sole match at '63 US Pro the exception). Eventually, if I recall correctly, he dropped out of the last events of the tour.
Gonzalez still had a superb year considering everything. Didn't Urban write that Gonzalez at one point took over as number two or am I wrong? I can't imagine him not thinking he had a shot before the tour started.

@urban could you please clarify this?
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
He wrote they both won seven IMPORTANT Pro titles. Laver actually won 11 tournaments that year out of 28 played with 1 shared. Laver had a total record of 81-27. Rosewall won 10 tournaments out of 26 with 1 shared. Rosewall had a total record of 69-30.

Oh yes, that's right. Why only mention those important titles though? and what seven titles were they? Could it help determine the nature of this tour?
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
He wrote they both won seven IMPORTANT Pro titles. Laver actually won 11 tournaments that year out of 28 played with 1 shared. Laver had a total record of 81-27. Rosewall won 10 tournaments out of 26 with 1 shared. Rosewall had a total record of 69-30.

It seems to me that there were too many "World Championships" on the pro tour for the term to have the meaning implied. I get the feeling that the term was little more than a marketing term. Given that this was a pro tour, and that the players on the pro tour left the amateur tour and the ability to win major titles in order to make money, in my view, it seems that the events that paid the highest purses should be given the most weight.

Having said that, given the respective records of Laver and Rosewall in 1964 that you set forth, it seems that, by today's standards, Laver would have had the higher point total at year end, and would be considered the year end #1, even if Rosewall was #1 during part of that the year.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
It seems to me that there were too many "World Championships" on the pro tour for the term to have the meaning implied. I get the feeling that the term was little more than a marketing term. Given that this was a pro tour, and that the players on the pro tour left the amateur tour and the ability to win major titles in order to make money, in my view, it seems that the events that paid the highest purses should be given the most weight.

Having said that, given the respective records of Laver and Rosewall in 1964 that you set forth, it seems that, by today's standards, Laver would have had the higher point total at year end, and would be considered the year end #1, even if Rosewall was #1 during part of that the year.
That's my thought, especially considering Rosewall was clearly number one in 1963. Laver being number one in 1964 is strictly based on his accomplishments in that year alone. The problem is that we have to know who was the reward, if any for winning that 1964 Multi Player Tour.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan and PC1, the Buchholz article in World Tennis reports that Rosewall was the winner of the '64 tour and that he is still unquestionably the number one player in the world; Buchholz even explains that Laver would be number one if he had done better against the rest of the field.

But here's the question, if the tour Buchholz refers to was not designated as a world championship tour, then what could Rosewall's number one ranking be based on? Buchholz reports that Rosewall won the most points on the tour in question, with Laver finishing second. If anything Laver holds the edge over Rosewall on any activity that falls outside the tour, so on what basis could Rosewall have been named number one in the world if not for what he did on the tour?

The phrase 'world championship series' was used for the tour (as it was for the '59 tournament series). It was used at least once, to describe the final at the Noordwijk tournament, which Buchholz lists as part of the tour:

Andres Gimeno of Spain, seeded fourth, upset top-seeded Ken Rosewall of Australia 8-6, 6-2 yesterday in the final of a world professional tennis championship series here. (AP report)​

How much weight to give to the tour is debatable, but I don't think it's to be doubted that there was a '64 championship series and that Rosewall won it.

And that was made clear in any case by this article that I posted a couple of months ago, from a press report on Nov. 18, 1964:

Laver Takes Second in Pro Net Rankings

NICE, France--UPI--Rod Laver of Australia finished in second place in the 1964 world professional tennis rankings when he beat Spain's Andres Gimeno 6-4, 6-3, in the final of the Nice Professional Tennis Tourney last night.

Ken Rosewall finished the season in first place ahead of Laver and Gimeno is officially ranked third.​

Bobby, since you've studied the Buchholz article and the '64 situation so closely, I'd like to get your opinion on what Buchholz means by "130 days". The span from the first tournament to the very last stand in Tours, France on Nov. 26 is far longer (close to 200 days). Could he mean total number of days of activity on the tour?

I'm just wondering that, because we know we're missing a good deal of Laver's activity for the year, primarily in the Middle East and France at the end of the year. We have 110 matches documented for Laver, covering the entire year (January-November). Do you think it's possible that the missing matches might bring him to a total of around 130?

krosero, Thanks for finally clarifying the status of the 1964 tour which actually was the World Champion Series. Hope that those who hesitated to accept that fact are able now to agree with you (and me).

But there still remain some open questions of less substance.

I still am convinced (according to Buchholz' report) that that official series consisted only of the 17 big tournaments from College Park (begin was May 19) to Cape Town (ending in late October). Thus Nice was not part of the tour as only 4 men participated. By the way, if Nice was actually a tournament, it would be No.201 in Rod's haul!

I hesitate to trust the November 18 press report that had Gimeno as No.3 in the final standings. We do know from Butch B. that Gonzalez finished 3rd and Gimeno 4th.

I counted about 96 playing days of the tour. I see that 53 days inside of the tour were days of pause or of non-tour activity, thus together 149 days in sum. I don't know how Buchholz came to 130 days of the series. Maybe he simply erred. He also has not given the final numbers of the eight players.

I cannot help regarding Laver's total number of activity.

By the way, does that AP report also give the missing QF matches of Noordwijk?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
My takeaway from all this is that they were pretty close until later on. Obviously Rosewall had a much longer career and ended up playing better than just about everyone after 1969 except for the young guns of that time (like Connors).

Gary, Yes, Steve Flink in his World of Tennis comparisons wrote (indirectly) that Rosewall was the best player (average) from 1970 till 1976. This of course does not mean that Muscles was the best player in every of these 7 years! It's me who ranks Muscles as Co. No.1 in 1970 and 1971. In 1976 he was "only" No.13 in the ATP rankings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top