WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

BobbyOne · Jul 10, 2016

Gary Duane said:
No. My frustration is from posters who continue to repeat the same talking points with no changing facts.

I would like to see all the tournaments in 64 listed that Rosewall or Laver won, then I would like to see those tournaments discussed as to which are most important. I don't think that list is agreed upon.

Even today there are strong debates about the importance of the WTF. Some people put more importance on it than just the points. Others say stick to the points only. People even argue about which slam is more important and whether or not the points awarded for each slam correctly reflect their importance. But in the end the points win, and #1 "is what it is".

I get nowhere watching you tell Limpinhitter, every day, that he is wrong, while he tells you, every day, that you are wrong.

That's the frustration.

People talk about the number of tournaments won by Laver and Rosewall in 64 then proceed to ignore some of them or reduce the weight of them according to a logic I do not understand.

Gary, I understand your frustration.

But there is one important point: There was a change during the long discussion regarding new facts when krosero, a master of research, found and posted some newspaper clippings from 1965 that proved Buchholz's statements right that Rosewall was the No.1 player in 1964 and early 1965. krosero even quoted Rod Laver in mid-1965 who said that Rosewall was still the No.1. That way and with the statement of the World of Tennis yearbooks ("Rosewall No.1 from 1960 to 1964") we now have certainty that Rosewall was the acknowledged top pro in 1964 by winning the long tournamnet tour that year. Only Limpinhitter and his friends ignore all that. That makes me sad and annoyed...

BobbyOne · Jul 10, 2016

Gary Duane said:
No. My frustration is from posters who continue to repeat the same talking points with no changing facts.

I would like to see all the tournaments in 64 listed that Rosewall or Laver won, then I would like to see those tournaments discussed as to which are most important. I don't think that list is agreed upon.

Even today there are strong debates about the importance of the WTF. Some people put more importance on it than just the points. Others say stick to the points only. People even argue about which slam is more important and whether or not the points awarded for each slam correctly reflect their importance. But in the end the points win, and #1 "is what it is".

I get nowhere watching you tell Limpinhitter, every day, that he is wrong, while he tells you, every day, that you are wrong.

That's the frustration.

People talk about the number of tournaments won by Laver and Rosewall in 64 then proceed to ignore some of them or reduce the weight of them according to a logic I do not understand.

Delete post

BobbyOne · Jul 10, 2016

Gary Duane said:
No. My frustration is from posters who continue to repeat the same talking points with no changing facts.

I would like to see all the tournaments in 64 listed that Rosewall or Laver won, then I would like to see those tournaments discussed as to which are most important. I don't think that list is agreed upon.

Even today there are strong debates about the importance of the WTF. Some people put more importance on it than just the points. Others say stick to the points only. People even argue about which slam is more important and whether or not the points awarded for each slam correctly reflect their importance. But in the end the points win, and #1 "is what it is".

I get nowhere watching you tell Limpinhitter, every day, that he is wrong, while he tells you, every day, that you are wrong.

That's the frustration.

People talk about the number of tournaments won by Laver and Rosewall in 64 then proceed to ignore some of them or reduce the weight of them according to a logic I do not understand.

Deleted post

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

Gary Duane said:
That pretty much sums it up. And I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if Emerson had joined the pros, he too would have upped his game more. With Emerson I think there was not doubt about talent, but he stayed in the small pond, then when he finally got into the big one, it was too late.

Emerson stayed in the "small pond" because he could earn much more money than in the pros...Emerson was earning much more than either Laver or Rosewall.

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

Gary Duane said:
That pretty much sums it up. And I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if Emerson had joined the pros, he too would have upped his game more. With Emerson I think there was not doubt about talent, but he stayed in the small pond, then when he finally got into the big one, it was too late.

Emerson stayed in the "small pond" because he could earn much more money than in the pros...Emerson was earning much more than either Laver or Rosewall.

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

Gary Duane said:
That pretty much sums it up. And I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if Emerson had joined the pros, he too would have upped his game more. With Emerson I think there was not doubt about talent, but he stayed in the small pond, then when he finally got into the big one, it was too late.

BobbyOne said:
Dan, Buchholz did NOT change his mind since his article 52 years ago! Get real!

Dan, It's not my idea at all. It's history reported by Buchholz and others. Get real, troll!

Dan, A wrong opinion stays a wrong opinion even when repeated several times.

EDIT: I will stop now posting. Hope it will work again later. I apologize for that mess!

Emerson stayed in the "small pond" because he could earn much more money than in the pros...Emerson was earning much more than either Laver or Rosewall.

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, Buchholz did NOT change his mind since his article 52 years ago! Get real!

Dan, It's not my idea at all. It's history reported by Buchholz and others. Get real, troll!

Bobby, you misunderstood Buchholz, then and now...Buchholz gave you the thumbs down recently...accept it and move on.

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, Buchholz did NOT change his mind since his article 52 years ago! Get real!

Dan, It's not my idea at all. It's history reported by Buchholz and others. Get real, troll!

Bobby, you misunderstood Buchholz, then and now...Buchholz gave you the thumbs down recently...accept it and move on.

Gary Duane · Jul 11, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Emerson stayed in the "small pond" because he could earn much more money than in the pros...Emerson was earning much more than either Laver or Rosewall.

Dan, be patient. The system is glitching and you are repeat posting...

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

Gary Duane said:
Dan, be patient. The system is glitching and you are repeat posting...

My points are worth repeating....repeat posting is a standard feature of conversation with Bobby.

Gary Duane · Jul 11, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Emerson stayed in the "small pond" because he could earn much more money than in the pros...Emerson was earning much more than either Laver or Rosewall.

I'm sure you are right. That's what made this period so unfair. Amateurs made all kinds of money, yet they were still considered amateurs. But they made so much more in the Open era eventually according to everything I have read and heard.

pc1 · Jul 11, 2016

Gary Duane said:
I'm sure you are right. That's what made this period so unfair. Amateurs made all kinds of money, yet they were still considered amateurs. But they made so much more in the Open era eventually according to everything I have read and heard.

It is such a shame. If Laver stayed as an amateur and Emerson turned pro we may be talking about how Laver was overrated and how Emerson by far the superior player. Same thing with Rosewall or Hoad. If they stayed as amateurs their level of play probably would have suffered because they wouldn't of played the superior competition of Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura and others.

Gary Duane · Jul 11, 2016

pc1 said:
It is such a shame. If Laver stayed as an amateur and Emerson turned pro we may be talking about how Laver was overrated and how Emerson by far the superior player. Same thing with Rosewall or Hoad. If they stayed as amateurs their level of play probably would have suffered because they wouldn't of played the superior competition of Gonzalez, Sedgman, Sedgman and others.

Exactly.

BobbyOne · Jul 11, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, you misunderstood Buchholz, then and now...Buchholz gave you the thumbs down recently...accept it and move on.

Dan, Stop posting wrong claims!

BobbyOne · Jul 11, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
My points are worth repeating....repeat posting is a standard feature of conversation with Bobby.

Dan, My compliment: You are first-class as a true troll.

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, Stop posting wrong claims!

Repeat after me...Buchholz gave the thumbs down...repeat.

BobbyOne · Jul 11, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Repeat after me...Buchholz gave the thumbs down...repeat.

Dan, If you would understand English language (the clear Buchholz article) and if you would use your brain you would not write so much nonsense and would not be so stubborn! I only can despise your behaviour.

Dan Lobb · Jul 11, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, If you would understand English language (the clear Buchholz article) and if you would use your brain you would not write so much nonsense and would not be so stubborn! I only can despise your behaviour.

Bobby, if you disagree with Buchholz, the thing for you to do is to get some information to the contrary...we will wait for you.
It is like waiting for Raonic to win Wimbledon.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, if you disagree with Buchholz, the thing for you to do is to get some information to the contrary...we will wait for you.
It is like waiting for Raonic to win Wimbledon.

Dan, talking about information to the contrary...are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 or world champion for 1964?
that would really support your side, wouldn´t you say?

BobbyOne · Jul 12, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, if you disagree with Buchholz, the thing for you to do is to get some information to the contrary...we will wait for you.
It is like waiting for Raonic to win Wimbledon.

Dan, Wrong comparison because you would like to see Raonic win at Wimbledon but you don't like and accept information that favours Rosewall such as the Buchholz article and krosero's many findings!

BobbyOne · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
Dan, talking about information to the contrary...are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 or world champion for 1964?
that would really support your side, wouldn´t you say?

treblings, We will wait forever till Dan or his (few) friends will provide us with information that Laver was No.1 in 1964...

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
Dan, talking about information to the contrary...are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 or world champion for 1964?
that would really support your side, wouldn´t you say?

Laver in his last biography (Rod Laver An Autobiography) just a few years ago mentioned on page 161 and I quote "By the end of 1964, in just less than 24 months, I had already earned more than my $110,000 guarantee. I had also edged ahead of Ken Rosewall to be the top ranked pro."

I think a lot of this could be due to delays in figuring out the rankings in those primitive non-computer days so Laver could have edged ahead but didn't know it for a little while. I also think Laver's modesty could have lot to do with it also. He could have said Rosewall was the top even if he knew he was officially number one. The most ridiculous example was that Evonne Goolagong found out she number one many decades after the fact.

http://www.wearetennis.com/en_UK/#/2013/02/26/world-number-one-at-56-years-old/1462

Later in Laver's book on page 162 "In late 1964, soon after I became the world's No. 1 professional, I explained to a reporter how things were for me. It was a snapshot of that time in my career. I said I'd learned a lot since turning professional."

This may not be from 1964/1965 but certainly Laver was there in 1964/1965 so I think his words have great value.

Limpinhitter · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
Dan, talking about information to the contrary...are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 or world champion for 1964?
that would really support your side, wouldn´t you say?

I'm not sure how relevant reports and articles on unofficial rankings and opinions are at this point. Looking at all of the data, it was close, but clear enough that Laver had the best year and deserves the #1 ranking for 1964.

BobbyOne · Jul 12, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
I'm not sure how relevant reports and articles on unofficial rankings and opinions are at this point. Looking at all of the data, it was close, but clear enough that Laver had the best year and deserves the #1 ranking for 1964.

Limpin, Buchholz's rankings given in World Tennis were relevant and official! How can you ignore them??

You reply to treblings but, like Dan, you can't give him and us any source or article that supports the Laver No.1 theory...

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
Dan, talking about information to the contrary...are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 or world champion for 1964?
that would really support your side, wouldn´t you say?

Don Budge in late 1964 writing about Rod Laver. Yes it's opinion but all the experts had were opinions in those days. Here's the quote--By the end of his first year on the tour Laver had almost drawn abreast of Ken Rosewall as the finest active tennis player. This year the great Pancho Gonzales came out of retirement and for a while Pancho gave Laver, Rosewall and Lew Hoad a hard time of it. Gonzales played magnificently in winning the tournament at White Plains. But by the time the tour had reached Cleveland, Pancho told me that Laver was playing too well and that Rod had become better than Rosewall.

It is Rod Laver's problem to show he can remain on top. He's now proven his ability so we can rule that out. If he can retain good health and the desire he's shown, he should continue to be the mark for others.

Please note that this article by Budge was written in November of 1964, November 21st to be exact. So at that time Budge felt Laver was number one and possibly Gonzalez thought so too. Yes I understand Gonzalez felt Laver's level had surpassed Rosewall at that moment but it's also possible he could have felt Laver was number one for the year.

Dan Lobb · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
Dan, talking about information to the contrary...are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 or world champion for 1964?
that would really support your side, wouldn´t you say?

The whole point is that there was NO world championship for 1964, so there could be no official world champion for that year.

Dan Lobb · Jul 12, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, Wrong comparison because you would like to see Raonic win at Wimbledon but you don't like and accept information that favours Rosewall such as the Buchholz article and krosero's many findings!

I would happily accept some solid evidence for Rosewall, if you could something....I will wait, and I expect that it will be like waiting for Raonic to win Wimbledon.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
The whole point is that there was NO world championship for 1964, so there could be no official world champion for that year.

are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 ?

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
are there any articles, reports, etc from 1964/65 that mention Laver as no. 1 ?

One of the problems is the the Old Pro Tour was so badly covered. They would get tiny mentions in regular newspaper sports section and often no mention.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
Laver in his last biography (Rod Laver An Autobiography) just a few years ago mentioned on page 161 and I quote "By the end of 1964, in just less than 24 months, I had already earned more than my $110,000 guarantee. I had also edged ahead of Ken Rosewall to be the top ranked pro."

I think a lot of this could be due to delays in figuring out the rankings in those primitive non-computer days so Laver could have edged ahead but didn't know it for a little while. I also think Laver's modesty could have lot to do with it also. He could have said Rosewall was the top even if he knew he was officially number one. The most ridiculous example was that Evonne Goolagong found out she number one many decades after the fact.

http://www.wearetennis.com/en_UK/#/2013/02/26/world-number-one-at-56-years-old/1462

Later in Laver's book on page 162 "In late 1964, soon after I became the world's No. 1 professional, I explained to a reporter how things were for me. It was a snapshot of that time in my career. I said I'd learned a lot since turning professional."

This may not be from 1964/1965 but certainly Laver was there in 1964/1965 so I think his words have great value.

i don´t want to speculate as to how correct his memory was. i´m a big fan of Laver since my youth.
i guess that 64/65 was a period of transition from Rosewall to Laver as no. 1 and Laver may have felt that at the end of 64 he was already stronger than Rosewall.

thanks for the article on Goolagong btw. another one of my favourite players

Limpinhitter · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
Don Budge in late 1964 writing about Rod Laver. Yes it's opinion but all the experts had were opinions in those days. Here's the quote--By the end of his first year on the tour Laver had almost drawn abreast of Ken Rosewall as the finest active tennis player. This year the great Pancho Gonzales came out of retirement and for a while Pancho gave Laver, Rosewall and Lew Hoad a hard time of it. Gonzales played magnificently in winning the tournament at White Plains. But by the time the tour had reached Cleveland, Pancho told me that Laver was playing too well and that Rod had become better than Rosewall.

It is Rod Laver's problem to show he can remain on top. He's now proven his ability so we can rule that out. If he can retain good health and the desire he's shown, he should continue to be the mark for others.

Please note that this article by Budge was written in November of 1964, November 21st to be exact. So at that time Budge felt Laver was number one and possibly Gonzalez thought so too. Yes I understand Gonzalez felt Laver's level had surpassed Rosewall at that moment but it's also possible he could have felt Laver was number one for the year.

Excellent find, pc1. Not that it is conclusive because, again, it's an opinion. But, it's a very clear and valuable opinion. And, in my mind, accurately portrays the truth - that Laver surpassed Rosewall in 1964.

Notice Budge refers to Laver as the finest "active," tennis player. We know what he meant by that, right! Haha!

Limpinhitter · Jul 12, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
The whole point is that there was NO world championship for 1964, so there could be no official world champion for that year.

And no basis to call Rosewall #1 for 1964 when Laver had the better year.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
The whole point is that there was NO world championship for 1964, so there could be no official world champion for that year.

you´re always talking about an official world champion while everybody else is just talking about who was no.1

Limpinhitter · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
i don´t want to speculate as to how correct his memory was. i´m a big fan of Laver since my youth.
i guess that 64/65 was a period of transition from Rosewall to Laver as no. 1 and Laver may have felt that at the end of 64 he was already stronger than Rosewall.

thanks for the article on Goolagong btw. another one of my favourite players

I would say 1964 was the period of transition. By 1965, the transition had already occurred.

Limpinhitter · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
you´re always talking about an official world champion while everybody else is just talking about who was no.1

I think Dan's point is that, there being no "world championship tour," in 1964, there is no basis to argue that Rosewall was #1 in 1964 when Laver had the overall better record.

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
Laver in his last biography (Rod Laver An Autobiography) just a few years ago mentioned on page 161 and I quote "By the end of 1964, in just less than 24 months, I had already earned more than my $110,000 guarantee. I had also edged ahead of Ken Rosewall to be the top ranked pro."

I think a lot of this could be due to delays in figuring out the rankings in those primitive non-computer days so Laver could have edged ahead but didn't know it for a little while. I also think Laver's modesty could have lot to do with it also. He could have said Rosewall was the top even if he knew he was officially number one. The most ridiculous example was that Evonne Goolagong found out she number one many decades after the fact.

http://www.wearetennis.com/en_UK/#/2013/02/26/world-number-one-at-56-years-old/1462

Later in Laver's book on page 162 "In late 1964, soon after I became the world's No. 1 professional, I explained to a reporter how things were for me. It was a snapshot of that time in my career. I said I'd learned a lot since turning professional."

This may not be from 1964/1965 but certainly Laver was there in 1964/1965 so I think his words have great value.

treblings said:
i don´t want to speculate as to how correct his memory was. i´m a big fan of Laver since my youth.
i guess that 64/65 was a period of transition from Rosewall to Laver as no. 1 and Laver may have felt that at the end of 64 he was already stronger than Rosewall.

thanks for the article on Goolagong btw. another one of my favourite players

No problem with the Goolagong article. I loved watching Goolagoog play and watching her joy playing tennis. She was so creative as a player. The most creative female player I've seen.

Laver doesn't say whether he thought he was stronger than Rosewall although I'm sure he did. Note that Laver writes that he edged ahead of Rosewall to be the top ranked pro. When I see the word ranked it seems to me that he was ranked number one based on some system or formula and it sounds official. Edging aheading of Rosewall seems like he earned the top rank by performance. It's not a word you use when you have an opinion in this case.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
No problem with the Goolagong article. I loved watching Goolagoog play and watching her joy playing tennis. She was so creative as a player. The most creative female player I've seen.

Laver doesn't say whether he thought he was stronger than Rosewall although I'm sure he did. Note that Laver writes that he edged ahead of Rosewall to be the top ranked pro. When I see the word ranked it seems to me that he was ranked number one based on some system or formula and it sounds official. Edging aheading of Rosewall seems like he earned the top rank by performance. It's not a word you use when you have an opinion in this case.

interesting point about the rankings.
fits right in with my question to Dan whether there are any reports or articles from that time to confirm Laver as no.1

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
I think Dan's point is that, there being no "world championship tour," in 1964, there is no basis to argue that Rosewall was #1 in 1964 when Laver had the overall better record.

i guess that´s his point alright. for whatever reason he may have he is trying to establish, that the tour of 1964 was not significant.
what i´ve asked him is whether he has any written confirmation from that time that supports his theory

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
i guess that´s his point alright. for whatever reason he may have he is trying to establish, that the tour of 1964 was not significant.
what i´ve asked him is whether he has any written confirmation from that time that supports his theory

When I read the article it seems clear to me that it wasn't a World Championship Tour. Buchholz didn't mention that it was a World Championship Tour but that some players could improve enough to be number one. That's a lot different from saying that if you win the tour you are the World Champion for the year. The article to out there for you to read and examine.

He also confirmed it to me when I communicated with him a few weeks ago so I am positive there was no World Championship Tour that year.

70sHollywood · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
It is such a shame. If Laver stayed as an amateur and Emerson turned pro we may be talking about how Laver was overrated and how Emerson by far the superior player. Same thing with Rosewall or Hoad. If they stayed as amateurs their level of play probably would have suffered because they wouldn't of played the superior competition of Gonzalez, Sedgman, Sedgman and others.

I have 2 thoughts on this. The first is that Djokovic and Budge are the top 2 greatest players of all time with Tilden, Kramer and Sampras having little or no claim.

The second is that you are exaggerating the gap between pros and amateurs.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
When I read the article it seems clear to me that it wasn't a World Championship Tour. Buchholz didn't mention that it was a World Championship Tour but that some players could improve enough to be number one. That's a lot different from saying that if you win the tour you are the World Champion for the year. The article to out there for you to read and examine.

He also confirmed it to me when I communicate with him a few weeks ago so I am positive there was no World Championship Tour that year.

i´ve read the article. thanks, again, for making the effort to type it and present it here.
imo Buchholz wasn´t talking about some players being able to be no.1 that particular year but improving enough to reach that goal in the future.
would be interesting to know whether he saw no. 1 potential in himself at some point.

the article is well-written, crystal clear and leaves no doubt that Buchholz thought of Rosewall as the no. 1 player of 1964

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

70sHollywood said:
I have 2 thoughts on this. The first is that Djokovic and Budge are the top 2 greatest players of all time with Tilden, Kramer and Sampras having little or no claim.

The second is that you are exaggerating the gap between pros and amateurs.

Not so sure about how big the gap was but there was clearly some sort of gap. For example the 1959 tour with Cooper and Anderson (new pros) versus veterans Pancho Gonzalez and Lew Hoad. Cooper who won the Australian, Wimbledon and US Champion in 1958 and Anderson who won the 1957 US Championship and was runner up in the 1958 Australian and US Championship was a combined 0-34 against Gonzalez in 1959 on tour and were 7-27 against Hoad. That's a combined 7-61 against the two veteran pros! Bear in mind that Cooper and Anderson were super players in the amateurs.

Trabert lost 27 to 74 to Gonzalez. Hoad, even after a lot of training lost 36 to 51 to Gonzalez which is pretty good but it has to be remembered he had problems winning matches before Kramer and others worked with him to get ready for Gonzalez. Rosewall lost 26 to 51. Laver himself was crushed by Rosewall 12 to 34 and beaten badly at first by Hoad. Gonzalez lost to Kramer 27 to 96.

Now bear in mind I think the top amateurs could adapt and improve as we all can when we move to another level. Laver didn't take long to improve as did Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad and Sedgman.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
I'm not sure how relevant reports and articles on unofficial rankings and opinions are at this point. Looking at all of the data, it was close, but clear enough that Laver had the best year and deserves the #1 ranking for 1964.

i´m not sure either, but it might be relevant if there are no articles, etc that claim Laver to be no.1

Limpinhitter · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
i guess that´s his point alright. for whatever reason he may have he is trying to establish, that the tour of 1964 was not significant.
what i´ve asked him is whether he has any written confirmation from that time that supports his theory

I haven't read anyone saying that the tour was insignificant. Only that it did not determine the #1 player for the year.

treblings · Jul 12, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
I haven't read anyone saying that the tour was insignificant. Only that it did not determine the #1 player for the year.

where did you read that the tour didn´t decide the no.1 player of the year?
ouside of this thread i mean

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
It wasn't McCauley or Geist's logic. It was the official Pro Rankings that had Rosewall as number one. It was I believe an odd ranking system but nevertheless Rosewall was the "official number one" so I think he deserves at least co-number one for the year.

To quote McCauley's book
PRO RANKINGS FOR 1964

The pro tournaments were operated on a points system. The winner got 7 points, runner up 4, third place 3, fourth place 2 and the quarter-finalists one each. The final ratings were as follows-
1. Ken Rosewall
2. Rod Laver
3. R. Gonzalez
4. A. Gimeno
5. E. Bucholz
6. L. Hoad
7. A. Olmedo
8. L. Ayala

So while head to head is quite important, it's clear Rosewall was probably better against the other players than Laver and was perhaps more consistent.

The other thing I notice was that I counted TEN tournament victories for Rosewall PLUS Rosewall won something called the Facis Trophy which I might guess is another tournament so that make it eleven and tied with Rod Laver.

Cyborg, I agree that Rosewall should perhaps be co-number one for 1964.

Ah, but that was before I saw the Buchholz article which may me realize it was not a World Championship Tour and before I read Laver's new bio which mentions he (Laver) became the top ranked pro in November 1964. I then communicated with Buchholz himself to confirm that it wasn't a World Championship Tour in 1964. The other information is from McCauley's book which I believe is inaccurate now.

Limpinhitter · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
where did you read that the tour didn´t decide the no.1 player of the year?
ouside of this thread i mean

I haven't read that it did determine the #1 player for 1964. Have you?

70sHollywood · Jul 12, 2016

pc1 said:
Not so sure about how big the gap was but there was clearly some sort of gap. For example the 1959 tour with Cooper and Anderson (new pros) versus veterans Pancho Gonzalez and Lew Hoad. Cooper who won the Australian, Wimbledon and US Champion in 1958 and Anderson who won the 1957 US Championship and was runner up in the 1958 Australian and US Championship was a combined 0-34 against Gonzalez in 1959 on tour and were 7-27 against Hoad. That's a combined 7-61 against the two veteran pros! Bear in mind that Cooper and Anderson were super players in the amateurs.

Trabert lost 27 to 74 to Gonzalez. Hoad, even after a lot of training lost 36 to 51 to Gonzalez which is pretty good but it has to be remembered he had problems winning matches before Kramer and others worked with him to get ready for Gonzalez. Rosewall lost 26 to 51. Laver himself was crushed by Rosewall 12 to 34 and beaten badly at first by Hoad. Gonzalez lost to Kramer 27 to 96.

Now bear in mind I think the top amateurs could adapt and improve as we all can when we move to another level. Laver didn't take long to improve as did Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad and Sedgman.

Sure there was a gap but not one to the extent where a guy like Emerson would have become a GOAT contender. You can get some idea as to how much they would have improved by looking at a) their amateur results b) their age c) their style of play.

Ashley Cooper is the perfect example of what I meant. Playing against the top pro's obviously did very little to improve his game. In other words Cooper just wasn't good enough. The results after 1956 also suggest that Trabert never improved from his initial pro tour. Gonzalez, Hoad and Rosewall did improve, but they (unlike Trabert) turned pro 2-3 years before the prime age of a tennis player in those days (So did Cooper, so maybe he would have improved). Sedgman is the same as Trabert - turned pro pretty much in his prime and never really improved on his inital showing.

In the case of Emerson he was outclassed by Laver in 1962 even though he was 25/26 and Laver a couple of years younger. I don't think he would have improved by much on the pro tour, and certainly not as much as Laver did. Also worth considering is what I mentioned in a previous post about consistency being the main area of improvement for players when they turned pro. I don't believe Emerson was in the Vines/Gonzalez/Hoad/Laver mould and so would not have benefited as much as they did.

Speaking of Ashley Cooper, it is often forgotten that he is actually the same age as Emerson.

pc1 · Jul 12, 2016

70sHollywood said:
Sure there was a gap but not one to the extent where a guy like Emerson would have become a GOAT contender. You can get some idea as to how much they would have improved by looking at a) their amateur results b) their age c) their style of play.

Ashley Cooper is the perfect example of what I meant. Playing against the top pro's obviously did very little to improve his game. In other words Cooper just wasn't good enough. The results after 1956 also suggest that Trabert never improved from his initial pro tour. Gonzalez, Hoad and Rosewall did improve, but they (unlike Trabert) turned pro 2-3 years before the prime age of a tennis player in those days (So did Cooper, so maybe he would have improved). Sedgman is the same as Trabert - turned pro pretty much in his prime and never really improved on his inital showing.

In the case of Emerson he was outclassed by Laver in 1962 even though he was 25/26 and Laver a couple of years younger. I don't think he would have improved by much on the pro tour, and certainly not as much as Laver did. Also worth considering is what I mentioned in a previous post about consistency being the main area of improvement for players when they turned pro. I don't believe Emerson was in the Vines/Gonzalez/Hoad/Laver mould and so would not have benefited as much as they did.

Speaking of Ashley Cooper, it is often forgotten that he is actually the same age as Emerson.

I was just using Emerson has a hypothetical example of what could happen if some amateurs turn pro and some pros did not become pros and stayed amateur. Do I really think Emerson would've been a candidate to be the greatest ever? The answer is no however I am fairly certain he would've gotten a lot better than he was in real life.

Dan Lobb · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
you´re always talking about an official world champion while everybody else is just talking about who was no.1

No they are not...we discussed the importance of being the official number one. It meant a great deal.

Dan Lobb · Jul 12, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
I think Dan's point is that, there being no "world championship tour," in 1964, there is no basis to argue that Rosewall was #1 in 1964 when Laver had the overall better record.

That is exactly the point...we cannot say that Rosewall was number one for 1964 because he won the official world championship tour, because there was no such tour in 1964.
That is a major point.
So we have to look at some other measure, which gives the nod to Laver for winning the most important tournaments.

BobbyOne · Jul 12, 2016

treblings said:
i´ve read the article. thanks, again, for making the effort to type it and present it here.
imo Buchholz wasn´t talking about some players being able to be no.1 that particular year but improving enough to reach that goal in the future.
would be interesting to know whether he saw no. 1 potential in himself at some point.

the article is well-written, crystal clear and leaves no doubt that Buchholz thought of Rosewall as the no. 1 player of 1964

treblings, Thanks for your clear words about the "crystal clear" Buchholz article. You seem to having read the article as it was meant and written by Butch. You are right that Buchholz did not mean that any player could still surpass the No.1 player, Rosewall, at the end of 1964 as there was no activity anymore after the author had written his report. I guess that Butch at 24 was still dreaming of becoming the NO.1 player one day...

Alas, it's a pity that some other posters were not able to read the article as it was written and meant.

As this is my 10 000th post, I would like to say a few fundamental words. I enjoy posting in this forum (thanks to the administrators for pardonizing me). I was able to provide much of my knowledge about tennis history to many readers and posters.

On the other hand I'm a bit frustrated that some posters seem to misunderstand my involvement for some tennis players, especially for that still underrated "small giant", Rosewall, as though I would be a non-critical Rosewall fanboy only because I point to some unknown or little-known achievements of that extraordinary player from Sydney.

I'm very grateful to fellow posters like krosero (who is all but a lackey of anybody!), treblings, Gary Duane, Meles, kenshin (alas he is not posting anymore) who have understood my intention and my kind of argumentation.

I'm of course not grateful to other posters like Limpinhitter, Phoenix1983 and Dan Lobb for their stubborness and strange behaviour.

Limpin, I will not bother you anymore with the request to apologize for your lie. I have realized that you will not change your hate against me nor your behaviour. You even refuse to address me when replying to my posts.

However, I'm looking forward to further fruitful discussions in this forum.

WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

70sHollywood

Guest

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

70sHollywood

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads