WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

Phoenix1983 · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Phoenix1983, Rosewall is admired by you, especially when dying soon...

I do admire Rosewall, I think he's a Tier 1 candidate and had unsurpassed longevity near the top of the game.

treblings · Aug 21, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
krosero produced none of that data. I obtained some of it independently and some of it from urban who posted it in response to false statements by the Rosewall campaign.

There is a very good reason to repeat it. The stats for 1964 objectively and conclusively show that Laver was the #1 player for the year 1964.

i think my post is clear enough.
i was talking about kroseros excellent research finding articles that contained clear rankings of 1964

Limpinhitter · Aug 21, 2016

treblings said:
i think my post is clear enough.
i was talking about kroseros excellent research finding articles that contained clear rankings of 1964

In my view, your recent posts on the subject have been attempts to obfuscate the issue. I think my posts have been much more clear. Apparently, you don't like the fact that Laver was the best player in 1964, had the best record in 1964, and deserves the #1 ranking for 1964. Further, you implied that you were aware of an "official" ranking for 1964. But, after several requests, you have failed to identify one.

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

krosero said:
NatF, a fine post, just the kind that I think makes for a better debate. Let me try and answer your questions, and just bear with me if I get verbose, which is definitely a weakness of mine. But some of the issues are semi-technical and do require getting into the details.

Yes in my Nov. 1 count I was including all tournaments played since Jan. 1, without reference to whether they gave out ranking points or anything else.

McCauley counted all titles, too, in his introduction to his ’64 chapter: he gave 11 titles each to Rosewall and Laver. In the results section in the back of his book, there are only 10 wins for Rosewall in conventional tournaments, which is why the Trofeo Facis series has been suggested as Rosewall’s 11th title.

It’s possible that McCauley just miscounted when he specified 11, but I tend to think not in this case. With Rod and Ken so close in total titles, and McCauley counting these titles as part of his discussion of who ended up as #1 for the year, I doubt that McCauley would have made anything less than a careful count.

Anyway that’s only a matter of 1 title and it’s not a decisive issue. The point you made about the pro majors getting fewer points than they should have gotten is imo the strongest argument in your post; and that issue has been raised by others, namely on the Wikipedia page for world #1’s by year. Laver has a 2-1 edge in the majors, and if the majors had been given more points Laver would have closed some of the gap – but only some of it.

There were 17 tournaments that were always regarded as forming the championship tour (or “points tour” if you like). If we take those and apply the point system that was described by Buchholz (7 points to the winner, 4 to the runner-up, 3 for third place, 2 for fourth, and 1 for each quarterfinalist), Rosewall finished the year with a 78-66 edge over Laver, a 12-point gap.

We could give the winner of each major 19 points instead of 7, a twelve-point increase. But the runner-up also has to get more points in this scenario; so Rosewall as runner-up at Wembley would get, let’s say 12 points, instead of the 4 he actually got. So even increasing the pro majors from 7 points to 19 points in the winner’s column (which I think is too much of an increase for the pro majors), Laver only makes up 4 points, in the original 12-point gap; he’s still 8 points behind.

If we imagine all matches for the entire year included in a point system, Laver can make up the gap. Now we’d be adding 4-man tournaments and all the one-night stands played throughout the year.

As you said, in a system today all tennis events would count. But my biggest issue with making this modern-day criticism is that if there were matches or events back in ’64 (or any year) which did not give out ranking points, then they were less important to the players of that time, for that reason. We can say, today, that those matches should have been assigned weight; and we could try to assign them some weight retroactively; but if they didn’t carry that weight back then, it means that they were less important to the players, back then. A player could, in fact, skip those events/matches, without hurting his ranking – which is why I think this issue of Rosewall ending his season on October 31 is important.

In fact Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman and Ayala all ended their season on Oct. 31, leaving only half the troupe still active: Laver, Buchholz, Gimeno and Olmedo. Those four men went to North Africa but it appears that Olmedo then went home, leaving only Rod, Butch and Andres playing the final weeks in France. Those three men stuck it out till the bitter end, I think very likely for the money. And Rod, unlike everyone else, was still a bachelor with absolutely no attachments (I have a funny news clipping about that), so it was no problem for him to go on playing as long as he wanted.

(But I want to note, he may have been carrying a slight injury during that last month of play, in November. The BLT article I posted above, from January ’65, said that he was coming back from a back injury. And if he was playing injured in November, I wonder if that was a factor in the two-day stand in Saudi Arabia that I found recently. He lost both of his matches there, and I thought for him to lose on both days seemed a little un-Laver like.)

Like you said, Rosewall not playing in November shouldn’t be held against him and Laver playing in November should get some credit for what he did.

But this is a bit of dilemma. One player ends up at the top of the points system (however it may have been constituted), winning precisely enough of the matches/events that offered points for him to end up at the top of the system. His troupe-mates tell him, “You can go home, you’ve clinched the tour regardless of anything else that happens this year; you’re world champion and that’s what we’re going to call you until next year when we try to take your title away.” The #2 player goes on to play further tennis in November, and we give him credit for it: but if this credit means that we now don’t call Rosewall world champion anymore, well then we are “holding it against him” for not playing in November.

For me the fairest solution is to give them co-number one’s. I know you don’t go for co-number one’s on principle, but I’ve seen them used by historians I respect, and not just Bobby, but also for example Ray Bowers, in his great studies of the Budge/Vines/Perry years.

But if you choose not to use co-number one’s and you go with Laver as sole number one for ’64, of course I have no problem with that.

One thing I’d like to find out -- and I’ll post it if I find it – is what that Challenge Match on October 31 was all about, and what was the exact situation with the point standings as of that moment. All I have is the bare data of the South Africa tour (dates, scores, win/losses), with a few brief newspaper reports; but what I’m looking for is a South African newspaper with in-depth coverage. That’s the likeliest place to find out what the situation was when Rosewall decided to call it a season on Oct. 31. Was he safe because the November events didn’t offer ranking points? (I don’t think they did but that’s never been confirmed.) Or did they offer ranking points, but Rosewall was too far ahead for Laver to catch him? Did the Challenge Match on Oct. 31 offer any ranking points? Etc.

krosero, Again thanks for your serious and logical post. It's mostly a pleasure for me to read your posts. You possess an interesting personal style unlike to all other posters including my own style.

Dan Lobb · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
krosero, Again thanks for your serious and logical post. It's mostly a pleasure for me to read your posts. You possess an interesting personal style unlike to all other posters.

You pat my back, I will pat yours....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

krosero said:
Dan, there's no evidence at all that Rosewall, or anyone else, could suddenly end a tour in the manner you're suggesting. Rosewall, Hoad and Ayala all chose to go home directly from South Africa on October 31. They all made that personal decision, undoubtedly because they all had families at home; but I find it hard to believe that they did so at the last-minute. If those men, and particularly Hoad with his star power, were scheduled to play in November but suddenly dropped out, it would have caused all manner of havoc for the pros and their entire operation.

I can't recall if I posted it, but back in '59 when Gonzalez suddenly decided not to play the European tour, Kramer told the LA Times just how much havoc that sudden decision had caused. He had to reshuffle draws and such, but far more importantly he was breaking commitments with local tournaments who had expected to see Pancho. Kramer had to renegotiate with many of these tournaments, and even when he "patched" everything up, the damage had been done to the Kramer pros' reputation among local promoters. And of course Gonzalez earned himself a lot of hostility among his fellow pros because his absence hurt the box-office and therefore hurt them all.

No doubt Gonzalez had it in for Kramer; and that was not the only time he seemed to take a decision at least partly motivated by his feud with Kramer.

If Hoad and Rosewall had been expected to be seen by fans in November 1964, but they suddenly dropped out, they would quickly have alienated the rest of the troupe. But there is no sign of such a thing in the Buchholz article, where Hoad is spoken of positively and Ken is praised for all the work that he does for the group.

There was another article in World Tennis in early '65. It was written by Mal Anderson, who noted explicitly that Pancho was still a bit of a lone wolf who wouldn't go out of his way to do anything for the pro troupe that the other players were doing (like press interviews, to generate publicity). He wrote:

Pancho is basically not a “Pro Tour” man; he is an individualist. The Pro Tour comes first with Rod and Muscles simply because any lack of effort on their part will mean disaster for the professionals.

Anderson also noted:

What Ken likes best is to be at home with his wife and kids. He has a beautiful home, a beautiful car and he does everything for his family. But last year he didn’t get to see his kids for eight months and the previous year he didn’t get to see them for ten months. He deliberately sacrifices his home life to keep the tour going. He can’t get himself to say “No” to the group. That’s one of the reasons why I have a very soft spot for Ken.

It's far more likely that Rosewall, Hoad and Ayala simply went home on Oct. 31 as scheduled, and that some other players continued to the Middle East and France, as scheduled.

(If Ken had decided, for whatever reason, that he wanted or needed to play in November, he could then easily have added himself to the schedule with minor fuss; and of course the troupe would have been happy to have him.)

In McCauley's book, four players have no more activity after Oct. 31: Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman and Ayala. That left Laver, Gimeno, Buchholz and Olmedo, who took off for North Africa and the Middle East. But it appears that Olmedo then went home too, because there is no record of him playing the final matches in France.

Laver, as noted by Buchholz, was the only bachelor in the troupe; so he had no reason not to keep going until there was nothing left to play. Gimeno stuck it out in France but that's right next door to Spain, where he lived. Buchholz continued right to the end but maybe you recall that in his article he made a point of discussing why a player like him would stay away from home for a period as long as 130 days -- by which he meant the overseas portion, from mid-July to the very end of November. As an American that portion of the tour took him away from his home and family. The first reason he gives for doing this portion of the tour -- for staying right through the end -- is the money that was available to be made. He also notes that doing so can help a player improve and become #1 one day.

I do have questions about what the exact point standings were on October 31 when Rosewall -- along with Hoad, Sedgman and Ayala -- went home. But beyond that there's no reason to presume anything unusual about what they were doing.

krosero, I guess your convincing arguments could convince even some doubters!

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Buchholz has apparently clarified that point, and stated that this was not a world championship as far as he knew, and by extension, the other players knew.

Dan, It's senseless.

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
And yet we have this curious controversy, with Laver claiming to surpass Rosewall after Rosewall left the tour...Hoad was only a part-time player at this point and not a significant player.
Ayala and Sedgman were also marginal to the tour at this stage. Gonzales also part-time.
The main players were Rosewall Laver, Gimeno, Buchholz.

Dan, You again err: Hoad was one of the most prolific players at all in 1964!

Laver did not doubt Buchholz's article and Rosewall's No.1 place until a few years ago when he publiced his new book. I trust the contemporary Buchholz and Laver more than the old Buchholz and old Laver who judge 50 years after the tour was played. Furthermore Butch answered to a wrong question ("130 day tour").

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

treblings said:
There is really no need to repeat all the data that krosero has produced.
I obviously understand the clear Buchholz article better than you. again, where does he mention anything about a magical mystery tour?
what we don´t have are any rankings of that year(official, unofficial,...) that show Rod Laver as no. 1

the stats that you repeatedly post show how strong Laver already was in 1964.
imo, these stats are proof for the fact that the pros valued some events more than others.
obviously the tour results with it´s point system where considered deciding.

treblings, I still hope that explaining the facts will convince some people, even in this curious forum...

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

treblings said:
it´s not my ambition in this forum to convince posters who don´t want to be convinced.
therefore i don´t need satisfying answers
which is fortunate, because i agree with you, we won´t get them

treblings, You said it: A few posters here don't want to be convinced at all and to learn from others.

We all as human beings should be ready to learn from other people.

NonP · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
treblings, You said it: A few posters here don't want to be convinced at all and to learn from others.

We all as human beings should be ready to learn from other people.

Are you trying to set a record for the most irony displayed by an individual poster in an online forum?

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, there is no "blame" for anyone, do not get carried away again...the tour director could make these decisions within his normal range of duty.
But do you not think that it is strange that the post-points tour events, apparently arranged by Rosewall, should be without Rosewall, but include the three other major pro tennis players?
It has the appearance of a change of plans.
Also, this would account for the absence of any points tour presentation ceremony, trophy, or prize money...it looks like it didn't quite come off.

Dan, You err again: The long championship tour did not include 4 man-tournaments at all as they were in November, with a possible exception of the big Wembley Golden Racquet tourney of the 4 star pros.

Don't you think that Laver would have protested if Rosewall immediately had finished the tour prematurely where Rod was rather close to Muscles in points? Rosewall is not the man who decides high-handed without contacting his colleagues. Don't forget that Buchhholz wrote that "our No.1 player, Ken Rosewall, sets an example for all of us by not asking for special favors"?

By the way, I just realize that Buchholz wrote 5 (five) times that Rosewall was the No.1 player in 1964, once even "unquestionably"! You ignored that totally...

But maybe you even think that Butch is a liar who lied five times...

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
Krosero, when you use quotation marks, you are representing that you have quoted someone else's words exactly as they were stated or written. Further, it is a convention of serious researchers to cite the sources of his/her quotations. Please cite the source of your quote below indicated by the internal quotation marks:

"His [Rosewall's} troupe-mates tell him, 'You can go home, you’ve clinched the tour regardless of anything else that happens this year; you’re world champion and that’s what we’re going to call you until next year when we try to take your title away. . . .'" - krosero

PS: I also find it odd that you and your friend, Bobby, continuously refer to the 130 tour as a World championship tour after pc1 established, by and through one of the players on that tour, that there was no world championship tour in 1964.

Limpinhitter, Your hate increases from post to post. You even refuse to understand krosero's hypothetical but reasonable quoting.

We find your continuous referring to a 130 day tour very odd. I must confess that a longer time ago I also mentioned a 130 day tour before krosero figured out that it was a 185 day tour. I'm sorry for my mistake. I confused the tour with Buchholz's title in World Tennis "My 130 Days with Rosewall, Laver & Co.".

But it's your big and nasty mistake to ignore the krosero findings and still fantasize about a 130 m. m. tour...

Nobody has established that there was no world championship tour in 1964.

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
krosero produced none of that data. I obtained some of it independently and some of it from urban who posted it in response to false statements by the Rosewall campaign.

There is a very good reason to repeat it. The stats for 1964 objectively and conclusively show that Laver was the #1 player for the year 1964.

Mrs. Limpinhitter (or are you male???), Where do you see a Rosewall campaign? I only see an anti-Rosewall campaign created by you...

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Krosero, it may have been impossible to air any differences between Rosewall and Laver over scheduling and tour parameters, for exactly the reasons you mention above.
The pros in the mid-1960's, probably earned far less money than in the late fifties, the amateur circuit was booming, Emerson was apparently earning more than Rosewall and Laver put together, a serious embarrassment for the "pros". They could not allow any disagreements over scheduling to interfere with progress.
That does not mean that everything was smooth sailing.

Dan, That's the reason why your absurd claim is nonsense: Rosewall would not have dared to snub Laver and the other players by making unfair decisions!!

Limpinhitter · Aug 21, 2016

NonP said:
Are you trying to set a record for the most irony displayed by an individual poster in an online forum?

He sets a new record with every post. Ditto the online hypocrisy record.

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Phoenix1983 said:
I do admire Rosewall, I think he's a Tier 1 candidate and had unsurpassed longevity near the top of the game.

Phoenix, I hope he also has good longevity regarding his life-time. Maybe he will become a second Mulloy...

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

treblings said:
i think my post is clear enough.
i was talking about kroseros excellent research finding articles that contained clear rankings of 1964

treblings, Thanks for your clear words and your endeavour to post serious statements. Some will never understand seriosity and truth...

Dan Lobb · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
krosero, I guess your convincing arguments could convince even some doubters!

Bobby, read my response to Krosero.

Dan Lobb · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, It's senseless.

It is senseless to challenge a direct statement by Buchholz.

Dan Lobb · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, You again err: Hoad was one of the most prolific players at all in 1964!

Laver did not doubt Buchholz's article and Rosewall's No.1 place until a few years ago when he publiced his new book. I trust the contemporary Buchholz and Laver more than the old Buchholz and old Laver who judge 50 years after the tour was played. Furthermore Butch answered to a wrong question ("130 day tour").

Bobby, Buchholz' 1964 article makes it clear that Hoad was only a part-timer in 1964....the top 4 touring players were Rosewall, Laver, Gimeno, and Buchholz.

Dan Lobb · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, You again err: Hoad was one of the most prolific players at all in 1964!

Laver did not doubt Buchholz's article and Rosewall's No.1 place until a few years ago when he publiced his new book. I trust the contemporary Buchholz and Laver more than the old Buchholz and old Laver who judge 50 years after the tour was played. Furthermore Butch answered to a wrong question ("130 day tour").

Bobby, you should read my post above..of course, Laver would not make a public disagreement with Rosewall over the schedule in 1964, the pros could not afford that.

Dan Lobb · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, You err again: The long championship tour did not include 4 man-tournamnets at all as they were in November, with a possible exception of the big Wembley Diamant Racquet tourney of the 4 star pros.

Don't you think that Laver would have protested if Rosewall immediately had finished the tour prematurely where Rod was rather close to Muscles in points? Rosewall is not the man who decides high-handed without contacting his colleagues. Don't forget that Buchhholz wrote that "our No.1 player, Ken Rosewall, sets an example for all of us by not asking for special favors"?

By the way, I just realize that Buchholz wrote 5 (five) times that Rosewall was the No.1 player in 1964, once even "unquestionably"! You ignored that totally...

Bobby, read Krosero's post...the pros could not afford a public dispute...they were financially below the amateurs at this point.

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
In my view, your recent posts on the subject have been attempts to obfuscate the issue. I think my posts have been much more clear. Apparently, you don't like the fact that Laver was the best player in 1964, had the best record in 1964, and deserves the #1 ranking for 1964. Further, you implied that you were aware of an "official" ranking for 1964. But, after several requests, you have failed to identify one.

Limpin, Read krosero's post with the newspaper quotings and rankings of 1964 and 1965. Read especially the rankings of August 25 where there is clearly written that the tour was a pro world championship. Read also the Buchholz article where Butch gives the 1964 final rankings and writes 5, five, FIVE, F I V E (fünf) times that Rosewall was the 1964 No.1 player, once even "unquestionably the No.1 player". Even an ignoramus like you should be able to read clear English written words. You surely don't want to be called an idiot! I can understand that. So get real!!!

It's due time now to apologize for your several lies, especially that curious "40 majors" lie!!!

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
You pat my back, I will pat yours....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Obnoxious person!

Dan Lobb · Aug 21, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Obnoxious person!

Bobby, another post by you, and another waste of space on this thread....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

NonP said:
Are you trying to set a record for the most irony displayed by an individual poster in an online forum?

NonP, I'm just trying to write intelligent and serious posts and to ignore non-serious posters like you...

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
He sets a new record with every post. Ditto the online hypocrisy record.

Limpinhitter, Alas, I at the most can gain a bronze medal (more probably only a 14th place). I must congratulate to your GOLD medals for intelligence, integrity, tennis knowledge, English reading capacity, fairness, noblesse, exact research, non-bias and so on. But over all you can be proud for getting the Talk Tennis DIAMANT medal for honesty: Phoenix1983, Dan Lobb and NonP have meticulously researched and never found any lie from yourself. I'm forced to say: such noble men with their famous integrity just cannot be wrong. So I salute to you. May you long continue to enlighten the TT readers!

BobbyOne · Aug 21, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, you should read my post above..of course, Laver would not make a public disagreement with Rosewall over the schedule in 1964, the pros could not afford that.

...but he would have been his enemy after that. But he was not.

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, read Krosero's post...the pros could not afford a public dispute...they were financially below the amateurs at this point.

You are so nasty that you even distort krosero's clear post. Disgusting.

Dan Lobb said:
It is senseless to challenge a direct statement by Buchholz.

Please tell us exactly how the question and the answer were. Thanks.

Limpinhitter · Aug 21, 2016

Let's review, in 1964, Laver lead Rosewall in every material respect:

- Laver lead Rosewall in total titles 11-10,
- Laver lead Rosewall in pro major titles 2-1,
- Laver lead Rosewall in total matches won 81 to 69,
- Laver lead Rosewall in winning percentage 75% (81-27) to 70% (69-30),
- Laver lead Rosewall in H2H matches by a dominating 15-4.

There was no World Championship Tour in 1964.
Buchholz confirmed to pc1 that the 130 day tour was not a World Championship Tour.
Buchholz did not say that Rosewall was #1 for 1964.
I have seen no newspaper clipping calling the 130 day tour a World Championship Tour. But, even if it was, so what? The above record is conclusive regarding the whole year of 1964.

treblings · Aug 21, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
In my view, your recent posts on the subject have been attempts to obfuscate the issue. I think my posts have been much more clear. Apparently, you don't like the fact that Laver was the best player in 1964, had the best record in 1964, and deserves the #1 ranking for 1964. Further, you implied that you were aware of an "official" ranking for 1964. But, after several requests, you have failed to identify one.

you even failed to read my post correctly

two simple paragraphs
in the first paragraph i talked about kroseros material, newspaper articles
and World Tennis articles that confirmed Rosewall was considered no. 1 at the time.

in the second paragraph i mentioned your stats

how could my post be clearer?

the issue is also quite clear. If, and everything points in this direction, Rosewall
was ranked no. 1 in 1964 by his fellow pros, that threatens your opinion, that Laver
was no.1 alone.

how this can become so important for you, that you try to ridicule other opinions by
talking about "magical mystery tour" and "paper clippings" is beyond me.

but maybe you have a second issue?

NonP · Aug 22, 2016

BobbyOne said:
NonP, I'm just trying to write intelligent and serious posts and to ignore non-serious posters like you...

I see my suggestion to you earlier about developing a self-deprecating sense of humor was well taken.

And I see that you're still blabbering on about 1964, despite your previous assurances that you'd no longer do so, and also that you're now grouping me with the "non-serious" side after this apostasy on my part, again despite your earlier statement to the contrary when my post was more to your liking. FYI I've already written at least twice in no uncertain terms that I think the Laverites got it wrong on this matter (if not in their conclusion about the overall year), but apparently even that is not enough for you.

This childish tendency of yours to see things in black and white isn't just limited to the issue of '64. When krosero gently chided you in his rare criticism of your behavior that most would agree could hardly be more friendly and constructive you went ballistic at him for not supporting you 100% and even went so far as to question your friendship after this supposed blasphemy. And you've gotta be the only one I know who takes such an obsessive interest in such a silly thing as giving likes in an Internet forum, again without any hint of understanding that one may not agree with something 100% to give his/her approval.

I was going to say I hope you don't act like such a spoiled child in real life because otherwise you'd make life miserable for everyone and not only yourself, but I know that'd be just an empty expression of concern because I strongly suspect this is the real you who barely acts in a more mature manner in the real world only because of the social sanctions imposed on everyone without an online mask to hide behind. Well I've got a news flash for you: the type of "friendship" you like to imagine in your head doesn't exist in reality. The only people who deserve and (occasionally if not always, alas) receive such unconditional love and support are literally prepubescent children who cannot yet tell right from wrong and survive on their own in the outside world. Adults and even teenagers expect several things in return when they decide to befriend someone, not the least of which is that he/she acts in accordance with and recognizance of this basic social convention, but you don't seem to be even aware of such a simple fact of life. In fact your comically naive notion of friendship reminds me of Plato's quip in Phaedo about misanthropy, which he astutely observed "develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone" (this quote comes from Wiki, look it up).

It's well past time you grow up and accept that "friends" don't turn into "enemies" all of a sudden when they don't mindlessly support you like a zombie 24/7 even though your behavior doesn't deserve it. And until you do you really should think about taking a break from all online forums and not just this one for everyone's sake. As several posters have lamented this thread used to be one of the best on TT but has turned into a puerile food fight and a Dr. Phil-style gabfest all rolled into one thanks to your inability to leave well enough alone. Either change your act or follow your own directive to leave. Your choice.

P.S. You're as usual way off when you say Fidelio boasts the greatest ending of all operas. The correct answer is Don Giovanni, or The Marriage of Figaro in a more comic vein.

Dan Lobb · Aug 22, 2016

BobbyOne said:
...but he would have been his enemy after that. But he was not.

Not everyone becomes an "enemy" over a disagreement....some of us are more rational than that.

Dan Lobb · Aug 22, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Please tell us exactly how the question and the answer were. Thanks.

Bobby, we have been over this a few million times...you already know the answer...another waste of space by you.

NatF · Aug 22, 2016

@krosero just wanted to say I have seen your newest post. Will try and get to it at some point in the next couple of days. Our discussions normally require a little more thought on my part

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
It is senseless to challenge a direct statement by Buchholz.

Dan Lobb, What was Buchholz's statement and what was the question?

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, Buchholz' 1964 article makes it clear that Hoad was only a part-timer in 1964....the top 4 touring players were Rosewall, Laver, Gimeno, and Buchholz.

Dan, Hoad played all the important events in 1964. You as a Hoad expert should know that!!

hoodjem · Aug 22, 2016

BobbyOne said:
Dan, You err again: The long championship tour did not include 4 man-tournaments at all as they were in November, with a possible exception of the big Wembley Diamant Racquet tourney of the 4 star pros.

Don't you think that Laver would have protested if Rosewall immediately had finished the tour prematurely where Rod was rather close to Muscles in points? Rosewall is not the man who decides high-handed without contacting his colleagues. Don't forget that Buchhholz wrote that "our No.1 player, Ken Rosewall, sets an example for all of us by not asking for special favors"?

By the way, I just realize that Buchholz wrote 5 (five) times that Rosewall was the No.1 player in 1964, once even "unquestionably"! You ignored that totally...

But maybe you even think that Butch is a liar who lied five times...

Is the Buchholz article available on-line? (I would like to read it.)

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2016

Limpinhitter said:
Let's review, in 1964, Laver lead Rosewall in every material respect:

- Laver lead Rosewall in total titles 11-10,
- Laver lead Rosewall in pro major titles 2-1,
- Laver lead Rosewall in total matches won 81 to 69,
- Laver lead Rosewall in winning percentage 75% (81-27) to 70% (69-30),
- Laver lead Rosewall in H2H matches by a dominating 15-4.

There was no World Championship Tour in 1964.
Buchholz confirmed to pc1 that the 130 day tour was not a World Championship Tour.
Buchholz did not say that Rosewall was #1 for 1964.
I have seen no newspaper clipping calling the 130 day tour a World Championship Tour. But, even if it was, so what? The above record is conclusive regarding the whole year of 1964.

Curious Limpin, Of course Buchholz did confirm that the 130 day tour was not a world champioship tour. It really was not. Only in your fantasy there is a question if it was or not was. All the serious posters know that the 130 day tour was not the world championship. krosero has clearly shown that it was not. So what?

Of course Butch did not say that Rosewall was No.1 for 1964, you funny woman or man: He was not asked at all about that!!!

Learn to read clear English sentences!!!

hoodjem · Aug 22, 2016

BobbyOne said:
krosero figured out that it was a 185 day tour.

Does anyone have a list of the tournaments/cities that composed this 185-day Pro tour?

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2016

treblings said:
you even failed to read my post correctly

two simple paragraphs
in the first paragraph i talked about kroseros material, newspaper articles
and World Tennis articles that confirmed Rosewall was considered no. 1 at the time.

in the second paragraph i mentioned your stats

how could my post be clearer?

the issue is also quite clear. If, and everything points in this direction, Rosewall
was ranked no. 1 in 1964 by his fellow pros, that threatens your opinion, that Laver
was no.1 alone.

how this can become so important for you, that you try to ridicule other opinions by
talking about "magical mystery tour" and "paper clippings" is beyond me.

but maybe you have a second issue?

treblings, I admire your calm reaction to Limpinhitter's insulting posts. He or she has a nasty agenda: to belittle one of the greatest players of all time. I only can hope that Muscles does not read those obnoxious posts by Limpinhitter and Phoenix.

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2016

NonP said:
I see my suggestion to you earlier about developing a self-deprecating sense of humor was well taken.

And I see that you're still blabbering on about 1964, despite your previous assurances that you'd no longer do so, and also that you're now grouping me with the "non-serious" side after this apostasy on my part, again despite your earlier statement to the contrary when my post was more to your liking. FYI I've already written at least twice in no uncertain terms that I think the Laverites got it wrong on this matter (if not in their conclusion about the overall year), but apparently even that is not enough for you.

This childish tendency of yours to see things in black and white isn't just limited to the issue of '64. When krosero gently chided you in his rare criticism of your behavior that most would agree could hardly be more friendly and constructive you went ballistic at him for not supporting you 100% and even went so far as to question your friendship after this supposed blasphemy. And you've gotta be the only one I know who takes such an obsessive interest in such a silly thing as giving likes in an Internet forum, again without any hint of understanding that one may not agree with something 100% to give his/her approval.

I was going to say I hope you don't act like such a spoiled child in real life because otherwise you'd make life miserable for everyone and not only yourself, but I know that'd be just an empty expression of concern because I strongly suspect this is the real you who barely acts in a more mature manner in the real world only because of the social sanctions imposed on everyone without an online mask to hide behind. Well I've got a news flash for you: the type of "friendship" you like to imagine in your head doesn't exist in reality. The only people who deserve and (occasionally if not always, alas) receive such unconditional love and support are literally prepubescent children who cannot yet tell right from wrong and survive on their own in the outside world. Adults and even teenagers expect several things in return when they decide to befriend someone, not the least of which is that he/she acts in accordance with and recognizance of this basic social convention, but you don't seem to be even aware of such a simple fact of life. In fact your comically naive notion of friendship reminds me of Plato's quip in Phaedo about misanthropy, which he astutely observed "develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone" (this quote comes from Wiki, look it up).

It's well past time you grow up and accept that "friends" don't turn into "enemies" all of a sudden when they don't mindlessly support you like a zombie 24/7 even though your behavior doesn't deserve it. And until you do you really should think about taking a break from all online forums and not just this one for everyone's sake. As several posters have lamented this thread used to be one of the best on TT but has turned into a puerile food fight and a Dr. Phil-style gabfest all rolled into one thanks to your inability to leave well enough alone. Either change your act or follow your own directive to leave. Your choice.

P.S. You're as usual way off when you say Fidelio boasts the greatest ending of all operas. The correct answer is Don Giovanni, or The Marriage of Figaro in a more comic vein.

NonP, You err: I have not written that I will leave the 1964 issue. I did write that I speculate to make a pause or quit my career here.

Note: It's my opponents who also don't stop writing about 1964, now also in the All Rosewall thread as I just saw...

Have not read the whole post of yours because it's written again in an arrogant style.

You know all better and you know even "the correct answer"...

Figaro may be a comic opera and have a comic end. Fidelio has a human and moving end. That's much more.

You again err: My emotions don't come because of disagreements. They come because of self-contradictions, arrogancy, LIES (you never critisized your friend's, Limpin's lies!) and distorting English language.

Note: I react to friendly behaviour friendly (even when my partner disagrees with me, see my posts to NatF) and I react to nasty or obnoxious or arrogant posts in an unfriendly way.

Note: posters who make bad lies about me (Limpin) or who insult a great player or insult serious posters, are my enemies as I am your's and Limpin's!

Will not answer you anymore.

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2016

Dan Lobb said:
Not everyone becomes an "enemy" over a disagreement....some of us are more rational than that.

Again wrong! I did not write about disagreement. I wrote about a possible nasty behaviour of Rosewall, as you have insinuated. Get real!

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2016

hoodjem said:
Does anyone have a list of the tournaments/cities that composed this 185-day Pro tour?

hoodjem, Thanks for your interest. I have already listed up all tournaments as they are written in McCauley's book.

Limpinhitter · Aug 22, 2016

treblings said:
you even failed to read my post correctly

two simple paragraphs
in the first paragraph i talked about kroseros material, newspaper articles
and World Tennis articles that confirmed Rosewall was considered no. 1 at the time.

in the second paragraph i mentioned your stats

how could my post be clearer?

the issue is also quite clear. If, and everything points in this direction, Rosewall
was ranked no. 1 in 1964 by his fellow pros, that threatens your opinion, that Laver
was no.1 alone.

how this can become so important for you, that you try to ridicule other opinions by
talking about "magical mystery tour" and "paper clippings" is beyond me.

but maybe you have a second issue?

Treblings, I read your post correctly. You continue to evade the issue. The issue is that you stated that you were "quite convinced" that Rosewall was the "official" #1 ranked player for 1964. On numerous occasions I have asked you to identify the official ranking you were referring to. If you were not evading the issue there are only two possible honest responses: (1) identification of the official ranking, or (2) an admission that you used the word "official" in error when you should have characterized the ranking(s) you were referring to as something other than official.

Limpinhitter · Aug 22, 2016

I think I've identified the problem. Short term memory deficit.

On August 20th Bobby wrote:

"Limpin, Read krosero's post with the newspaper quotings and rankings of 1964 and 1965. Read especially the rankings of August 25 where there is clearly written that the tour was a pro world championship. Read also the Buchholz article where Butch gives the 1964 final rankings and writes 5, five, FIVE, F I V E (fünf) [gesundheit] times that Rosewall was the 1964 No.1 player, once even "unquestionably the No.1 player". Even an ignoramus like you should be able to read clear English written words. You surely don't want to be called an idiot! I can understand that. So get real!!!

"It's due time now to apologize for your several lies, especially that curious "40 majors" lie!!!"

On August 21st Bobby Wrote:

"Curious Limpin, Of course Buchholz did confirm that the 130 day tour was not a world champioship tour. It really was not. Only in your fantasy there is a question if it was or not was. All the serious posters know that the 130 day tour was not the world championship. krosero has clearly shown that it was not. So what?

"Of course Butch did not say that Rosewall was No.1 for 1964, you funny woman or man: He was not asked at all about that!!!

"Learn to read clear English sentences!!!"

NonP · Aug 22, 2016

BobbyOne said:
NonP, You err: I have not written that I will leave the 1964 issue. I did write that I speculate to make a pause or quit my career here.

Note: It's my opponents who also don't stop writing about 1964, now also in the All Rosewall thread as I just saw...

Have not read the whole post of yours because it's written again in an arrogant style.

You know all better and you know even "the correct answer"...

Figaro may be a comic opera and have a comic end. Fidelio has a human and moving end. That's much more.

You again err: My emotions don't come because of disagreements. They come because of self-contradictions, arrogancy, LIES (you never critisized your friend's, Limpin's lies!) and distorting English language.

Note: I react to friendly behaviour friendly (even when my partner disagrees with me, see my posts to NatF) and I react to nasty or obnoxious or arrogant posts in an unfriendly way.

Note: posters who make bad lies about me (Limpin) or who insult a great player or insult serious posters, are my enemies as I am your's and Limpin's!

Will not answer you anymore.

Again you quibble with minor details while ignoring the major issue(s) without any hint of self-criticism, and your infantile obsession with "keeping score" proves my point. Go back and try to find in this thread how many times other posters tried to defend themselves by pointing their fingers at others who supposedly didn't get the same harsh treatment. Phoenix and Limpin have engaged in unfair criticism of krosero, I'll give you that, but who else? And certainly nobody does this with the same stupefying fixation as you do.

Sooner or later you'll have to acknowledge the fact that you have a serious problem that will keep alienating those around you until and unless you change for the better. Or you can continue to live within your own little paranoid fantasy and believe the whole unfair world is against you because it makes you feel better about your indefensible behavior. Again your choice.

treblings · Aug 22, 2016

BobbyOne said:
treblings, I admire your calm reaction to Limpinhitter's insulting posts. He or she has a nasty agenda: to belittle one of the greatest players of all time. I only can hope that Muscles does not read those obnoxious posts by Limpinhiter and Phoenix.

Have you ever talked to Mr Rosewall whether or not he reads the forum? i would like to think he´s not affected by these discussions.

Limpinhitter · Aug 22, 2016

NonP said:
I see my suggestion to you earlier about developing a self-deprecating sense of humor was well taken.

And I see that you're still blabbering on about 1964, despite your previous assurances that you'd no longer do so, and also that you're now grouping me with the "non-serious" side after this apostasy on my part, again despite your earlier statement to the contrary when my post was more to your liking. FYI I've already written at least twice in no uncertain terms that I think the Laverites got it wrong on this matter (if not in their conclusion about the overall year), but apparently even that is not enough for you.

This childish tendency of yours to see things in black and white isn't just limited to the issue of '64. When krosero gently chided you in his rare criticism of your behavior that most would agree could hardly be more friendly and constructive you went ballistic at him for not supporting you 100% and even went so far as to question your friendship after this supposed blasphemy. And you've gotta be the only one I know who takes such an obsessive interest in such a silly thing as giving likes in an Internet forum, again without any hint of understanding that one may not agree with something 100% to give his/her approval.

I was going to say I hope you don't act like such a spoiled child in real life because otherwise you'd make life miserable for everyone and not only yourself, but I know that'd be just an empty expression of concern because I strongly suspect this is the real you who barely acts in a more mature manner in the real world only because of the social sanctions imposed on everyone without an online mask to hide behind. Well I've got a news flash for you: the type of "friendship" you like to imagine in your head doesn't exist in reality. The only people who deserve and (occasionally if not always, alas) receive such unconditional love and support are literally prepubescent children who cannot yet tell right from wrong and survive on their own in the outside world. Adults and even teenagers expect several things in return when they decide to befriend someone, not the least of which is that he/she acts in accordance with and recognizance of this basic social convention, but you don't seem to be even aware of such a simple fact of life. In fact your comically naive notion of friendship reminds me of Plato's quip in Phaedo about misanthropy, which he astutely observed "develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone" (this quote comes from Wiki, look it up).

It's well past time you grow up and accept that "friends" don't turn into "enemies" all of a sudden when they don't mindlessly support you like a zombie 24/7 even though your behavior doesn't deserve it. And until you do you really should think about taking a break from all online forums and not just this one for everyone's sake. As several posters have lamented this thread used to be one of the best on TT but has turned into a puerile food fight and a Dr. Phil-style gabfest all rolled into one thanks to your inability to leave well enough alone. Either change your act or follow your own directive to leave. Your choice.

P.S. You're as usual way off when you say Fidelio boasts the greatest ending of all operas. The correct answer is Don Giovanni, or The Marriage of Figaro in a more comic vein.

Well, NonP, I was going to "like" this post. But, I just can't get around your mean lie, belittling Laver, that "the Laverites got it wrong on this matter." Humph!

Limpinhitter · Aug 22, 2016

treblings said:
Have you ever talked to Mr Rosewall whether or not he reads the forum? i would like to think he´s not affected by these discussions.

I sure hope not.

WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

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.

Legend

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.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

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.

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads