1970: an Almost Complete Picture

hoodjem · Jan 13, 2017

1970 Tournament Statistics

Laver Tournament statistics (15 wins):
1. Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT-1000
2. Sydney Dunlop Slazenger International WCT -1000
3. Johannesburg South African Open-1000
4. St. Louis Rawlings Classic WCT-250
5. Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles-1000
6. London Queen’s Club-500
7. Tennis Champions Classic New York City (final)-1300 (unsure here: number of rounds?)
8. First National Classic Louisville-250
9. Bretton Woods-250
10. Rothman’s Canadian Open-500
11. NIT Fort Worth WCT-250
12. Marlboro Open South Orange NJ-250
13. Rothman’s International WCT Vancouver-250
14. West German Invitational RR-250
15. Embassy British Indoor Championships London-1000
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (4th round)-180
AO (did not play)-0
FO (did not play)-0
TOTAL-9410

Newcombe Tournament statistics (3 wins):
1. Wimbledon-2000
2. Casablanca WCT Morocco-250
3. Hoylake UK-250
AO (quarters)-360
US Open (semis)-720
Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro (r/u)-150
London Queen’s Club (r/u)-300
Newport UK (r/u)-150
First National Classic Louisville (r/u)-150
Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles (r/u)-600
Midland WCT (r/u)-150
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-5080

Rosewall Tournament statistics (6 wins):
1. US Open-2000
2. Hollywood FL Pro-250
3. Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro-250
4. Eastbourne Rothman’s Open-250
5. Newport UK Welsh Open-250
6. Cincinnati Western Championships-500
Wimbledon (runner-up)-1200
AO (did not play)
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-4700

Ashe Tournament statistics (4 wins):
1. Australian Open-2000
2. US Tennis Championships San Jose-250
3. Pacific Coast Open Berkeley-250
4. Paris Open Indoor Grand Prix-250
FO (quarters)-360
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (quarters)-360
TOTAL-3650

Kodes Tournament statistics (2 wins):
1. French Open-2000
2. St. Petersburg-250
Italian Open Rome (r/u)-600
Wimbledon (1st round)-10
AO (did not play)
US Open (did not play)
TOTAL-2860

TOTALS
LAVER: 9410
NEWCOMBE: 5080
ROSEWALL: 4700
ASHE: 3650
KODES: 2860

I thought the discussions over on the thread Who was number 1 for 1970? were interesting and informative. But what they lacked was a quantitative logic or a ranking system based on an unopinionated point system rather like the present ATP system. Two positive factors in favor of using the present ATP tournament ranking point system are 1) that it is not hypothetical and 2) it is not any one person's opinion.

Yes, it is very much a "present lens," but it is one based on reality and accepted. Plus, it takes the slam bias or human bias factor out of the equations. (I myself question awarding the 1970 AO 2000 points, but so be it.)

Basing a ranking on the opinions of "experts" does not seem logical, because even these experts are fallible, subject to various forms of bias, and also subject to favoritism because they are all human.

But I have limited resources. I do not have access to various encyclopedias of tennis that might list the results for various players in tournaments they did not win or lose as a runner-up. This present total points count here listed is thus incomplete, because it does include these minor results which could certainly increase a few point totals.

If anyone would like to suggest that the number of points for a given tournament should be changed, I would be happy to include those changes. If anyone knows of other minor tournament results from 1970 that should be included, I would happy to incorporate those to alter these players' totals.

(Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newcombe_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/jan-kodes/k049/titles-and-finals )

pc1 · Jan 13, 2017

Interesting Hoodjem. There are some tournaments here in Laver's 1970 resume like the Embassy which were Pro Majors. The Embassy is Wembley. The Dunlop has been called by some the true Australian Open that year and many have called the South African Open the sixth most important tournament of the year.

Laver won the Tennis Champions Classic in 1970 with a record of 4-1 losing to Gonzalez to start but then defeating in order Gimeno, Roche, Gonzalez in the semifinals and Rosewall in the finals.

Limpinhitter · Jan 13, 2017

hoodjem said:
1970 Tournament Statistics

Laver Tournament statistics (15 wins):
1. Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT-1000
2. Sydney Dunlop Slazenger International WCT -1000
3. Johannesburg South African Open-1000
4. St. Louis Rawlings Classic WCT-250
5. Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles-1000
6. London Queen’s Club-500
7. Tennis Champions Classic New York City (final)-1300 (unsure here: number of rounds?)
8. First National Classic Louisville-250
9. Bretton Woods-250
10. Rothman’s Canadian Open-500
11. NIT Fort Worth WCT-250
12. Marlboro Open South Orange NJ-250
13. Rothman’s International WCT Vancouver-250
14. West German Invitational RR-250
15. Embassy British Indoor Championships London-1000
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (4th round)-180
AO (did not play)-0
FO (did not play)-0
TOTAL-9410

Newcombe Tournament statistics (3 wins):
1. Wimbledon-2000
2. Casablanca WCT Morocco-250
3. Hoylake UK-250
AO (quarters)-360
US Open (semis)-720
Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro (r/u)-150
London Queen’s Club (r/u)-300
Newport UK (r/u)-150
First National Classic Louisville (r/u)-150
Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles (r/u)-600
Midland WCT (r/u)-150
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-5080

Rosewall Tournament statistics (6 wins):
1. US Open-2000
2. Hollywood FL Pro-250
3. Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro-250
4. Eastbourne Rothman’s Open-250
5. Newport UK Welsh Open-250
6. Cincinnati Western Championships-500
Wimbledon (runner-up)-1200
AO (did not play)
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-4700

Ashe Tournament statistics (4 wins):
1. Australian Open-2000
2. US Tennis Championships San Jose-250
3. Pacific Coast Open Berkeley-250
4. Paris Open Indoor Grand Prix-250
FO (quarters)-360
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (quarters)-360
TOTAL-3650

Kodes Tournament statistics (2 wins):
1. French Open-2000
2. St. Petersburg-250
Italian Open Rome (r/u)-600
Wimbledon (1st round)-10
AO (did not play)
US Open (did not play)
TOTAL-2860

TOTALS
LAVER: 9410
NEWCOMBE: 5080
ROSEWALL: 4700
ASHE: 3650
KODES: 2860

I thought the discussions over on the thread Who was number 1 for 1970? were interesting and informative. But what they lacked was a quantitative logic or a ranking system based on an unopinionated point system rather like the present ATP system. Two values of using the present ATP tournament ranking point system are 1) that it is not hypothetical and 2) it is not any one person's opinion. Yes, it is very much a "present lens," but it is one based on reality and accepted. Plus, it takes the slam bias or human bias factor out of the equations. (I myself question awarding the 1970 AO 2000 points, but so be it.)

Basing a ranking on the opinions of experts does not seem logical, because even these experts are fallible, subject to various forms of bias, and also subject to favoritism because they are all human.

But I have limited resources. I do not have access to various encyclopedias of tennis that might list the results for various players in tournaments they did not win or lose as a runner-up. This present total points count here listed is thus incomplete, because it does include these minor results which could certainly increase a few point totals.

If anyone would like to suggest that the number of points for a given tournament should be changed, I would be happy to include those changes. If anyone knows of other minor tournament results from 1970 that should be included, I would happy to incorporate those to alter these players' totals.

(Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newcombe_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/jan-kodes/k049/titles-and-finals )

Logic? This is TW! We don't need no stinking logic! And, we don't need no stinking quantitative, neither!

PS: But, good work. Thanks! Obviously you don't have all of the events where the players earned points and lost before the finals, but, you have some.

BobbyOne · Jan 13, 2017

hoodjem said:
1970 Tournament Statistics

Laver Tournament statistics (15 wins):
1. Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT-1000
2. Sydney Dunlop Slazenger International WCT -1000
3. Johannesburg South African Open-1000
4. St. Louis Rawlings Classic WCT-250
5. Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles-1000
6. London Queen’s Club-500
7. Tennis Champions Classic New York City (final)-1300 (unsure here: number of rounds?)
8. First National Classic Louisville-250
9. Bretton Woods-250
10. Rothman’s Canadian Open-500
11. NIT Fort Worth WCT-250
12. Marlboro Open South Orange NJ-250
13. Rothman’s International WCT Vancouver-250
14. West German Invitational RR-250
15. Embassy British Indoor Championships London-1000
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (4th round)-180
AO (did not play)-0
FO (did not play)-0
TOTAL-9410

Newcombe Tournament statistics (3 wins):
1. Wimbledon-2000
2. Casablanca WCT Morocco-250
3. Hoylake UK-250
AO (quarters)-360
US Open (semis)-720
Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro (r/u)-150
London Queen’s Club (r/u)-300
Newport UK (r/u)-150
First National Classic Louisville (r/u)-150
Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles (r/u)-600
Midland WCT (r/u)-150
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-5080

Rosewall Tournament statistics (6 wins):
1. US Open-2000
2. Hollywood FL Pro-250
3. Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro-250
4. Eastbourne Rothman’s Open-250
5. Newport UK Welsh Open-250
6. Cincinnati Western Championships-500
Wimbledon (runner-up)-1200
AO (did not play)
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-4700

Ashe Tournament statistics (4 wins):
1. Australian Open-2000
2. US Tennis Championships San Jose-250
3. Pacific Coast Open Berkeley-250
4. Paris Open Indoor Grand Prix-250
FO (quarters)-360
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (quarters)-360
TOTAL-3650

Kodes Tournament statistics (2 wins):
1. French Open-2000
2. St. Petersburg-250
Italian Open Rome (r/u)-600
Wimbledon (1st round)-10
AO (did not play)
US Open (did not play)
TOTAL-2860

TOTALS
LAVER: 9410
NEWCOMBE: 5080
ROSEWALL: 4700
ASHE: 3650
KODES: 2860

I thought the discussions over on the thread Who was number 1 for 1970? were interesting and informative. But what they lacked was a quantitative logic or a ranking system based on an unopinionated point system rather like the present ATP system. Two values of using the present ATP tournament ranking point system are 1) that it is not hypothetical and 2) it is not any one person's opinion. Yes, it is very much a "present lens," but it is one based on reality and accepted. Plus, it takes the slam bias or human bias factor out of the equations. (I myself question awarding the 1970 AO 2000 points, but so be it.)

Basing a ranking on the opinions of experts does not seem logical, because even these experts are fallible, subject to various forms of bias, and also subject to favoritism because they are all human.

But I have limited resources. I do not have access to various encyclopedias of tennis that might list the results for various players in tournaments they did not win or lose as a runner-up. This present total points count here listed is thus incomplete, because it does include these minor results which could certainly increase a few point totals.

If anyone would like to suggest that the number of points for a given tournament should be changed, I would be happy to include those changes. If anyone knows of other minor tournament results from 1970 that should be included, I would happy to incorporate those to alter these players' totals.

(Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newcombe_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/jan-kodes/k049/titles-and-finals )

hoodjem, Thanks for your effort.

I would give Rosewall's win at Cincinnati 1000 points.

But I don't know what your lists should show what we have not known before already: We knew that Laver would by far be the No.1 in 1970 if an ATP point system would have been used already in 1970. Thing is that the players and experts of that time did NOT consider the non-GS tournaments as very important as you can see in the fact that almost all experts ranked Newcombe or Rosewall as No.1 even though they were far behind Laver in the amount of winning tournaments. I repeat again and again that Laver's best friend and follower, Bud Collins, ranked Laver only fourth and one place behind Roche who only won three (THREE!) tournaments that year. I can assure you ( and Limpinhitter) that Bud was not an idiot. In fact he was a true expert and a visionary among the tennis journalists!!! Tingay and McCauley ranked Laver third.

All players knew that it's extremely important to win at the big ones (or at least to reach the final or SF, as Rosewall and Newcombe did).

Since many years I plead that Laver deserves a Co.-No.1 place for 1970 because he was so successful in several rather big tournaments. Maybe I was the first one to rank three players equally when most experts had ranked Newcombe or Rosewall as No.1.

In contrary to several posters here I think that the GS tournaments (if they had a strong field at least) were regarded more important than they are considered today. In your list that would mean that Wimbledon and US Open would deserve maybe 4000 or even 5000 points...

BobbyOne · Jan 13, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
Logic? This is TW! We don't need no stinking logic! And, we don't need no stinking quantitative, neither!

PS: But, good work. Thanks! Obviously you don't have all of the events where the players earned points and lost before the finals, but, you have some.

Limpin, "We don't need no stinking logic" means that we yet need stinking logic (double negation)...

timnz · Jan 13, 2017

hoodjem said:
1970 Tournament Statistics

Laver Tournament statistics (15 wins):
1. Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT-1000
2. Sydney Dunlop Slazenger International WCT -1000
3. Johannesburg South African Open-1000
4. St. Louis Rawlings Classic WCT-250
5. Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles-1000
6. London Queen’s Club-500
7. Tennis Champions Classic New York City (final)-1300 (unsure here: number of rounds?)
8. First National Classic Louisville-250
9. Bretton Woods-250
10. Rothman’s Canadian Open-500
11. NIT Fort Worth WCT-250
12. Marlboro Open South Orange NJ-250
13. Rothman’s International WCT Vancouver-250
14. West German Invitational RR-250
15. Embassy British Indoor Championships London-1000
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (4th round)-180
AO (did not play)-0
FO (did not play)-0
TOTAL-9410

Newcombe Tournament statistics (3 wins):
1. Wimbledon-2000
2. Casablanca WCT Morocco-250
3. Hoylake UK-250
AO (quarters)-360
US Open (semis)-720
Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro (r/u)-150
London Queen’s Club (r/u)-300
Newport UK (r/u)-150
First National Classic Louisville (r/u)-150
Pacific Southwest Open Los Angeles (r/u)-600
Midland WCT (r/u)-150
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-5080

Rosewall Tournament statistics (6 wins):
1. US Open-2000
2. Hollywood FL Pro-250
3. Corpus Christi/WCT South Texas Pro-250
4. Eastbourne Rothman’s Open-250
5. Newport UK Welsh Open-250
6. Cincinnati Western Championships-500
Wimbledon (runner-up)-1200
AO (did not play)
FO (did not play)
TOTAL-4700

Ashe Tournament statistics (4 wins):
1. Australian Open-2000
2. US Tennis Championships San Jose-250
3. Pacific Coast Open Berkeley-250
4. Paris Open Indoor Grand Prix-250
FO (quarters)-360
Wimbledon (4th round)-180
US Open (quarters)-360
TOTAL-3650

Kodes Tournament statistics (2 wins):
1. French Open-2000
2. St. Petersburg-250
Italian Open Rome (r/u)-600
Wimbledon (1st round)-10
AO (did not play)
US Open (did not play)
TOTAL-2860

TOTALS
LAVER: 9410
NEWCOMBE: 5080
ROSEWALL: 4700
ASHE: 3650
KODES: 2860

I thought the discussions over on the thread Who was number 1 for 1970? were interesting and informative. But what they lacked was a quantitative logic or a ranking system based on an unopinionated point system rather like the present ATP system. Two values of using the present ATP tournament ranking point system are 1) that it is not hypothetical and 2) it is not any one person's opinion. Yes, it is very much a "present lens," but it is one based on reality and accepted. Plus, it takes the slam bias or human bias factor out of the equations. (I myself question awarding the 1970 AO 2000 points, but so be it.)

Basing a ranking on the opinions of experts does not seem logical, because even these experts are fallible, subject to various forms of bias, and also subject to favoritism because they are all human.

But I have limited resources. I do not have access to various encyclopedias of tennis that might list the results for various players in tournaments they did not win or lose as a runner-up. This present total points count here listed is thus incomplete, because it does include these minor results which could certainly increase a few point totals.

If anyone would like to suggest that the number of points for a given tournament should be changed, I would be happy to include those changes. If anyone knows of other minor tournament results from 1970 that should be included, I would happy to incorporate those to alter these players' totals.

(Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newcombe_career_statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/jan-kodes/k049/titles-and-finals )

It's interesting how much flack I have gotten over the years for doing exactly the same sensible approach you have taken here. Ie an adding up of actual achievements weighted at present atp weightings.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

My objective was the same as yours - to take the emotion out of it and simply state the facts of what was achieved.

Your system confirms what I have believed for some time - it is ridiculous to rate Newcombe as the year end number 1 for 1970 except for Wimbledon his other achievements were not at all on the same level

Thanks for your post

Scott_tennis · Jan 13, 2017

I recall that several years ago Andrew Tas posted listings of individual match results for Laver and Rosewall from 1970.

Below is a listing of match results for John Newcombe from 1970. I compiled this list from various sources including a prior Carlo Colossi posting, Tennis Base records, World Tennis magazine and various newspaper sources.

Newcombe
1970
Brisbane Pro RR 3-1 D Pilic, Okker, Taylor, L Roche
Victorian (W) 5-0 D Cooper, Lutz, Ralston, Taylor, Roche
Australian 2-1 D Neely, Dent L Ralston
TCC Detroit 0-1 L Gonzales
Philadelphia 3-1 D Koch, Osborne, Buchholz, L Roche
Corpus Christi 2-1 D Cox, Gimeno, L Rosewall
London 0-1 L Riessen
Boston World Cup 2-1 D Smith (2x) L Richey
Sydney 0-1 L Gimeno
Dallas 0-1 L Gimeno
Atlanta 2-1 D Holmberg, Emerson L Okker
Las Vegas 1-1 D Taylor L Emerson
TCC New Jersey 1-1 L Rosewall D Stolle
St Louis 1-1 D Pilic L Rosewall
Casablanca (W) 4-0 D Stilwell, Cox, Pilic, Gimeno
Bristol 2-1 D Gorman, Barthes, L Pilic
Queen’s 5-1 D Volkov, Contet, Gorman, Pasarell, Riessen, L Laver
Wimbledon (W) 7-0 D Barth, Kalogeropoulos, Davidson, Ralston, Emerson, Gimeno, Rosewall
Newport Wales 4-1 D Tuck, Ryan, Battrick, Pilic L Rosewall
Hoylake (W) 4-0 D Howe, Bertram, Bowrey, Davidson
Louisville 3-1 D Moore, Drysdale, Roche L Laver
US Pro Boston 0-1 L Graebner
Ft Worth 1-2 D Moore, L Emerson, Gimeno (3rd place)
US Open 4-1 D Loyo-Mayo, Scott, Graebner, Ashe L Rosewall
Evanston 1-0 D Gonzales
PSW 5-1 D Stuart, Holmberg, Stolle, Gonzales, Gorman L Laver
Vancouver 1-1 D Stilwell L Gimeno
Midland 2-1 D Cox, Stilwell L Taylor
Total match record for year: 65-24

BobbyOne · Jan 13, 2017

timnz said:
It's interesting how much flack I have gotten over the years for doing exactly the same sensible approach you have taken here. Ie an adding up of actual achievements weighted at present atp weightings.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

My objective was the same as yours - to take the emotion out of it and simply state the facts of what was achieved.

Your system confirms what I have believed for some time - it is ridiculous to rate Newcombe as the year end number 1 for 1970 except for Wimbledon his other achievements were not at all on the same level

Thanks for your post

timnz, I must contradict. You, hoodjem, Limpinhitter, KG1965 and a few others want to give an "objective" picture of what happened in 1970 (and other older years). But you fail because also your rankings system with various point categories is of course subjective and watching with a modern lens, ignoring the lens of 1970 used by players and experts.

You should know (I have explained it several times before) that the GS tournaments at that time were regarded very highly. The Wimbledon winner mostly was recognized as the world champion, as f.i. Jack Kramer said in this commentary on the 1970 Wimbledon final.

Rod Laver could have won not 15 tournaments that year but 25 or 45: He yet would not have been acknowledged the champ!!!

Your and hoodjem's lists are full of emotion because you value the important of the tournaments subjectively.

If you would have asked in 1970 Collins, Tingay, McCauley and other experts they would perhaps told you that they would give Wimbledon 10 000 points and US Open 9 000.

Thus Newcombe's No.1 position given by several true experts is NOT ridiculous. Newk also reached SFs in the US Open and lost to the champ!

Background of all these lists is the attempt to pump up your darling instead of accepting historical truth. Thus also the ridiculous and insane contradiction to krosero's crystal clear quotings and rankings for 1964 and early 1965.

Laver is very, very great (IMO the GOAT with Rosewall) but he was not superhuman. He had "only" three years where he clearly was No.1, two others where he was slightly ahead (1965 and 1966) and two years where he was a Co.-No. one (1964 and 1970). Altogether astounding seven years. Only Gonzalez has more.

BobbyOne · Jan 13, 2017

Scott_tennis said:
I recall that several years ago Andrew Tas posted listings of individual match results for Laver and Rosewall from 1970.

Below is a listing of match results for John Newcombe from 1970. I compiled this list from various sources including a prior Carlo Colossi posting, Tennis Base records, World Tennis magazine and various newspaper sources.

Newcombe
1970
Brisbane Pro RR 3-1 D Pilic, Okker, Taylor, L Roche
Victorian (W) 5-0 D Cooper, Lutz, Ralston, Taylor, Roche
Australian 2-1 D Neely, Dent L Ralston
TCC Detroit 0-1 L Gonzales
Philadelphia 3-1 D Koch, Osborne, Buchholz, L Roche
Corpus Christi 2-1 D Cox, Gimeno, L Rosewall
London 0-1 L Riessen
Boston World Cup 2-1 D Smith (2x) L Richey
Sydney 0-1 L Gimeno
Dallas 0-1 L Gimeno
Atlanta 2-1 D Holmberg, Emerson L Okker
Las Vegas 1-1 D Taylor L Emerson
TCC New Jersey 1-1 L Rosewall D Stolle
St Louis 1-1 D Pilic L Rosewall
Casablanca (W) 4-0 D Stilwell, Cox, Pilic, Gimeno
Bristol 2-1 D Gorman, Barthes, L Pilic
Queen’s 5-1 D Volkov, Contet, Gorman, Pasarell, Riessen, L Laver
Wimbledon (W) 7-0 D Barth, Kalogeropoulos, Davidson, Ralston, Emerson, Gimeno, Rosewall
Newport Wales 4-1 D Tuck, Ryan, Battrick, Pilic L Rosewall
Hoylake (W) 4-0 D Howe, Bertram, Bowrey, Davidson
Louisville 3-1 D Moore, Drysdale, Roche L Laver
US Pro Boston 0-1 L Graebner
Ft Worth 1-2 D Moore, L Emerson, Gimeno (3rd place)
US Open 4-1 D Loyo-Mayo, Scott, Graebner, Ashe L Rosewall
Evanston 1-0 D Gonzales
PSW 5-1 D Stuart, Holmberg, Stolle, Gonzales, Gorman L Laver
Vancouver 1-1 D Stilwell L Gimeno
Midland 2-1 D Cox, Stilwell L Taylor
Total match record for year: 65-24

Scott, I would like to add Newcombe's win over Rosewall (7-5, pro set) at Atlanta (for third place.

Scott_tennis · Jan 13, 2017

Thank you for the additional result. Newcombe revised match record for year becomes 66-24 after adding the Atlanta third place match win (8-5 pro set)

BobbyOne · Jan 13, 2017

Scott_tennis said:
Thank you for the additional result. Newcombe revised match record for year becomes 66-24 after adding the Atlanta third place match win (8-5 pro set)

Scott, The score was 7-5. Maybe I erred when saying "pro set". It rather looks as a one set match.

urban · Jan 13, 2017

Thanks Scotttennis. So we have the match win-loss stats as follows:
Newcombe 66-24
Rosewall 71-21
Laver 90-15

KG1965 · Jan 14, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
Logic? This is TW! We don't need no stinking logic! And, we don't need no stinking quantitative, neither!

PS: But, good work. Thanks! Obviously you don't have all of the events where the players earned points and lost before the finals, but, you have some.

Limp, the first thing in these cases is always from numerical data.

After one thinks as he wishes, but the numbers are used much as a home base.

KG1965 · Jan 14, 2017

Premise that for me IMO in 1970 Laver >> Rosewall >> Newcombe, the question is very simple and involves two aspects:
1)
a) have value only Wimbly & USO how supports the "great experts"? In this case Newcombe and Rosewall are better than Laver.
b) have value other big tournaments of the time, like now in the ATP Ranking? In this case Laver is clearly first in the world.

2) The TCC has worth
- zero or as a Master250...?
- less than Wimbly & USO?
- equal to Wimbly & USO?
- even higher to Wimbly & USO ?

hoodjem · Jan 14, 2017

timnz said:
It's interesting how much flack I have gotten over the years for doing exactly the same sensible approach you have taken here. Ie an adding up of actual achievements weighted at present atp weightings.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

My objective was the same as yours - to take the emotion out of it and simply state the facts of what was achieved.

Your system confirms what I have believed for some time - it is ridiculous to rate Newcombe as the year end number 1 for 1970 except for Wimbledon his other achievements were not at all on the same level

Thanks for your post

Tim,

Thank you. I was trying to be sensible, logical, and rational.

I should point out that none of these numbers are "my numbers." They are not based on opinion or emotion. They are derived from the sources that I listed. The number of points awarded to each tournament is derived from the present ATP designation related the size of the draw.

For instance, the tournaments listed at 1000 points are based on those that are universally acknowledged as equivalent to the present Masters 1000 tournaments.

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

KG1965 said:
Premise that for me IMO in 1970 Laver >> Rosewall >> Newcombe, the question is very simple and involves two aspects:
1)
a) have value only Wimbly & USE how supports the "great experts"? In this case Newcombe and Rosewall are better than Laver.
b) have value other big tournaments of the time, like now in the ATP Ranking? In this case Laver is clearly first in the world.

2) The TCC has worth
- zero or as a Master250...?
- less than Wimbly & USO?
- equal to Wimbly & USO?
- even higher to Wimbly & USO ?

KG, I would give (in your system) TCC 1970 event 500 or 1000 points but far less points than the GS tournaments of course (see above).

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

hoodjem said:
Tim,

Thank you. I was trying to be sensible, logical, and rational.

I should point out that none of these numbers are "my numbers." They are not based on opinion or emotion. They are derived from the sources that I listed. The number of points awarded to each tournament is derived from the present ATP designation related the size of the draw.

For instance, the tournaments listed at 1000 points are based on those that are universally acknowledged as equivalent to the present Masters 1000 tournaments.

hoodjem, Even clear data can give a wrong picture and can lie. You still miss the point: All those Laver acievements, as great as they are, cannot put him (alone) at the top and did not put him at the top at all. Only the two big GS tournamnets decided who was No.1 and No.2.

Your numbers might have been listed up without emotion but they are irrelevant for the question how the No.1 place was decided at that time. Furthermore one could argue against the correct number in several points. For instance your 1300 points for TCC seem much too high.

The number of rounds is known: several pro SF matches plus a tournament consisting of 4 players (SFs and final).

pc1 · Jan 14, 2017

hoodjem said:
Tim,

Thank you. I was trying to be sensible, logical, and rational.

I should point out that none of these numbers are "my numbers." They are not based on opinion or emotion. They are derived from the sources that I listed. The number of points awarded to each tournament is derived from the present ATP designation related the size of the draw.

For instance, the tournaments listed at 1000 points are based on those that are universally acknowledged as equivalent to the present Masters 1000 tournaments.

It makes a lot of sense.

KG1965 said:
Premise that for me IMO in 1970 Laver >> Rosewall >> Newcombe, the question is very simple and involves two aspects:
1)
a) have value only Wimbly & USE how supports the "great experts"? In this case Newcombe and Rosewall are better than Laver.
b) have value other big tournaments of the time, like now in the ATP Ranking? In this case Laver is clearly first in the world.

2) The TCC has worth
- zero or as a Master250...?
- less than Wimbly & USO?
- equal to Wimbly & USO?
- even higher to Wimbly & USO ?

The 1970 Tennis Champions Classic was a big money tournament that was coveted by the players. I don't think it's necessary higher than a major but I can see it along the lines of the World Tour Finals and in a way it was being played that way. All for interesting debate. If you score it like the World Tour Finals it would be in this case about 1300 points.

KG1965 · Jan 14, 2017

BobbyOne said:
KG, I would give (in your system) TCC 1970 event 500 or 1000 points but far less points than the GS tournaments of course (see above).

No problem, for me the best tennis player of 1970 has not won W. Won TCC (and much more).
More and more I can tell TCC > W & USO

KG1965 · Jan 14, 2017

pc1 said:
It makes a lot of sense.

The 1970 Tennis Champions Classic was a big money tournament that was coveted by the players. I don't think it's necessary higher than a major but I can see it along the lines of the World Tour Finals and in a way it was being played that way. All for interesting debate. If you score it like the World Tour Finals it would be in this case about 1300 points.

IMO TCC 70 > W & USO 70 >>>> French & Aus.
Once I do not agree, pc1, it happens.

hoodjem · Jan 14, 2017

pc1 said:
It makes a lot of sense.

The 1970 Tennis Champions Classic was a big money tournament that was coveted by the players. I don't think it's necessary higher than a major but I can see it along the lines of the World Tour Finals and in a way it was being played that way. All for interesting debate. If you score it like the World Tour Finals it would be in this case about 1300 points.

KG1965 said:
Premise that for me IMO in 1970 Laver >> Rosewall >> Newcombe, the question is very simple and involves two aspects:
1)
a) have value only Wimbly & USO how supports the "great experts"? In this case Newcombe and Rosewall are better than Laver.
b) have value other big tournaments of the time, like now in the ATP Ranking? In this case Laver is clearly first in the world.

2) The TCC has worth
- zero or as a Master250...?
- less than Wimbly & USO?
- equal to Wimbly & USO?
- even higher to Wimbly & USO ?

It would appear that the TCC is virtually equivalent, as PC1 suggests above, to the World Tour Finals.

In that case each of three round robin wins is awarded 200 points, then the winners of the semis get 400 points and the winner of the finals earns 500 points.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Finals
and here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings

Limpinhitter · Jan 14, 2017

KG1965 said:
Limp, the first thing in these cases is always from numerical data.

After one thinks as he wishes, but the numbers are used much as a home base.

I was being ironic. It was a reference to the movie "Blazing Saddles."

pc1 · Jan 14, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
Logic? This is TW! We don't need no stinking logic! And, we don't need no stinking quantitative, neither!

PS: But, good work. Thanks! Obviously you don't have all of the events where the players earned points and lost before the finals, but, you have some.

KG1965 said:
Limp, the first thing in these cases is always from numerical data.

After one thinks as he wishes, but the numbers are used much as a home base.

Limpinhitter said:
I was being ironic. It was a reference to the movie "Blazing Saddles."

Never was a big fan of Mel Brooks, maybe Norman Brookes but they did have some good lines in that picture.

If we ranked the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic like the WTF the points for Laver would be interesting.

timnz · Jan 14, 2017

pc1 said:
Never was a big fan of Mel Brooks, maybe Norman Brookes but they did have some good lines in that picture.

If we ranked the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic like the WTF the points for Laver would be interesting.

The 1970 tcc perhaps should be like the wtf, but we should consider 1971 Making the tcc more than a slam (or as least as much) Best of 5 for 13 rounds - playing hall of fame level players in every round?

In terms of achievements read what a newspaper article thought of it at the time :-

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824&hl=en

Limpinhitter · Jan 14, 2017

timnz said:
The 1970 tcc perhaps should be like the wtf, but we should consider 1971 Making the tcc more than a slam (or as least as much) Best of 5 for 13 rounds - playing hall of fame level players in every round?

In terms of achievements read what a newspaper article thought of it at the time :-

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824&hl=en

In my view, the 1971 TCC was the most important, most prestigious event of the year. I'm not sure if there was ever a single more important enent. And, when trying to rank the top players for 1971, it should be valued as such.

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

KG1965 said:
No problem, for me the milgior tennis player of 1970 has not won W. Won TCC (and much more).
More and more I can tell TCC > W & USO

More and more I can tell you that W and US Open are much greater than TCC 1970.

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

KG1965 said:
IMO TCC 70 > W & USO 70 >>>> French & Aus.
Once I do not agree, pc1, it happens.

KG, You don't understand history.

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

hoodjem said:
It would appear that the TCC is virtually equivalent, as PC1 suggests above, to the World Tour Finals.

In that case each of three round robin wins is awarded 200 points, then the winners of the semis get 400 points and the winner of the finals earns 500 points.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Finals
and here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings

hoodjem, Laver had a big blame in his 1970 TCC, his loss to grandpa Gonzalez.

Phoenix1983 · Jan 14, 2017

Laver was of course the No 1 player for 1970, his results far exceed those of others.

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
In my view, the 1971 TCC was the most important, most prestigious event of the year. I'm not sure if there was ever a single more important enent. And, when trying to rank the top players for 1971, it should be valued as such.

Limpin, I have a serious and kind request from you: Please learn tennis history and try to avoid making absurd claims. That way you could hope to be considered a tennis expert again instead of a moron. I repeat: a friendly, not ironic suggestion. Your reputation has already suffered enough rather significantly after your mean lie about me, the following lies and your absurd Laver number of 36 majors won.

I would be glad, even after all our quarrels and your igoring me, if we could come back to a civilized behaviour at both sides.

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

timnz said:
The 1970 tcc perhaps should be like the wtf, but we should consider 1971 Making the tcc more than a slam (or as least as much) Best of 5 for 13 rounds - playing hall of fame level players in every round?

In terms of achievements read what a newspaper article thought of it at the time :-

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824&hl=en

timnz, ??? What do you want to prove with that curious Ludington Daily News article??? That article actually considers the 1971 TCC higher than the TWO Grand Slams achieved by Rod Laver....Thanks for make me laughing a lot!

How many people are living in Ludington? 23? 47? 118?

BobbyOne · Jan 14, 2017

Phoenix1983 said:
Laver was of course the No 1 player for 1970, his results far exceed those of others.

Phoenix, As almost always you err: Laver had results much worse than Rosewall and Newcombe had!! Maybe you can ask Collins, Tingay and McCauley. You seem to have good relations to heaven (maybe God?) since you seem to know that Ken Rosewall will die soon...

pc1 · Jan 14, 2017

timnz said:
The 1970 tcc perhaps should be like the wtf, but we should consider 1971 Making the tcc more than a slam (or as least as much) Best of 5 for 13 rounds - playing hall of fame level players in every round?

In terms of achievements read what a newspaper article thought of it at the time :-

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824&hl=en

There is no doubt people viewed winning the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic with an unbeaten record of 13-0 by Laver with awe.

From the Fireside Book of Tennis describing the last win by Laver in the final--
And so came #13 for Rod. The final match to complete the impossible and it was Okker, who had led him two sets to love the first time, Okker the victim of some of the greatest tennis Laver ever displayed in their second match, Okker who would make this last desperate stand.

"I do not like to lose," Laver said. "I can't understand anyone who is a good loser. If you go into a match with the idea that if you lose, you will be a good loser, you are going to be a loser."

Okker walked onto the court, and like Don Quixote tilted his lance and charged. The first set was a bristling one, with the young Dutchman standing up to serves, the lobs, the drops, the dinks, the impossible retrieves--and losing the set in sudden death. And then the title was inexorable. For Laver, the golden dream was about to become a reality, and he was not going to be denied that reality.

The applause began to grow at the end of the second set. Applause in a special way--applause as a salute to what the fans saw happening as game after game dropped in Laver's column, bringing him to the ultimate victory. When it was over, applause and awe surrounded Laver as he accepted the final check.

The date was March 19 in Madison Square Garden, and the score was 7-5, 6-2, 6-1. Laver's earning stood at $160,000.

"At the very onset," Laver said, "I totally agreed with everyone that it was virtually impossible for any one player to go through this Classic undefeated. I have just done that--and I do not believe it either."

Why would the crowd look upon this feat with awe unless it was something special?

Incidentally the score of the first set was actually 6-5, not the 7-5 they had in the article.

hoodjem · Jan 15, 2017

timnz said:
The 1970 tcc perhaps should be like the wtf, but we should consider 1971 Making the tcc more than a slam (or as least as much) Best of 5 for 13 rounds - playing hall of fame level players in every round?

In terms of achievements read what a newspaper article thought of it at the time :-

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824&hl=en

Not to change the topic to 1971, but yes: best of 5 for 13 rounds.

That is almost twice as many rounds as a slam (at its present level of 7 rounds). Yes, one can imagine such an event having more points than a slam. Maybe 3000?

Or 11 rounds X 200 =2200, plus 400 for the semis, and +500 for the final =3100.

pc1 · Jan 15, 2017

hoodjem said:
Not to change the topic to 1971, but yes: best of 5 for 13 rounds.

That is almost twice as many rounds as a slam (at its present level of 7 rounds). Yes, one can imagine such an event having more points than a slam. Maybe 3000?

Or 11 rounds X 200 =2200, plus 400 for the semis, and +500 for the final =3100.

For points, if you use that system it's about 1.55 majors.

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2017

hoodjem said:
Not to change the topic to 1971, but yes: best of 5 for 13 rounds.

That is almost twice as many rounds as a slam (at its present level of 7 rounds). Yes, one can imagine such an event having more points than a slam. Maybe 3000?

Or 11 rounds X 200 =2200, plus 400 for the semis, and +500 for the final =3100.

hoodjem, krosero has already explained why TCC 1971 was not as important and impressing as you and others think.

hoodjem · Jan 15, 2017

pc1 said:
For points, if you use that system it's about 1.55 majors.

Yes. I wonder what 7 rounds plus 6 rounds would translate to?
7 rounds = 2000 points
(thus each round = 285 points)
6 rounds X 285 = 1710
2000 + 1710 = 3710

Interesting.

pc1 · Jan 15, 2017

hoodjem said:
Yes. I wonder what 7 rounds plus 6 rounds would translate to?
7 rounds = 2000 points

Probably the thing that left the people and experts in awe of the unbeaten result by Laver was the pure strength of the field. Here are the results from Tennis Base. Now some of the set scores are incorrect. They often have 7-5 instead of the correct 6-5 because they played a tiebreaker at 5-5.

The field is full of Tennis greats and top notch players like Newcombe, Ashe, Emerson, Roche, Rosewall, Okker, Ralston, Taylor. Laver played some of them, like Ashe, Okker, Ralston and Emerson several times. I would assume that the number at the beginning of each player is the ranking in the world at the time so Rosewall was second, Newk third, Ashe fourth, Roche fifth, Okker eight, Emerson tenth, Taylor ninth, Ralston fourteen and Laver was number one.

It was a great field. Okker was better than number eight imo at that point and a fabulous player.

Gonzalez if I recall was supposed to be in this tournament but for some reason didn't play.

RR W ROSEWALL, KEN - 2 6-3 6-2 7-5

RR W NEWCOMBE, JOHN - 3 6-4 6-2 4-6 5-7 6-4

RR W ROCHE, TONY - 5 7-5 4-6 3-6 7-5 6-1

RR W EMERSON, ROY - 10 6-2 6-3 7-5

RR W ASHE, ARTHUR - 4 7-5 6-4 7-5

RR W OKKER, TOM - 8 5-7 5-7 6-2 6-2 6-2

RR W ASHE, ARTHUR - 4 3-6 6-3 6-3 6-4

RR W TAYLOR, ROGER - 9 6-3 7-5 6-2

RR W OKKER, TOM - 8 6-1 6-4 6-3

RR W RALSTON, DENNIS - 14 3-6 6-1 6-4 6-3

RR W EMERSON, ROY - 10 6-3 5-7 6-3 3-6 6-3

S W RALSTON, DENNIS - 14 6-3 6-4 7-5

F W OKKER, TOM - 8 7-5 6-2 6-1

The thing is that it's not who won the tournament. I think most, if they had to pick one winner from this field, would have picked Laver or at worst Laver would have gotten the most votes as the possible winner. The thing that was stunning was that Laver won 13 and lost none in this great field. That was the big thing that made it stand out.

PrestigeDave45 · Jan 15, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Limpin, "We don't need no stinking logic" means that we yet need stinking logic (double negation)...

Not when you use a Mexican accent!

PrestigeDave45 · Jan 15, 2017

Nice post this

urban · Jan 15, 2017

The complete TCC 1970, with all results, many details and surroundings, is presented in an 2015 article on the Italian webside:
www.tennismylife.altervista.org/
Go to the tag goat, and you find nice articles on Connors, Laver etc. including this on 1970.
www.tennismylife.altervista.org/

The second link is working.

pc1 · Jan 15, 2017

urban said:
The complete WTC 1970, with all results, many details and surroundings, is presented in an 2015 article on the Italian webside:
www.tennismylife.altervista.com
Go to the tag goat, and you find nice articles on Connors, Laver etc. including this on 1970.

Link doesn't work Urban.

urban · Jan 15, 2017

I did reedit the post . Now the second link is working on my computer at least.

Gary Duane · Jan 15, 2017

hoodjem said:
Tim,

Thank you. I was trying to be sensible, logical, and rational.

I should point out that none of these numbers are "my numbers." They are not based on opinion or emotion. They are derived from the sources that I listed. The number of points awarded to each tournament is derived from the present ATP designation related the size of the draw.

For instance, the tournaments listed at 1000 points are based on those that are universally acknowledged as equivalent to the present Masters 1000 tournaments.

One point that bothers me about ranking old tournaments as 250, 500, 1000, 2000...

I like pure numbers, take out the emotion and fan-bais, BUT: about a week ago we just saw a 250 in which Djokovic narrowly defeated Murray, and I believe that is very important for several reasons:

1) Lifetime H2H records are important to top players.
2) Wins right before majors are important. We can say that it makes no difference when compared to the major, but I think top players put emphasis on tournaments just before a major.
3) All 250s simply are not equal, yet they are in terms of points. I would rate the last Murray/Djokovic match just as more important then many 500s and as important as some 1000s. I say this as a fan of NEITHER player.

Gary Duane · Jan 15, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Thus Newcombe's No.1 position given by several true experts is NOT ridiculous. Newk also reached SFs in the US Open and lost to the champ!

Bobby, this is important historically because without this POV we have to assume that all the experts of that time were idiots. I would never support that view. I do think that the ranking of Collins is very important. These rankings should be considered carefully. As you know, I'm a fan of using the modern lens and the historic lens for two different views, and I don't care about GOAT arguments.

Background of all these lists is the attempt to pump up your darling instead of accepting historical truth. Thus also the ridiculous and insane contradiction to krosero's crystal clear quotings and rankings for 1964 and early 1965.

I wish you would not type "your darling" because it sounds really insulting in English. That's the only part of your post that I don't like.

Laver is very, very great (IMO the GOAT with Rosewall) but he was not superhuman. He had "only" three years where he clearly was No.1, two others where he was slightly ahead (1965 and 1966) and two years where he was a Co.-No. one (1964 and 1970). Altogether astounding seven years. Only Gonzalez has more.

When you say "clearly ahead", are you talking about modern years such as 2013 and 2016 when two players were incredibly close?

I would not personally put 1965 into that category, but I think 1966 could use some very careful consideration.

I don't think it is fair to use only numeric totals to rate the very highest play, although that essentially is what we have today. For example, I think that putting Murray and Djokovic very close for #1 in 2016 is good, but I have some real problems with the record of Roanic, and I think people quite rightly look at him as a rather pathetic #3. Wawrinka in my mind is a better player. In the future people will rightfully see a player who gained yet another slam, and Raonic will be nothing more than an asterisk unless he wins slams in the future. That's where a wider view of history is important.

So in 1966 I would personally put Laver and Rosewall VERY close. I would consider their H2H that year, and I have to give Ken a bonus for his play at 31 approaching his 32nd birthday. I don't see Laver as a dominant #1 in 1966. I would expect a player 4 years older, almost 32, to win fewer tournaments. No one expected Fed to play the same schedule at that age that he played as a younger player.

Scott_tennis · Jan 15, 2017

urban said:
Thanks Scotttennis. So we have the match win-loss stats as follows:
Newcombe 66-24
Rosewall 71-21
Laver 90-15

I have found details of a few matches that were not reflected in the Andrew Tas [90-15] listing of results for Laver:

1. 1/25/70 Indianapolis Laver d Emerson 62 63 [same event Rosewall d Stolle 64 61]
2. 1/28/70 Rochester Laver vs Gimeno and Emerson vs Rosewall
3. 1/31/70 Detroit Laver d Emerson 10-7 as a preliminary match before the Newcombe Gonzales TCC $10,000 match
4. 4/6/70 Capetown Gonzales d Laver 64 64 [one day exhibition match]
5. 5/21/70 West Orange NJ Laver d Gimeno 46 46 61 63 62 in a TCC qualifying match

The Indianapolis and Rochester events were both one-day events held involving most of the NTL players during the week between the TCC Madison Square Garden match and the TCC Detroit match.
I was able to locate various news reports about the Rochester matches up to the day of the event, but no reports of the final scores of those matches. Any research assistance is appreciated.

So Laver's match record for 1970 is 93-16 pending determination of the Rochester results.

krosero · Jan 15, 2017

Scott_tennis said:
I have found details of a few matches that were not reflected in the Andrew Tas [90-15] listing of results for Laver:

1. 1/25/70 Indianapolis Laver d Emerson 62 63 [same event Rosewall d Stolle 64 61]
2. 1/28/70 Rochester Laver vs Gimeno and Emerson vs Rosewall
3. 1/31/70 Detroit Laver d Emerson 10-7 as a preliminary match before the Newcombe Gonzales TCC $10,000 match
4. 4/6/70 Capetown Gonzales d Laver 64 64 [one day exhibition match]
5. 5/21/70 West Orange NJ Laver d Gimeno 46 46 61 63 62 in a TCC qualifying match

The Indianapolis and Rochester events were both one-day events held involving most of the NTL players during the week between the TCC Madison Square Garden match and the TCC Detroit match.
I was able to locate various news reports about the Rochester matches up to the day of the event, but no reports of the final scores of those matches. Any research assistance is appreciated.

So Laver's match record for 1970 is 93-16 pending determination of the Rochester results.

Great stuff, Scott. I wonder if you know anything about an event that Laver refers to in his new memoir (p. 281). He said the Dunlop Open hosted a "Rod Laver Day" at White City, where fans were admitted free to see Laver vs. Newk and Gonzalez vs. Sedgman.

Limpinhitter · Jan 15, 2017

Deleted.

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2017

hoodjem said:
Yes. I wonder what 7 rounds plus 6 rounds would translate to?
7 rounds = 2000 points
(thus each round = 285 points)
6 rounds X 285 = 1710
2000 + 1710 = 3710

Interesting.

hoodjem, krosero has explained (as I found, convincingly) that Laver did not have as much pressure at the 1971 TCC as a player has in a major.

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2017

Gary Duane said:
Bobby, this is important historically because without this POV we have to assume that all the experts of that time were idiots. I would never support that view. I do think that the ranking of Collins is very important. These rankings should be considered carefully. As you know, I'm a fan of using the modern lens and the historic lens for two different views, and I don't care about GOAT arguments.

I wish you would not type "your darling" because it sounds really insulting in English. That's the only part of your post that I don't like.

When you say "clearly ahead", are you talking about modern years such as 2013 and 2016 when two players were incredibly close?

I would not personally put 1965 into that category, but I think 1966 could use some very careful consideration.

I don't think it is fair to use only numeric totals to rate the very highest play, although that essentially is what we have today. For example, I think that putting Murray and Djokovic very close for #1 in 2016 is good, but I have some real problems with the record of Roanic, and I think people quite rightly look at him as a rather pathetic #3. Wawrinka in my mind is a better player. In the future people will rightfully see a player who gained yet another slam, and Raonic will be nothing more than an asterisk unless he wins slams in the future. That's where a wider view of history is important.

So in 1966 I would personally put Laver and Rosewall VERY close. I would consider their H2H that year, and I have to give Ken a bonus for his play at 31 approaching his 32nd birthday. I don't see Laver as a dominant #1 in 1966. I would expect a player 4 years older, almost 32, to win fewer tournaments. No one expected Fed to play the same schedule at that age that he played as a younger player.

Gary, Thanks. I accept your methodology of the two lenses. We should accept the contemporary lens of the players and experts (both virtually in agreement mostly) and we should consider modern discoveries. Regarding the first I use to critisize those who don't accept the historical truth, f.i. those posters who ignored krosero's findings about 1964. Rosewall actually was the acknowledged pro champion of that year. Regarding the second I accepted since many years modern valuations, f.i. about 1964 Laver's Co.-No.1 place. Altogether I give the contemporary valuation more weight than the modern because the players of the older times knew about the criteria of them. They had to win what in their time was considered the important measure sticks. I'm glad we agree widely.

Sorry for writing "your darling". Did not know it's a harsh or insulting term. Does it have a homosexual connection? I just wanted to refer to some posters' Laver bias (did not mean you).

"Clearly ahead" means clearly ahead.

I think that Rosewall was as near to Laver in 1965 as in 1966 (two majors won, top clay event won, top hard court event won, always over Laver, always in straight sets).

1970: an Almost Complete Picture

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

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.

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads