But a lot people, contemporary to them, rated Laver and Federer as the best.
So maybe they are not 12 and 18.
Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
- Thread starter granddog29
- Start date
So maybe they are not 12 and 18.
I spitted on the ATP database, that it's full of faults.
Because they don't know the old results, they started to keep medium/good track in 1978.
But the rules they made at that time, I bet they knew them
Yes, fact. What's your problem?
abmk
Bionic Poster
What is this question? Close or far? A slam is a slam - in 1950, 1980 and 2010. The same category. The value could be different but it is a slam.
I don't put anything. The history makes this.
Incorrect.
History says : before 69, they were known as Australian Championships.
Only for amateurs.
From 69 onwards, Australian Open (well most years, anyways).
the pro majors were just that, majors only for the pros in that time period.
-------------
Ok, so you say value could be different , but it is a slam neverthless and in the same category ?
Now lets look at it that way for a second (not that I agree)
What is the value of Rosewall's 4 amateur slams+15 pro majors+3 open era majors+1 depleted open era major ?
What is the value of Federer's 20 open era majors ?
Overall which is better ?
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Roughly,
1 amateur slam = 1000 points , 1 pro major = 1500 points, 1 depleted open era major (AO 72) = 1000 points, 1 open era major = 2000 points ?
Rosewall's tally = 4000+22500+6000+1000 = 33500
Federer's tally = 20*2000 = 40000
Overall, value wise, Federer's majors are worth by slightly more than 3 open era majors. (6500 points)
1 amateur slam = 1000 points , 1 pro major = 1500 points, 1 depleted open era major (AO 72) = 1000 points, 1 open era major = 2000 points ?
Rosewall's tally = 4000+22500+6000+1000 = 33500
Federer's tally = 20*2000 = 40000
Overall, value wise, Federer's majors are worth by slightly more than 3 open era majors. (6500 points)
Last edited:
No, I disagree. You should read his post that he ignores all AO titles till 1977 incl. Laver's. The God-like-status is changed to 5th grade status.
Write it. But please write it grammatically correct because this is an official institution. I hope that the people in the 5th grade could write a good letter.
Again working selectively with points and rankings. Ha-ha. Comparing apples and oranges. Excellent! Brilliant!
abmk
Bionic Poster
Probably Emerson
well, he comes to 12000 points, the same as Becker, Edberg , not bad, eh ?
LOL Ivan.
You really don't know what to reply.
It's the third (?) time you wrote the same message regarding the 5th grade.
Surprise me
But at least you know what you wrote?
I replied to Bobby post regarding the ATP ranking in 1973.
It's great!well, he comes to 12000 points, the same as Becker, Edberg , not bad, eh ?
And 19-7 in tours for Rosewall. You are counting the tours, right?
abmk
Bionic Poster
He said :
"Rosewall has a positive hth against Laver in very big tournaments". I was responding to that.
Tours are not tournaments, let alone very big tournaments.
What a list? Can you write more clearly or you start missing the words.No problems.
It's a very good list, solid
Usually when somebody starts to focus on off topic stuff, it means he reached to bottom of the barrel.What a list? Can you write more clearly or you start missing the words.
I thought you were above a 5th grade level, so I made it fast.
Somebody wrote that "But despite that current praises some experts still mention that Fed equaled Laver by majors, that Rosewall is still with 23".
So there should be a weird list around, with Rosewall at 23 and Fed equaled to Laver.
I supposed, maybe wrongly, that in the same list we can find Emerson at 12 and Borg at 11.
If it so, it's a very solid list.
A great job of analysis.
1. Before 69 and after 69 this event is a slam no matter how it was called.
2. The objective answer is:
2.1. Comparing only the majors the value of Fed's majors is more than Ros's majors;
2.2. Comparing the entire careers the value of Rosewall's 23 majors, 2 YE finals, 44 other big titles, 16 tours, 43 another titles, 106 finals, 122 semis, 60 QF, 56 R16, 19 R32 and 9 R64 is more than the same of Fed.
It will become the 5th, the 10th. Today you went dramatically there.
Exactly. Using a fake ranking you can't reach the 6th grade.
Just a suggestion.Exactly. Using a fake ranking you can't reach the 6th grade.
Keeping repeating that is not helping your position.
Do I need to copy and paste Bobby's posts and my replies, so I will show you worst than you are already or I can save my time?
Ok, take it into account. 19-7 in tours and 43-31 in big tournaments and tours.
BTW you didn't responded to my long post. Any problems?
That's a much better explanation. So a good progress.
Yes, like it or not there are such lists, right? Just to let you know that I haven't written them. So don't be angry on me.
One remark - this is not an analysis, this is just a stat. You will learn the analysis in the university. But still you have many years in the school.
No, it's analysis.That's a much better explanation. So a good progress.
Yes, like it or not there are such lists, right? Just to let you know that I haven't written them. So don't be angry on me.
One remark - this is not an analysis, this is just a stat. You will learn the analysis in the university. But still you have many years in the school.
Because to have that list, you mixed different categories.
Slam (amateurs and open) and pro Majors (or at least what the genius wrote that list think they are).
Ha-ha. Again some brilliant calculations.
But if want to see the real picture you have to calculate the entire careers of the players. And if you are able to count them (I fully doubt you can) you will see that Rosewall has 192,200 points, Laver 183,250 points and Fed 156,215 points. That's points-wise.
I asked yesterday to stop this meaningless discussion and have said "please" twice.
You know very well that such lists don't say a lot and they are mainly for the mass public. A very very general info.
If you want to know something very briefly about the horse riding what you would do - open the wiki and read what's there. But you don't know the specifics of horse riding.
So you should not have replied to a post (directed to Bobby) regarding this.
Because if you reply, then I reply to you.
And the meaningless discussion keeps going, with you part of it.
Not sure who looks more 5th grader, but keep going
But who presented such lists in the thread? I mean only the lists are not saying everything. But for the mass public they are good.
I just tried to cancel it.So you should not have replied to a post (directed to Bobby) regarding this.
Because if you reply, then I reply to you.
And the meaningless discussion keeps going, with you part of it.
Not sure who looks more 5th grader, but keep going
In the Amateurs Era there were 7 majors, the 4 slams plus the Italian champs, the German champs and the South African one
Can we fix a date when the Italian, German and South African champs started to be regarded as majors?
I think the first official majors recognized by the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) were the three ‘World Championship’ titles created in 1913. Great Britain was granted the ‘World Championships on Grass’ at Wimbledon, and France the ‘World Hard Court Championships’ on clay in Paris. There was also a ‘World Covered Court Championships’ on wood staged in a different ILTF member country every year.
Then in 1923 it was agreed that no tennis tournament was to carry the title of World from 1924. Instead, a new category of Official Championship was created for events in Great Britain, France, USA and Australia for next year.
In 1929 the ILTF recognized the Dutch and German, then in 1930 the Belgian, and in 1932 the South African Championships as "Official Championship".
However, I do not know since when the Italian Championship was recognised as Official Championship. Maybe not in the 1930s when it was still a rather insignificant event.
Of course, by the 1960s there were indeed three important amateur events beside the slams, the Italian, German and the South African.
I regard the South African as a major from 1966, when the Breweries sponsorship began, and a lot of foreign stars began to appear.
I also read that the Italian and German events in the 1960s (or maybe earlier) were recognized as major not every year, but only biannually.
I would like to know more about the exact details of what were regarded as Official Championship (or "majors") after World War II. It is clear the first editions of the German event after the war cannot be regarded as majors, and the Italian championship also had a couple of weaker years after the war.
I see that somebody knows about what I'm talking about.
Thanks for showing up elegos, I was getting bored
It started in 1912 actually, with the WHCC and the WGCC, from 1913 also the WCCC.
France only from 1925, because in 1924 Paris held the Olympics.
We can try to fix the dates: for the South African one it will be tough, but I can try
Bobby?
Also, something that I have already said, but let's repeat it.
Not always Majors were Slams and not always Slams were Majors.
It's not philosophy, I really mean it.
Majors started in 1912.
Slams only in 1933.
This is the original article of Alan Gould, 18 Jul 1933.
Thanks to him we now have the Grand Slams
I see that somebody knows about what I'm talking about.
Thanks for showing up elegos, I was getting bored
It started in 1912 actually, with the WHCC and the WGCC, from 1913 also the WCCC.
France only from 1925, because in 1924 Paris held the Olympics.
We can try to fix the dates: for the South African one it will be tough, but I can try
I know the French dubbed the 1912 edition already as WHCC, but as far as I know, it was recognized by the ILTF as "World Championships" only in the spring of 1913, when they decided to grant such titles not only on clay, but on grass and covered courts as well.
I also count the 1924 Olympics, and then the French International from 1925 as the successor of the 1923 WHCC.
Interestingly, when in 1961 Potter in World Tennis singled out the 6 most important amateur events, he chose the four GS+ITA+GBRhard. So at least till 1961 the South African and German events were not widely recognized as majors.
Last edited:
Personally I can't see a strong SA till 66.
No, not in that context.Bobby?
Because Majors are not constant.
They changed according to the tennis situation.
In 1967 Newcombe won the first edition of the Martini & Rossi Gold Racquet on a point system based on the 4 GS and the Italian Champs.
Sorry, now I'm busy in more interesting discussion.
Do you have any details how points were allocated to the 4 GS and the Italian Champs at the Martini & Rossi Gold Racquet award in 1967?
I think from 1968 a panel of international journalists voted on the best players, and they added up those points.
For now I have this on hand.
I have to check better in the next few days.
NEWCOMBE GETS TOP NET AWARD
NEW YORK (UPI) - Australian tennis star John Newcombe has been named recipient of the first "Tennis Player of the Year" trophy.
Newcombe, the U.S. and Wimbledon champion, was selected winner of the award Monday. The trophy goes annually to the amateur who compiles the most points by high finishes in the world's top five tournaments on a format devised by a group of New York tennis writers.
Newcombe totalled 208 points. Fellow Aussie Roy Emerson was second with 80 points while Clark Graebner of Beachwood, Ohio, and Wilhelm Bungert of Germany tied for third with 60.
The award is a gold racquet designed by Tiffany's a sponsored by Martini & Rossi. Newcombe will keep the award for a year then will receive a replica."
Ok, after a brief math count (easy even for a 5th grader) I guess that Wimbledon and US awarded 100 to the winner and 60 to the finalist.
Newcombe has no results in Rome and Paris (at least QF) and Graebner and Bungert have only one final (one in Wimbledon one in US) and the same points.
So I guess it was 4 times the Australian/Italian champs.
And I guess the French 39/40 points to the winner, to have Emerson at 80 total points (if we suppose that US is 4 times Australia)
So sad for Ivan, that we destroy his idea of 4 majors a year.
In 1967 the Aussie Champs was just like the Italian
Whose points?
Ok, after a brief math count (easy even for a 5th grader) I guess that Wimbledon and US awarded 100 to the winner and 60 to the finalist.
Newcombe has no results in Rome and Paris (at least QF) and Graebner and Bungert have only one final (one in Wimbledon one in US) and the same points.
So I guess it was 4 times the Australian/Italian champs.
And I guess the French 39/40 points to the winner, to have Emerson at 80 total points (if we suppose that US is 4 times Australia)
So sad for Ivan, that we destroy his idea of 4 majors a year.
In 1967 the Aussie Champs was just like the Italian
I arrived at the same conclusion. They only gave points from the quarters on.
It looks like at Wimbledon and the US they gave points as follows: W: 100, F : 60, SF : 30, QF : 15
That would mean 40 points for Emerson for winning the French.
