WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Believe it or not-YES, especially after reading a lot of negative comments about Ken here. Whatever, fact is Ken does have some great achievement numbers, which is why Tennisbase ranks him #3 ATG.
Click to expand...
You know what it is. I think we all respect Rosewall greatly but at the same time no one wants to GREATLY overrate him. He was a tremendous player but when I read stuff like Rosewall had an excellent serve or that Rosewall is one of the all time greatest serve and volleyers, well I don't know what to think.

My opinion is this, that when some give the number 23 or 25 for Rosewall and compare it to Federer's 20, well that's false advertising and misleading. This happened a lot over the years with different so called facts.

Here's some legit facts; all of Federer's majors were Open Majors and seven rounds. Four of Rosewall's majors were amateur and 15 of them was what many call Pro Majors which aren't the same thing as Open Majors. Now what I also believe is that Rosewall won many many many important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour and while you cannot compare his Pro Majors to Open Majors or perhaps even Master 1000 tournaments or Year End Championships, Rosewall made up for this in the quantity of important tournaments won and some tours won including World Championship Tours.

So when you see someone pushing hard for people to believe in Rosewall's greatness with some information that is not comparing apples to apples (Pro Majors + Amateur Majors to Open Majors for example) you get a push back by some who may realize the information is not a good comparison. Rosewall's 15 Pro Majors plus 4 Amateurs Majors aren't nearly the same as 19 Open Majors. It's not close imo.

However to repeat myself I believe Rosewall made up for this somewhat at least in the quantity of important tournaments won and some tours won including World Championship Tours.

I enjoyed Rosewall's play because it was no frills, with no wasted motion. His movement was efficient and his anticipation uncanny. That's great to watch. He hit the ball fairly hard when he had to but his touch was superb with lobs, slices, crisp volleys, excellent angles, dinks etc.

Do I think he's the greatest I've seen? No I don't. I feel there are a number of flaws in his resume that some don't have. I feel several players in tennis history are superior to him. That's pretty good in that only several are imo superior.

I don't have major problems with someone calling him the GOAT as long as it's not shoved down my throat.

@NatF
@Dan Lobb
@hoodjem
@urban
@abmk
@Limpinhitter
@KG1965
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
pc1 said:
You know what it is. I think we all respect Rosewall greatly but at the same time no one wants to GREATLY overrate him. He was a tremendous player but when I read stuff like Rosewall had an excellent serve or that Rosewall is one of the all time greatest serve and volleyers, well I don't know what to think.

My opinion is this, that when some give the number 23 or 25 for Rosewall and compare it to Federer's 20, well that's false advertising and misleading. This happened a lot over the years.

All of Federer's majors were Open Majors and seven rounds. Four of Rosewall's majors were amateur and 15 of them was what many call Pro Majors which aren't the same thing as Open Majors. Now what I also believe is that Rosewall won many many many important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour and while you cannot compare his Pro Majors to Open Majors or perhaps even Master 1000 tournaments or Year End Championship, Rosewall made up for this in the quantity of important tournaments won and some tours won including World Championship Tours.

So when you see someone pushing hard for people to believe in Rosewall's greatness with some information that is not comparing apples to apples (Pro Majors plus Amateur Major to Open Majors for example) you get a push back by some who may realize the information is not a good comparison.

I enjoyed Rosewall's play because it was no frills, with no wasted motion. His movement was efficient and his anticipation uncanny. That's great to watch. He hit the ball fairly hard when he had to but his touch was superb with lobs, slices, crisp volleys, excellent angles, dinks etc.

Do I think he's the greatest I've seen? No I don't. I feel several players in tennis history are superior to him. That's pretty good. I don't have major problems with someone calling him the GOAT as long as it's not shoved down my throat.

@NatF
@Dan Lobb
@hoodjem
@urban
@abmk
@Limpinhitter
@KG1965
Click to expand...
Again, I never said Ken was The GOAT, nor did anyone else except maybe Bobby. The fact that he was able, after turning 33, win 4 slams, 2 WCT titles and reach 2 slam finals at 39 should prove that had there not been a pro tour both he and Laver would have won many more "official slams". Certainly, Ken did not have a great serve or forehand, but he was a great volleyer, though not the greatest. All the other great attributes you credit him with were enough to make him ONE of the greatest of all time, NOT the greatest.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Again, I never said Ken was The GOAT, nor did anyone else except maybe Bobby. The fact that he was able, after turning 33, win 4 slams, 2 WCT titles and reach 2 slam finals at 39 should prove that had there not been a pro tour both he and Laver would have won many more "official slams". Certainly, Ken did not have a great serve or forehand, but he was a great volleyer, though not the greatest. All the other great attributes you credit him with were enough to make him ONE of the greatest of all time, NOT the greatest.
Click to expand...
Not saying you called him the GOAT but I'm trying to explain why the push back by some about Rosewall. Yes I do believe he would have won more classic Open Majors if he had the opportunity as well as Laver and Gonzalez.

Remember that the big prize in tennis during much of the 1950s and early 1960s was the World Championship Tours. Gonzalez participated in almost 700 matches on those tours and won all the WC Tours except for the one against Kramer. Do you think he may have won perhaps (considering many Old Pro Tour tournaments were 2,3 or 4 rounds) perhaps 50 to 100 tournaments more considering this was all in his prime if the tournament system was like that in the 1960s on the Old Pro Tour when Laver and Rosewall won so many tournaments?

Gonzalez may have won 7 WC Tours. I would say 6 WC Tour wins. It can be argued that one World Championship victories to be worth more than several Open Classic Majors due to the price of being number one and the amount of matches.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Believe it or not-YES, especially after reading a lot of negative comments about Ken here. Whatever, fact is Ken does have some great achievement numbers, which is why Tennisbase ranks him #3 ATG.
Click to expand...
You should not automatically assume that every comment on Ken by the other posters here is a negative, very often it is just clarifying what actually happened. No pejorative intention at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
You should not automatically assume that every comment on Ken by the other posters here is a negative, very often it is just clarifying what actually happened. No pejorative intention at all.
Click to expand...
And I think we can discuss Rosewall with a more positive note overall nowadays.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Performance against the field should be what counts most. The pro tour was a unique entity in tennis history really with the World Championship tours etc...so in some cases h2h did determine the number one for the year but even then the winner of the tour was the one with the best aggregate - not the one with the best individual h2h with the leader (I believe this was the case in 1959?)
Click to expand...
For 1959, the Kramer tour made a point of issuing a season long hth tally for the Hoad/Gonzales meetings, even though there were two major tours in the season, the American 4-man and the Ampol tournament series.

With a divided outcome on these two series, other indicators become important, which is presumably why Kramer issued that season hth number.
Also, the press, such as Time magazine and the New York Times reports by Danzig, mentioned the hth for the 4-man as a significant number.
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Let's not forget that Gonzalez played a ton of World Championship Tours that took up a huge part of the year. He played 123 matches against Kramer in losing, he played least 100 plus matches in winning a tour (World Championship Tour?) against Sedgman, Segura and Budge, he played 101 matches against Trabert, he played 76 matches against Rosewall, he played 87 matches against Hoad, he played 62 matches against Hoad, Anderson and Cooper, he played 57 matches against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo and finally he played 75 matches against Gimeno, Hoad, Trabert, Buchholz, MacKay, Olmedo, Sedgman.

That's at least 681 matches and good for a few years of normal tournament time. Think of the amount of tournaments that Gonzalez could have won if he played in a regular tournament schedule. The World Championship Tours was of extreme important. Gonzalez won 6 or 7 of them which is the record.
Click to expand...
This highlights how different things were back then, and how often the very top players had to face each other.

So different from today.
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Ironically I think there is a chance Gonzalez and Rosewall played more than Laver and Rosewall. Tennis Base has them playing 185 times but it could be more. I'm sure there were a lot of fabulous matches between the two but somehow they were overshadowed by the Gonzalez versus Lew Hoad rivalry. I believe it was the power potential and although Gonzalez was more of a touch player he did have power to spare if he needed it.

Laver and Rosewall so far has about 160 plus matches but that could be more also.
Click to expand...
To me this kind of H2H is much more important because of the sheer number of meetings, and you can easily look at the rivalry by year or period.

For two players born at different times there are times when you expect the older to dominate, times the younger should dominate, and a clear period where both should be at or near their peaks. Because of the way the pro tour was set up, obviously Gonzalez should have dominated Ken at first, just as Kramer dominated Gonzales at first. When can then decide how much time is should take players who were slam winners in the amateurs to step up to the pro level.

Here is the way I view it: Gonzales was 32 in 1960. Throughout tennis history tennis players have started to struggle with recovery, or losing a step, or something else that clearly shows that at some time in their 20s they played on a higher level. While it is theoretically possible that a player at the age of 32 or older is once again playing at his peak level, isn't this unlikely? Does anyone serious think that Federer, as well as he is playing right now, is a match for the player he still was in 2007, when he was 26 instead of 36?

Yet Gonzales was still clearly dominant that year over Rosewall, who was then 26.

We can't have that same comparison between Gonzales and Laver because there was a full 10 years difference, and there is no way on earth their peaks could have overlapped. But on the basis of the relatively close battle between Ken and Rod my personal view, which I have seldom shared here (because frankly who cares?) is that Gonzales was the strongest of the three, with the real argument being between Gonzales and Hoad as to absolute peaks, with the same age difference between them as is true of Rosewall and Gonzales.

The only player who clearly had Pancho's number, but only at the beginning of their rivalry, was Kramer. I look at Kramer's huge early domination as "circumstantial evidence" supporting just how good a player Kramer was.

This is about peak play. If I had to rate this guys in terms of peaks, I would do it this way:

Kramer/Gonzales/Hoad
Laver
Rosewall

I expect hate mail!!!

Since I value the totality of careers more than some here, I would push up Rosewall's career higher, giving him full credit for being one of the most amazing old players in tennis history.

But it's close. The difference between top players is small, a BP here and there. I've looked at games between this era's Big Three, and it is always very close to 50%. The biggest margin is to Nadal on clay (probably very similar to Borg's numbers), but the point is that the difference between the top players is way smaller than we imagine. Since this is clear in games, it probably extends to all other stats, because those stats all contribute to games, which contribute to matches, which contribute to big events, which contribute to majors.

So I think if we had all the stats (which we will never have), it would be the same way in the 50s and 60s.

This is also why I think game% was lower in the pros. It had to be. When you have the guys at the top going H2H so often, it pulls down stats for the same reason that stats skyrocket today in the first four rounds of majors.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane said:
To me this kind of H2H is much more important because of the sheer number of meetings, and you can easily look at the rivalry by year or period.

For two players born at different times there are times when you expect the older to dominate, times the younger should dominate, and a clear period where both should be at or near their peaks. Because of the way the pro tour was set up, obviously Gonzalez should have dominated Ken at first, just as Kramer dominated Gonzales at first. When can then decide how much time is should take players who were slam winners in the amateurs to step up to the pro level.

Here is the way I view it: Gonzales was 32 in 1960. Throughout tennis history tennis players have started to struggle with recovery, or losing a step, or something else that clearly shows that at some time in their 20s they played on a higher level. While it is theoretically possible that a player at the age of 32 or older is once again playing at his peak level, isn't this unlikely? Does anyone serious think that Federer, as well as he is playing right now, is a match for the player he still was in 2007, when he was 26 instead of 36?

Yet Gonzales was still clearly dominant that year over Rosewall, who was then 26.

We can't have that same comparison between Gonzales and Laver because there was a full 10 years difference, and there is no way on earth their peaks could have overlapped. But on the basis of the relatively close battle between Ken and Rod my personal view, which I have seldom shared here (because frankly how cares?) is that Gonzales was the strongest of the three, with the real argument being between Gonzales and Hoad as to absolute peaks, with the same age difference between them as is true of Rosewall and Gonzales.

The only player who clearly had Pancho's number, but only at the beginning of their rivalry, was Kramer. I look at Kramer's huge early domination as "circumstantial evidence" supporting just how good a player Kramer was.

This is about peak play. If I had to rate this guys in terms of peaks, I would do it this way:

Kramer/Gonzales/Hoad
Laver
Rosewall

I expect hate mail!!!

Since I value the totality of careers more than some here, I would push up Rosewall's career higher, giving him full credit for being one of the most amazing old players in tennis history.

But it's close. The difference between top players is small, a BP here and there. I've looked at games between this era's Big Three, and it is always very close to 50%. The biggest margin is to Nadal on clay (probably very similar to Borg's numbers), but the point is that the difference between the top players is way smaller than we imagine. Since this is clear in games, it probably extends to all other stats, because those stats all contribute to games, which contribute to matches, which contribute to big events, which contribute to majors.

So I think if we had all the stats (which we will never have), it would be the same way in the 50s and 60s.

This is also why I think game% was lower in the pros. It had to be. When you have the guys at the top going H2H so often, it pulls down stats for the same reason that stats skyrocket today in the first four rounds of majors.
Click to expand...
Gary,

I would disagree about putting Hoad in the top level there although I'm sure Dan would disagree. Kramer and Gonzalez proved themselves over a number of years to be dominant players. I'm not sure Hoad proved himself to be of that level. For example I don't know if any player except for Kramer could have slaughtered Riggs by 69-20 which is 77.53% which is a great year for most players against an average field. Kramer did do that and also proved himself on all surfaces. Not sure if I would use the term "circumstantial evidence" because that means evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue. I think it's more direct evidence. It is so unfortunate that Kramer developed early onset arthritis. We talk about Lew Hoad having back problems that shortened his career but Kramer was also super and had his career shortened.

Gonzalez of course was fantastic over his career. He was still capable of winning huge tournaments like the 1969 Howard Hughes over players like Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall and Stan Smith, at age 41 no less!!.

It's not unreasonable to put Kramer and Gonzalez over Laver and Rosewall.

If you going to look at top level you should check out Tilden, Vines also who were number one for years.
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
Gary Duane said:
To me this kind of H2H is much more important because of the sheer number of meetings, and you can easily look at the rivalry by year or period.

For two players born at different times there are times when you expect the older to dominate, times the younger should dominate, and a clear period where both should be at or near their peaks. Because of the way the pro tour was set up, obviously Gonzalez should have dominated Ken at first, just as Kramer dominated Gonzales at first. When can then decide how much time is should take players who were slam winners in the amateurs to step up to the pro level.

Here is the way I view it: Gonzales was 32 in 1960. Throughout tennis history tennis players have started to struggle with recovery, or losing a step, or something else that clearly shows that at some time in their 20s they played on a higher level. While it is theoretically possible that a player at the age of 32 or older is once again playing at his peak level, isn't this unlikely? Does anyone serious think that Federer, as well as he is playing right now, is a match for the player he still was in 2007, when he was 26 instead of 36?

Yet Gonzales was still clearly dominant that year over Rosewall, who was then 26.

We can't have that same comparison between Gonzales and Laver because there was a full 10 years difference, and there is no way on earth their peaks could have overlapped. But on the basis of the relatively close battle between Ken and Rod my personal view, which I have seldom shared here (because frankly how cares?) is that Gonzales was the strongest of the three, with the real argument being between Gonzales and Hoad as to absolute peaks, with the same age difference between them as is true of Rosewall and Gonzales.

The only player who clearly had Pancho's number, but only at the beginning of their rivalry, was Kramer. I look at Kramer's huge early domination as "circumstantial evidence" supporting just how good a player Kramer was.

This is about peak play. If I had to rate this guys in terms of peaks, I would do it this way:

Kramer/Gonzales/Hoad
Laver
Rosewall

I expect hate mail!!!

Since I value the totality of careers more than some here, I would push up Rosewall's career higher, giving him full credit for being one of the most amazing old players in tennis history.

But it's close. The difference between top players is small, a BP here and there. I've looked at games between this era's Big Three, and it is always very close to 50%. The biggest margin is to Nadal on clay (probably very similar to Borg's numbers), but the point is that the difference between the top players is way smaller than we imagine. Since this is clear in games, it probably extends to all other stats, because those stats all contribute to games, which contribute to matches, which contribute to big events, which contribute to majors.

So I think if we had all the stats (which we will never have), it would be the same way in the 50s and 60s.

This is also why I think game% was lower in the pros. It had to be. When you have the guys at the top going H2H so often, it pulls down stats for the same reason that stats skyrocket today in the first four rounds of majors.
Click to expand...
No hate mail from me-LOL! Another interesting statistic, Total TB Points: Ken-226412, 2-Laver-182236, 3-Federer-180923, 4- Gonzalez-172937, 5-Tilden-162965,6-Rafa-139912, 7-Novak-136766. I wonder, does Rosewall own TB?
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Gary,

I would disagree about putting Hoad in the top level there although I'm sure Dan would disagree. Kramer and Gonzalez proved themselves over a number of years to be dominant players. I'm not sure Hoad proved himself to be of that level. For example I don't know if any player except for Kramer could have slaughtered Riggs by 69-20 which is 77.53% which is a great year for most players against an average field. Kramer did do that and also proved himself on all surfaces. Not sure if I would use the term "circumstantial evidence" because that means evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue. I think it's more direct evidence. It is so unfortunate that Kramer developed early onset arthritis. We talk about Lew Hoad having back problems that shortened his career but Kramer was also super and had his career shortened.

Gonzalez of course was fantastic over his career. He was still capable of winning huge tournaments like the 1969 Howard Hughes over players like Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall and Stan Smith, at age 41 no less!!.

It's not unreasonable to put Kramer and Gonzalez over Laver and Rosewall.

If you going to look at top level you should check out Tilden, Vines also who were number one for years.
Click to expand...
I think that Gary was evaluating in terms of peak level of play in his ranking, which is why he put Hoad there at the top level....of course, Hoad's career numbers would be less than others who had long careers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Dan Lobb said:
I think that Gary was evaluating in terms of peak level of play in his ranking, which is why he put Hoad there at the top level....of course, Hoad's career numbers would be less than others who had long careers.
Click to expand...

Could you name some stand out professional matches and tournaments where Hoad demonstrated his peak play?
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
NatF said:
Could you name some stand out professional matches and tournaments where Hoad demonstrated his peak play?
Click to expand...

Going by what I know and a quick glance at TB (cross-checking) :


2 DC wins in 53 vs Seixas and Trabert
Wimbledon 56 final vs Rosewall
Wimbledon 57 final vs Cooper
He was up 18-9 IIRC in the WS in 58 vs Gonzales initially, so pretty sure some of them were peak level matches
was 15-13 vs Gonzales in the 59 WS, so pretty sure some of them were peak level matches
ToC 59 final vs Gonzales
Melbourne final vs Rosewall at the end of 59 (tournament started in end of Dec 59 and the final was on 3rd Jan, 1960)
61 Wembley semi vs Gonzales
some the matches vs Laver in the start of 63 -- he got up and trained for the challenge vs the new challenger and beat Laver badly.

These are just some of them. I'm pretty sure there are more.
The SF vs Fraser in AO 1956 (6-3 6-2 6-0 ) looks like a pasting for instance, but don't know much else about it.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Could you name some stand out professional matches and tournaments where Hoad demonstrated his peak play?
Click to expand...
I could write a novel......but, seriously, Hoad's peak was from about 1956 to 1961, although he had some good short hth tours against Laver in January 1963 and Gonzales in that 4-match series in Britain in 1964. You saw the television video of that 1964 Cornwall match, which I have not seen, so I can only go with a visualization from the verbal description you gave us.

The two Wimbledon finals in 1956 and 1957 were examples of Hoad's peak, also his pro debut against Sedgman, all of which we have clips of.
The final Forest Hills matches of 1958 and 1959 were peak performances, and both should be available in the CBS archives.
The 1960 Kooyong final against Rosewall was acclaimed by Kramer as possibly the greatest pro match ever played.

Some of Hoad's tour matches were famous, especially the 1958 Kooyong match against Gonzales.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
mtincoronel76 said:
depending on the rankings or authorities publications, 1952-54-55-56-57-58-59-60-61.
Click to expand...
Interesting to see which rankings or authorities stated that Gonz is No 1 for 1952. A poster (IIRC it was krosero) already quoted newspapers saying that Segura defended his World champion title after the Cleveland event.
1959 is an interesting year. Gonz won the WS. Hoad won the Ampol tour which was the official tour. Both the WS and the tour were very important. For this year I think both Gonz and Hoad deserve the Co- No 1 spot.
For 1961 a poster (IIRC it was krosero) quoted newspapers saying that Rosewall was declared the World champion at the end of the year.

Not saying which is right or wrong but by officials Gonz is No 1 in the period 1954-1960. With my remark that 1959 need to be a co year.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Interesting to see which rankings or authorities stated that Gonz is No 1 for 1952. A poster (IIRC it was krosero) already quoted newspapers saying that Segura defended his World champion title after the Cleveland event.
1959 is an interesting year. Gonz won the WS. Hoad won the Ampol tour which was the official tour. Both the WS and the tour were very important. For this year I think both Gonz and Hoad deserve the Co- No 1 spot.
For 1961 a poster (IIRC it was krosero) quoted newspapers saying that Rosewall was declared the World champion at the end of the year.

Not saying which is right or wrong but by officials Gonz is No 1 in the period 1954-1960. With my remark that 1959 need to be a co year.
Click to expand...
But newspapers and sports writers are not "officials"....Kramer may be an official, within the meaning of that word, able to designate pro majors.
But Kramer's choice of pro majors are different from the sports writers.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
But newspapers and sports writers are not "officials"....Kramer may be an official, within the meaning of that word, able to designate pro majors.
But Kramer's choice of pro majors are different from the sports writers.
Click to expand...
Nope. Kramer was just a promoter. He can tell what he wants in order to advertise his events. They were official pro tennis authorities anyway. You know this very well.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Nope. Kramer was just a promoter. He can tell what he wants in order to advertise his events. They were official pro tennis authorities anyway. You know this very well.
Click to expand...
Nope. Kramer was more than just a promoter.

He was president of the only major tennis pro corporation, which owned the contracts of all the top pro players.

Kramer was the show, he set the rules.

He was the tennis CZAR. (You do know what "Czar" means, Ivan?)

If the pros had a problem, he solved it and made the final calls.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Nope. Kramer was more than just a promoter.

He was president of the only major tennis pro corporation, which owned the contracts of all the top pro players.

Kramer was the show, he set the rules.

He was the tennis CZAR. (You do know what "Czar" means, Ivan?)

If the pros had a problem, he solved it and made the final calls.
Click to expand...
If you like the word czar let it be so. In fact he was just a businessman and wanted to make money from tennis. As NoMercy showed clearly Kramer was even not so good in business having amassed several losses and ... finally quit. Czar, president or the Show he quit after just several years.
Anyway he was NOT the official authority also.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
If you like the word czar let it be so. In fact he was just a businessman and wanted to make money from tennis. As NoMercy showed clearly Kramer was even not so good in business having amassed several losses and ... finally quit. Czar, president or the Show he quit after just several years.
Anyway he was NOT the official authority also.
Click to expand...
He was not A businessman, he was THE businessman in tennis. No competitor.

He made his players wealthy, even though he lost money on the 1957 Gonzales/Rosewall tour.

He had the authority to make the final calls, to designate tournaments, to establish tours, to provide players for events.

He was the closest thing to official authority in the pro game at that time.

Although the USPLTA had authority to designate the U.S. Pro, or to not designate the U.S. Pro.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
He was not A businessman, he was THE businessman in tennis. No competitor.

He made his players wealthy, even though he lost money on the 1957 Gonzales/Rosewall tour.

He had the authority to make the final calls, to designate tournaments, to establish tours, to provide players for events.

He was the closest thing to official authority in the pro game at that time.

Although the USPLTA had authority to designate the U.S. Pro, or to not designate the U.S. Pro.
Click to expand...
You were an economist, right? I can't consider somebody THE businessman who lost money from his projects and quit after several years. No, it's not only the 57 tour. NM showed clearly a couple of big tournaments in late 50s. Go back and read.
The good businessman has a long and profitable career.
Though I admit that Jack contributed a lot to the development of pro tennis. No doubt.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
You were an economist, right? I can't consider somebody THE businessman who lost money from his projects and quit after several years. No, it's not only the 57 tour. NM showed clearly a couple of big tournaments in late 50s. Go back and read.
The good businessman has a long and profitable career.
Though I admit that Jack contributed a lot to the development of pro tennis. No doubt.
Click to expand...
He lost money on the Gonzales/Rosewall tour of 1957, made himself rich on the Kramer/Sedgman tour of 1953, and the 1958 Hoad/Gonzales tour.
Kramer got 20% of the gate, the same as the top players....smart businessman.
Kramer made $200,000 on the 1958 tour, as much as Hoad got for his first year on tour.

NM did not include the television revenues, which dwarfed the onsite losses.

The point is, Kramer was the closest thing pro tennis had to an official authority, and only the USPLTA with its control over the U.S. Pro had any other jurisdiction in the pro game.
 
mtincoronel76

mtincoronel76

Rookie
Ivan69 said:
Interesting to see which rankings or authorities stated that Gonz is No 1 for 1952. A poster (IIRC it was krosero) already quoted newspapers saying that Segura defended his World champion title after the Cleveland event.
1959 is an interesting year. Gonz won the WS. Hoad won the Ampol tour which was the official tour. Both the WS and the tour were very important. For this year I think both Gonz and Hoad deserve the Co- No 1 spot.
For 1961 a poster (IIRC it was krosero) quoted newspapers saying that Rosewall was declared the World champion at the end of the year.

Not saying which is right or wrong but by officials Gonz is No 1 in the period 1954-1960. With my remark that 1959 need to be a co year.
Click to expand...

In 1952 Gonzalez won 5 of 7 matches against Segura and was considered te best in the world for Sport Magazine. Segura was ranked N1 for LPTA. There was not official or at least undisputed ranking in 1952. So eventually Gonzales and Segura are commonly rated both as co-No. 1 for 1952.
 
K

KG1965

Legend
mtincoronel76 said:
In 1952 Gonzalez won 5 of 7 matches against Segura and was considered te best in the world for Sport Magazine. Segura was ranked N1 for LPTA. There was not official or at least undisputed ranking in 1952. So eventually Gonzales and Segura are commonly rated both as co-No. 1 for 1952.
Click to expand...
The information that you communicate to us is interesting but it would be even more interesting to establish now who was the best player. Also because the co-best player is a bit contrary to the sport.
For you, as long as you've certainly studied more than me in 1952, who was the best player ?
 
mtincoronel76

mtincoronel76

Rookie
KG1965 said:
The information that you communicate to us is interesting but it would be even more interesting to establish now who was the best player. Also because the co-best player is a bit contrary to the sport.
For you, as long as you've certainly studied more than me in 1952, who was the best player ?
Click to expand...

Ho no!! my opinion doesnt help. I'm just a young 42 age enthusiast who shows some sources so that those who really know like your endorse or refute them.
 
Last edited:
U

urban

Legend
Its indeed a big question. Even in later German newspaper sources, which No Mercy found, from the early 1960s, Segura is announced as Pro World Champion of the years 1950 and 1952, and these were obviously based on announcements by the touring Kramer circus itself. McCauley noted that Segura was frequently ranked Nr. 1 pro by the USLTA, but overall he seems to give Kramer the Nr. 1 status from 1948 to 1953. Most experts i know, saw Kramer as the King of the pros, based on his World Series wins over Gonzalez, Segura and Sedgman. Kramer however had not much activity outside the hth series, and lost some vital matches in the early 1950s, to Segura at Forest Hills and Gonzalez at Wembley. I am not a friend of combined rankings, but with the very low activity of the top pros in 1952, you could even make a case for still amateur Sedgman, who built up a massive record with wins at Wim and Forest HIlls. From the prestige aspect, Kramer was seen by most as Pro World Champion.
 
mtincoronel76

mtincoronel76

Rookie
"The Concise History of Tennis" by karoly Mazak

"1952- Pancho Segura collects the US Pro Clay title in St. Agustine ... Gonzales wins the World Pro indoor title in a round-robin in Philadelphia ahead of Segura and Kramer ... Gonzales also triumphs at the World Hard court Pro Championships in los angeles beating Segura in five sets ... Pancho Segura wins his third US Pro title in a row in Lakeood on hard courts beating Gonzales from 2-4 in te fourth, when his opponent becomes hampered by a pulled muscle ... Frank Sedgman wins wimbledon overcomng Drobny ... At the Slazenger Pro in Scrborough Gonzales overcomes Segura ... At the London Pro in Wembley Gonzales defeats Segura, then Kramer 3-6 3-6 6-2 6-4 7-5 after trailing 2-5 in the fifth.

world Rankings:

1- Pancho Gonzales (pro)
2- Pancho Segura (pro)
3- Jack Kramer (pro)
4- Frank Sedgman
5- Jaroslav Drobny
6- Frank Kovaks (pro)
7- Don Budge (pro)
8-Ken McGregor "

for purchasing the book: http://www.theconcisehistoryoftennis.com/
 
Last edited:
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
mtincoronel76 said:
In 1952 Gonzalez won 5 of 7 matches against Segura and was considered te best in the world for Sport Magazine. Segura was ranked N1 for LPTA. There was not official or at least undisputed ranking in 1952. So eventually Gonzales and Segura are commonly rated both as co-No. 1 for 1952.
Click to expand...
You have talked about the official ranking, right? The official ranking is published by the official authority, in this case it was PLTA. Right or wrong, PLTA declared it was Segura.
The magazines and experts might have their own rankings but they are not official. Kramer was also considered by some as the acting World champion. But should we believe to all opinions?
It's a different matter who deserves to be No 1 from today's POV. It could be Gonz, Segura or Sedgman. The pro tour was very poor in 1952 (only 11 tournaments) where one of the 3 good players Kramer played only 2). At the same time Sedg made an incredible year.
 
K

KG1965

Legend
My version

1946—Riggs
1947—Riggs (and Kramer is the best player)
1948—Kramer
1949—Kramer
1950—Kramer
1951—Kramer
1952—Gonzalez
1953—Segura
1954—Gonzalez
1955—Gonzalez
1956—Gonzalez
1957—Gonzalez
1958—Gonzalez
1959—Hoad (and Gonzalez is the best player)
1960—Rosewall (and Gonzalez is the best player)
1961—Gonzalez
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall
1964—Rosewall (and Laver is the best player)
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—Rosewall
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors
1977—Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors
1983—McEnroe
1984—McEnroe
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker
1990—Edberg
1991—Edberg
1992—Courier
1993—Sampras
1994—Sampras
1995—Sampras
1996—Sampras
1997—Sampras
1998—Sampras
1999—Agassi
2000—Kuerten
2001—Hewitt
2002—Hewitt
2003—Roddick
2004—Federer
2005—Federer
2006—Federer
2007—Federer
2008—Nadal
2009—Federer
2010—Nadal
2011—Djokovic
2012—Djokovic
2013—Nadal
2014—Djokovic
2015—Djokovic
2016—Murray
2017—Federer
2018—Djokovic
 
Last edited:
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
KG1965 said:
The information that you communicate to us is interesting but it would be even more interesting to establish now who was the best player. Also because the co-best player is a bit contrary to the sport.
For you, as long as you've certainly studied more than me in 1952, who was the best player ?
Click to expand...
Interesting question - who was the best. Based on what in a poor pro tour? Only 11 pro tournaments - Gonz played 8, Kramer - 2. The only good players were Gonz and Segura (Kramer felt he is the acting World champion and played incidentally).

In the same year Sedg makes an incredible season in the amateurs with 16 titles incl. Wimb, US, Queen's, Rome, NSW, Victorian, Monte Carlo, Newport and a W/L of 115-10.
Due to the poor pro tour and the excellent season of Sedg I am standing behind Sedg for the year. I respect the players' achievements.
Who was the best? I doubt that someone can defend any position.
 
K

KG1965

Legend
Ivan69 said:
Interesting question - who was the best. Based on what in a poor pro tour? Only 11 pro tournaments - Gonz played 8, Kramer - 2. The only good players were Gonz and Segura (Kramer felt he is the acting World champion and played incidentally).

In the same year Sedg makes an incredible season in the amateurs with 16 titles incl. Wimb, US, Queen's, Rome, NSW, Victorian, Monte Carlo, Newport and a W/L of 115-10.
Due to the poor pro tour and the excellent season of Sedg I am standing behind Sedg for the year. I respect the players' achievements.
Who was the best? I doubt that someone can defend any position.
Click to expand...
Yes, interesting question.
We can face it.
I have not yet understood 1964 to tell the truth.:(
Also because there is an Italian trophy (like me) .. the Facis... that for me is a black hole, and that could be decisive in those years.
 
mtincoronel76

mtincoronel76

Rookie
Ivan69 said:
You have talked about the official ranking, right? The official ranking is published by the official authority, in this case it was PLTA. Right or wrong, PLTA declared it was Segura.
The magazines and experts might have their own rankings but they are not official. Kramer was also considered by some as the acting World champion. But should we believe to all opinions?
It's a different matter who deserves to be No 1 from today's POV. It could be Gonz, Segura or Sedgman. The pro tour was very poor in 1952 (only 11 tournaments) where one of the 3 good players Kramer played only 2). At the same time Sedg made an incredible year.
Click to expand...

Well, starting from the basis that the "official" rankings at that time did not cover all the tournaments nor were they undisputed (in fact the same ATP ranking was not undisputed until 1990 with the creation of the ATP Tour and the dissolution of the Grand Prix or the extinction of World Tennis Magazine whose ranking was the closest thing to the Ballon d'Or of football in the 68-early 80s period, and even then it could differ with the World Champion of the year named by the ITF since 1978 until today) was not definitive to be No. 1 of the Pro Tour to be considered the undisputed No. 1 in the world for specialized media.

Should we believe to all opinions? Of course YES, or at least take them into account, IMHO. As Ashe or Vilas weren't No 1 for the "official" ATP ranking, but for others (especially World Tennis) in 1975 and 1977 respectively, many consider Gonzales as the real No1 of 1952, and some others could consider Kramer the best. The stats indicate that Gonzales had an advantage over Segura and Kramer in the Majors Pros played by the three, at least.
 
Last edited:
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
KG1965 said:
My version

1960—Gonzales
1961—Gonzales
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—Rosewall
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors
1977—Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors
1983—McEnroe
1984—McEnroe
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989 - Becker
1990—Edberg
1991—Edberg
1992—Courier
1993—Sampras
1994—Sampras
1995—Sampras
1996—Sampras
1997—Sampras
1998—Sampras
1999—Agassi
2000—Kuerten
2001—Hewitt
2002—Hewitt
2003—Roddick
2004—Federer
2005—Federer
2006—Federer
2007—Federer
2008—Nadal
2009—Federer
2010—Nadal
2011—Djokovic
2012—Djokovic
2013—Nadal
2014—Djokovic
2015—Djokovic
2016—Murray
1989 - Becker
2017 - Federer
2018 - Djokovic
Click to expand...
For 1961 and 1964 Rosewall was officially announced No 1. A lot of authentic sources were provided in the threads.
2017 ????? You don't recognize the official ranking?
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
KG1965 said:
Yes, interesting question.
We can face it.
I have not yet understood 1964 to tell the truth.:(
Also because there is an Italian trophy (like me) .. the Facis... that for me is a black hole, and that could be decisive in those years.
Click to expand...
Facis was not the only decisive but veeeeery decisive.
 
mtincoronel76

mtincoronel76

Rookie
Ivan69 said:
For 1961 and 1964 Rosewall was officially announced No 1. A lot of authentic sources were provided in the threads.
2017 ????? You don't recognize the official ranking?
Click to expand...

again, "official" Pro Tour No. 1 doesnt necessarily means "undisputed" World No. 1. I give the edge to Rosewall in 1961 but 1964 entire year was very disputed whit Laver.
 
Last edited:
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
mtincoronel76 said:
Well, starting from the basis that the "official" rankings at that time did not cover all the tournaments nor were they undisputed (in fact the same ATP ranking was not undisputed until 1990 with the creation of the ATP Tour and the dissolution of the Grand Prix or the extinction of World Tennis Magazine whose ranking was the closest thing to the Ballon d'Or of football in the 68-early 80s period, and even then it could differ with the World Champion of the year named by the ITF since 1978 until today) was not definitive to be No. 1 of the Pro Tour to be considered the undisputed No. 1 in the world for specialized media.

Should we believe to all opinions? Of course YES, or at least take them into account, IMHO. As Ashe or Vilas weren't No 1 for the "official" ATP ranking, but for others (especially World Tennis) in 1975 and 1977 respectively, many consider Gonzales as the real No1 of 1952, and some others could consider Kramer the best. The stats indicate that Gonzales had an advantage over Segura and Kramer in the Majors Pros played by the three, at least.
Click to expand...
Interpreted in such a way I agree. The big problem for the 50s and 70s is that the official rankings didn't covered the whole tour. BIG PROBLEM. It was a broad view that only some events matter and nothing else. That's why we can debate for years what it was. That's why I don't believe to many experts' and magazines' rankings. They were just incomplete.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
mtincoronel76 said:
again, "official" Pro Tour No. 1 doesnt necessarily means "undisputed" World No. 1. I give the edge to Rosewall in 1961 but 1964 entire year was very disputed whit Laver.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not disputed at all by anybody. Even Laver admitted that Rosewall was No 1. Facis was very decisive.
 
mtincoronel76

mtincoronel76

Rookie
Ivan69 said:
Nope. Not disputed at all by anybody. Even Laver admitted that Rosewall was No 1. Facis was very decisive.
Click to expand...

I still believe 1964 was. Laver won a total of 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. Laver beat Rosewall & Gonzales in U.S. Pro; Rosewall beat Laver in French Pro; Laver beat Rosewall in Wembley Pro. Laver stated that Rosewall had a better season than him, right, but that was after the Wembley Pro Open (september), not at the end of the year. Laver beat Rosewall 17-7. At least Robert Geist and Karoly Mazak co-ranked both Rosewall and Laver as 1964 World No. 1. So, it was disputed by somebody.
 
Last edited:
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
mtincoronel76 said:
I still believe 1964 was. Laver won a total of 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. Laver beat Rosewall & Gonzales in U.S. Pro; Rosewall beat Laver in French Pro; Laver beat Rosewall in Wembley Pro. Laver stated that Rosewall had a better season than him, right, but that was after the Wembley Pro Open (september), not at the end of the year. Laver beat Rosewall 17-7. Robert Geist and Karoly Mazak co-ranked both Rosewall and Laver as 1964 World No. 1. So, it was disputed by somebody.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait. First of all, you are making the general mistake of using the "only majors matter" approach. Just posts ago you were not satisfied with the decision of PLTA about Segura. Their decision was based on the win in Cleveland which was in their eyes the most (and maybe the only) important event in the year.

Second, you still ignore the value and the importance of Facis tour for the year ranking. Many people don't know about this. But it's too important to be known.

Third, Rosewall was officially announced a champion somewhere in early November (a poster has provided with the source), skipped the tour and took a rest. Laver continued playing some tourneys in Africa and Marseille in the company of Gimeno, Buchholz and Olmedo or Haillet.

Fourth, I respect Robert and Karoly. But their private opinions don't change the facts. Nobody can dispute the ranking because it was based on a ranking system where all players were aware of it. Everything else is just a private opinion. I could say that No 1 for 2018 is Khachanov but this remains only a private opinion not disputing anything.
 
mtincoronel76

mtincoronel76

Rookie
Ivan69 said:
Wait, wait. First of all, you are making the general mistake of using the "only majors matter" approach. Just posts ago you were not satisfied with the decision of PLTA about Segura. Their decision was based on the win in Cleveland which was in their eyes the most (and maybe the only) important event in the year.

Second, you still ignore the value and the importance of Facis tour for the year ranking. Many people don't know about this. But it's too important to be known.

Third, Rosewall was officially announced a champion somewhere in early November (a poster has provided with the source), skipped the tour and took a rest. Laver continued playing some tourneys in Africa and Marseille in the company of Gimeno, Buchholz and Olmedo or Haillet.

Fourth, I respect Robert and Karoly. But their private opinions don't change the facts. Nobody can dispute the ranking because it was based on a ranking system where all players were aware of it. Everything else is just a private opinion. I could say that No 1 for 2018 is Khachanov but this remains only a private opinion not disputing anything.
Click to expand...

Ok, Ok ... Let's make something clear: If there is something that matters less to me in life, it is to discuss who was the No. 1 of 1964. Here someone ( @KG1965 ) said that Laver was. You replied that Rosewall was officially proclaimed by the Pro Tour, which is true. I just say that that is not definitive to evaluate a No. 1 undisputedly. Reality indicates that both were considered and rated No. 1 by different estates or authorities.

From here on, if for you the official assessment of that extinct and short Pro tour is enough to cancel any other ranking or opinion (which ceases to be private once it is published in books, newspapers or online), run on your own. You dont have to discuss it with me, because i really don´t care. in any case you can do it with Geist, Mazak or all the publications who are saying that Laver was ranked as World No. 1 from 1964 to 1970, for example, the International Tennis Hall Of Fame himself ( https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/rod-laver ). Thats no longer my territory. Regards my friend!!!
 
Last edited:
U

urban

Legend
Trofeo Facis was a combined event, singles and doubles, and covered both, some small tournaments and tour matches. Nobody knows the exact score of the Facis in 1964, Laver played only the second half of the Italy events in 1964, Rosewall played both halves. Nevertheless, it seems that 5 match wins of Laver in this trophy are still missing, and that he beat Rosewall in this event more than he lost, among the 17-7 the overall hth stands in this year. Laver also won NZ and Queensland tours in spring 1964.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
mtincoronel76 said:
Ok, Ok ... Let's make something clear: If there is something that matters less to me in life, it is to discuss who was the No. 1 of 1964. Here someone ( @KG1965 ) said that Laver was. You replied that Rosewall was officially proclaimed by the Pro Tour, which is true. I just say that that is not definitive to evaluate a No. 1 undisputedly. Reality indicates that both were considered and rated No. 1 by different estates or authorities.

From here on, if for you the official assessment of that extinct and short Pro tour is enough to cancel any other ranking or opinion (which ceases to be private once it is published in books, newspapers or online), run on your own. You dont have to discuss it with me, because i really don´t care. in any case you can do it with Geist, Mazak or all the publications who are saying that Laver was ranked as World No. 1 from 1964 to 1970, for example, the International Tennis Hall Of Fame himself ( https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/rod-laver ). Thats no longer my territory. Regards my friend!!!
Click to expand...
Just saying that going on this way you can find "disputes" in many many years which is just not constructive. Very often fans, experts and newspapers prepared rankings without having the entire info for the year.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
urban said:
Trofeo Facis was a combined event, singles and doubles, and covered both, some small tournaments and tour matches. Nobody knows the exact score of the Facis in 1964, Laver played only the second half of the Italy events in 1964, Rosewall played both halves. Nevertheless, it seems that 5 match wins of Laver in this trophy are still missing, and that he beat Rosewall in this event more than he lost, among the 17-7 the overall hth stands in this year. Laver also won NZ and Queensland tours in spring 1964.
Click to expand...
I found in TB that the tour had 57 matches (48 tour matches and 9 tournament matches). It was held from 27 July till 8 Oct with some breaks. Based on the schedule I doubt that some matches are missing. But if they are missings they would be an insignificant number.
Winner is Rosewall with 18-3, runner-up Gimeno 10-9. Laver played 8 matches in the last 10 days of the tour with a ratio 6-2.

TB says that the 1964 NZ tour was won by Hoad but I can't say anything.

Do you have any details about this Queensland tour?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
All time rankings pre 1950
Replies
23
Views
2K
hoodjem
hoodjem
I
Top 3 players per year from 1877 to 2020 (with a regular update)
5 6 7
Replies
328
Views
14K
thrust
T
pc1
Rankings of Greats by tennis experts
14 15 16
Replies
791
Views
75K
Dan Lobb
D
hoodjem
Second-20 Greatest Male Singles Players
Replies
12
Views
1K
hoodjem
hoodjem
Mustard
Winners of the Major Tennis Tournaments
Replies
43
Views
8K
Dan Lobb
D
Top