Who was number 1 for 1970?

kiki said:

This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

Click to expand...

egn said:

This is where this came from. Tsonga and Ferrer wouldn't be top 30. I wasted my time talking to you. I'm just dying in laughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0iKmRkgbA

Watch that, and then just stop posting ridiculous statements. Tsonga is arguably one of the most talented players out there, with great shotmaking abilities. You want me to believe Amritraj is better...Tsonga has made three major semifinals and has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in majors. You can't say that Tsonga would not be top 30 in the 70s because he would struggle against Amritrag, Dibbs and Gildemeister! Are you serious Gildemeister!?!?! If it's not clay I don't see Gildemeister even coming close..

Click to expand...

egn said:

Eliot Teltscher was who I mentioned. Not Brian Teacher....come on get the names right. He won a single match against Borg and Mac and it just happened to be in the same tournament...You mentioned his single win against ALL FOUR OF THOSE GUYS. Ferrer beat Nadal in majors twice now and in the masters as well. He's beaten Djokovic twice now in the masters...Come on don't even compare Mayer and Ferrer. You take Mayer's record against Mac-Borg-Lendl vs Ferrer against Fed-Djok-Nadal I'm sure Ferrer has that won. Oh and come on that win against Lendl was in 1979 he wasn't even a top 20 player at that point in time. Face it Ferrer is not nearly as bad as you dream him to be and the competition is not nearly as weak as you want it to be.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

Click to expand...

abmk said:

LOL, LMAO ...... clueless kiki strikes again. egn has already pwned you with some of the facts .... Let me complete it !

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Now, I confirm you have no idea of tennis...you put the vidoe of Tsonga as an examples of great volleys? because I will tell ya 50 better volleyers off my hat.Tsonga, in today´s no volley game is the only one daring to but...compare to Amritraj¡¡¡ Holly Cow¡¡¡

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Idf he reached major semis, well, it depends on the field isn´t it?

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Yes¡¡¡ come up with your facts, newtard

Click to expand...

abmk said:

well, clueless, that video was just to show tsonga's talent, not just his volleying skills ..... No doubt, Vijay was by some distance the better volleyer , but Tsonga is by some distance the better player ....



well, clueless, it depends on the field, but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis , let me enlighten you :

he beat murray, gasquet, youzhny and nadal to reach the finals of the AO in 2008

he beat djokovic to get to the semis of the AO in 2010

he beat federer to get to the semis of wimbledon in 2011 .....

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Didn't egn already pwn you regarding dibbs and him not reaching close to #5 ? Hell, you don't even know much about tennis in the past, forget about present day tennis ....

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Dibbs was around 8 to 10.Ferrer is nº 5 so, make your acounts and see the difference.Even a clueless newtard like you can still see it¡¡

Click to expand...

kiki said:

who are Youznhy and Gasquet? where did they come from?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

the are tennis players and good ones at that , but again, like I said ......

but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis .....

now are you gonna argue Vijay was a better player than Tsonga, Ferrer etc ? really ? LOL !!!!

Click to expand...

egn said:

This is where this came from. Tsonga and Ferrer wouldn't be top 30. I wasted my time talking to you. I'm just dying in laughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0iKmRkgbA

Watch that, and then just stop posting ridiculous statements. Tsonga is arguably one of the most talented players out there, with great shotmaking abilities. You want me to believe Amritraj is better...Tsonga has made three major semifinals and has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in majors. You can't say that Tsonga would not be top 30 in the 70s because he would struggle against Amritrag, Dibbs and Gildemeister! Are you serious Gildemeister!?!?! If it's not clay I don't see Gildemeister even coming close..

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Talent wise, Amritraj was head and shoulders over the spanish midget and above Tsonga ( but IMO Tsonga is far better than Ferrer)...but, you know the difference? a player like Amritraj idn´t get any better than nº 20 or so, while a Tsonga or a Ferrer are eprmanent top 5 or top 6 memebers.

Can you now, finally, definitely understand why Amritraj played in the GOLDEN ERA and Ferrer and Tsonga play in one of the weakest ever eras?

My applause¡¡¡ you finally GOT IT

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Ah, you are unbelievably dense , kiki, even more than I had originally thought ...

Vijay was a talented player, but very streaky , which is why he didn't get to more than #16 in the world ..... not because of the era strength .........

VJ - win loss record of 393-303, win loss % = 56.4% , with best of 2 QFs ( USO, wim )
Tsonga- 200-89, win loss % = 69.2% ( AO final & SF, wim SF )
Ferrer - win loss record of 425-232, win loss % = 64.7% ( AO and USO SF , YEC final)

Ferrer and Tsonga are by some distance better . There is no comparison really

Click to expand...

kiki said:

And which % do you think Ferrer would have had in the golden era? and Tsonga? and ...¡¡¡ Bagdhatis ???

Click to expand...

abmk said:

I don't think that was the golden era at all . "Golden" era is more like 1985-90 IMO .....

I think the winning % for ferrer, tsonga or others would have been more or less the same , don't see that much of a difference in the strength of the eras ......

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Wrong.Golden era is the 70´s and 80´s, with late 70´s and early 80´s as its peak.

How many slams won by others not called Nadal,Federer and now Djokovic?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Lulz, early 80s had a burnout borg, a choker Lendl, a Mac who lost quite a bit of interest once borg went out ..... Only "consolation" was a resurgent connors ( once borg left )

85 to 90 had Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg at the top, with Mac, Curren, Mecir, Cash,young Agassi,Connors,Leconte, Gomez,young Chang, young Sampras etc still in the mix

What is the point of your second question ? If you are saying its because the other players are not strong, I'd say that's not correct, its because these 3 are just that dominant

Click to expand...

kiki said:

When did you first watched live tennis? it is not interesting to talk when the other poster has not had the same experience of you.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Why is today a weak era? simply, because nobody has deplaced Murray from his nº 4 position, and Murray has no champions stature, as we all know.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

No, he beat Lendl again on fast indoors.I didn´t say Ferrer was a bad player, he is one of the best right know.Only that his talent would be average in the golden era.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

I watched live tennis since the 90s, but have watched many matches of the 80s ad before ....Its 'interesting" talking to you because frankly you had very little factual knowledge of tennis of any era ( holds even more true for the modern era ), yet keep on talking , making one delusional statement after the other !! Gotta admire that "courage" or whatever you want to call it ......



Lulz, and Lendl had a champion's stature before 84 FO final ????? Remember he was #2 at that point ..... If anything Lendl's situation was worse !

Click to expand...

kiki said:

When did you first watched live tennis? it is not interesting to talk when the other poster has not had the same experience of you.

Why is today a weak era? simply, because nobody has deplaced Murray from his nº 4 position, and Murray has no champions stature, as we all know.

Click to expand...

egn said:

So when Lendl reached no.1 without reaching a major what does that mean?

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Lendl has won much more than Murray.How old Murray is now?

Sorry you have seen so liitle tennis¡¡ you don´t even know what the Golden Era is¡¡¡¡ LOOOOLL

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Lendl has won much more than Murray.How old Murray is now?

Sorry you have seen so liitle tennis¡¡ you don´t even know what the Golden Era is¡¡¡¡ LOOOOLL

Click to expand...

egn said:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M038&oId=L018

-__- where is that second win.

You still expect me to believe that Gene Mayer, Eddie Dibbs and Teltscher (not Teacher) would be able to make top 10 and top 5 but Ferrer would not be able to. Even though Ferrer follows a similar format to 70s-90s claycourters with that grind and never die attitude, excellent fitness and a quick compact service motion that can pack a punch for his small size.

Click to expand...

egn said:

Lendl won his first major at 24...Murray is 24....hmmm

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Lulz, and you claim to have seen so much tennis, don't know much about it at all .....

Yes, Lendl has won far more than Murray, but that was mainly from 85 onwards, the period which I referred to ..... bah !

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Ever seen peak Hans?

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Teacher would certainly not.Ferrer would rwach eventually the top 10.I think he could win as much as Solomon,Higueras or Dibbs.or Corrado Barazutti, for that mather

Click to expand...

egn said:

Only Hans match I watched in full was the 78 QF against Vilas. He played a great match and lost in 5 sets against a player who was really good but had a bloated slam count due to the depleted field of the Australian Open because two grass majors for Vilas I think we can all agree is absurd. I'd say that was the best match Hans ever played. However it still wasn't enough. Besides maybe I'm against him also cause he had that awkward two handed forehand at moments and I was never a fan of double handed on both wings.

Click to expand...

egn said:

But Teacher and Teltscher both did -__- and I will live with that. Thats all I was really getting at. I think it's ridiculous to say Ferrer would not be a capable top 10 pushing top 5 player in any era. He's a very talented player.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

With each passing post, your cluelessness surprises me more and more.Lendl had won the Masters 2 or 3 times, plus WCT Finals before he won, at 24 his first slam.I don´t know how old is Murray, but I hope he is no older than 23...

You have proved that, at most, you saw tennis from 1990´s on.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

I never saw Budge,Tilden or Gonzales but I have some respect for them and try to know about them before giving my opinion.You are a tennis netard, definitley

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Jeez , clueless kiki, learn to read ....

Lendl was winning titles left-right in 82-84 ( even going 7-0 vs Mac at one point ), but he was a bigger "choker" than Murray at that point because of that precisely , he couldn't do it at the majors... That's what I meant ......

He won the major ones from 85 onwards mainly .....



forget about Budge, Tilden, Gonzales whom you never saw ...... You don't even know much about those you supposedly saw ......

You don't know how old Murray ??? Jeez, that's surprising !!!!!!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

kiki said:

But I know what the Golden Era was¡¡¡ and if I don´t know Murray´s age is becasue I couldn´t be less interested in him, which, of course, is not the case of you high school boys that keep staining Federer´s and Djokovich´s posters before falling asleep.LOL

Click to expand...

kiki said:

He played his best tennis in 1979 and early 80.But, yes, his first big match was probably that 5 setter against one of the all time great clay courters...

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Teacher would certainly not.Ferrer would rwach eventually the top 10.I think he could win as much as Solomon,Higueras or Dibbs.or Corrado Barazutti, for that mather

Click to expand...

kiki said:

This was so competitive 1970, 1971, even 1972 and 1973, never the top guys have been more competitive.You had 8 or 10 players going ate ach other and all of them of the highest quality.For instance, Ferrer,Fish or Tsonga, in that field would hardly make the top 30...

Click to expand...

abmk said:

But of course, you probably only watched tennis for those 3-4 years, declared it as the golden era, then didn't/don't watch tennis at all for the rest of the years , yet dismiss the possibility that another era was better ....

The lesser said about your cluelessness of the modern era, the better ....Oh wait, that's not true. Its nice to have fun at your expense !!!!

Click to expand...

egn said:

Yes this is true Hans did reach his highest ranking in the 80s but that was still his best performance by far

Click to expand...

kiki said:

I hope they won´t make an IT test in TT...I´d miss you so much for the great laughters as I miss Joe Pike for the same.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Oh, yes ...... Of course, you are confident you are going to fail that IT test, right ? :lol:

Go ahead, Kiki, you are just making a mockery of yourself time and again. About time you actually watched some tennis !

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Lulz, early 80s had a burnout borg, a choker Lendl, a Mac who lost quite a bit of interest once borg went out ..... Only "consolation" was a resurgent connors ( once borg left )

Click to expand...

kiki said:

I can forget more tennis than you´ll ever be able to sink in, my boy.

But keep on posting, your pathetic ignorance and *******ism are unmatched on TT...and there are so many pathetic and ignorant posters over here¡¡¡

Click to expand...

Doug_Hartley_2012 said:

I used to be in fairly frequent contact with Robert Geist when I was working on a history of pro tennis a bit over ten years ago. My day job made it slow going and Joe McAuley's statistical history basically shut the door. However I would have been quick to tell Robert that a three way tie for ANY season is simple not tenable, nor is it justified for the 1970 season. It was a transitional and indeed somewhat chaotic period between the advent of Open tennis in mid 1968 until 1975 and a succession of boycotts and restraint of trade meant that Majors and the Davis Cup were seriously and frequently devalued.

I'd also caution you against taking any player's comment on other players too seriously. Newk's comment about Laver in 1970 may have been a bit coloured by Rosewall being his closest rival that season, not to mention utterly frustrating him a few years later in 1974 when he was desperate to prove he was better than Connors.

And you can't apply 2012 practices and assumptions to 1970 - just does not work. There was no single tour. No 'points'. No computer. No concept of tiers other than there was the Big 4 Majors and the rest. You can only rank Laver number 1 in 1970 on dollar earnings or 'blind' tournament results that ignore their stature or significance at the time. To do so would be to apply a totally different standard to any other season and to ignore assessments of the time. Laver started the year as reigning Grand Slam holder but was never to reach the quarterfinals of a Major ever again. His Major form simply deserted him.

Newcombe had a strong case. He won Wimbledon, which was good enough for many commentators 1970 or otherwise get top spot. However in 1970 the guy he beat in 5s in the final crushed him in straight sets in the US semis and won that title. So it was a bit ofa toss up. The prestigious Martini and Rossi award for Player of the year was given to Rosewall and that, to my mind settles it. Laver achieved absolutely nothing - zip - hear that silence at the Majors and was simply not in contention. You also have to consider the enormity of the fall from his 1969 form to appreciate how sudden and inexplicable and underwhelming his 1970 season was.

And yet, as late as the US Open, he was still seeded 1. His form in other tournaments and last year's Grand Slam had organisers convinced Laver must break out of slump in a big way soon. And yet all he could manage were two wins against minor Aussie players prior to losing to Ralston who in turn lost his next match. That half of the draw was won by Roche and Richey and the other half by Rosewall and Newcombe. And of course Rosewall as we know trounced Newk and won the whole thing.

Some trivia - Roy Emerson also performed superbly in the non Majors and was seeded 5 at the US Open. Despite progressing as far as Laver in the draw - the last 16 - and going down in four close sets to Stan Smith, who would win the title the following year, he wasn't even ranked in the top 10 at season's end. I have an issue with that on general tournament form but, in terms of how rankings were based then ie Majors achievements he fell short bigtime as well.

1970 has its similarities with 1977 and perhaps 1998 as well, in terms of different players excelling by different measures. However, I maintain pole position must involve winning at least one Major assuming no boycotts and take account of the views of experts of the time. Laver was disappointing in 1970 and it basically comes down to Newcombe or Rosewall on the basis of their victories at Wimbledon and the US Open. Re the Dunlop Open in Sydney ie the so-called 'alternative AO' in 1970, Laver did defeat Rosewall in a come from behind 5s tussle decided by a single service break in the 5th. Hardly gets him ahead of Rosewall in my book but worth noting perhaps that Newcombe was nailed in the second round of this 32 draw event.

Bud Collins ranked Newcombe at 1 as did Lance Tingay who qualified it as 'by a fraction'and perhaps was talking more about weighting Wimbledon a bit more important than Forest Hills. That was counterbalanced by Rosewall winning the prestigious Martini and Rossi player of the year award and being featured on the cover, together with lead article, of World of Tennis'71.

Click to expand...

CyBorg said:

The "Mac losing interest" story is particularly dumb. I know where it came from. In an interview, Mac once said that Borg's retirement caused him to play worse and results faltered.

But Mac is a notoriously unreliable narrator. First of all, he's a dunce. Second of all, he makes excuses all the time. Consider this:

Borg didn't retire officially until the spring of 1983. Shouldn't Mac have struggled after this occurred? No. Mac had a great year in 1983 and a super one in 1984. Mac played badly in 1982, when Borg was working on coming back to play.

So can we please just stop repeating this piece of historical nonsense? Mac is just making an excuse for his struggles.

Click to expand...