Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2017

Ivan69 said:
Hey, Bobby! I just wondered where are you. I expected your objections much earlier. To the point:
1. About 1970 - a small statistics. Laver - 15 titles (of which 7 titles type Masters 1000), Newcombe - 4 titles (of which 1 slam, the other are small), Rosewall - 6 titles (of which 1 slam, the other are small). If you count only slams for your ranking maybe you are right. But in any ranking you would have 7 big majors much higher than 1 slam. I can't even imagine how you have chosen Roche (1 big title in Boston, the other 3 small)!!!
2. About the positive - thanks. In fact I really don't have any favourite players. When I started with the info I really didn't expected that figures for Rosewall. I thought that will be Laver.
3. About the negative - I wrote in a previous post. Some of your additional criteria (GS, year-end ranking) are acceptable for me. I have so far no idea how to evaluate those criteria as points in order to add them to the results. Please have in mind that if even these additional criteria would be added the overall picture would be not totally changed. Up to me the other mentioned criteria are non relative to the ranking, because they are subjective and not measurable. Everybody will argue with you why this is so, but not different.

That's why I am asking you again - give me some ideas how to evaluate the Grand Slams and the year-end rankings.

Ivan, As I have explained to a few other posters here: Laver could have won 25 tournaments in 1970 - the top experts would not have ranked him as No.1 that year. They actually considered the big major tournaments (Wimbledon and US Open) much higher than all the Laver wins including his wins in rather big events.

Please note: It was not me who ranked Roche ahead of Laver! It was Bud Collins who was Laver's best tennis friend.

It's a pity that you don't accept those additional categories (only Grand Slam and year-end rankings) and that you totally ignore playing strength which leads to disastrous results, especially when valuing pros vs. amateurs.

Did you know that the two best amateurs of 1958, Cooper and Anderson, did not win a single match in the world series of 1959 against pro Gonzalez?

If you would widen your methodology and add those important other criteria you would get to a much more realistic picture of tennis history and your general list and year lists would change dramatically. Thus Gonzalez would increase, Borg would lose his shameful low place, Emerson would decrease to his true place, and so on.

Percentages of winning matches, tournaments and regarding the whole career is NOT a subjective criterion. They are a main reason why I rank Borg as high as No.6 in my all-time list. End-year No.1 places are also not subjective. I concede that's difficult to decide how many extra points a player should get for realizing the Grand Slam. But you can't measure mathematically until the last point if you value a player. That's also the reason why for several years it is impossible to decide between the two or three best players. Only NatF and you seem to be able to make a clear decision between Gonzalez and Hoad in 1959, between Rosewall and Gonzalez in 1961, between Nastase and Newcombe in 1973, and so on...

Dan Lobb · Aug 22, 2017

thrust said:
Nonsense! The French Pro, Wembley, and the US Pro are the official Pro slams, whether you want to accept that Fact or not. Wembley and French Pro were always considered superior to the US Pro till 63. Another fact you cannot except. Too Bad! The Tennisbase tells it all, fairly and impartially, deal with it!

No, they are certainly not the "official" slams, far from it.

Kramer designated the four pre-eminent tournaments on the pro tour as Forest Hills, LA Masters, Kooyong and Sydney. These had priority over the others.

Your "facts" are actually "fancy"....why am I not surprised by that?

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2017

Ivan69 said:
Disagree. You are too radical and prejudiced towards the amat division. No doubt, the pro players have had more dominance, but we have to respect some players like Parker, Drobny, Newcombe, Emerson. Perry in 1941 is far away from No 1 (US Pro and New York only). Budge had won 2 big World Tours versus Riggs and Tilden. No comment! In 1942 Budge has only 1 title only (US Pro). Impossible to be No 1! About Segura and Pails you probably don't have their achievements.
About 1962 the things are more discussable, it is not such clear.

Ivan, I respect the best amateurs and give them their due as the best tier 2 and tier 3 players. I do know that almost all top amateurs, after turning pro, have improved significantly.

Newcombe was the amateur No.1 in 1967 but after turning pro and being a year older he did not reach the top 5 overall even though the old pros Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez and Stolle became oldies.

Perry is the clear No.1 for 1941 as he won almost all pro tournaments. Budge won no tournament. Budge did not win a big World Tour in 1941 against Riggs because Riggs was an amateur!

Budge was the clear No.1 in 1942 winning the US Pro and the world tour!

Segura was not even tops among the (American) amateurs. How can he be a top three player generally? Pails was only 6th in his best year (6th among the amateurs only)!

1962 is a very clear year as Rosewall won about all he entered including Kramer Cup. It's maybe Ken's best year at all!

I will end now the discussion with you because it's senseless as we live in two far away worlds: There cannot be any compromise regarding the pro/amateur problem and regarding the criteria problem. Hope I will experience an improved Ivan in a few moths from now. I also was forced to change some opinions during my career as tennis historian (a career of about 45 years)...

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
No, they are certainly not the "official" slams, far from it.

Kramer designated the four pre-eminent tournaments on the pro tour as Forest Hills, LA Masters, Kooyong and Sydney. These had priority over the others.

Your "facts" are actually "fancy"....why am I not surprised by that?

Dan Lobb, You are not surprised that other posters' arguments are fancy because every person who lives in a dreamland believes that all the people who think in a reasonable way are mentally ill...

You are claiming the same nonsense hundred times and are hoping it will become reasonable one day. Albert Einstein once has characterized such poor people in a sharp way...

BobbyOne · Aug 22, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
The French Pro at RG was outside the pro tour, managed by outside interests. The players did not get a share of the profits. That is why the pros moved to Stade Coubertin in 1963, where the players could control the revenues.
The same was true at Wembley, where local interests controlled the revenues. In addition, Wembley lacked stature as a venue.
Both RG and Wembley advertised themselves as "World Championships", but neither one was on the pro tour....what did Shakespeare say, "Me thinks that thou doeth protest too much."
Forest Hills never advertised itself as the world championship, but was acclaimed as such by the media and players.

Forest Hills, whether "US Pro" or otherwise, was always the most prestigious pro venue, and was often thought of as the true world pro championship.

Curious Dan, I just found out that the winner of the 1959 Wembley tournament got 1000 British Pounds. Your claim was wrong! Wembley gave fine prize-money every year.

Ivan69 · Aug 22, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Ivan, We will never agree because we have two methodologies that are very different: You are going only by counting points for tournaments; I'm going by considering several more categories. Thus we come to totally different results.

I don't rank on sympathies.

Newcombe was generally ranked at No.1 or No. 2 in 1973 because he won the most important tournament of the year, also the AO and the important Davis Cup.

Your valuation of Emerson is totally wrong because your valuation of the amateurs generally (at least after 1947) is totally wrong. You have not yet understood the huge difference in playing strength between the top pros and the top amateurs. French magazine "L'Equipe" once (I believe in 1959) made a year's ranking and ranked only pros for the top ten or eleven places.

You ignored statements from fellow posters that Rod Laver who had the best amateur season ever was demolished by Rosewall and Hoad after turning pro. As told Laver wanted to become the best player of the world and therefore turned pro. He knew after his grandious 1962 season that he was behind the top pros (Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad and maybe a few others).

All serious tennis experts agree that the pro majors were superior than the amateur majors because the pros had the top five players mostly while the amateurs had the second tier players (albeit still excellent players).

Bobby, you are probably not well aware of the H2H statistics. Let me give you some data:
Laver-Rosewall rivalry - only in 1963 Rosewall has had a dominance - 37-13. Please have in mind that Laver was a pretty young player (24) coming to the pro. Except 1963 a full dominance of Rod (1964 - 17-6, 1965 - 15-7, 1966 - 9-8, 1967 - 8-5, 1968 - 5-2, 1969 - 8-1, etc...) in total 87-73

Laver-Pancho rivalry - 1964 - 5-7, 1965 - 9-4, 1966 - 2-4, 1967 - 9-2, 1968 - 8-2, 1969 - 7-0, etc.... in TOTAL 42-22

Laver-Hoad rivalry - 1963 - 7-11, 1964 - 17-5, 1965 - 6-1, 1966 - 11-3, 1967 - 1-0 ... in TOTAL 42-20

So Bobby this "weak" amateur Rod was not much behind the pros and proofed very fast to be better than them in the H2H matches. Its a matter of sport qualities, Bobby, not the division. Also good players were Emerson, Newcombe, Drobny, Parker no matter you accept that or not.

Ivan69 · Aug 22, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Ivan, I respect the best amateurs and give them their due as the best tier 2 and tier 3 players. I do know that almost all top amateurs, after turning pro, have improved significantly.

Newcombe was the amateur No.1 in 1967 but after turning pro and being a year older he did not reach the top 5 overall even though the old pros Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez and Stolle became oldies.

Perry is the clear No.1 for 1941 as he won almost all pro tournaments. Budge won no tournament. Budge did not win a big World Tour in 1941 against Riggs because Riggs was an amateur!

Budge was the clear No.1 in 1942 winning the US Pro and the world tour!

Segura was not even tops among the (American) amateurs. How can he be a top three player generally? Pails was only 6th in his best year (6th among the amateurs only)!

1962 is a very clear year as Rosewall won about all he entered including Kramer Cup. It's maybe Ken's best year at all!

I will end now the discussion with you because it's senseless as we live in two far away worlds: There cannot be any compromise regarding the pro/amateur problem and regarding the criteria problem. Hope I will experience an improved Ivan in a few moths from now. I also was forced to change some opinions during my career as tennis historian (a career of about 45 years)...

Sorry to hear you are a tennis historian for 45 years. You misses so much info from the tennis history. Budge has won both world tournaments - started on 6 Jan 1941 and 26 Dec 1941. Bobby Riggs attended in the second tour and this was his first pro participation. Riggs has had 28 won matches in this tour. Very bad not to know that.

Ivan69 · Aug 22, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Ivan, I respect the best amateurs and give them their due as the best tier 2 and tier 3 players. I do know that almost all top amateurs, after turning pro, have improved significantly.

Newcombe was the amateur No.1 in 1967 but after turning pro and being a year older he did not reach the top 5 overall even though the old pros Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez and Stolle became oldies.

Perry is the clear No.1 for 1941 as he won almost all pro tournaments. Budge won no tournament. Budge did not win a big World Tour in 1941 against Riggs because Riggs was an amateur!

Budge was the clear No.1 in 1942 winning the US Pro and the world tour!

Segura was not even tops among the (American) amateurs. How can he be a top three player generally? Pails was only 6th in his best year (6th among the amateurs only)!

1962 is a very clear year as Rosewall won about all he entered including Kramer Cup. It's maybe Ken's best year at all!

I will end now the discussion with you because it's senseless as we live in two far away worlds: There cannot be any compromise regarding the pro/amateur problem and regarding the criteria problem. Hope I will experience an improved Ivan in a few moths from now. I also was forced to change some opinions during my career as tennis historian (a career of about 45 years)...

One clarification - Budge has won 2 world tours, but not 2 world tournaments. Technical mistake.

Drob · Aug 22, 2017

NatF said:
I see the arguments from both sides. On the one hand I understand limiting the numbers of majors each year to simply the very top events, on the other I'm very much a believer in giving credit to overcoming tough draws (and great series of wins) regardless of the 'level' of the event. In the case of the Pro Majors where the format doesn't stand atop the game like today's majors it's obviously much easier to pick other events to rival them. TBH I'm not sure exactly which way I swing.

I am not either. I am not even quite sure whose post to respond to. But this idea of determining a relative value by each tournament is troubling.

You mention overwhelming draws in non-majors, I guess meaning great success in overwhelming draws - a few pro round robins basically. Not counting the
TOCs which are majors, I found maybe A half-dozen such - where one player really cleaned up in a five or six-match RR, and maybe add the heavy 4-round US Pro Indoor in 1964, but that is probably me shilling for Gorgo.

Very difficult to put into relief those Pro Majors that should be given equal credit to a good Open Major but there are some, including US Pros of '32, 34, 47, 48, 50, 51; Wembley of ' 34, '52, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62 and French Pro of '59, 60, 61.

But I also looked at it another way, which I will show in the following post.

Drob · Aug 22, 2017

Here is another way I looked at the problem:

I took Gorgo,Muscles and Rocket, Pro Slams to 1967 only (including Wimbledon Pro) and the number of times they beat a probable all-time top 50 player en route to victory at the Slam - only en route to a title. Then I did the same for the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. I will get called out for being off by a match here or there, and the methodology suffers because I am confining the first group to their Pro careers, but that is the point. this is the broad brush:

Rosewall: Kramer (3); segura (4); Sedgman (2); Hoad (6); Gimeno (3); Trabert (2); Laver (6); Gorgo (1)

Gonzalez: Kramer (3); Segura (8); Sedgman (8); Trabert (5); Rosewall (2); Hoad (3)

Laver: Gorgo (2); Rosewall (6); Gimeno (4); Sedgman (1)

Federer: Nadal (3); Nole (4); Murray (3); Warwinka (1); del Potro (1); Agassi (1); Safin (2); Hewitt (5)

Nadal: Fed (7); Nole (8); Murray (4); DelPo (1); Stan (2)

Djokovic: Fed (7); Nadal (3); Murray (6); Warwinka (2)

Drob · Aug 22, 2017

Fe de errata

Nadal also had 3 wins over Hewitt en route to Slam and Nole one before Hewitt became a complete journeyman.

NatF · Aug 23, 2017

Drob said:
Here is another way I looked at the problem:

I took Gorgo,Muscles and Rocket, Pro Slams to 1967 only (including Wimbledon Pro) and the number of times they beat a probable all-time top 50 player en route to victory at the Slam - only en route to a title. Then I did the same for the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. I will get called out for being off by a match here or there, and the methodology suffers because I am confining the first group to their Pro careers, but that is the point. this is the broad brush:

Rosewall: Kramer (3); segura (4); Sedgman (2); Hoad (6); Gimeno (3); Trabert (2); Laver (6); Gorgo (1)

Gonzalez: Kramer (3); Segura (8); Sedgman (8); Trabert (5); Rosewall (2); Hoad (3)

Laver: Gorgo (2); Rosewall (6); Gimeno (4); Sedgman (1)

Federer: Nadal (3); Nole (4); Murray (3); Warwinka (1); del Potro (1); Agassi (1); Safin (2); Hewitt (5)

Nadal: Fed (7); Nole (8); Murray (4); DelPo (1); Stan (2)

Djokovic: Fed (7); Nadal (3); Murray (6); Warwinka (2)

Drob said:
Fe de errata

Nadal also had 3 wins over Hewitt en route to Slam and Nole one before Hewitt became a complete journeyman.

I'll try to respond to your other posts but I'll do this one first.

I don't really like this method, because it completely ignores form. Also I find it odd that Del Potro is a top 50 player but Roddick isn't? Also Federer has 2 wins over Agassi.

For example it looks like beating Djokovic in 2006 at the FO counts for more than beating Roddick at Wimbledon in 2009 or 2004, in actual fact Roddick probably played better in those matches than probably most of Murray's and some of Djokovic/Nadal's finals as well. I don't think beating a subpar Djokovic in 2013 at the USO is more impressive than Roddick at the USO in 2006 or 2007. Also defeating Murray before he became a truly great player (especially on clay) is not a great victory.

Define a complete journeyman for Hewitt? He was outside the top 10 for good after 2005 due to injuries. He played a good match against Nadal at the FO in 2006 but otherwise I don't think he really played up to his previous standards in any slam losses to those guys.

Basically I find this too superficial. If Federer had been only as good at Wimbledon and the USO as say Djokovic, Roddick would have probably been a multiple time champion and made this list for example.

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Here is a list of proposed pro majors, I have excluded indoor tournaments, which are by their nature less prestigious than the major venues.
Also excluded are tournaments outside the pro tour.

Forest Hills

1942 (Budge) 1946 (Riggs) 1947 (Riggs) 1948 (Kramer) 1951 (Segura) 1957 (Gonzales) 1958 (Gonzales) 1959 (Hoad) 1963 (Rosewall) 1966 (Laver)

Wimbledon

1967 (Laver)

Kooyong

1958 (Hoad) 1960 (Hoad) 1962 (Rosewall)

White City

1957 (Segura) 1958 (Sedgman) 1959 (Gonzales)

Longwood

1964 (Laver) 1965 (Rosewall) 1966 (Laver) 1967 (Laver) 1968 (Laver)

In my designation, there are only 22 pro tournaments worthy of "major" status, I do not accept indoor events or events outside the pro tour, even if they advertise themselves as "world championships".

Player totals:

Budge 1
Riggs 2
Kramer 1
Segura 2
Gonzales 3
Sedgman 1
Hoad 3
Rosewall 3
Laver 6

NatF · Aug 23, 2017

Drob said:
I am not either. I am not even quite sure whose post to respond to. But this idea of determining a relative value by each tournament is troubling.

You mention overwhelming draws in non-majors, I guess meaning great success in overwhelming draws - a few pro round robins basically. Not counting the
TOCs which are majors, I found maybe A half-dozen such - where one player really cleaned up in a five or six-match RR, and maybe add the heavy 4-round US Pro Indoor in 1964, but that is probably me shilling for Gorgo.

Very difficult to put into relief those Pro Majors that should be given equal credit to a good Open Major but there are some, including US Pros of '32, 34, 47, 48, 50, 51; Wembley of ' 34, '52, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62 and French Pro of '59, 60, 61.

But I also looked at it another way, which I will show in the following post.

I agree that looking at each individual tournament is impractical and obviously going to be subject to a level of a bias. I wasn't necessarily thinking of just the pro's when I said overcoming tough draws. I was thinking of tournaments like say Hamburg in 2004, where Federer beat Gaudio, Lapentti, Gonzo, Moya, Hewitt and Coria (BO5 final) in a row on clay. That's a tough draw. Or in a 500 level event like Rottadam 2004 where Hewitt defeated Gonzo, Johansson, Schuettler, Henman and Ferrero, that Rottadam draw would be tough even for a masters event - Ferrero played extremely well in the final too.

I think there needs to be a degree of granularity in these discussions but I also know that's impossible to do it fairly across the board without watching every single match. But even if we can only do it some of the time it's worth talking about in terms of intangibles.

thrust · Aug 23, 2017

Ivan69 said:
Bobby, you are probably not well aware of the H2H statistics. Let me give you some data:
Laver-Rosewall rivalry - only in 1963 Rosewall has had a dominance - 37-13. Please have in mind that Laver was a pretty young player (24) coming to the pro. Except 1963 a full dominance of Rod (1964 - 17-6, 1965 - 15-7, 1966 - 9-8, 1967 - 8-5, 1968 - 5-2, 1969 - 8-1, etc...) in total 87-73

Laver-Pancho rivalry - 1964 - 5-7, 1965 - 9-4, 1966 - 2-4, 1967 - 9-2, 1968 - 8-2, 1969 - 7-0, etc.... in TOTAL 42-22

Laver-Hoad rivalry - 1963 - 7-11, 1964 - 17-5, 1965 - 6-1, 1966 - 11-3, 1967 - 1-0 ... in TOTAL 42-20

So Bobby this "weak" amateur Rod was not much behind the pros and proofed very fast to be better than them in the H2H matches. Its a matter of sport qualities, Bobby, not the division. Also good players were Emerson, Newcombe, Drobny, Parker no matter you accept that or not.

Laver was an exceptionally great amateur player, which is why he was able to do so well soon after he joined the pro tour. If Laver was 24 when he joined the pro tour, then he was at the beginning of a tennis players prim, usually 24-29 back then. Rosewall and Hoad were 28-29 in 63, Gonzalez was 34-35. Though the pros had the advantage in 63, each year after that Rod had the age advantage, especially against Gonzalez. Though Rod had the overall H-H against Rosewall, Ken was able to hold his own against Rod in the big matches until Ken was nearly 38 years old. I do rate Laver over Rosewall as an all time great, but not by as much as most ignorant, so called experts do

deacsyoga · Aug 23, 2017

thrust said:
Ken was able to hold his own against Rod in the big matches until Ken was nearly 38 years old.

At which point Laver himself was also well into his 30s. Yes Ken was still significantly older, but lets not mislead that 38 year old Ken was facing prime Laver.

And Rosewall might well be the best ever in "longevity" (although Tilden and Gonzales also have a case) so it isnt surprising even as an older player he still was competitive vs anyone. It isnt sufficient to compensate for his much shorter reign on top, and his lower peak playing level relative to people like Laver, Gonzales, Hoad (even though I still rank him over Hoad).

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

NatF said:
I agree that looking at each individual tournament is impractical and obviously going to be subject to a level of a bias. I wasn't necessarily thinking of just the pro's when I said overcoming tough draws. I was thinking of tournaments like say Hamburg in 2004, where Federer beat Gaudio, Lapentti, Gonzo, Moya, Hewitt and Coria (BO5 final) in a row on clay. That's a tough draw. Or in a 500 level event like Rottadam 2004 where Hewitt defeated Gonzo, Johansson, Schuettler, Henman and Ferrero, that Rottadam draw would be tough even for a masters event - Ferrero played extremely well in the final too.

I think there needs to be a degree of granularity in these discussions but I also know that's impossible to do it fairly across the board without watching every single match. But even if we can only do it some of the time it's worth talking about in terms of intangibles.

I would think that with computers today a person could analyze the schedule year by year and see how strong a year they had and how much they accomplished if you look at caliber of competition, won lost record and amount of matches played. You just have to input the parameters on what is the definition of strong competition. Perhaps you could go by the year end ranking of the competition in question? Perhaps it would be a combination of factors. I'm sure we have to use some combination or else there would be some flaws.

Lets say every player on the ATP tour plays at the exact same level all the time except for two players and these two never play each other. So in theory that one player's which I'll call player "A" level of player on average would be determined by his percentage won/lost record. If "A" went 49-1 that would be better than 38-12 for average level of play. However for cumulative performance another player (Player "B") who went 97-3 for the year would be superior to player "A" but he didn't play at an average level of player as player "A" and in that area he would be inferior.

There probably is some sort of primitive way we can evaluate that even now.

The main goal of looking at the amount of majors won is when experts and regular fans discuss how player's rank compared to others in history. I don't think counting majors is the only factor. It is just one of many but it is the easier to figure out and simpliest for the fans. It of course doesn't take into account the old amateur/pro divide among many things.

Essentially the media is discussing who is the GOAT in tennis. They do the same in golf and other sports. Jack Nicklaus and TIger Woods are often called the GOATs because they won the most majors or are high up their in majors.

The problem with majors counting of course is that it ignores most of the tennis year and also it forgets about important events like the World Championship Tours and perhaps some other tournaments that may possibly be bigger than some classic majors or Pro Majors.

NatF, as you wrote earlier perhaps a 500 level tournament could have at times a tougher schedule for a player than a Master's 1000.

The easy way to work it is to look at quality of schedule and figure out the percentage level of play and the cumulative amount achieve for the year. That's at least a start. You can go from there to career evaluation.

However analyzing quality of schedule is tough in many years in the past. Laver's 1962 season was great but at least for level of play Rosewall's 1962 season was better. They played on a totally different circuit and you wouldn't know unless they played. Rosewall then slaughtered Laver in 1963 to at least show partially that Rosewall played at a higher level in 1963 and probably in 1962. What was almost considered FACT in those days was that the Old Pro Tour was clearly superior to the amateur tour. How much is up for debate. If would could figure out the difference in the levels of play on the two tours we could evaluate it better.

thrust · Aug 23, 2017

deacsyoga said:
At which point Laver himself was also well into his 30s. Yes Ken was still significantly older, but lets not mislead that 38 year old Ken was facing prime Laver.

And Rosewall might well be the best ever in "longevity" (although Tilden and Gonzales also have a case) so it isnt surprising even as an older player he still was competitive vs anyone. It isnt sufficient to compensate for his much shorter reign on top, and his lower peak playing level relative to people like Laver, Gonzales, Hoad (even though I still rank him over Hoad).

In any sport, especially tennis, a four year age difference is a big deal especially 33-37. Obviously neither Ken or Rod were at their peak in 71-72, but Rod was closer to his prime years than Ken was. Gonzalez won his last pro slam, the US Pro at age 33 which in that year was a best 3, even in the finals. Ken won open era slams at 33, 35, 36 and 37. He won his 2 WCT titles after turning 37.

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

thrust said:
Laver was an exceptionally great amateur player, which is why he was able to do so well soon after he joined the pro tour. If Laver was 24 when he joined the pro tour, then he was at the beginning of a tennis players prim, usually 24-29 back then. Rosewall and Hoad were 28-29 in 63, Gonzalez was 34-35. Though the pros had the advantage in 63, each year after that Rod had the age advantage, especially against Gonzalez. Though Rod had the overall H-H against Rosewall, Ken was able to hold his own against Rod in the big matches until Ken was nearly 38 years old. I do rate Laver over Rosewall as an all time great, but not by as much as most ignorant, so called experts do

deacsyoga said:
At which point Laver himself was also well into his 30s. Yes Ken was still significantly older, but lets not mislead that 38 year old Ken was facing prime Laver.

And Rosewall might well be the best ever in "longevity" (although Tilden and Gonzales also have a case) so it isnt surprising even as an older player he still was competitive vs anyone. It isnt sufficient to compensate for his much shorter reign on top, and his lower peak playing level relative to people like Laver, Gonzales, Hoad (even though I still rank him over Hoad).

I think a lot of people believed (as I do also) that Rosewall's style, much like Federer's, Connors' and Pancho Gonzalez's is a style that is easier on the body over the long term. Laver's style is a very violent wristy type style. Laver had a number of injuries in his career like an wrist injury from reports in 1968 that bothered him for the rest of his career. He had some bad problems in the 1970s that weakened his serve and overhead immensely. Newcombe wrote that Laver's serve declined enough that players could now attack it. Of course Laver still had a long career anyway but I think his style took more out of him than some others much like Nadal's style imo takes more out of him than Federer's style.

TIlden was also known to have a very smooth style. They compared his footwork to that of a dancer.

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

thrust said:
In any sport, especially tennis, a four year age difference is a big deal especially 33-37. Obviously neither Ken or Rod were at their peak in 71-72, but Rod was closer to his prime years than Ken was. Gonzalez won his last pro slam, the US Pro at age 33 which in that year was a best 3, even in the finals. Ken won open era slams at 33, 35, 36 and 37. He won his 2 WCT titles after turning 37.

It could be the other way around also. Remember in 1963 Rosewall beat Laver easily due to his greater experience with tough competition on the tour. He led Laver at one point 34 to 12 which is actually a good record against average competition.

Gonzalez was actually 6.5 years older than Rosewall but also had the edge on the first tour they had because of his pro experience. After that the experience to me wasn't a big deal.

BobbyOne · Aug 23, 2017

Ivan69 said:
Bobby, you are probably not well aware of the H2H statistics. Let me give you some data:
Laver-Rosewall rivalry - only in 1963 Rosewall has had a dominance - 37-13. Please have in mind that Laver was a pretty young player (24) coming to the pro. Except 1963 a full dominance of Rod (1964 - 17-6, 1965 - 15-7, 1966 - 9-8, 1967 - 8-5, 1968 - 5-2, 1969 - 8-1, etc...) in total 87-73

Laver-Pancho rivalry - 1964 - 5-7, 1965 - 9-4, 1966 - 2-4, 1967 - 9-2, 1968 - 8-2, 1969 - 7-0, etc.... in TOTAL 42-22

Laver-Hoad rivalry - 1963 - 7-11, 1964 - 17-5, 1965 - 6-1, 1966 - 11-3, 1967 - 1-0 ... in TOTAL 42-20

So Bobby this "weak" amateur Rod was not much behind the pros and proofed very fast to be better than them in the H2H matches. Its a matter of sport qualities, Bobby, not the division. Also good players were Emerson, Newcombe, Drobny, Parker no matter you accept that or not.

Ivan, I never wrote that Laver was a weak or "weak" amateur. I even wrote that he had the best amateur season ever. You "forget" that Laver improved significantly in every early pro year! The 1965 Laver would beat the 1962 Laver very clearly!

I never said that Emerson, Parker & Co. have not been good players. But there is a big difference between a top player and a good player!

BobbyOne · Aug 23, 2017

Ivan69 said:
Sorry to hear you are a tennis historian for 45 years. You misses so much info from the tennis history. Budge has won both world tournaments - started on 6 Jan 1941 and 26 Dec 1941. Bobby Riggs attended in the second tour and this was his first pro participation. Riggs has had 28 won matches in this tour. Very bad not to know that.

Ivan, Are you serious or are you crazy??

BobbyOne · Aug 23, 2017

Ivan69 said:
One clarification - Budge has won 2 world tours, but not 2 world tournaments. Technical mistake.

But NOT in 1941!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thrust · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
I think a lot of people believed (as I do also) that Rosewall's style, much like Federer's, Connors' and Pancho Gonzalez's is a style that is easier on the body over the long term. Laver's style is a very violent wristy type style. Laver had a number of injuries in his career like an wrist injury from reports in 1968 that bothered him for the rest of his career. He had some bad problems in the 1970s that weakened his serve and overhead immensely. Newcombe wrote that Laver's serve declined enough that players could now attack it. Of course Laver still had a long career anyway but I think his style took more out of him than some others much like Nadal's style imo takes more out of him than Federer's style.

TIlden was also known to have a very smooth style. They compared his footwork to that of a dancer.

True! I was thinking of Nadal before I read your reference of his game style in your post. Whatever: Gonzalez, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall, Djokovic and Federer did very well with their game styles.

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

thrust said:
True! I was thinking of Nadal before I read your reference of his game style in your post. Whatever: Gonzalez, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall, Djokovic and Federer did very well with their game styles.

Of those players you mentioned I think the three that stand out for style that took the least out of them is Gonzalez, Rosewall and Federer. Vic Braden wrote something to the effect about how Gonzalez's serve was powerful yet it took almost nothing out of him. Here's a quote from Braden's "Tennis 2000" written in 1998 about Gonzalez--What always impressed me about Pancho Gonzalez's serve was not his speed, but the fact that fundamentally he had a . stroke and normally hit with 60 to 70 percent accuracy on his first serve. He didn't have one hitch or one wasted motion; he never made any muscles work against him. He hit the ball harder than anyone, yet his motion was so fluid that he never had upper arm and shoulder problems. At 18-all in the third set, back in the days before the tie-breaker, he would still be hitting rhythmically and throwing in bombs.

Even in the 1960s, when he was winning matches at Wimbledon at the age of forty-one, Gonzalez was still the greatest server in the game because he generated his power with rhythm and the proper use of each body link, rather than brute strength. At the old Madison Square Garden, wrestling mats were hooked up in the corridors downstairs and you could find Pancho warming up there before a match, working on his service motion. He would throw the ball up and just swing nice and easy, trying to make sure there were no hitches in his swing. Sometime he wouldn't even use a ball; he would almost close his eyes and go through the serving motion, trying to sense the rhythm of his swing rather than the isolated movements of his body.

Out on the court, whatever he did while serving or preparing to serve was calculated to keep himself relaxed. He never bounced the ball hard on the court. He never gave his motion excess gyrations. When he walked to the line he would try to shrug his shoulders and shake his arms loose. He looked so calm you would think, "Why doesn't he get excited?" The first time one of my students, Jeff Austin, faced Gorgo's serve, his motion was so easy that Jeff thought Gorgo was going to take it easy on him 'cause he was just a kid. But when Gorgo uncorked the ball right down the middle, Jeff wasn't ready and it scared the heck out of him. I have no doubt Gonzalez would have served in the 140 mph zone with today's racquets. But a bigger issue is that he would have done it with very little force on his shoulder and elbow. In contrast, power servers like Greg Rusedski (143 mph in the 1997 US Open) and Pete Sampras hit with a style that places their shoulder and elbow in great jeopardy.

Gonzalez was also very smooth on his feet. His footwork is comparable to anyone's. Note the Gonzalez easy footwork in the video in his match against Rosewall.

Ivan69 · Aug 23, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Ivan, Are you serious or are you crazy??

Bobby, i am fully serious as ever before. The players of the World Tour started on 26.12.1941 and finished on 05.04.1942. The players attended in this tour were Budge, Riggs, Mako, Kovacs, Perry and Stoefen. 116 matches were played primarily in the USA (7 in Canada) because of the war. Budge had 44 wins, second is Riggs with 28, third is Kovacs with 23, fourth is Perry with 19 etc.

Ivan69 · Aug 23, 2017

BobbyOne said:
But NOT in 1941!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a matter of simple judging in which year to place a tour started in 1941 and finished in 1942. Some other tours were also crossing 2 years. I have chosen to place the tours based on the start year. But its not wrong to place it in the next year.

thrust · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
Of those players you mentioned I think the three that stand out for style that took the least out of them is Gonzalez, Rosewall and Federer. Vic Braden wrote something to the effect about how Gonzalez's serve was powerful yet it took almost nothing out of him. Here's a quote from Braden's "Tennis 2000" written in 1998 about Gonzalez--What always impressed me about Pancho Gonzalez's serve was not his speed, but the fact that fundamentally he had a . stroke and normally hit with 60 to 70 percent accuracy on his first serve. He didn't have one hitch or one wasted motion; he never made any muscles work against him. He hit the ball harder than anyone, yet his motion was so fluid that he never had upper arm and shoulder problems. At 18-all in the third set, back in the days before the tie-breaker, he would still be hitting rhythmically and throwing in bombs.

Even in the 1960s, when he was winning matches at Wimbledon at the age of forty-one, Gonzalez was still the greatest server in the game because he generated his power with rhythm and the proper use of each body link, rather than brute strength. At the old Madison Square Garden, wrestling mats were hooked up in the corridors downstairs and you could find Pancho warming up there before a match, working on his service motion. He would throw the ball up and just swing nice and easy, trying to make sure there were no hitches in his swing. Sometime he wouldn't even use a ball; he would almost close his eyes and go through the serving motion, trying to sense the rhythm of his swing rather than the isolated movements of his body.

Out on the court, whatever he did while serving or preparing to serve was calculated to keep himself relaxed. He never bounced the ball hard on the court. He never gave his motion excess gyrations. When he walked to the line he would try to shrug his shoulders and shake his arms loose. He looked so calm you would think, "Why doesn't he get excited?" The first time one of my students, Jeff Austin, faced Gorgo's serve, his motion was so easy that Jeff thought Gorgo was going to take it easy on him 'cause he was just a kid. But when Gorgo uncorked the ball right down the middle, Jeff wasn't ready and it scared the heck out of him. I have no doubt Gonzalez would have served in the 140 mph zone with today's racquets. But a bigger issue is that he would have done it with very little force on his shoulder and elbow. In contrast, power servers like Greg Rusedski (143 mph in the 1997 US Open) and Pete Sampras hit with a style that places their shoulder and elbow in great jeopardy.

Gonzalez was also very smooth on his feet. His footwork is comparable to anyone's. Note the Gonzalez easy footwork in the video in his match against Rosewall.

I only saw Gonzalez live one time, at Forest Hills around 1970, and I was surprised how little effort he put into his shot making. I expected a more dynamic looking style, but he was able to hit powerful shots with seemingly little effort. As a TV announcer, he was soft spoken and very complimentary to the younger players, especially the women. His personality seemed much softer than he probably was on the pro tour as he was no longer competing-LOL!

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

thrust said:
I only saw Gonzalez live one time, at Forest Hills around 1970, and I was surprised how little effort he put into his shot making. I expected a more dynamic looking style, but he was able to hit powerful shots with seemingly little effort. As a TV announcer, he was soft spoken and very complimentary to the younger players, especially the women. His personality seemed much softer than he probably was on the pro tour as he was no longer competing-LOL!

Well he sure wasn't Laver in terms of dynamic shotmaking according to just about everyone but he didn't have to be in order to be great.

I think of Gonzalez, while dynamic in his own right in other areas was more of the bread-and-butter type player than Laver. First and foremost I suppose in bread and butter was his super serve that many call the greatest ever. Hard for even Laver to hit winners if a guy is hitting huge accurately placed serves against you! Gonzalez was a great athlete also with excellent mobility which also included his superior range at the net with strong volleys combined with touch. He could rally from the baseline with often the object of getting to the net for his superior net game.

He could make nice defensive gets and was a good defensive player.

Limpinhitter · Aug 23, 2017

Drob said:
BobbyOne

You consider Muscles' Wembley/French Pro combos to be Channel Slams? Very interesting idea. I think when it was Wembley and Roland Garros it would be equivalent of the channel slam, but maybe not when both tournaments played indoors. I don't have the years in my head.

BobbyOne I am going to try to open a thread to send you something on the sport with no Majors - look for "Hahnenkamm", hopefully nobody will mind.

Back on the subject of relative value of Majors. Dan Lobb said every pro and amateur slam has to be evaluated on its merit (but I guess maybe not every Open slam, I don't know). Well, it would be too much work even for a committee and ultimately foolish to try to literally do that. But Dan Lobb is on to something. Last year's U.S. Open was relatively weak. Some of the Pro Slams of Kenny and Gorgo and Rocket, et al., sometimes pretty darn strong. Often four matches with three against players that would be consensus top-50 all-time or higher. To say nothing of the first three T.O.C.s.

When I get a moment I will write a post showing some of those events and see whether folks might not agree they are deserving of as much or practically as much credit as most Open Slams. Should be interesting.

In my view, the significance of the Channel Slam is that one event is played on the slowest, highest bouncing surface (clay), and the other event is played on the fastest, lowest bouncing surface (grass), each requiring quite different skills and preferences, within the period of a few weeks.

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
In my view, the significance of the Channel Slam is that one event is played on the slowest, highest bouncing surface (clay), and the other event is played on the fastest, lowest bouncing surface, each requiring quite different skills and preference, within the period of a few weeks.

And don't forget that grass has a lot of bad bounces! Wood is generally a predictable bounce.

The Classic Channel Slam is far tougher imo.

BobbyOne · Aug 23, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
In my view, the significance of the Channel Slam is that one event is played on the slowest, highest bouncing surface (clay), and the other event is played on the fastest, lowest bouncing surface, each requiring quite different skills and preference, within the period of a few weeks.

Limpin, I fully agree.

pc1, Rosewall achieved the "Classic Channel Slam" because he did it already 18 years before Borg did it.

BobbyOne · Aug 23, 2017

Ivan69 said:
Bobby, i am fully serious as ever before. The players of the World Tour started on 26.12.1941 and finished on 05.04.1942. The players attended in this tour were Budge, Riggs, Mako, Kovacs, Perry and Stoefen. 116 matches were played primarily in the USA (7 in Canada) because of the war. Budge had 44 wins, second is Riggs with 28, third is Kovacs with 23, fourth is Perry with 19 etc.

Ivan, You have wrong data. For example Budge won 52 matches.

BobbyOne · Aug 23, 2017

Ivan69 said:
It's a matter of simple judging in which year to place a tour started in 1941 and finished in 1942. Some other tours were also crossing 2 years. I have chosen to place the tours based on the start year. But its not wrong to place it in the next year.

Ivan69, You are the only (non-) expert who puts the tours from the true year to the previous year...

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
It could be the other way around also. Remember in 1963 Rosewall beat Laver easily due to his greater experience with tough competition on the tour. He led Laver at one point 34 to 12 which is actually a good record against average competition.

Gonzalez was actually 6.5 years older than Rosewall but also had the edge on the first tour they had because of his pro experience. After that the experience to me wasn't a big deal.

Gonzales' edge over Laver was in 1964, Laver was no rookie then and was 26 years old.
In 1964 Laver held a dominant edge over Rosewall on the season, but a losing record against Gonzales.
Actually, in 1963 Laver had an even split against Rosewall in best-of-five set matches on the year, suggesting that in the big occasions Laver could crank up his game to a high level.
Laver has recently claimed that in the 1963 hth world tour against Rosewall, Laver suffered a back injury which accounted for the lopsided result.

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
I would think that with computers today a person could analyze the schedule year by year and see how strong a year they had and how much they accomplished if you look at caliber of competition, won lost record and amount of matches played. You just have to input the parameters on what is the definition of strong competition. Perhaps you could go by the year end ranking of the competition in question? Perhaps it would be a combination of factors. I'm sure we have to use some combination or else there would be some flaws.

Lets say every player on the ATP tour plays at the exact same level all the time except for two players and these two never play each other. So in theory that one player's which I'll call player "A" level of player on average would be determined by his percentage won/lost record. If "A" went 49-1 that would be better than 38-12 for average level of play. However for cumulative performance another player (Player "B") who went 97-3 for the year would be superior to player "A" but he didn't play at an average level of player as player "A" and in that area he would be inferior.

There probably is some sort of primitive way we can evaluate that even now.

The main goal of looking at the amount of majors won is when experts and regular fans discuss how player's rank compared to others in history. I don't think counting majors is the only factor. It is just one of many but it is the easier to figure out and simpliest for the fans. It of course doesn't take into account the old amateur/pro divide among many things.

Essentially the media is discussing who is the GOAT in tennis. They do the same in golf and other sports. Jack Nicklaus and TIger Woods are often called the GOATs because they won the most majors or are high up their in majors.

The problem with majors counting of course is that it ignores most of the tennis year and also it forgets about important events like the World Championship Tours and perhaps some other tournaments that may possibly be bigger than some classic majors or Pro Majors.

NatF, as you wrote earlier perhaps a 500 level tournament could have at times a tougher schedule for a player than a Master's 1000.

The easy way to work it is to look at quality of schedule and figure out the percentage level of play and the cumulative amount achieve for the year. That's at least a start. You can go from there to career evaluation.

However analyzing quality of schedule is tough in many years in the past. Laver's 1962 season was great but at least for level of play Rosewall's 1962 season was better. They played on a totally different circuit and you wouldn't know unless they played. Rosewall then slaughtered Laver in 1963 to at least show partially that Rosewall played at a higher level in 1963 and probably in 1962. What was almost considered FACT in those days was that the Old Pro Tour was clearly superior to the amateur tour. How much is up for debate. If would could figure out the difference in the levels of play on the two tours we could evaluate it better.

I think that it is fair to give major credit to players who achieved a significant tour victory.

I would suggest the following list of major championship tour wins as tantamount to major wins,

1942 Budge (over Riggs, Kovacs, others)
1948 Kramer (over Riggs)
1950 Kramer (over Gonzales)
1951 Kramer (over Segura)
1953 Kramer (over Sedgman)
1956 Gonzales (over Trabert)
1957 Gonzales (over Rosewall)
1958 Gonzales (over Hoad)
1959 Gonzales (over Cooper, Anderson, 13-15 against Hoad)
1959 Hoad (Ampol tour, over Gonzales, Rosewall, others)
1960 Gonzales (over Rosewall, Segura, Olmedo)
1961 Gonzales (over Gimeno)
1963 Rosewall (over Laver)
1964 Rosewall (over Laver, Gimeno, others)

Statistics are hidden for the 1965 to 1967 pro tours, and it might be possible that Laver won those later tours.

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
I think that it is fair to give major credit to players who achieved a significant tour victory.

I would suggest the following list of major championship tour wins as tantamount to major wins,

1942 Budge (over Riggs, Kovacs, others)
1948 Kramer (over Riggs)
1950 Kramer (over Gonzales)
1951 Kramer (over Segura)
1953 Kramer (over Sedgman)
1956 Gonzales (over Trabert)
1957 Gonzales (over Rosewall)
1958 Gonzales (over Hoad)
1959 Gonzales (over Cooper, Anderson, 13-15 against Hoad)
1959 Hoad (Ampol tour, over Gonzales, Rosewall, others)
1960 Gonzales (over Rosewall, Segura, Olmedo)
1961 Gonzales (over Gimeno)
1963 Rosewall (over Laver)
1964 Rosewall (over Laver, Gimeno, others)

Statistics are hidden for the 1965 to 1967 pro tours, and it might be possible that Laver won those later tours.

The 1964 tour was not a world championship poor. The others were and should be given credit for that. I think the World Champion Tours were in my opinion more valuable than several majors because of what was at stake and the amount of matches played. The regular tours were simply a good to excellent achievement if you won it.

You forgot the two Workd Championship Tours that Bobby Riggs won over Budge.

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Gonzales' edge over Laver was in 1964, Laver was no rookie then and was 26 years old.
In 1964 Laver held a dominant edge over Rosewall on the season, but a losing record against Gonzales.
Actually, in 1963 Laver had an even split against Rosewall in best-of-five set matches on the year, suggesting that in the big occasions Laver could crank up his game to a high level.
Laver has recently claimed that in the 1963 hth world tour against Rosewall, Laver suffered a back injury which accounted for the lopsided result.

Interesting I don't recall ever reading about the back injury!

Limpinhitter · Aug 23, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Gonzales' edge over Laver was in 1964, Laver was no rookie then and was 26 years old.
In 1964 Laver held a dominant edge over Rosewall on the season, but a losing record against Gonzales.
Actually, in 1963 Laver had an even split against Rosewall in best-of-five set matches on the year, suggesting that in the big occasions Laver could crank up his game to a high level.
Laver has recently claimed that in the 1963 hth world tour against Rosewall, Laver suffered a back injury which accounted for the lopsided result.

Do you have a source for Laver's recent claim?

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
The 1964 tour was not a world championship poor. The others were and should be given credit for that. I think the World Champion Tours were in my opinion more valuable than several majors because of what was at stake and the amount of matches played. The regular tours were simply a good to excellent achievement if you won it.

You forgot the two Workd Championship Tours that Bobby Riggs won over Budge.

Yes, in 1946 Riggs won 24 to 22 over Budge, Riggs deserves that. But I understood that there was no formal comprehensive tour in 1947 between these two, just a series of unrelated tournaments.

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
Interesting I don't recall ever reading about the back injury!

Laver talked about last December in an Australian newspaper interview, available online.
He claimed that Rosewall's strategy was to lob him incessantly until his back wore out, which it did.
Very similar to that 1946 Riggs/Budge tour where Riggs lobbed Budge to wear him down.

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
Do you have a source for Laver's recent claim?

Yes, I read it in a December (?) 2016 Australian newspaper interview. Online.

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
The 1964 tour was not a world championship poor. The others were and should be given credit for that. I think the World Champion Tours were in my opinion more valuable than several majors because of what was at stake and the amount of matches played. The regular tours were simply a good to excellent achievement if you won it.

You forgot the two Workd Championship Tours that Bobby Riggs won over Budge.

Yes,, the evidence for 1964 as a world championship tour is weak, although it appears that it at least started out to be a championship tour with a points system.
It looks like it ran out of gas, did poor business, could not afford a championship reward, and no presentation ceremony was held for the winner.

What did T.S. Eliot say "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper." Eliot could be describing that 1964 tour.

Dan Lobb · Aug 23, 2017

I think that it is fair to give major credit to players who achieved a significant tour victory.

I would suggest the following list of major championship tour wins as tantamount to major wins,

1942 Budge (over Riggs, Kovacs, others)
1946 Riggs (over Budge)
1948 Kramer (over Riggs)
1950 Kramer (over Gonzales)
1951 Kramer (over Segura)
1953 Kramer (over Sedgman)
1956 Gonzales (over Trabert)
1957 Gonzales (over Rosewall)
1958 Gonzales (over Hoad)
1959 Gonzales (over Cooper, Anderson, 13-15 against Hoad)
1959 Hoad (Ampol tour, over Gonzales, Rosewall, others)
1960 Gonzales (over Rosewall, Segura, Olmedo)
1961 Gonzales (over Gimeno)
1963 Rosewall (over Laver)
[1964 Rosewall (over Laver, Gimeno, others)]

Statistics are hidden for the 1965 to 1967 pro tours, and it might be possible that Laver won those later tours.

I have now included that 1946 Riggs/Budge tour, although McCauley states that there was no major tour for 1947.
I will leave the 1964 tour for now, but it could be removed if it appears that no one recognized it at the time, which is possible.
Apparently, Buchholz, who was on that 1964 tour, was not aware that it was supposed to be a world championship tour. OUCH!! That hurts.
I have placed brackets around the 1964 tour as an interim measure. It has provisional and questionable status.

Combined with my list of 22 MAJOR major tournaments for this era, I have a total of 22 tournaments + 15 tours = 37 major events.

NatF · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
I would think that with computers today a person could analyze the schedule year by year and see how strong a year they had and how much they accomplished if you look at caliber of competition, won lost record and amount of matches played. You just have to input the parameters on what is the definition of strong competition. Perhaps you could go by the year end ranking of the competition in question? Perhaps it would be a combination of factors. I'm sure we have to use some combination or else there would be some flaws.

The problem with that is a player which might not look strong on paper might play above themselves or they might be a future or older ATG. Some players will blow hot and cold or be particular dangerous in a certain condition. I did do an analysis on the win/loss records of top 10 and top 20 players at year end. I believe this was a better representation of how the top players competitors competed against each other. I also included the titles won by the top 10 as well.

Lets say every player on the ATP tour plays at the exact same level all the time except for two players and these two never play each other. So in theory that one player's which I'll call player "A" level of player on average would be determined by his percentage won/lost record. If "A" went 49-1 that would be better than 38-12 for average level of play. However for cumulative performance another player (Player "B") who went 97-3 for the year would be superior to player "A" but he didn't play at an average level of player as player "A" and in that area he would be inferior.

There probably is some sort of primitive way we can evaluate that even now.

I understand the point you're making but I do think maintaining a high winning record over more matches has it's own merits. It could also be that player A is playing only in conditions that he likes, much like Federer this year. Player B has also had to maintain his level through fatigue etc...

The main goal of looking at the amount of majors won is when experts and regular fans discuss how player's rank compared to others in history. I don't think counting majors is the only factor. It is just one of many but it is the easier to figure out and simpliest for the fans. It of course doesn't take into account the old amateur/pro divide among many things.

Essentially the media is discussing who is the GOAT in tennis. They do the same in golf and other sports. Jack Nicklaus and TIger Woods are often called the GOATs because they won the most majors or are high up their in majors.

The problem with majors counting of course is that it ignores most of the tennis year and also it forgets about important events like the World Championship Tours and perhaps some other tournaments that may possibly be bigger than some classic majors or Pro Majors.

Counting majors is probably one of the most important metrics but it's not the only one. The problem for me is that majors haven't been static throughout the years. So comparing totals can only been done so far. I think total titles won and other big events need to be included as well, but that runs into the same problem.

NatF, as you wrote earlier perhaps a 500 level tournament could have at times a tougher schedule for a player than a Master's 1000.

The easy way to work it is to look at quality of schedule and figure out the percentage level of play and the cumulative amount achieve for the year. That's at least a start. You can go from there to career evaluation.

Working out level of play is the difficult thing, I like to use my eyes supported by the general match stats - not always possible.

However analyzing quality of schedule is tough in many years in the past. Laver's 1962 season was great but at least for level of play Rosewall's 1962 season was better. They played on a totally different circuit and you wouldn't know unless they played. Rosewall then slaughtered Laver in 1963 to at least show partially that Rosewall played at a higher level in 1963 and probably in 1962. What was almost considered FACT in those days was that the Old Pro Tour was clearly superior to the amateur tour. How much is up for debate. If would could figure out the difference in the levels of play on the two tours we could evaluate it better.

I think it's obvious to anyone aware of the times that Rosewall was vastly superior to Laver in 1962. Laver improved in 1963 and Rosewall was probably a little worse and yet Rod still got bodied. The whole premise of the pro's was that the top amateurs would move up, if the top players are always leaving how can the competition be of the same quality?

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Yes,, the evidence for 1964 as a world championship tour is weak, although it appears that it at least started out to be a championship tour with a points system.
It looks like it ran out of gas, did poor business, could not afford a championship reward, and no presentation ceremony was held for the winner.

What did T.S. Eliot say "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper." Eliot could be describing that 1964 tour.

Buchholz said definitively to me that it wasn't an official world championship tour but a essentially it was since it was so valuable that it clinched the world championship for the year for Ken Rosewall.

pc1 · Aug 23, 2017

NatF said:
The problem with that is a player which might not look strong on paper might play above themselves or they might be a future or older ATG. Some players will blow hot and cold or be particular dangerous in a certain condition. I did do an analysis on the win/loss records of top 10 and top 20 players at year end. I believe this was a better representation of how the top players competitors competed against each other. I also included the titles won by the top 10 as well.

I understand the point you're making but I do think maintaining a high winning record over more matches has it's own merits. It could also be that player A is playing only in conditions that he likes, much like Federer this year. Player B has also had to maintain his level through fatigue etc...

Counting majors is probably one of the most important metrics but it's not the only one. The problem for me is that majors haven't been static throughout the years. So comparing totals can only been done so far. I think total titles won and other big events need to be included as well, but that runs into the same problem.

Working out level of play is the difficult thing, I like to use my eyes supported by the general match stats - not always possible.

I think it's obvious to anyone aware of the times that Rosewall was vastly superior to Laver in 1962. Laver improved in 1963 and Rosewall was probably a little worse and yet Rod still got bodied. The whole premise of the pro's was that the top amateurs would move up, if the top players are always leaving how can the competition be of the same quality?

I agree with everything here. I just want to point out that no system is without flaws. I just wanted to make a suggestion.

NatF · Aug 23, 2017

pc1 said:
I agree with everything here. I just want to point out that no system is without flaws. I just wanted to make a suggestion.

Indeed, good to discuss these sorts of things so they can perhaps be fine tuned.

Ivan69 · Aug 23, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Ivan, You have wrong data. For example Budge won 52 matches.

You are getting too boring, Bobby. You need to read much much more from the history. I don't have the attention to respond to your endless nonsense.

BobbyOne · Aug 23, 2017

Ivan69 said:
You are getting too boring, Bobby. You need to read much much more from the history. I don't have the attention to respond to your endless nonsense.

Ivan69, I agree that it's better to stop our discussion. Learn tennis history before making all-time lists, arrogant and ignorant man! No expert or other poster would agree with your curious lists.

Good bye.

Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Banned

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.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads