1970: an Almost Complete Picture

N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
abmk, No Mercy's thesis (wrong thesis) was that the seedings, at least the early one of a given year, were made according to the rankings in the previous year. Now he argues that the seedings were according to the WCT series. That's a contradiction in itself.

I doubt that Laver or Rosewall was ranked No.1 in 1971 (but I rank Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe equally first).
Click to expand...
I give up.
Your comprehension capabilities have some problems I guess, or probably you just don't want to accept that.

Let's try one more last time point by point and after that my conversation on this argument is over, I'm sure the readers can have enough material to think what they feel is the best.

1) "But they were more biased than the top experts who were not obliged to promote their tournaments."
So now we have the tournament directors giving high seeds to Laver to promote their tournaments. I'm trying to think how giving Laver a top seed would have promoted the tournament. If he would have been 2nd seed, the tournament would have had less spectators I guess (I'm following your weird statement)

2) "It's curious that NoMercy insults the great experts but at the same time believes that the seeding people of various tournaments were more serious than them..."
"Funny that you follow Newcombe's opinion but ignore Laver's..."
Again, for the hundredth time. I DON'T FOLLOW ANYONE, I'm just showing you that there were A LOT of different rankings or perceptions in 1970 (and in the next few years). I'm trying to show you that Mickey Mouse was not law but there were many different opinions, INCLUDING ones (many actually) with Laver at top spot.

3) "abmk, No Mercy's thesis (wrong thesis) was that the seedings, at least the early one of a given year, were made according to the rankings in the previous year. Now he argues that the seedings were according to the WCT series. That's a contradiction in itself."
Again, for the hundredth time. I tried to show you that the early year seeds (and in general all of them) come from a ranking, not from "prestige" (that you don't even know how to quantify that). I showed you that 1972 Philadelphia followed WCT ranking of 1971, because THERE WAS AN EXISTING WCT RANKING at the end of 1971, that was the result of WCT Finals (not prestige! who cares about that!). At the same way at the beginning of 1971, WCT had to "built" their ranking from the scratch and they choose Laver for his overall activity in 1970 (including the TCC of course, only an idiot would not include that).

4) " You "forget" that Wimbledon and US Open did not count for any WCT ranking."
In the WCT rankings of beginning of 1971 (regarding 1970 activity), Wimbledon and US Open were obviously included. There was no WCT tour in 1970, so they counted everything. Also, without Wimbledon and US Open, Rosewall and Newcombe could not have been #2 and #3, because apart of those (Newcombe in particular) they did very bad in 1970.
 
treblings

treblings

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
abmk, It's typically for you that you omit in your summery Bud Collins' ranking of Laver as No.4 which he used in all his books.

It's funny that you use the Schenectady newspaper. You should know that Tingay, Collins, McCauley were the foremost experts regarding ranking.

Tingay gave his ranking not only in Daily Telegraph but also in the important World of Tennis yearbooks.

It's curious that NoMercy insults the great experts nbut at the same time believes that the seeding people of various tournaments were more serious than them...
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to learn what the seeding commitees of these tournaments knew that someone like Collins didn't.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
I give up.
Your comprehension capabilities have some problems I guess, or probably you just don't want to accept that.

Let's try one more last time point by point and after that my conversation on this argument is over, I'm sure the readers can have enough material to think what they feel is the best.

1) "But they were more biased than the top experts who were not obliged to promote their tournaments."
So now we have the tournament directors giving high seeds to Laver to promote their tournaments. I'm trying to think how giving Laver a top seed would have promoted the tournament. If he would have been 2nd seed, the tournament would have had less spectators I guess (I'm following your weird statement)

2) "It's curious that NoMercy insults the great experts but at the same time believes that the seeding people of various tournaments were more serious than them..."
"Funny that you follow Newcombe's opinion but ignore Laver's..."
Again, for the hundredth time. I DON'T FOLLOW ANYONE, I'm just showing you that there were A LOT of different rankings or perceptions in 1970 (and in the next few years). I'm trying to show you that Mickey Mouse was not law but there were many different opinions, INCLUDING ones (many actually) with Laver at top spot.

3) "abmk, No Mercy's thesis (wrong thesis) was that the seedings, at least the early one of a given year, were made according to the rankings in the previous year. Now he argues that the seedings were according to the WCT series. That's a contradiction in itself."
Again, for the hundredth time. I tried to show you that the early year seeds (and in general all of them) come from a ranking, not from "prestige" (that you don't even know how to quantify that). I showed you that 1972 Philadelphia followed WCT ranking of 1971, because THERE WAS AN EXISTING WCT RANKING at the end of 1971, that was the result of WCT Finals (not prestige! who cares about that!). At the same way at the beginning of 1971, WCT had to "built" their ranking from the scratch and they choose Laver for his overall activity in 1970 (including the TCC of course, only an idiot would not include that).

4) " You "forget" that Wimbledon and US Open did not count for any WCT ranking."
In the WCT rankings of beginning of 1971 (regarding 1970 activity), Wimbledon and US Open were obviously included. There was no WCT tour in 1970, so they counted everything. Also, without Wimbledon and US Open, Rosewall and Newcombe could not have been #2 and #3, because apart of those (Newcombe in particular) they did very bad in 1970.
Click to expand...

NoMercy, I will not answer detailed even though you might be right at point 1. As long as you insult great experts and ignore their rankings, as long I will not respect your opinions even if you repeat wrong statements hundreds of times.

Of course a WCT tournament would follow a WCT list!!!

Good bye,

Yours sincerely Goofy
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
treblings said:
It would be interesting to learn what the seeding commitees of these tournaments knew that someone like Collins didn't.
Click to expand...

And what did Collins know that the seeding committees of multiple tournaments didn't know? We can all play this game.

I don't think the seeding in those events ends the argument or anything but it is a piece of evidence in Laver's corner.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
Ivan, Laver was ranked No.1 for the WCT circuit especially because he won the WCT TCC in 1970.
Click to expand...
Bobby, can you read carefully? I copy the text again with bold and big on what it is the important:
"Newcombe and the panel of journalists which made the 1971 WCT draw considered Laver the best player because he won most tournaments (15), earned the most prize money and had a dominantly positive head-to-head record against both Rosewall (5–0) and Newcombe (3–0)."
So Bobby it's not serious at your side to talk of only TCC as a ruling factor for their choice. This committee obviously was based on all of the 1970 achievements of the players.
The other group of journalists like Tingay, Collins, Tomassi, Elian choose #1 by ONLY 1 won tournament. Fortunately their opinions were not taken into account and stayed only in their newspapers.
That's why Laver was seeded in the beginning of 1971.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
abmk, It's typically for you that you omit in your summary Bud Collins' ranking of Laver as No.4 which he used in all his books.

It's funny that you use the Schenectady newspaper. You should know that Tingay, Collins, McCauley were the foremost experts regarding ranking.

Tingay gave his ranking not only in Daily Telegraph but also in the important World of Tennis yearbooks.

It's curious that NoMercy insults the great experts but at the same time believes that the seeding people of various tournaments were more serious than them...
Click to expand...

I did not omit Collins's encyclopedia rankings.

a) its there 3rd in the list of dwrightcharles, after Martini &Rossi and McCauley.

b) I mentioned specifically that I am counting both equally - encyclopedia and Boston Globe -- in point #2.

Again another example of you managing to delude and convince yourself of something that did not happen.
 
treblings

treblings

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
And what did Collins know that the seeding committees of multiple tournaments didn't know? We can all play this game.

I don't think the seeding in those events ends the argument or anything but it is a piece of evidence in Laver's corner.
Click to expand...

It's about Laver now, interesting.
And I'm not playing games fyi:)
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
NoMercy, I will not answer detailed even though you might be right at point 1. As long as you insult great experts and ignore their rankings, as long I will not respect your opinions even if you repeat wrong statements hundreds of times.

Of course a WCT tournament would follow a WCT list!!!

Good bye,

Yours sincerely Goofy
Click to expand...
Let's take a look which are some of these "great" experts. The info is from Wiki.

Bud Collins
"Collins started writing for the Boston Herald as a sportswriter while he was a student at Boston University. In 1963, he moved to The Boston Globe and also began doing tennis commentary for Boston's Public Broadcasting Service outlet, WGBH.[3] From 1968 to 1972, he worked for CBS Sports during its coverage of the US Open tournament, moving to NBC Sports in 1972 to work that network's Wimbledon coverage. He also teamed with Donald Dell to call tennis matches for PBS television from 1974 to 1977.
For several years with The Boston Globe, he was a general and political columnist. He also wrote for the paper's "Travel" section, recommending the best places to visit. In 1967, he was a candidate for mayor of Boston."

This "great" expert was a sportswriter, general and political columnist, tourist operator and politician.

Lance Tingay
"Tingay began his journalistic career with the Exchange Telegraph news agency. Tingay was the tennis correspondent for The Daily Telegraph from 1952 until his retirement in 1981."
For those who don't know The Daily Telegraph (currently "The Telegraph") was and is a daily broad-spectrum newspaper writing predominantly about politics and economics. It has small sections about lifestyle, travel, culture and sport. If somebody looks at the current editions and goes back to the past editions the sport section of the newspaper is occupied mainly by football, rugby and cricket. The tennis issues are just 3-4 informative sentences or results.

This "great" expert worked for a non-sport newspaper having written some short info there.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the activities of Mr. Geist. Can you tell me please something about him? Where has he worked?
 
K

KG1965

Legend
Ivan69 said:
Bobby, can you read carefully? I copy the text again with bold and big on what it is the important:
"Newcombe and the panel of journalists which made the 1971 WCT draw considered Laver the best player because he won most tournaments (15), earned the most prize money and had a dominantly positive head-to-head record against both Rosewall (5–0) and Newcombe (3–0)."
So Bobby it's not serious at your side to talk of only TCC as a ruling factor for their choice. This committee obviously was based on all of the 1970 achievements of the players.
The other group of journalists like Tingay, Collins, Tomassi, Elian choose #1 by ONLY 1 won tournament. Fortunately their opinions were not taken into account and stayed only in their newspapers.
That's why Laver was seeded in the beginning of 1971.
Click to expand...
struzzo.jpg


An Old expert, Tingay... does not fit in the photo.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Bobby, can you read carefully? I copy the text again with bold and big on what it is the important:
"Newcombe and the panel of journalists which made the 1971 WCT draw considered Laver the best player because he won most tournaments (15), earned the most prize money and had a dominantly positive head-to-head record against both Rosewall (5–0) and Newcombe (3–0)."
So Bobby it's not serious at your side to talk of only TCC as a ruling factor for their choice. This committee obviously was based on all of the 1970 achievements of the players.
The other group of journalists like Tingay, Collins, Tomassi, Elian choose #1 by ONLY 1 won tournament. Fortunately their opinions were not taken into account and stayed only in their newspapers.
That's why Laver was seeded in the beginning of 1971.
Click to expand...

Ivan, Tingay etc did not choose No.1 by only 1 won tournament!!!!!

Who is Tomassi?
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
I did not omit Collins's encyclopedia rankings.

a) its there 3rd in the list of dwrightcharles, after Martini &Rossi and McCauley.

b) I mentioned specifically that I am counting both equally - encyclopedia and Boston Globe -- in point #2.

Again another example of you managing to delude and convince yourself of something that did not happen.
Click to expand...

abmk, Sorry. I overlooked it.

But you still are wrong that Laver did not rank himself No.4.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Let's take a look which are some of these "great" experts. The info is from Wiki.

Bud Collins
"Collins started writing for the Boston Herald as a sportswriter while he was a student at Boston University. In 1963, he moved to The Boston Globe and also began doing tennis commentary for Boston's Public Broadcasting Service outlet, WGBH.[3] From 1968 to 1972, he worked for CBS Sports during its coverage of the US Open tournament, moving to NBC Sports in 1972 to work that network's Wimbledon coverage. He also teamed with Donald Dell to call tennis matches for PBS television from 1974 to 1977.
For several years with The Boston Globe, he was a general and political columnist. He also wrote for the paper's "Travel" section, recommending the best places to visit. In 1967, he was a candidate for mayor of Boston."

This "great" expert was a sportswriter, general and political columnist, tourist operator and politician.

Lance Tingay
"Tingay began his journalistic career with the Exchange Telegraph news agency. Tingay was the tennis correspondent for The Daily Telegraph from 1952 until his retirement in 1981."
For those who don't know The Daily Telegraph (currently "The Telegraph") was and is a daily broad-spectrum newspaper writing predominantly about politics and economics. It has small sections about lifestyle, travel, culture and sport. If somebody looks at the current editions and goes back to the past editions the sport section of the newspaper is occupied mainly by football, rugby and cricket. The tennis issues are just 3-4 informative sentences or results.

This "great" expert worked for a non-sport newspaper having written some short info there.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the activities of Mr. Geist. Can you tell me please something about him? Where has he worked?
Click to expand...

Ivan, With this your post you have lost the status of a tennis expert!

Ask Mr. Geist, not me!
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Let's take a look which are some of these "great" experts. The info is from Wiki.

Bud Collins
"Collins started writing for the Boston Herald as a sportswriter while he was a student at Boston University. In 1963, he moved to The Boston Globe and also began doing tennis commentary for Boston's Public Broadcasting Service outlet, WGBH.[3] From 1968 to 1972, he worked for CBS Sports during its coverage of the US Open tournament, moving to NBC Sports in 1972 to work that network's Wimbledon coverage. He also teamed with Donald Dell to call tennis matches for PBS television from 1974 to 1977.
For several years with The Boston Globe, he was a general and political columnist. He also wrote for the paper's "Travel" section, recommending the best places to visit. In 1967, he was a candidate for mayor of Boston."

This "great" expert was a sportswriter, general and political columnist, tourist operator and politician.

Lance Tingay
"Tingay began his journalistic career with the Exchange Telegraph news agency. Tingay was the tennis correspondent for The Daily Telegraph from 1952 until his retirement in 1981."
For those who don't know The Daily Telegraph (currently "The Telegraph") was and is a daily broad-spectrum newspaper writing predominantly about politics and economics. It has small sections about lifestyle, travel, culture and sport. If somebody looks at the current editions and goes back to the past editions the sport section of the newspaper is occupied mainly by football, rugby and cricket. The tennis issues are just 3-4 informative sentences or results.

This "great" expert worked for a non-sport newspaper having written some short info there.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the activities of Mr. Geist. Can you tell me please something about him? Where has he worked?
Click to expand...
I think that you have found him.....
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
Ivan, Tingay etc did not choose No.1 by only 1 won tournamnet!!!!!

Who is Tomassi?
Click to expand...
Excellent. Look at the next texts written in the article from the library of the American Congress re 1970:

"Tennis pundits, as Joe McCauley (World Tennis) or Lance Tingay (Daily Telegraph), narrowly ranked Newcombe first because he won the most prestigious tournament, Wimbledon with Rosewall second. Considering that Wimbledon and the U.S. Open were the two big events of 1970 Judith Elian of the French sports paper L'Équipe ranked Rosewall as the number one player ahead of Newcombe and the panel of experts for the 'Martini and Rosso' Cup also had Rosewall first. Meanwhile, in his book Robert Geist ranked the three Australians equal number ones."

Bobby, I copy the important texts in bold and big in order to read them carefully. Please don't miss them!

Rino Tomassi is an Italian journalist and another "great" expert having ranked Rosewall and Newcombe at first and second place in 1970.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
abmk, No Mercy's thesis (wrong thesis) was that the seedings, at least the early one of a given year, were made according to the rankings in the previous year. Now he argues that the seedings were according to the WCT series. That's a contradiction in itself.

I doubt that Laver or Rosewall was ranked No.1 in 1971 (but I rank Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe equally first).
Click to expand...
Every year 3 players at #1!!! Excellent!!! What historians we have!!!

Let's choose 3 players as #1 for 2017 - Nadal, Fed and ..........SOCK! Maybe it's fair to choose even 4 with Dimitrov. They all deserve.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Ivan69 said:
Every year 3 players at #1!!! Excellent!!! What historians we have!!!

Let's choose 3 players as #1 for 2017 - Nadal, Fed and ..........SOCK! Maybe it's fair to choose even 4 with Dimitrov. They all deserve.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it starts to get ridiculous when it's not just a two way tie but a three way tie for #1.
 
K

KG1965

Legend
Ivan69 said:
Excellent. Look at the next texts written in the article from the library of the American Congress re 1970:

"Tennis pundits, as Joe McCauley (World Tennis) or Lance Tingay (Daily Telegraph), narrowly ranked Newcombe first because he won the most prestigious tournament, Wimbledon with Rosewall second. Considering that Wimbledon and the U.S. Open were the two big events of 1970 Judith Elian of the French sports paper L'Équipe ranked Rosewall as the number one player ahead of Newcombe and the panel of experts for the 'Martini and Rosso' Cup also had Rosewall first. Meanwhile, in his book Robert Geist ranked the three Australians equal number ones."

Bobby, I copy the important texts in bold and big in order to read them carefully. Please don't miss them!

Rino Tomassi is an Italian journalist and another "great" expert having ranked Rosewall and Newcombe at first and second place in 1970.
Click to expand...
Ivan, Tommasi not Tomassi.;)
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
abmk, Sorry. I overlooked it.

But you still are wrong that Laver did not rank himself No.4.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm right. Its your assumption.
His emphasis in that statement on the money factor there and his decline from 1969, not from the ranking.

That ranking was blindly taken from Collins' encyclopedia and just put in there.
Even if Laver thought that he shouldn't be #1 because of him crashing early at Wimbledon and USO and that's an if, he'd have rated himself as #3 behind Rosewall and Newk, not #4 (behind Roche).
Quite a few votes for Laver as #1 in 1970, in case you missed that part.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
NoMercy said:
I have also sources for Newcombe and Rosewall, but that's not the point.
The point (that is clear to almost everybody apart of 2/3 maybe) is that there was no clear rankings, nor a package of rules to run them.
So it is legit to use alternative ways to the ones already explored.
It's not going against history.
Click to expand...

That's true and I agree.
But some more sources for Laver as #1 would help dispel the "myth" that only a few rated him as #1 in 1970.
Plus you said majority of the press mentioned Laver as #1.
So curious about that as well.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
abmk, No Mercy's thesis (wrong thesis) was that the seedings, at least the early one of a given year, were made according to the rankings in the previous year. Now he argues that the seedings were according to the WCT series. That's a contradiction in itself.

I doubt that Laver or Rosewall was ranked No.1 in 1971 (but I rank Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe equally first).
Click to expand...

see NoMercy's reply in post #701. It covers it.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Excellent. Look at the next texts written in the article from the library of the American Congress re 1970:

"Tennis pundits, as Joe McCauley (World Tennis) or Lance Tingay (Daily Telegraph), narrowly ranked Newcombe first because he won the most prestigious tournament, Wimbledon with Rosewall second. Considering that Wimbledon and the U.S. Open were the two big events of 1970 Judith Elian of the French sports paper L'Équipe ranked Rosewall as the number one player ahead of Newcombe and the panel of experts for the 'Martini and Rosso' Cup also had Rosewall first. Meanwhile, in his book Robert Geist ranked the three Australians equal number ones."

Bobby, I copy the important texts in bold and big in order to read them carefully. Please don't miss them!

Rino Tomassi is an Italian journalist and another "great" expert having ranked Rosewall and Newcombe at first and second place in 1970.
Click to expand...

You mean Rino Tommasi. I like to spell the famous players and experts the correct way.

As that a bit strange article says, they ranked Newcombe NARROWLY first which means they also considered Rosewall's US Open win (and his W. final) rather highly. Joe McCauley made a mistake in his World Tennis rankings when he unconsciously did not consider his own method (hth of the top ten against each other) correctly. If he would have followed his own method correctly he probably would have Ranked Rosewall first or at least Newcombe and Rosewall equal.

It was the GS tournaments, especially the two with full participation which mattered for most experts. Tingay was sort of an exception as he almost always chose the Wimbledon winner (not in 1963).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Every year 3 players at #1!!! Excellent!!! What historians we have!!!

Let's choose 3 players as #1 for 2017 - Nadal, Fed and ..........SOCK! Maybe it's fair to choose even 4 with Dimitrov. They all deserve.
Click to expand...

This year (if Federer wins the London Finals) is a typical example that choosing two players as tied No.1 is the best way. In some years (1970, 1971) we even could or should rank three players equally.

Men like NatF and you will never understand...
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Yeah I think it starts to get ridiculous when it's not just a two way tie but a three way tie for #1.
Click to expand...

NATF; As you have seen with your own eyes, in 1970 several experts chose three different players as No.1. You and others fight for Laver. Most experts had Newcombe or Rosewall. Who was or is right???
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
Nope, I'm right. Its your assumption.
His emphasis in that statement on the money factor there and his decline from 1969, not from the ranking.

That ranking was blindly taken from Collins' encyclopedia and just put in there.
Even if Laver thought that he shouldn't be #1 because of him crashing early at Wimbledon and USO and that's an if, he'd have rated himself as #3 behind Rosewall and Newk, not #4 (behind Roche).
Quite a few votes for Laver as #1 in 1970, in case you missed that part.
Click to expand...

YOU ARE WRONG. Ask Mr. Laver!
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
NATF; As you have seen with your own eyes, in 1970 several experts chose three different players as No.1. You and others fight for Laver. Most experts had Newcombe or Rosewall. Who was or is right???
Click to expand...

In some cases we can't say who was right but that doesn't mean we can't have different opinions - I can somewhat understand being unable to decide between two players, but three is something else...
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
In some cases we can't say who was right but that doesn't mean we can't have different opinions - I can somewhat understand being unable to decide between two players, but three is something else...
Click to expand...

If you use logic and mathematics, there even can FOUR players be No.1 players at the same time.

If we can't say who was right, it's the probability that there were two (or three) equal candidates.

I still must smile when remembering that you once (about 1964) said that either Rosewall OR Laver was the best but that you refuse to go the two-way (just in orderto avoid your hated tied places)...You at that time plead for Laver but you rather would have chosen the non-favourite, Rosewall, than to accept that we cannot decide for one without doing wrong to the other candidate. Now (with help of krosero) you changed your mind and claim that Rosewall was the best player even though Laver has good arguments for his claim...
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
If you use logic and mathematics, there even can FOUR players be No.1 players at the same time.

If we can't say who was right, it's the probability that there were two (or three) equal candidates.

I still must smile when remembering that you once (about 1964) said that either Rosewall OR Laver was the best but that you refuse to go the two-way (just in orderto avoid your hated tied places)...You at that time plead for Laver but you rather would have chosen the non-favourite, Rosewall, than to accept that we cannot decide for one without doing wrong to the other candidate. Now (with help of krosero) you changed your mind and claim that Rosewall was the best player even though Laver has good arguments for his claim...
Click to expand...

Sadly Bobby you are intolerant of opposing views. I didn't have all the information for 1964 and believed Laver had the best claim, now I know that Rosewall has the better claim. The real shame is that you don't stand by your convictions as you clearly believe Rosewall in 1964 and 1970 has the best case of all the players yet you push for tied places.

Of course mathematically there can be many tied places but there chances of this are actually minute across a calendar year with many events.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
YOU ARE WRONG. Ask Mr. Laver!
Click to expand...


Firstly , you can't actually respond without repeating the same thing , you are wrong, I'm right, can you ?

Have you asked and got a reply from personally ?
No.

So matter of fact is we don't know.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
You mean Rino Tommasi. I like to spell the famous players and experts the correct way.

As that a bit strange article says, they ranked Newcombe NARROWLY first which means they also considered Rosewall's US Open win (and his W. final) rather highly. Joe McCauley made a mistake in his World Tennis rankings when he unconsciously did not consider his own method (hth of the top ten against each other) correctly. If he would have followed his own method correctly he probably would have Ranked Rosewall first or at least Newcombe and Rosewall equal.

It was the GS tournaments, especially the two with full participation which mattered for most experts. Tingay was sort of an exception as he almost always chose the Wimbledon winner (not in 1963).
Click to expand...
Not only McCauley made a mistake. All the mentioned guys made mistakes with 1970.

Let's stop with 1970. The discussions were more than enough. It's fully clear - only Bobby has a different opinion, all the other posters have the same opinion. As usual Bobby is alone in the thread with his opinion.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
If you use logic and mathematics, there even can FOUR players be No.1 players at the same time.

If we can't say who was right, it's the probability that there were two (or three) equal candidates.

I still must smile when remembering that you once (about 1964) said that either Rosewall OR Laver was the best but that you refuse to go the two-way (just in orderto avoid your hated tied places)...You at that time plead for Laver but you rather would have chosen the non-favourite, Rosewall, than to accept that we cannot decide for one without doing wrong to the other candidate. Now (with help of krosero) you changed your mind and claim that Rosewall was the best player even though Laver has good arguments for his claim...
Click to expand...
I suggest to choose for every year at least 10 players as #1. Bobby will be fully happy.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
Ivan, Please be sad about yourself! It was YOU who took away your status of a tennis expert by insulting Tingay and Collins with absurd "arguments"!
Click to expand...
I don't insult these guys at all. They are just fully wrong about their rankings. That's it.
Look what Tim Henman says for The Observer:
""When you speak to tennis journalists," Tim Henman once said, "you notice how little they understand. I am embarrassed for them. They know nothing about the game." It was a scathing critique and the Observer led the case for the defense, arguing that the role of the tennis press is to paint a broad picture rather than display an intimate knowledge of tactics and technique."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Best record in non-grand slam major tournaments since 1970
Replies
1
Views
2K
urban
U
dwightcharles
Victory points - comparing open era titles
2
Replies
78
Views
4K
KG1965
K
BGod
  • Poll
Redo the ATP Rankings.
Replies
27
Views
2K
smoledman
smoledman
T
Defacto Masters 1000 totals for the top open era players
Replies
8
Views
1K
Russeljones
Russeljones
Tennis old man
Old thread about Nastase
Replies
22
Views
3K
kiki
kiki
Top