1970: an Almost Complete Picture

[KG1965]

Bobby keep making me laugh, but then I get tired, I prefer to learn something about tennis.
Not from experts.

Bobby you really got tired. I'm tired of laughing.
I think others are tired, many posters have stopped writing for your fault.
I am amazed that they have you written here, insulting the posters.

End of the story.

 

[KG1965]

1) Brazil, obviously

2) Italy won the World Cup (which you'll notice - isn't an answer to the question)

Ignoring the fact that for me it was France team, but between the two possible answers that you propose is perhaps easy to argue that "Brazil was potentially best team but in the only major event of the year has won Italy, then Italy is considered top dog".
The football/soccer event is unique, there is not tour or 10 non-tour events ... so it's easier to answer.

In other sports, for example cycling, every year there are more great races, lots of great races, there are 3 major tours (and France is off the other 2), but there World Ch., there are the classic race (Roubaix, Liege , ...) .. and becomes much more complicated to find the top dog.

 

[hoodjem]

All of which makes it more absurd that Tingay ranked Newcombe #1 just because he won Wimbledon, which was no more competitive than the USO. Did Mr Tingay's tennis season consist of only Wimbledon?

One wonders.

(No insults intended.)

 

[Limpinhitter]

Nonsense! If the top players played in both Wimbledon and USO, any year, they are equal. All players who enter a slam give it their all, because they desperately want to win a slam no matter which slam they are playing.

I disagree. Wimbledon has always been the most prestigious major, and remains so today, in my view.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby keep making me laugh, but then I get tired, I prefer to learn something about tennis.
Not from experts.

Bobby you really got tired. I'm tired of laughing.
I think others are tired, many posters have stopped writing for your fault.
I am amazed that they have you written here, insulting the posters.

End of the story.

KG, Are you real? I wonder if ONE poster can contradict himself in one small post so significantly as you do...: "keep making me laugh; I'm tired of laughing".

Re "experts": If you have toothache you probably will consult an expert for teeth. If you want to learn more about Shakespeare you probably will try to inform yourself at a Shakespeare expert. Why do you insult tennis experts??????????

 

[KG1965]

KG, no need to say "sorry" for telling me your opinion - insist away, please. I'm here to learn and explore and no one's been a better teacher than you. I promise you, I'm not going to give myself a stroke or try to give you one if we end up not agreeing

There are a couple of points I want to stress ... I don't think we (you and I) are on the same page quite yet. Once we are, we can agree or disagree - its not important. But lets get on the same page first



I don't want to get hung up on words here

"Number 1", "Player of the Year", "World Champion"... call it what you will.

The essence of what we mean when we say "Number 1"... that's what I'm interested in exploring. Who was Top Dog, so to speak... the wording isn't important. "That which we call a rose would by any other name, smell as sweet", as Shakespeare said

For example, you're using the word "critics" now, earlier you were using "experts"... I understand that the essence of what you mean is the same either way. And I know what you think of them whatever you call them

-


I'm sure your right, but they did talk about the essence of "Number 1"... a ranking methodology, with a particular emphasis on choosing the Top Player, didn't they?



I agree 100%... This is Exactly how I view the critics

The reason I re-opened this discussion (which had been flogged to death) wasn't because of the critics opinion... it was the players opinions.

Lew Hoad. Fred Perry. Don Budge. Apparently, they felt the "Player of the Year" was the Wimbledon champion (I'm simplifying a bit, but basically, that's it)

If they felt this way, it seems likely that the active players - Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall etc. - felt this way

What I think, what you think, what Tingay or Collins thought, might not matter... but what the active players thought absolutely has to matter because it shapes the way they approach the year

---

My opinion has not changed on this year btw... I clearly rank Rod Laver as #1. ... but I do want to understand those with different opinions - be it expert, critic or layman

The best sense I can make of it is through a football analogy

The 1982 Brazil football side wasn't just considered the best side in the world, they were considered a GOAT candidate side. They still are, in fact. But they bombed out the World Cup that year.

On 31st December, 1982, if you asked any sane person "Who was the best side this year?", there are only two (sane) answers you'd get

1) Brazil, obviously

2) Italy won the World Cup (which you'll notice - isn't an answer to the question)

The second answer is essentially saying - "The question is unimportant... I'm answering the question that actually matters here"

That, I think, is what non-Laver choices for #1 in 1970 are saying... I can't say its a bad answer

After laughing so much I thought a little.
I would like to take a step forward.
You are searching for the Top Dog. Many search the Top Dog.

So ...
considering that road bycicle racing does not help us with some good ideas (it does not provide a "best road cyclist of the year" but only champions of ..Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta, World Ch., Paris-Roubaix...), let's try with football / soccer and NBA basketball.
These two team sports that provide the top player of the year: MVP & Ballon d'or (even if in reality the Ballon d'or is continental ..).

A jury composed of old athletes and experts, but integrated by all the fans who want it, vote for the Top Dog of the Year. The one with the most votes wins. Simple.

Not only decide the experts or the old champions ... but also the fans. Also because many fans understand >>> experts.

What do you think about it?

So in 2017 Nadal is the number 1 but Federer is the Top Dog.

And 1970 ??
Obviously in 1970 Laver is the Top Dog, but not the number one because the number one in 1970 does not exist. And it does not exist because ... it did not exist.

 

[KG1965]

KG, no need to say "sorry" for telling me your opinion - insist away, please. I'm here to learn and explore and no one's been a better teacher than you. I promise you, I'm not going to give myself a stroke or try to give you one if we end up not agreeing

There are a couple of points I want to stress ... I don't think we (you and I) are on the same page quite yet. Once we are, we can agree or disagree - its not important. But lets get on the same page first



I don't want to get hung up on words here

...
1970 Grand Prix rankings
Position Name Nation Points Prize Money (US$)
1 Cliff Richey

USA 60 25,000
2 Arthur Ashe

USA 55 17,000
3 Ken Rosewall

AUS 53 15,000
4 Rod Laver

AUS 51 12,000
5 Stan Smith

USA 47 10,500
6 Željko Franulović

YUG 35 9,500
7 John Newcombe

AUS 35 8,500
8 Jan Kodeš

CSK 33 7,500
9 Tony Roche

AUS 32 6,500
10 Bob Carmichael

AUS 31 6,000
11 Georges Goven

FRA 25 5,500
12 Ilie Năstase

ROM 25 5,000
13 Dick Crealy

AUS 24 4,500
14 Ray Ruffels

AUS 22 4,000
15 Clark Graebner

USA 22 3,500
16 Dennis Ralston

USA 22 3,000
17 Jaime Fillol

CHI 20 2,500
18 Ion Ţiriac

ROM 19 2,000
19 Cliff Drysdale

RSA 19 1,500
20 Roy Emerson

AUS 19 1,000

I continue.
Precisation: the ranking does not start in 1971 with the WCT Circuit ranking where Rod Laver dominates, but in 1970 with the ranking of the Grand Prix (I report the end of the year): the number one is Richey (it's not Laver because he plays systematically in the WCT and play a few Grand Prix tournaments).
Repeat... the number one in 1970 is Cliff Richey. The American is obviously a number one without any meaning because the top players are absent or almost because they play in WCT, which is more important.

Now I continue with the Top Dog speech.
The number one exists only since 1973 and is untouchable.
So Connors is number one in 1975, in 1977, in 1978 and Mac in 1982, and Lendl in 1989. So we have such an explicit situation.

Post 1973: Top Dog = number one except ...
1) 1978 Borg and 1982 Connors, a possible vote of experts, old players and thousands of fans would have decreed with 100% these winners (both in those years and in 2017).... I do not mean 100% of the votes, even only 70% ... but they would have won 100%
2) 1989 Becker ...debatable even with a jury. The result is poised. But with the vote would be the name of the Top Dog ... voted in 2017.
3) In the years 1975 and 1977 another case occurs:
3a) I think that in 1975 despite the experts' jury would have voted Ashe almost 100% and the old champions with a smaller percentage (70%? Venture) en masse fans would have voted Connors. While today, Ashe would definitely win. But only today, january 2018.
3b) I think that in 1977, experts, old champions and fans would have voted en masse for Borg, today Vilas would definitely win. But only today, january 2018.

 

[BobbyOne]

...
1970 Grand Prix rankings
Position Name Nation Points Prize Money (US$)
1 Cliff Richey

USA 60 25,000
2 Arthur Ashe

USA 55 17,000
3 Ken Rosewall

AUS 53 15,000
4 Rod Laver

AUS 51 12,000
5 Stan Smith

USA 47 10,500
6 Željko Franulović

YUG 35 9,500
7 John Newcombe

AUS 35 8,500
8 Jan Kodeš

CSK 33 7,500
9 Tony Roche

AUS 32 6,500
10 Bob Carmichael

AUS 31 6,000
11 Georges Goven

FRA 25 5,500
12 Ilie Năstase

ROM 25 5,000
13 Dick Crealy

AUS 24 4,500
14 Ray Ruffels

AUS 22 4,000
15 Clark Graebner

USA 22 3,500
16 Dennis Ralston

USA 22 3,000
17 Jaime Fillol

CHI 20 2,500
18 Ion Ţiriac

ROM 19 2,000
19 Cliff Drysdale

RSA 19 1,500
20 Roy Emerson

AUS 19 1,000

I continue.
Precisation: the ranking does not start in 1971 with the WCT Circuit ranking where Rod Laver dominates, but in 1970 with the ranking of the Grand Prix that you report as at the end of the year: the number one is Richey (it's not Laver because he plays systematically in the WCT and play a few Grand Prix tournaments).
Repeat... so that the number one in 1970 is Cliff Richey. The American is obviously a number one without any meaning because the top players are absent or almost because they play in WCT, which is more important.

Now I continue with the Top Dog speech.
The number one exists only since 1973 and is untouchable.
So Connors is number one in 1975, in 1977, in 1978 and Mac in 1982, and Lendl in 1989. So we have such an explicit situation.

Post 1973: Top Dog = number one except ...
1) 1978 Borg and 1982 Connors, a possible vote of experts, old players and thousands of fans would have decreed with 100% these winners (both in those years and in 2017).... I do not mean 100% of the votes, even only 70% ... but they would have won 100%
2) 1989 Becker ...debatable even with a jury. The result is poised. But with the vote would be the name of the Top Dog ... voted in 2017.
3) In the years 1975 and 1977 another case occurs:
3a) I think that in 1975 despite the experts' jury would have voted Ashe almost 100% and the old champions with a smaller percentage (70%? Venture) en masse fans would have voted Connors. While today, Ashe would definitely win. But only today.
3b) I think that in 1977, experts, old champions and fans would have voted en masse for Borg, today Vilas would definitely win. But only today.

Coloured KG, After your new posts I'm sure now: You are not real!

 

[Waspsting]

After laughing so much I thought a little.

Illogical.

If you thought about what you had been laughing about... logically it should have led to... more laughter

A jury composed of old athletes and experts, but integrated by all the fans who want it, vote for the Top Dog of the Year. The one with the most votes wins. Simple.

Not only decide the experts or the old champions ... but also the fans. Also because many fans understand >>> experts.

What do you think about it?

I agree some fans understand at least as well as 'experts' or better... but a popular vote of this type is problematic

Bare minimum, one has to ensure reasonable lack of bias in the voters (even if outright objectivity is unachievable)

See how Roger Federer wins the Fans Favourite and Sportsmanship Award every year... democratic election style, one member one vote, and the whole thing is likely to just become a popularity contest

That said, the sometimes narrow minded, often irrational and flagrantly biased views of one or two 'experts'... is definitely a dubious advert for the value of having "Top Dog" of the year decided by experts jury... and calls into question all such choices

Post 1973: Top Dog = number one except ...
1) 1978 Borg and 1982 Connors, a possible vote of experts, old players and thousands of fans would have decreed with 100% these winners (both in those years and in 2017).... I do not mean 100% of the votes, even only 70% ... but they would have won 100%

Agree

2) 1989 Becker ...debatable even with a jury. The result is poised. But with the vote would be the name of the Top Dog ... voted in 2017

Agree

3a) I think that in 1975 despite the experts' jury would have voted Ashe almost 100% and the old champions with a smaller percentage (70%? Venture) en masse fans would have voted Connors. While today, Ashe would definitely win. But only today, january 2018.

hmmm... Today Ashe would definitely win a mass vote?... do you think fan masses value a couple of big titles more than regular consistency more now than back then?

3b) I think that in 1977, experts, old champions and fans would have voted en masse for Borg, today Vilas would definitely win. But only today, january 2018.

Agree

But lets complicate things even more, shall we?

Vilas would win today because of his superior record at the Slams... not because of the 17 titles(?), which todays fans superficially point to as obviously making him number one.

If a guy did today what Vilas did in 1977 (winning 17 tournaments), it'd be seen as 'vulturing'... winning a bunch of 250 & few 500 weak events, and as long as Borg (or Connors) outdid him at the 1000 events and WTF, I think many might still favour Borg

The superior record at the Slams puts Vilas over, though practically the Australian runner-up doesn't count for anything like a Slam runner-up does now

---

2000 would be the greatest race of all, with Kuerten and Safin... the closest recorded and without legendary names to distract from real merit

 

[KG1965]

I agree some fans understand at least as well as 'experts' or better... but a popular vote of this type is problematic

Bare minimum, one has to ensure reasonable lack of bias in the voters (even if outright objectivity is unachievable)

See how Roger Federer wins the Fans Favourite and Sportsmanship Award every year... democratic election style, one member one vote, and the whole thing is likely to just become a popularity contest

That said, the sometimes narrow minded, often irrational and flagrantly biased views of one or two 'experts'... is definitely a dubious advert for the value of having "Top Dog" of the year decided by experts jury... and calls into question all such choices

It's true, the biggest problem is the "reasonable lack of prejudice in the voters".
But it is also for the experts.
In fact, often the judgment of a jury leads astray.
Federer risks being the Top Dog regardless.
The driving force of Federer fans, for example, is very difficult to remove.
In a situation of total domination for example by Djokovic, the propulsive drive of the Fedr fans would not change the final outcome, but in the case of a year where Djoker is slightly better than Federer, he would risk to make Top Dog the Swiss champion anyway. Extremist fans are a problem, it's true.

Returning to the MVP and Ballon's d'Or, despite I'm very critical compared to the experts, I think that 7/8 times out of 10 have identified the best Top Dog in the past. It's my opinion, 7 or 8 is not cheap. It is not much, but it is acceptable. Maybe a computerized ranking came closer to my name, I do not know ...

hmmm... Today Ashe would definitely win a mass vote?... do you think fan masses value a couple of big titles more than regular consistency more now than back then?

Vilas would win today because of his superior record at the Slams... not because of the 17 titles(?), which todays fans superficially point to as obviously making him number one.

If a guy did today what Vilas did in 1977 (winning 17 tournaments), it'd be seen as 'vulturing'... winning a bunch of 250 & few 500 weak events, and as long as Borg (or Connors) outdid him at the 1000 events and WTF, I think many might still favour Borg

The superior record at the Slams puts Vilas over, though practically the Australian runner-up doesn't count for anything like a Slam runner-up does now

I think that for the masses in the last 20 years above all ... the slam titles (Ashe 1-0) but Arthur was still very consistent in 1975, IMHO more than Jimbo.

Vilas would win today because of his record higher than the Slams, 2 are many.
The 17 titles are seen in negative, too many micky mouse..., but .. in the "Masters 1000-500 and WTC"
- Guillermo = Borg
- Guillermo < Connors but Jimbo lost the slams.
In both cases the vote of the fans could be problematic (as in the Djokovic-Fedr example), in view of the fact that
Connors was however seen better than Ashe and Borg better than Vilas.

I think ultimately that in
- 1975 Connors would be voted Top Dog (IMHO was 4th),
- 1977 Borg would be voted Top Dog (IMHO was 3rd).
while in 2017 Ashe and Vilas would overtake the two most titled opponents.

So since the vote would be made at the end of 1975 and 1977, the Top Dogs would be "probably" states (IMHO very unfairly) Connors in 1975 and Borg in 1977.

The problem stems from the fact that in some cases the name of the player >>> of achievements.
Is this sad ? Yes, for me it is.

But I am optimistic, sometimes historical revisionism produces positive things.
In 1975 and 1977 cases, if the written hypothesis is true, with the passing of the years the opinion of many changes because we have more time to reason and elaborate, moreover we have more data available, so we understand better, not definitively but better, the history, and in this case the history of the Top Dog of that year.

It is still poised the
- 1971 where Laver was considered by all Top Dog (as claimed rightly Limp),
- 1972 where many (in 1972) thought that Laver was still the Top Dog.

 

[KG1965]

On the 2000 battle Kuerten v Safin ... I don't know the 2000 trend ; I study and then bring you my idea... maybe in another thread.

 

[KG1965]

[

2000 would be the greatest race of all, with Kuerten and Safin... the closest recorded and without legendary names to distract from real merit

2000 case is really very interesting. I am informed badly and partially of that year.
I have seen the great results of the two suitors and it seems to me that Kuerten is more deserving even with little margin. I'm afraid the last big event was decisive: the Finals. Taking as reference all the titles won and runner-ups.
- slam 1-1
- WTC+Hamburg (Kuerten) = Toronto+Paris indoor+Barcelona (Safin)
- Indy+Santiago (Kuerten) = Majorca+Tashkent+St.Petersburg (Safin)
The two finals of both affect little but a little ... Miami+Rome > Indy+Hamburg.
From the point of view of the ranking, I am not surprised by the number one attributed to Kuerten.

From the Top Dog's point of view, I think that
- experts voted in 2000 for Kuerten
- fans in 2000 would have voted Kuerten
- experts & fans would have voted Kuerten.

I'm not so sure ... but I'm fine if the outcome is Kuerten.

 

[BobbyOne]

It's true, the biggest problem is the "reasonable lack of prejudice in the voters".
But it is also for the experts.
In fact, often the judgment of a jury leads astray.
Federer risks being the Top Dog regardless.
The driving force of Federer fans, for example, is very difficult to remove.
In a situation of total domination for example by Djokovic, the propulsive drive of the Fedr fans would not change the final outcome, but in the case of a year where Djoker is slightly better than Federer, he would risk to make Top Dog the Swiss champion anyway. Extremist fans are a problem, it's true.

Returning to the MVP and Ballon's d'Or, despite I'm very critical compared to the experts, I think that 7/8 times out of 10 have identified the best Top Dog in the past. It's my opinion, 7 or 8 is not cheap. It is not much, but it is acceptable. Maybe a computerized ranking came closer to my name, I do not know ...


I think that for the masses in the last 20 years above all ... the slam titles (Ashe 1-0) but Arthur was still very consistent in 1975, IMHO more than Jimbo.

Vilas would win today because of his record higher than the Slams, 2 are many.
The 17 titles are seen in negative, too many micky mouse..., but .. in the "Masters 1000-500 and WTC"
- Guillermo = Borg
- Guillermo < Connors but Jimbo lost the slams.
In both cases the vote of the fans could be problematic (as in the Djokovic-Fedr example), in view of the fact that
Connors was however seen better than Ashe and Borg better than Vilas.

I think ultimately that in
- 1975 Connors would be voted Top Dog (IMHO was 4th),
- 1977 Borg would be voted Top Dog (IMHO was 3rd).
while in 2017 Ashe and Vilas would overtake the two most titled opponents.

So since the vote would be made at the end of 1975 and 1977, the Top Dogs would be "probably" states (IMHO very unfairly) Connors in 1975 and Borg in 1977.

The problem stems from the fact that in some cases the name of the player >>> of achievements.
Is this sad ? Yes, for me it is.

But I am optimistic, sometimes historical revisionism produces positive things.
In 1975 and 1977 cases, if the written hypothesis is true, with the passing of the years the opinion of many changes because we have more time to reason and elaborate, moreover we have more data available, so we understand better, not definitively but better, the history, and in this case the history of the Top Dog of that year.

It is still poised the
- 1971 where Laver was considered by all Top Dog (as claimed rightly Limp),
- 1972 where many (in 1972) thought that Laver was still the Top Dog.

KG1965, Virtually NOBODY considered Laver the top dog in 1971 and 1972. In those years he was already out of the race for No.1 or for top dog or for top crocodile or for what you want.

 

[Waspsting]

I looked up 1975... it's a bit unusual and open for interpretation

I think that for the masses in the last 20 years above all ... the slam titles (Ashe 1-0) but Arthur was still very consistent in 1975, IMHO more than Jimbo

Connors was certainly more consistent. He played 16 tournaments and reached the final in 14 (withdrew from a couple others). Ashe only 12/26

Titles Connors 9, Ashe 8

But the quality of titles seem to favour Ashe. A lot of WCT events with opponent I'm familiar with (meaning they were good enough for me to know their names). In finals alone, he beat Borg thrice, Okker twice, Connors, Tanner and Vilas

Connors' titles on the other hand ... events in places not renowned for hosting top events (Salisbury, Bahamas, Bermuda, Hampton, Maui are examples), beating people I mostly haven't heard off (Billy Martin, Karl Meiler, Jurgen Fassbender are among those he won finals against)... Some 'vulturing' type wins of 'Micky Mouse' events, it seems

So I can see it going either way but this -

- 1975 Connors would be voted Top Dog (IMHO was 4th),

Could you explain this a bit? That low? The guy was 82-8 @ 90% for the year! (Ashe was 97-18 @ 84.3%)

Who else would you have ahead of Connors?

---

More broadly, I think the 'Vulturing' to build a great win-loss record vs Competing at the biggest & best events that we see in some years like 75, 77, 82.... its almost like Pre-Open Era comparison between amateurs and professionals

 

[KG1965]

Connors was certainly more consistent. He played 16 tournaments and reached the final in 14 (withdrew from a couple others). Ashe only 12/26

Titles Connors 9, Ashe 8

But the quality of titles seem to favour Ashe. A lot of WCT events with opponent I'm familiar with (meaning they were good enough for me to know their names). In finals alone, he beat Borg thrice, Okker twice, Connors, Tanner and Vilas

Connors' titles on the other hand ... events in places not renowned for hosting top events (Salisbury, Bahamas, Bermuda, Hampton, Maui are examples), beating people I mostly haven't heard off (Billy Martin, Karl Meiler, Jurgen Fassbender are among those he won finals against)... Some 'vulturing' type wins of 'Micky Mouse' events, it seems

So I can see it going either way but this -

Could you explain this a bit? That low? The guy was 82-8 @ 90% for the year! (Ashe was 97-18 @ 84.3%)

Who else would you have ahead of Connors?

It depends, I believe, on what we mean by "consistency",
- if ability to go into the final constantly Connors in 1975 is clearly the best,
- if instead it is the ability to make important placements but also winning some of the most important big titles Connors is not the best.

Ashe's season is clear: he has played a lot, won the WCT Tour (Tournaments Master 500, which ATP inserts as Master 250), including Dallas. Then he won Wimbledon and another pair of good titles (Los Angeles and S.Francisco).

Connors' problem is that he played a few big titles in 1975 (he did not happen again the years later) and in the big titles he always lost in the finals (W, USO, Dewar Cup, Stockholm ... Aus).
In essence he won a good title to North Conway, a WCT title (the only one he took part in) to Denver + 7 Master 250 (almost all of the I.P.A. of Riordan). The quality is very low and in fact also ATP penalizes it a lot compared to 1974 and 1976.

This is why in addition to Ashe, IMHO also Orantes and Borg have a bigger season.
Orantes above all, Manolo is close to Ashe.

More broadly, I think the 'Vulturing' to build a great win-loss record vs Competing at the biggest & best events that we see in some years like 75, 77, 82.... its almost like Pre-Open Era comparison between amateurs and professionals

I can't interpret this piece instead.

 

[KG1965]

Who else would you have ahead of Connors?

Some further clarifications:
1 - the 1975 programming of Connors was identical to that of 1974, first part tournaments of the Riordan Tour then 6-7 big titles. The problem is that in 1974 he always wins the finals and in 1975 he loses them all! (not only 3 slam...)

2 -
ATP attributes to Connors the number one for ... lack of opponents because Orantes, Borg and Vilas do not have incredible victories, while Ashe suffers the underestimation of the WCT Tour that Arthur dominates.

Most of the experts evaluated Ashe Top Dog for ... the final of W.

IMHO fans would have voted Connors because ... Connors was still considered > Ashe, indeed >>> Ashe.

then...
- Connors ATP number one,
- Ashe Top Dog of experts for W (W > USO for experts...)
- Connors Top Dog of fans in 1975 because... "Connors is the greater",
- Ashe Top Dog of fans in 2017 because Connors lost 3 slam finals.

In 1975 there were two other famous and important events that would be evaluated and that IMHO would change things in favor of Jimbo but are 2 challenge matches (v Laver & Newk).. and in 2017 we tend to underestimate the exhibition events, and I risk of make confusion.

 

[Scott_tennis]

There were a few special events at the end of 1970 where results have been difficult to locate. I would be interested if any forum members have details on the following events:

1. German pro events
One report listed this as a three-city series - Bonn, Berlin, and Saarbrucken in between October 17 and 19.
World Tennis Magazine listed results only for Bonn: October 18 Final Laver d Okker 62 67 62 and third place Gimeno d Drysdale 46 62 63
Not sure how one match became the final and other was for third place
Does anyone have results or details of matches held in the other two cities?

[The Barcelona open tournament was then held between October 19 and 25]

2. Italian pro events
Looking for details of events which were reportedly held in Milan, Turin, Rome and Bergamo between October 27 and November 4
Participants in these events were Laver, Taylor, Gimeno and Drysdale
An old listing I received from Andrew Tas had three results listed for Laver:
October 28 Milan Laver d Taylor 46 76 63
October 30 Turin Laver d Taylor 64 64
November 1 Brussels Taylor d Laver 46 63 64
(I am unsure if Brussels was part of this series or was a separate event)

3. Grenoble
This was held on or about November 8 with Barthes vs Gimeno

4. Basel
This was held on or about December 6 with Emerson vs Drysdale

 

[urban]

Scott, i followed this German indoor series 1970 in the German press. It was played at Berlin, Sport Palace (famous for sports events but infamous for the Goebbels speech), at Bonn, Beethoven Halle (then the BRD capital) and Saarbruecken (Saarland Hall), which had 3000 attendance. Laver won his matches with Drysdale and Gimeno at Berlin and Bonn in two sets, and the last match at Saarbruecken with Okker in a three set match. Okker had also won his first two matches of this series.

 

[Ivan69]

There were a few special events at the end of 1970 where results have been difficult to locate. I would be interested if any forum members have details on the following events:

1. German pro events
One report listed this as a three-city series - Bonn, Berlin, and Saarbrucken in between October 17 and 19.
World Tennis Magazine listed results only for Bonn: October 18 Final Laver d Okker 62 67 62 and third place Gimeno d Drysdale 46 62 63
Not sure how one match became the final and other was for third place
Does anyone have results or details of matches held in the other two cities?

[The Barcelona open tournament was then held between October 19 and 25]

German pro should be correct in the period Oct 16-18. Barcelona started on Oct 19 and all 4 players played there. They had a bye in the first round but I think they should have traveled to Barca either on 18th in the evening or 19th.
I have these results (4-man RR tournament):
Oct 17 in Berlin
Laver d. Gimeno 7-5, 6-3
Okker d. Drysdale 7-6, 7-6

Oct 18 in Bonn
Laver d. Drysdale 7-6, 7-5
Okker d. Gimeno 7-5, 1-6, 7-5

Oct 19 in Saarbrücken
Gimeno d. Drysdale 4-6, 6-2, 6-3 (3rd place)
Laver d. Okker 6-2, 6-7, 6-3 (final)

2. Italian pro events
Looking for details of events which were reportedly held in Milan, Turin, Rome and Bergamo between October 27 and November 4
Participants in these events were Laver, Taylor, Gimeno and Drysdale
An old listing I received from Andrew Tas had three results listed for Laver:
October 28 Milan Laver d Taylor 46 76 63
October 30 Turin Laver d Taylor 64 64
November 1 Brussels Taylor d Laver 46 63 64
(I am unsure if Brussels was part of this series or was a separate event)

I have the Italian matches as ONS. Here the results:

Oct 27 in Milan
Laver d. Taylor 4-6, 7-6, 6-3
Gimeno d. Drysdale 6-3, 5-7, 7-6

Oct 28 in Milan
Laver d. Gimeno 6-4, 3-6, 6-0
Drysdale d. Taylor 6-4, 6-4

Oct 29 in Turin
Drysdale d. Gimeno 7-6, 6-2
Laver d. Taylor 6-4, 6-4

Oct 30 in Turin
Drysdale d. Taylor 6-4, 7-6
Gimeno d. Laver 6-4, 7-6

Nov 03 in Rome
Drysdale d. Taylor 6-1, 6-4
Gimeno d. Laver 7-5, 3-6, 6-4

Nov 04 in Bergamo
Taylor d. Drysdale 6-1, 4-6, 7-5
Gimeno d. Laver 6-4, 3-6, 6-3

The Belgium pro is the same as the German - 4-man RR tournament in 3 cities. Here the results:
Oct 31 in Brussels
Taylor d. Gimeno 6-3, 19-17
Laver d. Drysdale 7-5, 6-2

Nov 01 in Liege
Taylor d. Drysdale 6-3, 7-6
Laver d. Gimeno 6-3, 5-7, 6-4

Nov 02 in Antwerp
Drysdale d. Gimeno 6-4, 3-6, 7-5 (3rd place)
Taylor d. Laver 6-4, 3-6, 6-4 (final)

3. Grenoble
This was held on or about November 8 with Barthes vs Gimeno

Nov 07 - semis
Gimeno d. Drysdale 7-6, 6-3
Barthes d. Laver 6-3, 7-6

Nov 08
Laver d. Drysdale 6-4, 5-7, 6-2 (3rd place)
Barthes d. Gimeno 7-6, 7-6 (final)

4. Basel
This was held on or about December 6 with Emerson vs Drysdale

Dec 02 - semis
Emerson d. Gimeno 6-7, 6-4, 7-5
Drysdale d. Barthes 6-3, 4-6, 6-1

Dec 03
Barthes d. Gimeno 7-6, 6-3 (3rd place)
Emerson d. Drysdale 6-2, 7-5 (final)

 

[NoMercy]

German pro should be correct in the period Oct 16-18. Barcelona started on Oct 19 and all 4 players played there. They had a bye in the first round but I think they should have traveled to Barca either on 18th in the evening or 19th.
I have these results (4-man RR tournament):
Oct 17 in Berlin
Laver d. Gimeno 7-5, 6-3
Okker d. Drysdale 7-6, 7-6

Oct 18 in Bonn
Laver d. Drysdale 7-6, 7-5
Okker d. Gimeno 7-5, 1-6, 7-5

Oct 19 in Saarbrücken
Gimeno d. Drysdale 4-6, 6-2, 6-3 (3rd place)
Laver d. Okker 6-2, 6-7, 6-3 (final)

I have the Italian matches as ONS. Here the results:

Oct 27 in Milan
Laver d. Taylor 4-6, 7-6, 6-3
Gimeno d. Drysdale 6-3, 5-7, 7-6

Oct 28 in Milan
Laver d. Gimeno 6-4, 3-6, 6-0
Drysdale d. Taylor 6-4, 6-4

Oct 29 in Turin
Drysdale d. Gimeno 7-6, 6-2
Laver d. Taylor 6-4, 6-4

Oct 30 in Turin
Drysdale d. Taylor 6-4, 7-6
Gimeno d. Laver 6-4, 7-6

Nov 03 in Rome
Drysdale d. Taylor 6-1, 6-4
Gimeno d. Laver 7-5, 3-6, 6-4

Nov 04 in Bergamo
Taylor d. Drysdale 6-1, 4-6, 7-5
Gimeno d. Laver 6-4, 3-6, 6-3

The Belgium pro is the same as the German - 4-man RR tournament in 3 cities. Here the results:
Oct 31 in Brussels
Taylor d. Gimeno 6-3, 19-17
Laver d. Drysdale 7-5, 6-2

Nov 01 in Liege
Taylor d. Drysdale 6-3, 7-6
Laver d. Gimeno 6-3, 5-7, 6-4

Nov 02 in Antwerp
Drysdale d. Gimeno 6-4, 3-6, 7-5 (3rd place)
Taylor d. Laver 6-4, 3-6, 6-4 (final)

Nov 07 - semis
Gimeno d. Drysdale 7-6, 6-3
Barthes d. Laver 6-3, 7-6

Nov 08
Laver d. Drysdale 6-4, 5-7, 6-2 (3rd place)
Barthes d. Gimeno 7-6, 7-6 (final)

Dec 02 - semis
Emerson d. Gimeno 6-7, 6-4, 7-5
Drysdale d. Barthes 6-3, 4-6, 6-1

Dec 03
Barthes d. Gimeno 7-6, 6-3 (3rd place)
Emerson d. Drysdale 6-2, 7-5 (final)

Instead of writing “I have these results” or “I have the Italian matches”, you should have written “I found these matches on TennisBase”.

Also, the German and the Belgian tournaments have no finals, they are just RR4 tournaments with the winner being the one with most wins.
Order of Belgian cities is wrong.
Laver plays Taylor in Brussels (31 Oct), Drysdale in Liege (1 Nov) and Gimeno in Antwerp (2 Nov).

Also, the Italian matches are not just ONS, but they were two H2H series, with the main event being Laver-Gimeno.
Gimeno won the series and 4,000,000 Italian Lira, about $2,000

 

[Ivan69]

Instead of writing “I have these results” or “I have the Italian matches”, you should have written “I found these matches on TennisBase”.

Also, the German and the Belgian tournaments have no finals, they are just RR4 tournaments with the winner being the one with most wins.
Order of Belgian cities is wrong.
Laver plays Taylor in Brussels (31 Oct), Drysdale in Liege (1 Nov) and Gimeno in Antwerp (2 Nov).

Also, the Italian matches are not just ONS, but they were two H2H series, with the main event being Laver-Gimeno.
Gimeno won the series and 4,000,000 Italian Lira, about $2,000

Wow, awakening from the winter dream just to confront with me. Probably this brings you a full satisfaction. Good.

Instead of using the usual confrontation you may ask me where is my info from. But your ego doesn't allow you to keep a dialogue.
And here you are totally WRONG because my info is from other sources. And the papers I have say the German and Belgian tournaments HAD finals.

About the Italian series you could be right. I don't have such an info. Anyway my point was that it was not a tournament.

You can feel free to continue with your arrogance. I am Ok that this attitude makes you happy.

 

[NoMercy]

Wow, awakening from the winter dream just to confront with me. Probably this brings you a full satisfaction. Good.

Instead of using the usual confrontation you may ask me where is my info from. But your ego doesn't allow you to keep a dialogue.
And here you are totally WRONG because my info is from other sources. And the papers I have say the German and Belgian tournaments HAD finals.

About the Italian series you could be right. I don't have such an info. Anyway my point was that it was not a tournament.

You can feel free to continue with your arrogance. I am Ok that this attitude makes you happy.

Why don’t you post your info regarding Antwerp? I’m curious....
It’s weird Taylor-Laver was the final, as it was played on the first day.
Maybe in Belgium they can see the future, they knew they were going to win the other two matches!!
Hahaha, Ivan, you are hilarious

 

[Ivan69]

Why don’t you post your info regarding Antwerp? I’m curious....
It’s weird Taylor-Laver was the final, as it was played on the first day.
Maybe in Belgium they can see the future, they knew they were going to win the other two matches!!
Hahaha, Ivan, you are hilarious

Definitely you are not curious about anything. You are feeding your ego. Keep going! I am fine.

 

[NoMercy]

Here some easy links.
Links that even Ivan could have found.
Well, maybe Ivan no....

This one says German tournament had a point standings.

http://hemeroteca.lavanguardia.com/preview/1970/10/18/pagina-44/34324219/pdf.html?search=Laver okker

This one says Brussels was first day, with Taylor-Laver.

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1970/11/02/pagina-35/964475/pdf.html


But in Ivan’s papers Taylor-Laver is the final!
LOL, played on day1!

I would love to see those papers

 

[NoMercy]

Definitely you are not curious about anything. You are feeding your ego. Keep going! I am fine.

Sorry man, your not going to escape so easy.
I posted some links of newspapers that explain how the tournaments were scheduled.
I'm waiting to see your newspapers.
I also have the newspapers from Antwerp, with the report of last day of play ;-)
I'm trying to guess which newspapers you have....
Mickey Mouse???

PS it would have been lot easier for you telling the truth, but anyway...

 

[hoodjem]

1970 Tournament Statistics

Laver Tournament statistics (15 wins):
TOTAL-9410

Newcombe Tournament statistics (3 wins):
TOTAL-5080

Rosewall Tournament statistics (6 wins):
TOTAL-4700

TOTALS
LAVER: 9410
NEWCOMBE: 5080
ROSEWALL: 4700
ASHE: 3650
KODES: 2860

Is there truly any question here, when Laver apparently leads his next closest competitor by over 4000 points.?

(For more complete statistics and number details, please see the original post no. 1 on page 1.)

 

[BTURNER]

I disagree. Wimbledon has always been the most prestigious major, and remains so today, in my view.

Have not followed this strain of discussion prior to this post. But does this assertion 'Nonsense! If the top players played in both Wimbledon and USO, any year, they are equal. All players who enter a slam give it their all, because they desperately want to win a slam no matter which slam they are playing....' have to conflict with yours above? This is the Merriam Webster definitions of 'Prestigious"
prestigious
adjective



pres·ti·gious | \pre-ˈsti-jəs, -ˈstē- also prə- \

Definition of prestigious



1 archaic : of, relating to, or marked by illusion, conjuring, or trickery



2 : having prestige : honored


I think its possible that meaning 1 (archaic) should not be ignored, while applying meaning 2. This special aura of Wimbledon that you mention, does not necessarily translate into greater effort, or better competitive play and hasn't for decades. Acquired prestige of Wimbledon can feel like old money holding on to its prior relevance, in a new money world.

 

[hoodjem]

Bumped.

 

[hoodjem]

Resurrected for pertinence.