1970: an Almost Complete Picture

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Jan 13, 2017.

  1. thrust

    thrust Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,284
    Why would anyone rank Roche #1 in 70? If the TCC was considered a sanctioned event, why would Laver be ranked as low as #4 by the experts?
     
  2. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    30,318
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    You make that same claim about any of the other 14 events that Laver won. Not all the experts ranked Laver at #4.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    thrust, Even though I find Roche above Laver strange, some top experts of that time (Collins, McCauley) ranked Roche ahead of Rod because Tony did rather well in the GS tournaments: final US OPen, QFs Wimbledon, QFs AO.
     
    treblings likes this.
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    thrust, Even though I find Roche above Laver strange, some top experts of that time (Collins, McCauley) ranked Roche ahead of Rod because Tony did rather well in the GS tournaments: final US OPen, QFs Wimbledon, QFs AO.
     
  5. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    In the 1959 WS, Hoad beat Pancho 15 times out of 28, so 15-13 in Hoad's favor.
    During the series, Anderson suffered a back ailment and was sidelined for one week.
    Kramer took his place to cover the five dates scheduled in that week and in every night the match-ups were fixed: Hoad vs Gonzales and Cooper vs Kramer.
    This mini series ended 3-2 in Pancho's favor, but it didn't count for the WS obviously, because one of the 4 contender could not play.
    As probably everybody knows (or maybe not), the 1959 WS were based on money won, not on overall wins or winning percentage (in a few words: the final winner was the one with more money earned in the tour, not the one with best winning percentage).
    To not penalize Anderson (who could not have earned money in that week), those matches were just One Night Stands.
    But even adding those matches, the overall tally is 17-16 in Hoad's favor.
    So again (AND AGAIN) the old sources are GARBAGE (I would say other words but let's stay politically correct :D ).
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, "garbage" is exaggerated.

    I doubt that prize money was the deciding parameter for the 1959 WS. Which sources do you have for money?
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, "garbage" is exaggerated.

    I doubt that prize money was the deciding parameter for the 1959 WS. Which sources do you have for money?
     
  8. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    You didn't know that?
    You see, garbage sources.
    GARBAGE.
    The WS1959 was decided on prize money.
    Gonzales clinched the title only in the second to last stop, winning that match and keeping Hoad $600 behind him.
    If he had lost his last two matches and Hoad won them, Hoad would have been the WS winner, even if he would have had a worst winning percentage (45-17 for Pancho losing the last two matches and 43-19 for Hoad winning the last two).
     
    Dan Lobb, urban and Limpinhitter like this.
  9. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    "Tennis is not a matter of life and death. It is much more than that." -- Unknown

    Laver was #1, 2 and 3 in 1970. Newcombe and Rosewall were tied for 4th.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  10. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    30,318
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Laver GOAT.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, Again: What are your sources? It would have been the only WS in several decades where money was deciding.

    What about prize money for doubles? Does not it distort the outcome of the singles series?
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, Again: What are your sources? It would have been the only WS in several decades where money was deciding.

    What about prize money for doubles? Does not it distort the outcome of the singles series?
     
    treblings likes this.
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, Again: What are your sources? It would have been the only WS in several decades where money was deciding.

    What about prize money for doubles? Does not it distort the outcome of the singles series?
    LImpin, You are GEOAT (greatest expert of all time). Only an idiot would not realize that.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, Again: What are your sources? It would have been the only WS in several decades where money was deciding.

    What about prize money for doubles? Does not it distort the outcome of the singles series?
    LImpin, You are GEOAT (greatest expert of all time). Only an idiot would not realize that.
     
  15. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Prize money for doubles was not affecting the singles of course.
     
  16. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    And remember, it was one of the few WS with more than two players involved.
    So OBVIOUSLY all the ones involving just two players were decided by the H2H tally.

    There was the warm up match ($400 to the winner, $200 to the loser) and the main match ($600 to the winner, $300 to the loser).
    The winner of the warm up match was facing the winner of the main match in the next stop.
    With some exceptions: in the two days stops a mini tournament was played, with the semifinals awarding $500 to the winners and $250 to the losers.
    Finals awarded the same money as a regular stop.

    The overall best money maker being the WS champion
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  17. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,846
    There was only one crocodile (Lacoste), but here, there were many crocodile tears.
     
    Limpinhitter and treblings like this.
  18. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    This makes sense. This is how they used to calculate PGA rankings. But, I think I would still look at the W/L record retrospectively to determine the tour champion.
     
  19. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    Duplicate.
     
  20. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    You can do it because Gonzales won his last two matches.
    He would had lost them, you could not think that way, because Hoad would have been the champion, even with a worse record
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, Thanks. But you provide us with information without giving a source.
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, Thanks. But you provide us with information without giving a source.
     
  23. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Because 95% of the time I write my posts going by memory, not consulting anything (most of the time I don't need it). Tonight I will post some article, even if it should not be necessary.
    But anyway
     
  24. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Guest

    BobbyOne likes this.
  25. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    I don't follow you. Prize money champions make more sense with golf because, other than amateurs, it generally isn't match play. However, if Gonzalez was the prize money champion and had the W/L best win loss record, then there is nothing to debate. Otherwise, I would call the player with the best W/L record the tour champion.
     
  26. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    No, you call the World Series champion the one that wins the World Series.
    If Hoad would have been World Series champion with a worse W/L record, he would have been the champion anyway.
    You don't make the rules.
    Kramer did in 1959
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
    BobbyOne likes this.
  27. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Who cares about the sense?
    If the champion was the bigger money maker, it's just how it was.
     
  28. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Well, at least somebody knew.

    But that article says almost nothing.
    There are plenty of them more detailed and with more info
     
  29. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    Who cares about Kramer's rules unless they make sense! If Hoad proved that he was #1 by compiling the best record than he was #1. If not, then he wasn't.

    PS: Gotta learn to think for yourself, paisano.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,958
    Yes, I agree...there may be an official champion at the time according to the rules of the tour, but today we can offer our own subjective evaluations as to who was the best player in a given year, using our own criteria.

    However, I have trouble accepting titles which were not in existence, for example, claiming that Rosewall won six Wimbledon Pro titles, or....well, you know what else along those lines.
     
  31. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    It seems to me that the "official champion" you refer to would be the tour champion, not the YE champion. Further, looking at e.g. the W/L record to determine the YE champion (regardless of putative official rules or champions), would be an objective method to determine the champion, not a subjective method.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  32. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,958
    The only problem I have with that is that some matches are more important than others, or some matches belong to a "important" tour, while others may be in relatively minor events.
    For example for 1959, the official hth for Hoad/Gonzales for the year was 24 to 23, according to Kramer's office.
    But some of those matches, (actually, very few that particular year) were in greater or lesser events, some in a 4-man championship tour, some exhibitions (when Anderson was injured).
    And the two players themselves were not thinking in terms of hth results, except on that 4 man tour.

    However, it is one stat of interest, to be sure.
    In 1959, Rosewall may have had a slight hth advantage over Gonzales, but I would not rate him ahead of Gonzales on the year.
     
  33. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    I will try one more time.

    So, I'm a player playing something (tour, tournament, exhibition, whatever). There are rules THAT I'M AWARE OF to follow to win that "something". If I win that "something", I'm the champion.
    That's it.
    There is nothing to think about.
     
  34. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    Are you saying that Kramer used prize money as a substitute for a point system?
     
  35. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Yes!!!
    But didn't you understand that?!?

    The 1959 WS winner was the best money maker in the tour (JUST in the WS, not in other competitions).
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    Thank you. But I find that system strange.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    Lobb, Rosewall did not have a slight hth advantage over Gonzalez!
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, Following your own (right) logic you should also accept that Laver cannot have been No.1 in 1970.
     
  39. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Why?
    There was no ranking system in 1970.
    In 1970 there is nothing to follow.
     
    NatF likes this.
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NM, Oh yes, the players did know in 1970 where they had to succeed to reach the top place even though there was not an official ranking system. They did know since years that the top experts considered the GS tournaments as the deciding parameters. They had used to read the ranking systems of Tingay, McCauley & Co. of the previous years. And that's also the reason that the great and proud GS winner, Laver, accepted his No. 3 or even 4 position. Till this day Rod has not revised those rankings nor his own valuation.
     
    treblings likes this.
  41. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,590
    It wasn't clear to me that that's what you meant by Kramer's rules.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017
  42. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    In the WS of 1959 the best moneymaker was the champion.
    No possible discussion about that, no opinion, no analysis.

    In 1970 we have Mickey Mouse saying one ranking, Donald Duck saying another ranking and Goofy with another different one.

    These two situations are VERY different
     
    Limpinhitter, NatF, Waspsting and 2 others like this.
  43. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    28,632
    Location:
    U.S
    umm, no he hasn't.
    Your assumption != reality

    accept it and move on.
     
  44. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Just to give you a complete picture of 1970 "rankings".
    There was no ranking, but the tournaments had seeds of course.
    And thanks God, they were giving the seeds according to common sense, not according to Mickey Mouse & Co.

    So let's see the seeds in the tournaments played by Laver and at least one between Rosewall and Newcombe, from after Wimbledon 1970 (where Laver lost bad) until March 1971.

    1970 (after Wimbledon)
    Louisville : 1. Newcombe 2. Laver 3. Rosewall
    Boston : 1. Newcombe 2. Laver 3. Rosewall
    Fort Worth : 1. Laver 2. Newcombe 3. Rosewall
    South Orange : 1. Laver 2. Rosewall
    US Open : 1. Laver 2. Newcombe 3. Rosewall
    Los Angeles : 1. Laver 2. Newcombe
    Vancouver : 1. Laver 2. Newcombe
    Barcelona : 1. Laver 2. Rosewall
    Paris Indoor : 1. Laver 2. Rosewall
    Wembey : 1. Laver 2. Rosewall

    1971
    Philadelphia : 1. Laver 2. Rosewall 3. Newcombe
    London : 1. Laver 5. Newcombe
    Australian Open : 1. Laver 2. Rosewall 3. Newcombe
    Chicago : 1. Newcombe 2. Ashe 3. Rosewall 4. Laver

    As per AP "Rod Laver lacking no. 1 seeding in a tournament for the first time since mid-1970."

    In a few words, apart of the two first tournaments after Wimbledon, Laver was ranked number one seed in every tournament from Jul 1970 to March 1971.
    So number one at the US open (why?? why not the great Wimbledon champion??), number one at Los Angeles (why?? why not the great Wimbledon or US Open champions?), number one in the last tournament of 1970 and number one in the first of 1971 (why?? why not the favorites of Mickey Mouse & Co.??).
     
  45. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,364
    Things are sometimes difficult to understand, once they go beyond points and dollars;)
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  46. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    But there is nothing to understand.
    If Laver was not number one because of his results at Wimbledon and US Open, so after NY (Los Angeles tournament) he should never have been ranked as seed #1 in any tournament.
    Plain and simple
     
    Limpinhitter and hoodjem like this.
  47. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    30,318
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Beyond points and dollars, so you mean level of play? Well Laver with his win/loss record, vast number of titles and h2h against the top players is surely top there.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  48. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    I didn't understand either what he wanted to say.
    For sure the bed night tale (that it was commonly accepted that only the winners of the majors could have been ranked number one) was not commonly accepted.
    Laver number one seed in every tournament until March 1971!
    Weird, right? :D
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  49. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    30,318
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    The really weird thing is that when they enacted a computer ranking system in 1973 it didn't put such a large emphasis on the majors.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  50. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    I can hear Johnny and Kenny on the seedings.

    At Philadelphia
    J: Hey Kenny, Laver number one in the draw? Why???
    K: Ah, it should be a mistake, Mickey Mouse ranked him #4

    At Australian Open
    K: Hey Johhny! Again Rod #1 seed!
    J: Ah, same mistake, they never learn!
    Donald Duck told me I should be #1 because I'm the Wimbledon Champion

    At Wimbledon (!!) in July 1971
    J: Rod number one seed again?!?!?
    I'm the defending champion! And 1970 number one for all the Walt Disney World!!!
    K: yeah... We should boycott this event sooner or later, they don't know what to do
     
    Limpinhitter and KG1965 like this.
  51. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Exactly.
    Points difference between majors and Tier I tournament was very small
     
    Limpinhitter and KG1965 like this.
  52. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    14,640
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Makes a certain amount of sense, to me.

    It would appear that some experts of the time (knowledgeable tournament officials) regarded Laver as the no. 1 player

    Thumbs up.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.

Share This Page