True. Nadal gets the #1 ranking, but in reality, Roger IS the player of the year
1970: an Almost Complete Picture
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
Huh. Looks like the Wikipedia community does not seem to hold his points of view in very high regard.
I think Mr.Geist will survive if an idiot calls him an idiot. If I were him I would ignore stupid claims. As you might in Wikipedia everybody can write, even fools...
I see that Wikipedia has taken his concept of three No.1 players though (he was the only one mentioned as having made a three-way).
NatF, As often you are again wrong: I did not blame you for changing your opinion! I did critisize that in both cases (your old and your new judgement) you rather would give the clearly weaker player the edge instead of ranking both players equally!!! That's just absurd.
You are also totally wrong that I write against my own convictions! Note, strange guy: I'm not a village idiot! I don't believe that Rosewall has the best case of all players in 1964 and 1970!! Don't lie!! I just do know that Rosewall was the acknowledged No.1 player in 1964 itself (In retrospect rank L&R equal) and that MOST experts of 1970 did not rank Laver as No.1 in 1970. That's all.
NatF, The best way to find out is to contact Mr. Geist himself. Maybe he will be ready to explain you and Carsomyr why he (Geist) is a fool...
Are you real? Are you crazy? You trust an insult more than Wikipedia's choice to present Geist's ranking as a summary???
Only you don't know. For all other readers of his book it's clear what he meant...
NatF
Bionic Poster
The way you argue it's easy to read between the lines, you also once told me if you had to pick a number one for 1964 it would be Rosewall.
You seemed to find it amusing that I changed my opinion in your last post? In Bobby terms I would assume that is the same as "blaming".
Ivan, As usual BobbyOne is NOT alone with his opinion. You for example "forgot" krosero (who defended with strong words the old experts) and treblings and perhaps a few posters more...
Ivan, Did you realize that no single poster here accepted your curious ranking methods??
AGAIN WRONG: I do NOT smile about your changing the opinion!!!!!! When will you understand?????
If I said Rosewall (don't remember) I change my opinion: I believe that Laver deserves an equal place.
NatF
Bionic Poster
So you smile just because I said either Rosewall or Laver was #1 and not both? How is that any different from any other year I talk about?
abmk
Bionic Poster
nope, only for you --- your blinded assumptions , just because you want it to be that way.
I posted the passages here and no one else here has agreed with you.
you want to re-hash the same BS without anything else supporting, without any addional point, that would be just dumb and stubborn.
Bobby is alone at least for 1970 and 1974 claiming absurd things. I haven't seen other posters having supported your claims for Rosewall and Newcombe being #1 for 1970 and Rosewall being #2 for 1974.
You expect a support from krosero!!! After you humiliate and insult him so badly. I am not sure.
Carsomyr
Legend
Wikipedia is incredibly well-sourced these days. New information goes through a lengthy process of peer review. I can't believe that a statement about what a big, dumb idiot Robert Geist is would make its way onto the site without a majority opinion of the tennis editors.
I don't care Bobby. The most important is that your rankings are confused and wrong.
Is it worth to waste your time? Bobby uses in these cases usually 3 words - Collins, Tingay, McCauley. Then he speaks them in reverse. He lives still in 1970 not in 2017.
NatF, It's of course not different. Your curious logic emerges in any year. It's absurd that you believe player A was better in year X than player B but you yet would rather rank your weaker player first (ranking your better player second) than to say the two players were equal. Considering both players equal is midway of choosing player A or choosing player B and therefore more logical.
There also was no poster who disagreed with my view. So your attack does not prove anything... You should know that many posters don't want to be part of a conflict in a given case.
I don't need additional points because I'm able to read and to understand what Laver meant (and also krosero confirmed, by the way).
My understanding of English language is better (I'm sorry) than that of several posters like you as we all could see in that curious quarrel about Bud's clear claim on Tennis Channel where you and others tried to distort Bud's clear claim!
Last edited:
You are wrong: Even within of a severe quarrel with krosero he confirmed me that he would continue to support me where I'm right. And he already did when he critisized those posters (we know whom he meant) who insult the top experts of 1970.
I'm in fine company regarding 1974 and 1970: Tingay for 1974, Flink for 1974; Tingay, Collins, McCauley, Elian, Martini and Rossi panel, Geist for 1970...
Last edited:
Haha! LOL: You really think that Wikipedia has a panel of editors and that this panel follows Geist's rankings (three-way) and at the same time insults him with bad words??? Really? You cannot be serious...
FYI: Wikipedia kept publishing Geist's rankings WITHOUT adding those ridiculous and obnoxious words for many years. Don't know what idiot has now added words that are not worth to be in a tennis encyclopedia.
I firstly thought you make a (primitive) joke, but we see now that you mean that rubbish seriously... LOL
Wrong: I also add Elian and 7 experts of the Martini and Rossi panel...
NatF
Bionic Poster
You just don't understand my view point. One of player A or B has to be #1, who it is depends on how you value their achievements. If my valuation of B's achievements changes then I bump them up and vice versa.
It's unlikely for two players to have equally the same achievements. On a page like Wikipedia I think it's fine to put tied places as it could mislead people into thinking the year wasn't close. However we're on a forum and I think we can pick between one player or another.
I would say you're in the wrong company for all these years.
1970 and 1974 are clear and closed.
Experts??? Journalists. Ask Barbara Schett to make the 1970 ranking also.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Bobby, this has gone on far enough.
Everyone here knows that Geist is you. The fact that you continually refer to Robert Geist as if he is a separate person is beyond ridiculous.
It is totally disingenuous to do what you continue to do, cite sources, talk about famous experts, then include yourself among these experts.
I have cut you slack in every possible way in this forum, but you are not a child. You are not stupid.
I'm calling you on your BS.
Please stop it.
NatF, Your argumentation is magnificent: You claim there cannot be a situation where two or three players are equal in achievements because you FIRSTLY, A PRIORI claim that "One of player A or B HAS to be No.1". Super logic. Einstein would be proud of you...I just refuse to accept the premiss that "there has to be a (sole) No.1". It's a case of circular argument!!
I have understood exactly what you mean and how you argue!
???
NatF
Bionic Poster
You may have understood it (your post above indicates you actually didn't but anyway)but you haven't accepted it. We have a difference of opinions, let's just move on.
Though to be frank I see no way to rank Newcombe even with Laver and Rosewall together. He trails them in both areas in which they excel. No way is he number one as he's least clearly below Rosewall.
Gary, Are you sure that all posters and readers think that Mr.Geist and BobbyOne are identical? I doubt. FYI: Nobody is allowed in this forum to reveal a poster's real name!!
Instead you should have attacked that curious poster Carsomyr and his even more curious logic and his insults!
NatF, Okay. Also in my view Newcombe has the weakest claim to be No.1 in 1970 but I still rank all three Aussies equal.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hypothetically speaking, if a poster on the forum was Geist and was citing Geist's opinion (as an expert) in addition to his own - wouldn't that be dishonest? Especially when we're trying to tally up the opinions of experts. That would be double counting and would skew the discussion.
I would also find it odd if a person was fiercely protective of his identity and yet boasted frequently about his connections to various other experts, his position on the HOF committee and published works.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
No. I'm pretty sure that Krosero agrees with Bobby that Rosewall was the sole #1 for 1970.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
If an "expert," makes such a monumental blunder as declaring Newcombe or Rosewall as #1 for 1970, does his opinions merit any respect?
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Krosero's bias isn't in favor of Bobby, it's in favor of Rosewall and against Laver.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Better late than never.
Hypothetically speaking: If I'm Robert Geist, am I not allowed to point to Geist's opinions and maybe support them?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hypothetically speaking you should be honest and not double count your own expert opinion.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Are we still arguing with Bobby about 1974? 1974 may be the only year in which Bobby's assertions (that Rosewall was #2) are even more preposterous than his assertions that Rosewall was #1 in 1970.
Connors: 15 titles including: Australian Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open, South Africa and Indianapolis.
Borg: 9 titles including: French Open, Italian Open, and U.S. Pro.
Newcombe: 9 titles including: WCT Final/Dallas.
Vilas: 7 titles including including: Grand Prix Masters over defending champion Nastase.
Laver: 6 titles including 3 WCT titles (which includes Houston where he beat Borg in straight sets on red clay).
Okker: 2 titles.
Ashe: 3 titles.
Rosewall: 0 titles (including 2 major finals in which he was dominated in 6 straight sets by #1 Connors).
abmk
Bionic Poster
mainly because of your non-stop whining, you getting "hurt" when someone replies back in kind to your condescending statements...
pretty sure pc1,Phoenix1983 agreed with me that Laver was not giving his own take/own ranking for 1970 in that statement -- that you were just assuming.
see the threads below.
krosero confirmed what exactly ? where ?
I don't see krosero mentioning anything here.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ll-time-now-men.474196/page-132#post-11733848
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/1970-1974-who-was-the-best.601974/page-2
if he said something to you in private, I don't know what that is.
or whether you manage to misinterepret what he said.
clear claim on what ?
Are you high ? Another one of your utter delusions ?
You were proven wrong on what the emphasis of Laver's statement was about 1970 -- you accepted there.
you were just yesterday so wrong about me not counting Collins enclyopedia rankings for 1970 -- as clear as daylight.
then the wrong accusations about me lying.
then the wrong accusations about NatF lying.
then the wrong accusations about krosero lying.
how many times till you learn to check properly before whining and ******** ?
Here, about Bud's claim about Rosewall :
so how did I get it wrong ?
I actually corrected you and now you turn around and say I misinterpreted it ?
are you that insane ?
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
the part about 1974 is not just preposterous. Its downright insane bias.
Rosewall has an argument for #1 in 1970, though I think Laver was clear #1.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Rosewall has a strong argument for #2 in 1970, even though Newcombe won the slightly more prestigious title.
abmk
Bionic Poster
My point was atleast there is historical support for Rosewall in 1970 , so he has an argument there for #1.
But #2 in 74 is just Tingay.
------
As far as Rosewall vs Newk goes :
Newk honestly has no other argument except the slightly more prestige part of Wimbledon.
However Rosewall did made the final of Wim compared to Newk making semi of USO.
Rosewall won more titles than Newk (6 to 4)
Was in the final of Wimbledon, final of TCC, final of Dunlop compared to Newk being in the final of Los Angeles
Had a better winning % than Newk
Had a 4-1 h2h vs Newk
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I agree. I'm just saying that there is as much or more justification to rank Newk over Rosewall as there is to rank Rosewall over Laver in 70'.
1974 is easy:
CONNORS >>>>> BORG & NEWK > VILAS & LAVER >>> ASHE, NASTASE, SMITH, ROSEWALL, OKKER....
treblings
Hall of Fame
The simple fact that someone can write such an insult on wiki shows that there is no such thing as a peer review by tennis editors .
But you know that of course
There is a review process...I know, when I added information to the "Tournament of Champions" page. There was an extended correspondence to get that changed.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
The rest of us don't quote ourselves as sources.
I'm a musician and teacher with decades of experience. I don't use my name as a way of puffing up my arguments or opinions.
I don't give an opinion, using my forum name, then reference myself as an expert who agrees with me.
That's absurd.
Again and again you use your real name and use that real name as proof that BobbyOne is right.
As I said, it's disingenuous.
It is the exact opposite of integrity and honesty.
It makes a joke of these discussions.
There are at least two other historians here with a good bit of credibility who post their views and research under their forum names. There are probably a lot more.
NONE of them are using their real names to "prove" that their opinions here, written under their forum names, are the same.
But you are now doing it on a very regular basis.
treblings
Hall of Fame
So what do you think Dan? Would calling someone a dumb idiot have had a chance to pass a review process?
Do you think that insulting someone on Wiki is okay?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Sounds like a pretty bogus review process.
I'd assume that a comment like that slipped through the cracks and will be removed.
It's also not true that mistakes in Wiki are always corrected.
treblings
Hall of Fame
That's how i would see it as well
