How do we measure achievements of players in the pre-open era?

[krosero]

Yes, and 60, 61 and 62 were the only years when someone other than Rosewall/Laver won any pro majors in the 8-year period from 1960 through 1967. But Rosewall still won 6 of the 9 majors available in those first three years. The other 3 were won by Olmedo, Gonzalez and Buchholz, one each. So it is quite possible that if Laver had turned pro in 1960, the Rosewall/Laver pair might have swept the entire set of 24 majors. But I think the analogy can still be made, their combined winning rate in those years being somewhere between the actual 87.5 and a possible 100. The question is, how much should it go down in a full open field.

Rosewall was absent at the ones won by Olmedo, Gonzalez and Buchholz. Conceivably he could have won those, but Pancho was absent from some of those than Ken won.

In 1960 Pancho was absent from all 3 pro majors, but that year he had a H2H record of 16-5 against Rosewall, who won the French Pro and Wembley.

If Pancho had entered the French Pro, I'd still favor Rosewall since it was at RG. But I think Pancho would be the favorite over Rosewall indoors at Wembley, given their H2H that year.

 

[Benhur]

In general I'd agree that the 128-player event is harder to win, but let me add a caveat. If, in GS events, 34% of the top seeds get knocked out early, then the draw has been cleared of some of its strongest players, by the time you reach the QF's.

In short, if 3 of the top 8 players are gone in the early rounds, then there are only 5 of the world's top 8 players by the time of the QF's.

With a three-round pro major, all top 8 players are present, of course, in the quarterfinal round.

So which would be harder for the dominant player of the day to win? In a GS tournament, by the quarterfinal stage there are only 5 top players left, so the world's #1 player may find himself facing a weaker player in his QF, SF or even the final. But in the 8-player draw he definitely has to face a top 8 player in the quarters, semis and final.

That's the situation at the year-end championships, as Fantasio mentioned.

The pro majors of the 60s were somewhat different because they were not open to all the world's best players (though in the 60s they did have the world's two best champions, without a doubt; and no one doubts that the pros in general were better than the amateurs; but there were strong amateurs that could do damage, like Emerson). And not all the pros attended every pro major; Pancho Gonzalez definitely missed a few that he could have won.

Yes, that is a valid caveat, and how you interpret it depends entirely on the reasons for the disappearance of those players in the early rounds. They may simply have had a bad day, or they may actually have met someone in better form than they were in that particular tournament (after all, seedings are only a very rough approximation of relative playing strength at any given time). If they lost to a hot or upcoming player, then the presence of that fellow in the final rounds is not necessarily good news for the other top players, even if they don't know it yet. For classic examples: Becker was not even seeded in 1985 Wimbledeon, and Cash was outside the top 8 in 1987. But that was no help at all to the players who ran into them in the final rounds.

I think probably the most telling stat shown by Fantasio is the one you highlighted, showing that with small draws the winner of the tournament comes from the top 4 almost all the time (95%), whereas with full draws, the percentage drops to 81.4. A big difference.

Another thing I find quite interesting is that the 90s and 00s show a very large anomaly with respect to other decades in every analysis of early upsets, whether you consider the top 8, top 4 or top 2.

 

[kiki]

Kiki, you are worse than my best ememies. I will ignore you for a certain time.

oh¡¡¡ an austrian born, biassed guy is getting mad again¡¡¡ WORLD, BE WATCHING¡¡¡

 

[kiki]

kiki, I just cannot believe it! You even reduce Rosewall's more than 20 majors (equal if we count the pro majors (he won 15!) or the theoretical always open events to only 12 plus 2 WCT. It's bizarre! Most experts agree that Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall would have won more than 20 open majors, Tilden winning the most, and Laver winning between 18 and 21.

Wake up from your Emerson-Santana-Newcombe dream!

But your main mistake is that you totally omit those majors Rosewall would have won (and actually won as pro majors) from 1957 to 1962! Please correct at least this!

The only single thing that I am wrong is in my countdown of Rosewall´s total majors ( not just the 63-68 period) since I completely forgot to add their pre 63 titles ( I mean, those that I think he would have won if open tennis had arrived already in the 50´s).But the same for Laver, so let´s take those figures as running from 63 till their respective retirements.Another thread would be opened about this issue.In any case, they probably get around 20-25 which is huge and, as I said, place both of them in top tier ( and this without pondering the amazing tough fields they played¡¡¡)

I am not dreaming about Newcombe.John owned your man left and right and he would have done the same for Gimeno; only that Gimeno was lucky not to face him often...don´t you remember what happened at Wimbledon 1970¡¡¡

Newcombe destroyed Bobby one´s nº 2 idol ( in a very insane way) and beat in a close match Bobby one´s top idol.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Rosewall was absent at the ones won by Olmedo, Gonzalez and Buchholz. Conceivably he could have won those, but Pancho was absent from some of those than Ken won.

In 1960 Pancho was absent from all 3 pro majors, but that year he had a H2H record of 16-5 against Rosewall, who won the French Pro and Wembley.

If Pancho had entered the French Pro, I'd still favor Rosewall since it was at RG. But I think Pancho would be the favorite over Rosewall indoors at Wembley, given their H2H that year.

To give a major win to Olmedo or Buchholz for the so-called U.S. Pro at Cleveland, which even the promoter did not bill clearly as the "US Pro", is like giving a major to Bowery for the 1968 Australian or Ashe for the 1970 Australian.

There was nothing major about these events.

The top players in those years concentrated on the world tournament championships in 1958 and 1959, or the pro championship series in two or four-man formats.
The big names showed up for these more prestigious events.

 

[Benhur]

To give a major win to Olmedo or Buchholz for the so-called U.S. Pro at Cleveland, which even the promoter did not bill clearly as the "US Pro", is like giving a major to Bowery for the 1968 Australian or Ashe for the 1970 Australian.

There was nothing major about these events.

The top players in those years concentrated on the world tournament championships in 1958 and 1959, or the pro championship series in two or four-man formats.
The big names showed up for these more prestigious events.

How could the top players in 1960 and 1962 "concentrate on the world tournament championships of 1958 and 1959"??

Would you say any of this if Hoad hadn't lost the US Pro finals of 58 and 59 to Gonzalez? Weren't Hoad and Gonzalez big enough names in 58 and 59?

 

[Fantasio]

Amazing what you can produce with such a database as yours.

Thanks. I did hope that you, being such a good statistician yourself, would have appreciated these efforts. If there's anything else you want me to produce, just ask.

In short, if 3 of the top 8 players are gone in the early rounds, then there are only 5 of the world's top 8 players by the time of the QF's.

With a three-round pro major, all top 8 players are present, of course, in the quarterfinal round.

So which would be harder for the dominant player of the day to win?

The pro majors of the 60s were somewhat different because they were not open to all the world's best players... And not all the pros attended every pro major; Pancho Gonzalez definitely missed a few that he could have won.

Not only this is a good caveat, but very difficult to deal with, too.
The big issue is that we can rank amateurs and open Era players (thanks to seeding), that giving us the chance of evaluating early losses and so on, but the same is not possible for pro Players, because the pro majors seeds - if any - could not suffer early losses neither can be ranked precisely.

The best we can do is a subjective draws evaluation, trying to find an answer to your caveat: were really the last eight in pro Majors stronger than the average last eight in classical Majors?

We know that in classical Majors the situation is more or less like this: 5 out of the last eight are top 8 seeds; one is a minor (9-16) seed; two are not seeded.

In pro Majors, I think, too many draws include players like old Segura, Davies, Barthes (not even top 30), and other ones such as old Hoad, Buchholz, Anderson, Olmedo, MacKay, Ayala, who may or may not be in the top 8. There are not enough matches to let us try a serious evaluation: for example, McCauley's book only lists 10 matches for MacKay in 1965, most of them losses to stronger players. All these not-so-strong players had to play because, as you remind us, these Majors "were not open to all the world's best players... and not all the pros attended every one".
But there are also many draws that look very strong, with more players in their prime, no Davies, no MacKay and so on.
My idea is that, more or less, pro Majors' draws were not so different from classical Majors' last eight, with equal number of strong, medium and weak players - in average, of course. But that can't be proved.

 

[krosero]

the possibility of upsets just increases substantially in an open field. It doesn't have to be a top player, just a player playing well above their level or playing a different style or the top player having an off-day ...

When it was pro vs pro, they were more or less used to the games of the other ( in case of a newly turned pro, the new pro would obviously have to adjust a lot more )

Its why nadal for example was upset by soderling, rosol, darcis etc ... but could beat other top players on clay, grass .....

Well summarized, and I totally agree.

Yes, that is a valid caveat, and how you interpret it depends entirely on the reasons for the disappearance of those players in the early rounds. They may simply have had a bad day, or they may actually have met someone in better form than they were in that particular tournament (after all, seedings are only a very rough approximation of relative playing strength at any given time). If they lost to a hot or upcoming player, then the presence of that fellow in the final rounds is not necessarily good news for the other top players, even if they don't know it yet. For classic examples: Becker was not even seeded in 1985 Wimbledeon, and Cash was outside the top 8 in 1987. But that was no help at all to the players who ran into them in the final rounds.

I think probably the most telling stat shown by Fantasio is the one you highlighted, showing that with small draws the winner of the tournament comes from the top 4 almost all the time (95%), whereas with full draws, the percentage drops to 81.4. A big difference.

Another thing I find quite interesting is that the 90s and 00s show a very large anomaly with respect to other decades in every analysis of early upsets, whether you consider the top 8, top 4 or top 2.

True, it all depends on how the upsets came about. Pernfors was unseeded at '86 RG and he upset a whole line of attacking players (Edberg, Becker and Leconte) because he was well suited to defend against their style, on clay; but he had no way to hurt Lendl, who just overpowered him in the final one groundstroke at a time.

In that case you could see Lendl having a harder time with the upset seeds like Becker or Edberg.

On the other hand you have someone like Verdasco (14th seed) who nearly beat Nadal at the 2009 AO, which is more impressive given that Nadal won the tournament. Nobody gave Nadal as much trouble at that event as Verdasco did.

Which is why I think you can't just look at the names of these players who go deep in GS. They might be lowly ranked but on any given day a low-ranked player can play out of his skull and beat the top player.

One other thing about early round upsets: we were talking about various scenarios in which the top player had to face X or Y number of top seeds, in a small or large draw, and asking which was tougher for him to win. But of course, if he ends up being among the 34% of seeds who get upset before the QF's, then in that case it's obvious which kind of draw was tougher for him to come through.

So in some ways a GS tournament can "open up", with seeds falling left and right to lesser players, making it easier for the top player to win. On the other hand, the top player might be one of the upset seeds.

There's no question that, even if you dominate an entire decade, you will eventually be the victim of an early round upset. The only question is how often.

 

[BobbyOne]

Arguably, the dumbest line ever written on this forum

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[BobbyOne]

When I say day in day out, it means playing a full schedule or close to it. I think that's pretty obvious.

abmk, Why should not play Pancho the full schedule? In open era he would have been more motivated than in the pro scene. Actually Gonzalez did play pretty much in 1968 and 1969.

 

[BobbyOne]

Geist is the guy who didn't rank at all Ralston in 1966, ranked him fourth (!!!) in 1967 just because he was a pro, then again could not rank him in 1968, not even in the top 10. When people do such mistakes, they lose credibility. And despite that, Geist rank Emerson equal to Hoad in 1964, Hoad 6th, Emerson 7th in 1965, Hoad 5th, Emerson 7th in 1966, Emerson 8th, no more Hoad in 1967. In the whole I'd say he considered them on the same level - certainly not "favoured Hoad clearly" - at least between 1964 and 1967. Not bad, for such a Pro lover!


Have you ever heard of a certain Krajicek? Or, to a lesser extent, of a certain Cash? Nonetheless, I agree Emerson could only have won could-be-open majors on slow surfaces, Australia or Paris. But that was more than enough.

It's you who loses credibility! I have disproved your statement on Geist ("Geist ranked Hoad below Emerson") and you still-as usual- don't concede your mistake.

I can't remember that Geist made a ranking for 1968. Can you provide it to me???

It's really better I ignore you even if you write nonsense which I can disprove easily...

 

[BobbyOne]

Its to say, that people like Joe McCauley, Robert Geist or Carlo Colussi or Ray Bowers have great merits in pointing to and exploring the history of pro tennis at all. Many of the findings we find today on the internet, were explored by them. If one looks at standard tennis books before 2000, the pro game was constantly ignored or understood as pure exhibition circus. This is far from the truth. The level in the pro game was regularly better than in the amateur game, no doubt, all comments by players, that i read, say that. Especially at the top of the best 3-4 players, the level was immensely high, because the top players had to face the very best every day, and it was a matter of do or die, or improve or go to the wilderness of tennis coaching. That said, it is my opinion, just my opinion, no harm intended, that the amateur game at the top had world class, too, under different conditions and formats. All the great pros had great amateur careers. And of course, the young amateur Rosewall of 1953 would have had an outsider chance at an open Roland Garros, with all pros in the field. He was a world class player already then.

urban, I can agree with this. Thanks that you contradict those who claim the pro circus was just exhibitions as Rabbit has claimed recently.

What about those biased rankings from Hopman etc.?

 

[BobbyOne]

This looks reasonable to me. I see that in the 8-year period from 1960 through 1967 there were 24 pro majors, and that Rosewall/Laver won 21 of them (87.5%). The only similar span of outstanding dominance by 2 players that I am aware of is the 7-year period from 2004 through 2010 when Federer/Nadal won 24 of 28 available majors (85.7%).

In a full open field, you have to assume that the winning rate of Rosewall/Laver would be a bit lower. Assuming 75%, they would still win 18 of 24. There is no doubt that Rosewall/Laver were far better than anyone else in those years. But the difference between the other pros and the best amateurs is not that clear to me. So the remaining 6 majors could go to guys like Emerson, Santana, Newcombe, (maybe Gonzalez and Gimeno could win one or two). Bobby seems to think that Rosewall/Laver would still win at the same rate in a full open field as they did in the pros, but I don't think that's reasonable.

Benhur, the percentage of L&R was 100& because you can't count those events where none of the two participated. In fact they won 21 straight pro majors which is (almost) unbelievable.

 

[BobbyOne]

Laver turned pro in 1963 (he won 6 classic majors in 1960-1962). So the Laver-Rosewall analogy for pro majors should go from 1963 to 1967 or maybe 1963 to 1969.

Why? The success run of L&R is even more impressive if we consider that from 1960 to 1962 only one of them won all events!

 

[BobbyOne]

Yes, and 60, 61 and 62 were the only years when someone other than Rosewall/Laver won any pro majors in the 8-year period from 1960 through 1967. But Rosewall still won 6 of the 9 majors available in those first three years. The other 3 were won by Olmedo, Gonzalez and Buchholz, one each. So it is quite possible that if Laver had turned pro in 1960, the Rosewall/Laver pair might have swept the entire set of 24 majors. But I think the analogy can still be made, their combined winning rate in those years being somewhere between the actual 87.5 and a possible 100. The question is, how much should it go down in a full open field.

Benhur, Rosewall won 9 out of 9 from 1960 to 1963. That's superhuman.

Laver and Rosewall showed in open era that they are winning even the majors with wide fields!

 

[Benhur]

True, it all depends on how the upsets came about. Pernfors was unseeded at '86 RG and he upset a whole line of attacking players (Edberg, Becker and Leconte) because he was well suited to defend against their style, on clay; but he had no way to hurt Lendl, who just overpowered him in the final one groundstroke at a time.

In that case you could see Lendl having a harder time with the upset seeds like Becker or Edberg.

On the other hand you have someone like Verdasco (14th seed) who nearly beat Nadal at the 2009 AO, which is more impressive given that Nadal won the tournament. Nobody gave Nadal as much trouble at that event as Verdasco did.

Which is why I think you can't just look at the names of these players who go deep in GS. They might be lowly ranked but on any given day a low-ranked player can play out of his skull and beat the top player.

One other thing about early round upsets: we were talking about various scenarios in which the top player had to face X or Y number of top seeds, in a small or large draw, and asking which was tougher for him to win. But of course, if he ends up being among the 34% of seeds who get upset before the QF's, then in that case it's obvious which kind of draw was tougher for him to come through.

So in some ways a GS tournament can "open up", with seeds falling left and right to lesser players, making it easier for the top player to win. On the other hand, the top player might be one of the upset seeds.

There's no question that, even if you dominate an entire decade, you will eventually be the victim of an early round upset. The only question is how often.

Yes. I think if you look carefully there must be lots of examples of low-ranked players on a hot streak blazing their way to the final rounds and eliminating several high ranked players in their way, even if they don’t win the tournament. They can do a lot of damage. But the thing to keep in mind is that those guys would not even be there if the draw had been 8-14 players.

But even when those low-ranked players cause an upset only because their opponent is having an off day, they are still doing some "passive" damage by just being there as one extra hurdle, in the sense that it is more likely for any player to have a really bad day in 7 rounds, than in 3-4 rounds, and you never know when the bad day will come.

 

[BobbyOne]

Dropping into the discussion a little late but I just want to say thank you for the information and analyses you're providing. Of course stats are not the whole story but I think they've been sorely lacking in discussions like this one, about how the pros and amateurs of the 60s would have done against each other. This information at least makes it possible to look at the problem with a deeper level of statistics than we had before.

Your argument that Emerson would win 2 Slams in open fields, and 3 with luck, seems entirely reasonable -- provided we're talking about 4 fully open Slams per year. If the 1960s had been the start of open tennis then the decade would likely have looked like the 1970s, with a lot of Slams missing many of the top players due to political dispute, competition with new types of tournaments that paid far better than the Slams did, etc. In such a chaotic environment, who knows what Emerson would have done; it all depends on which majors he chose, or was able, to attend.

It's a very interesting simulation and I'd love to see others.

I like the bolded part as a general conclusion about what would happen to pro players in a 128-man draw. One caveat I have (and btw I think there are no perfect statistical arguments, so there should be caveats even with the best ones), is that by reducing the sample to GS tournaments in which the top 4 seeds survived the early rounds we're not necessarily looking at the "typical" GS tournament (if such a thing exists). What I mean is, what kind of tournaments were these, if the top 4 seeds always made it to the quarterfinals? Maybe in these tournaments the level of competition was not that strong or deep?

In other words such a sample does not have the GS tournaments in which top players were knocked out of the early rounds; so we may be missing the GS tournaments that were "toughest" to win.

But maybe that's why Benhur suggested looking directly at the early-round upset rate, as a way to measure how tough GS tournaments are to win.

Tough to say, just throwing some thoughts out there.

This I like a lot. Amazing what you can produce with such a database as yours.

krosero, The main problem of Fantasio's stats is the fact that he (and you too?) underrates the greatness of Laver and Rosewall. These two were awesome and not comparable with other periods' players and the amateur circuit. I'm still convinced that it would have been extremely difficult and improbable for the amateurs to beat both of them in the same tournament (but of course yet possible) and it would have been very improbable that L&R would lose in early rounds. Even an Emerson would have difficulties to beat Gonzalez and/or Gimeno and/or Hoad before the SFs.

 

[BobbyOne]

I think this is a really strong argument. If L&R failed at the same major in '68, why would such a thing be impossible only one year earlier?

krosero, because it was a new situation for the old pros when playing the amateurs. Psychological factor plus greater field (the pros had played each other in a small group). Plus Rosewall was one and two years older.

I miss any word of your's about Fantasio's Segura-Ayala-Olmedo nonsense which discredited his expertise! Also his nonsense about Geist's rankings...

 

[BobbyOne]

If we begin to speculate more: Possible are many things, including a Grand Slam in 1967. I think a Grand Slam for Rosewall in say 1961 or for Laver in 1967 would be easier done than the actual Grand Slam in 1969.

urban, I agree. But Rosewall's best years were 1962 and even more 1963 (when he made the pro GS) because in 1961 Gonzalez would maybe be too tough for him.

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall was absent at the ones won by Olmedo, Gonzalez and Buchholz. Conceivably he could have won those, but Pancho was absent from some of those than Ken won.

In 1960 Pancho was absent from all 3 pro majors, but that year he had a H2H record of 16-5 against Rosewall, who won the French Pro and Wembley.

If Pancho had entered the French Pro, I'd still favor Rosewall since it was at RG. But I think Pancho would be the favorite over Rosewall indoors at Wembley, given their H2H that year.

I can agree.

 

[BobbyOne]

oh¡¡¡ an austrian born, biassed guy is getting mad again¡¡¡ WORLD, BE WATCHING¡¡¡

My old friend kiki: Is that really your niveau???

 

[BobbyOne]

The only single thing that I am wrong is in my countdown of Rosewall´s total majors ( not just the 63-68 period) since I completely forgot to add their pre 63 titles ( I mean, those that I think he would have won if open tennis had arrived already in the 50´s).But the same for Laver, so let´s take those figures as running from 63 till their respective retirements.Another thread would be opened about this issue.In any case, they probably get around 20-25 which is huge and, as I said, place both of them in top tier ( and this without pondering the amazing tough fields they played¡¡¡)

I am not dreaming about Newcombe.John owned your man left and right and he would have done the same for Gimeno; only that Gimeno was lucky not to face him often...don´t you remember what happened at Wimbledon 1970¡¡¡

Newcombe destroyed Bobby one´s nº 2 idol ( in a very insane way) and beat in a close match Bobby one´s top idol.

kiki, Who owned whom??? Are you totally crazy???

As repeatedly told Rosewall was 4:3 against Newcombe in majors and 14:10 overall!

 

[Benhur]

BobbyOne, didn’t you just say you were going to ignore Kiki “for a certain time”? What exactly do you want? You sound like a cantankerous curmudgeon, but rather childish. The people you are getting so upset with all agree that Laver and Rosewall are a uniquely great pair. Kiki has told you he has both in a first tier; Fantasio has told that he has them as 1 and 2 in his ELO ranking. But you want more. It’s as if you wanted to extract a confession of unearthly greatness beyond comparison to anything that ever existed or will ever exist, otherwise you threaten to “ignore” whoever keeps disagreeing with you, only to keep commenting on what they say just a few minutes later. It's very odd to read things like: "Fantasio, I ignore you but...". That’s like saying: Sir I am not talking to you but here is what I have to say to you. Or things like: "I will ignore you for a certain time". How long is a certain time? Almost like a child saying “I am going to hold my breath for 1 minute if you don’t tell me what I want to hear”. You should calm down and don’t take things so personally. This is not a battlefield. Your knowledge is valuable, but it gets ruined by your childish emotional outbursts.

 

[BobbyOne]

BobbyOne, didn’t you just say you were going to ignore Kiki “for a certain time”? What exactly do you want? You sound like a cantankerous curmudgeon, but rather childish. The people you are getting so upset with all agree that Laver and Rosewall are a uniquely great pair. Kiki has told you he has both in a first tier; Fantasio has told that he has them as 1 and 2 in his ELO ranking. But you want more. It’s as if you wanted to extract a confession of unearthly greatness beyond comparison to anything that ever existed or will ever exist, otherwise you threaten to “ignore” whoever keeps disagreeing with you, only to keep commenting on what they say just a few minutes later. It's very odd to read things like: "Fantasio, I ignore you but...". That’s like saying: Sir I am not talking to you but here is what I have to say to you. Or things like: "I will ignore you for a certain time". How long is a certain time? Almost like a child saying “I am going to hold my breath for 1 minute if you don’t tell me what I want to hear”. You should calm down and don’t take things so personally. This is not a battlefield. Your knowledge is valuable, but it gets ruined by your childish emotional outbursts.

Benhur, You are right that I should not answer to those I ignore. But sometimes it's really hard to not answering.

kiki is an old friend of mine and I try to convince him when he is extremely wrong (such as "Newk owned Rosewall").

You are totally wrong: I don't ignore posters who contradict me regarding L&R's greatness. I only get furious when a person get's nasty-like kiki in his recent Hitler comparison- or write nonsense-like Fantasio who wrote that Segura-Ayala-Olmedo nonsense and his lies regarding Geist's rankings...

You will never see that I ignore serious posters like krosero, pc1, Carlo Colussi, urban and others even if they contradict me seriously!

 

[Benhur]

Benhur, the percentage of L&R was 100& because you can't count those events where none of the two participated. In fact they won 21 straight pro majors which is (almost) unbelievable.

Yes, I 've heard that before. Players given 100% credit for tournaments they did not enter. It happens all the time.

Pray, do not mock me:
I am a very foolish fond old man,
Fourscore and upward, not an hour more nor less;
And, to deal plainly,
I fear I am not in my perfect mind.

---King Lear, Act 4, Scene 7

 

[Fantasio]

I miss any word of your's about Fantasio's Segura-Ayala-Olmedo nonsense which discredited his expertise! Also his nonsense about Geist's rankings...

Maybe Krosero just remembers what I do.
I only "nonsensed" Segura, Ayala and Olmedo because it was you, my friend, the guy who wrote this:

I would like to list up those "outcast" pros who won at least one tournament in OPEN era.
Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Ralston, Stolle, Buchholz, Hoad, O. Davidson, Anderson, Barthes, Segura (!), Sedgman (!), Olmedo, MacKay,
Maybe I have forgotten a few.
Please note that most of those players were 30 plus at the begin of open era.
Only Ralston, Buchholz, Davidson and Barthes were younger. Imagine how strong the pros have been before open era.

So I showed you what happened to some of these guys when they took part in the '68 US (I switched MacKay and Ayala because I could not remember which one of the two you had mentioned in that post).

For what concerns Geist, he had no problems about ranking 10+ players until 1967. In 1968, he realized something was "wrong" with his rankings, so he became over-cautious, and only ranked Laver 1st, Ashe and Rosewall 2nd, Okker 4th. Only the obvious. Certainly he did not dare ranking Ralston 4th anymore!

I also agree with Benhur. Why don't you calm down? I see you don't really ignore anyone, but if in this topic alone there are 4 or 5 "ignored" (including me), how many in the whole forum? 20? 30?

 

[Fantasio]

there must be lots of examples of low-ranked players on a hot streak blazing their way to the final rounds and eliminating several high ranked players in their way, even if they don’t win the tournament. They can do a lot of damage. But the thing to keep in mind is that those guys would not even be there if the draw had been 8-14 players.

Well written. And what about the ones who win the tournament, not just doing a lot of damage?. Guys such as Connors himself, Borg in 1974, Wilander in 1982, Becker in 1985, Sampras in 1990, Kuerten in 1997, Nadal in 2005: and these are just the guys who kept on winning (I don't even mention Noah, Cash, Krajicek and so on). And all of them, had not existed and open Era, would have been amateurs! Could you imagine someone betting on Sampras winning an hypotetical US Open, in 1990, ahead of the mighty Pros, people such as Lendl, Wilander, Connors, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe (all of them would of course have been Pros in 1990)?

How many times would such a thing have happened in the '50 or '60? A lot of times afterwards but never before?

 

[Fantasio]

They can do a lot of damage. But the thing to keep in mind is that those guys would not even be there if the draw had been 8-14 players.

But even when those low-ranked players cause an upset only because their opponent is having an off day, they are still doing some "passive" damage by just being there as one extra hurdle, in the sense that it is more likely for any player to have a really bad day in 7 rounds, than in 3-4 rounds, and you never know when the bad day will come.

I thought about this, and I wondered "these low-ranked players, are they lucky? Are we overestimating them?". I'm now certain that some people here would say something like "no, these low-ranked players could never have defeated Laver and Rosewall".

So I checked. Are these guys lucky or not? As you know, there have been 333 classical majors with seeds, since 1925. In 32 cases these majors were won by a player who wasn't one of the first 8 seeds (11 times he was unseeded), so I counted how many of them he had to defeat before winning the tournament.

The results are interesting, so I post them all.

RG 1928 Henri Cochet (15) d. Hunter (2), Boyd (7), Lacoste(1)
US 1930 John Doeg (11) d. Lee(4), Tilden (1)
RG 1939 Don McNeill (u) d. Puncec (2), Riggs (1)
US 1943 Joseph Reuben Hunt (u) d. Parker (1), Talbert (4), Kramer (3)
RG 1946 Marcel Bernard (13) d. Segura(4), Petra (1), Drobny (3)
US 1948 Pancho Gonzales (15) d. Parker(1), Drobny (4)
US 1950 Arthur Larsen (11) d. Drobny(4), Brown (7), Flam (3)
WB 1954 Jaroslav Drobny (11) d. Hoad (2), Patty (7), Rosewall (3)
US 1957 Mal Anderson (u) d. Savitt(2), Davidson(3), Cooper (1)
US 1966 Fred Stolle (u) d. Ralston (3), Graebner (7), Emerson (2)
US 1973 John Newcombe (10) d. Rosewall (5), Kodes (6)
AO 1976 Mark Edmondson (u) d. Dent(5), Rosewall (1), Newcombe (2)
RG 1982 Mats Wilander (u) d. Lendl (2), Gerulaitis (5), Clerc (4), Vilas (3)
WB 1985 Boris Becker (u) d. Nystrom (7), Jarryd (5), Curren (8)
WB 1987 Pat Cash (11) d. Wilander (3), Connors (7), Lendl (2)
RG 1989 Michael Chang (15) d. Lendl (1), Edberg (3)
US 1990 Pete Sampras (12) d. Muster (6), Lendl (3), Agassi (4)
RG 1991 Jim Courier (9) d. Edberg (1), Agassi (4)
WB 1992 Andre Agassi (12) d. Becker (4), Ivanisevic (8)
RG 1993 Sergi Bruguera (10) d. Sampras (1), Courier (2)
US 1994 Andre Agassi (u) d. Chang (6), Stich (4)
WB 1996 Richard Krajicek (17) d. Sampras (1)
US 1997 Gustavo Kuerten (u) d. Muster (5), Kafelnikov (3)
US 1997 Patrick Rafter (13) d. Chang (2)
RG 1998 Carlos Moya (12) d. Rios (3)
AO 1999 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (10)
RG 1999 Andre Agassi (13) d. Moya (4)
WB 2001 Goran Ivanisevic (u) d. Safin (4), Henman (6), Rafter (3)
AO 2002 Thomas Johansson (16)
RG 2002 Albert Costa (20) d. Kuerten (7)
US 2002 Pete Sampras (17) d. Haas (3), Agassi (6)
RG 2004 Gaston Gaudio (u) d. Nalbandian (8), Coria (3)

As you see, only twice (Kafelnikov and Johansson) the player has been very lucky. Kafelnikov did not meet any seed at all! Since 1996 other players have been lucky: Krajicek, Rafter, Moya, Agassi and Costa. This is correlated to the increase of early losses in '90 and '00, likely due to the new seeding system, as Urban pointed to.

By the way, 32 cases are about one out of 10, and we're discussing a 20 majors-streak. And in these 32 cases the winner wasn't even in the first 8 seeds: that's not even Emerson, that's Osuna or McKinley, Stolle at best!

Of course, some times the winners were "oldies but goldies" (Newcombe, Sampras in 2002) or just erratic (Agassi). But that does not mean their victory was taken for granted, as we all remember.

And many times these players not only weren't lucky, but had to defeat three high seeds. Wilander, in 1982, defeated four, and these four were all very strong on clay. Among the players defeated there are Lacoste, Tilden, Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, Lendl, Sampras, all potential GOATs: each one of them defeated on his best surface. Drobny's victory in Wimbledon, 1954, was particularly impressive: he defeated both Hoad and Rosewall!

Only strange thing: between 1957 and 1973 there has been just one of such cases. Maybe this will please Bobbyone.

 

[kiki]

what about Ayala? his am career was better than Bucholz.I don´t think he fared too well as a pro, though.

 

[kiki]

kiki, Who owned whom??? Are you totally crazy???

As repeatedly told Rosewall was 4:3 against Newcombe in majors and 14:10 overall!

Have you checked out your heart state with the doctor??? you should take thnigs easy, I´d certainly miss you in this forum.

 

[kiki]

BobbyOne, didn’t you just say you were going to ignore Kiki “for a certain time”? What exactly do you want? You sound like a cantankerous curmudgeon, but rather childish. The people you are getting so upset with all agree that Laver and Rosewall are a uniquely great pair. Kiki has told you he has both in a first tier; Fantasio has told that he has them as 1 and 2 in his ELO ranking. But you want more. It’s as if you wanted to extract a confession of unearthly greatness beyond comparison to anything that ever existed or will ever exist, otherwise you threaten to “ignore” whoever keeps disagreeing with you, only to keep commenting on what they say just a few minutes later. It's very odd to read things like: "Fantasio, I ignore you but...". That’s like saying: Sir I am not talking to you but here is what I have to say to you. Or things like: "I will ignore you for a certain time". How long is a certain time? Almost like a child saying “I am going to hold my breath for 1 minute if you don’t tell me what I want to hear”. You should calm down and don’t take things so personally. This is not a battlefield. Your knowledge is valuable, but it gets ruined by your childish emotional outbursts.

Benhur, thanks for this post.I know Bobbyone is a good guy but he takes thinks so much personally.That makes him more biassed than he really is.

 

[hoodjem]

That makes him more biassed than he really is.

Ahhhhhhssssooo Sensei!

Such an enigmatic and puzzling aphorism.









(I must ponder and contemplate deeply in order to hope to comprehend.)

 

[kiki]

Fortunately, I think Bobbyone won´t turn into a next Joe Gunther Pike.He seems to have high esteem for Laver, which is not one can say about Pike and Seles.

 

[kiki]

Ahhhhhhssssooo Sensei!

Such an enigmatic and puzzling aphorism.








(I must ponder and contemplate deeply in order to hope to comprehend.)

You missed my typo this time.

I wrotte thinks instead of things.

Shall I keep on correcting you not correcting me?

 

[kiki]

By the way, persistence is one of the most valuable and empirically demonstrated germanic qualities.His persistance in correcting me brings me back to my mind that great tune of Pink Floyd " The Wall"

 

[Dan Lobb]

How could the top players in 1960 and 1962 "concentrate on the world tournament championships of 1958 and 1959"??

Would you say any of this if Hoad hadn't lost the US Pro finals of 58 and 59 to Gonzalez? Weren't Hoad and Gonzalez big enough names in 58 and 59?

The point is that there WERE major pro tournaments and events from 1952 to 1962, but they did not include the unofficial U.S. Pro, which was only a subtitle the promoter used for the Cleveland event.

For example, in 1959, the top tournaments were probably Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong (twice), L.A. Masters, in that order.
The Cleveland event was about the 16th most important tournament, behind the Wembley event.

The Cleveland winners came to include Olmedo and Buchholz, who had to defeat veterans Trabert (in rusty form) and Segura as their only competition.

Not a major.

Hoad and Gonzales played about 150 matches against each other in 1958 and 1959, and these two finals were not among the elite occasions.
Neither final counted towards the tournament championship series or bonus money pool.

I consider the Forest Hills Pro the number one event in pro tennis at that time, even though Gonzales beat Hoad in the 1957 event.

No bias evident.

 

[BobbyOne]

Yes, I 've heard that before. Players given 100% credit for tournaments they did not enter. It happens all the time.

Pray, do not mock me:
I am a very foolish fond old man,
Fourscore and upward, not an hour more nor less;
And, to deal plainly,
I fear I am not in my perfect mind.

---King Lear, Act 4, Scene 7

Joking Benhur, I have NOT said that Rosewall has won those majors he did not enter! I said that he won all he entered.That's a big difference.

 

[forzamilan90]

Ahhhhhhssssooo Sensei!

Such an enigmatic and puzzling aphorism.









(I must ponder and contemplate deeply in order to hope to comprehend.)

lol you crack me up man

 

[BobbyOne]

Have you checked out your heart state with the doctor??? you should take thnigs easy, I´d certainly miss you in this forum.

kiki, Benhur will again blame me for answering to a poster whom I ignore. But now you write nice words so I feel I should not be too harsh against you. I always hope that my postings can convince some people in case they have erred as also I could be convinced by other posters. Regarding Fantasio I came to the conclusion that he will never be convinced by me and will never concede his mistakes. His post 476 is the best proof for that: he only brings demagogic and wrong statements (regarding his Segura nonsense, regarding Geist's rankings)...

I would miss you too, kiki, but please don't compare me with a terrible Austrian who ruled Germany 1933 to 1945...Otherwise I really could get problems with my heart...

 

[BobbyOne]

Fortunately, I think Bobbyone won´t turn into a next Joe Gunther Pike.He seems to have high esteem for Laver, which is not one can say about Pike and Seles.

Yes, I admire Laver and his fantastic record. I would be pleased you and others would also admired Rosewall that way. ;-)

By the way, I never was a "Rosewall alone" man. I try to favour all those players who are underrated, f. i. Nüsslein and Gimeno.

 

[elegos7]

The results are interesting, so I post them all.

RG 1928 Henri Cochet (15) d. Hunter (2), Boyd (7), Lacoste(1)

Fantasio,
In 1928 Cochet was seeded (2) at RG, contrary to the info that was once published on their website. They got the seedings for their draws in the 1920s often completely wrong.

 

[Fantasio]

In 1928 Cochet was seeded (2) at RG, contrary to the info that was once published on their website. They got the seedings for their draws in the 1920s often completely wrong.

That's great info, thanks! I found it strange Cochet being that low, while Hunter on the top. They must have switched the pair.
And I see now they still get it wrong (and Wikipedia too).

 

[Benhur]

I thought about this, and I wondered "these low-ranked players, are they lucky? Are we overestimating them?". I'm now certain that some people here would say something like "no, these low-ranked players could never have defeated Laver and Rosewall".

So I checked. Are these guys lucky or not? As you know, there have been 333 classical majors with seeds, since 1925. In 32 cases these majors were won by a player who wasn't one of the first 8 seeds (11 times he was unseeded), so I counted how many of them he had to defeat before winning the tournament.

The results are interesting, so I post them all.

RG 1928 Henri Cochet (15) d. Hunter (2), Boyd (7), Lacoste(1)
US 1930 John Doeg (11) d. Lee(4), Tilden (1)
RG 1939 Don McNeill (u) d. Puncec (2), Riggs (1)
US 1943 Joseph Reuben Hunt (u) d. Parker (1), Talbert (4), Kramer (3)
RG 1946 Marcel Bernard (13) d. Segura(4), Petra (1), Drobny (3)
US 1948 Pancho Gonzales (15) d. Parker(1), Drobny (4)
US 1950 Arthur Larsen (11) d. Drobny(4), Brown (7), Flam (3)
WB 1954 Jaroslav Drobny (11) d. Hoad (2), Patty (7), Rosewall (3)
US 1957 Mal Anderson (u) d. Savitt(2), Davidson(3), Cooper (1)
US 1966 Fred Stolle (u) d. Ralston (3), Graebner (7), Emerson (2)
US 1973 John Newcombe (10) d. Rosewall (5), Kodes (6)
AO 1976 Mark Edmondson (u) d. Dent(5), Rosewall (1), Newcombe (2)
RG 1982 Mats Wilander (u) d. Lendl (2), Gerulaitis (5), Clerc (4), Vilas (3)
WB 1985 Boris Becker (u) d. Nystrom (7), Jarryd (5), Curren (8)
WB 1987 Pat Cash (11) d. Wilander (3), Connors (7), Lendl (2)
RG 1989 Michael Chang (15) d. Lendl (1), Edberg (3)
US 1990 Pete Sampras (12) d. Muster (6), Lendl (3), Agassi (4)
RG 1991 Jim Courier (9) d. Edberg (1), Agassi (4)
WB 1992 Andre Agassi (12) d. Becker (4), Ivanisevic (8)
RG 1993 Sergi Bruguera (10) d. Sampras (1), Courier (2)
US 1994 Andre Agassi (u) d. Chang (6), Stich (4)
WB 1996 Richard Krajicek (17) d. Sampras (1)
US 1997 Gustavo Kuerten (u) d. Muster (5), Kafelnikov (3)
US 1997 Patrick Rafter (13) d. Chang (2)
RG 1998 Carlos Moya (12) d. Rios (3)
AO 1999 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (10)
RG 1999 Andre Agassi (13) d. Moya (4)
WB 2001 Goran Ivanisevic (u) d. Safin (4), Henman (6), Rafter (3)
AO 2002 Thomas Johansson (16)
RG 2002 Albert Costa (20) d. Kuerten (7)
US 2002 Pete Sampras (17) d. Haas (3), Agassi (6)
RG 2004 Gaston Gaudio (u) d. Nalbandian (8), Coria (3)

As you see, only twice (Kafelnikov and Johansson) the player has been very lucky. Kafelnikov did not meet any seed at all! Since 1996 other players have been lucky: Krajicek, Rafter, Moya, Agassi and Costa. This is correlated to the increase of early losses in '90 and '00, likely due to the new seeding system, as Urban pointed to.

By the way, 32 cases are about one out of 10, and we're discussing a 20 majors-streak. And in these 32 cases the winner wasn't even in the first 8 seeds: that's not even Emerson, that's Osuna or McKinley, Stolle at best!

Of course, some times the winners were "oldies but goldies" (Newcombe, Sampras in 2002) or just erratic (Agassi). But that does not mean their victory was taken for granted, as we all remember.

And many times these players not only weren't lucky, but had to defeat three high seeds. Wilander, in 1982, defeated four, and these four were all very strong on clay. Among the players defeated there are Lacoste, Tilden, Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, Lendl, Sampras, all potential GOATs: each one of them defeated on his best surface. Drobny's victory in Wimbledon, 1954, was particularly impressive: he defeated both Hoad and Rosewall!

Only strange thing: between 1957 and 1973 there has been just one of such cases. Maybe this will please Bobbyone.

Great list. A whole army of "dark horses" in retrospect. And we can guess it would be a lot longer if we were to search for finalists, semifinalists and quarterfinalists coming out of nowhere from the low ranks and knocking out one or more high ranked players during their run.

 

[Fantasio]

And we can guess it would be a lot longer if we were to search for finalists, semifinalists and quarterfinalists coming out of nowhere from the low ranks and knocking out one or more high ranked players during their run.

Just wait two minutes...

 

[urban]

Going by the list (thanks for the information) from the top of my head, i think, many of the low seeded or unseeded winners were caused by the 8 seeds system (sometimes maybe only 4 seeds), and/or by bad seeding of established players.

Don McNeil in RG 1939 was together with Riggs the leading US player, i would have assumed he should have been seeded at least top 8 (if 8 seeds were intact at RG at all). Hunt won US 1943 in the middle of the War, but he was alongside Kramer the great US hope (had played DC final doubles in 1939). Maybe they had at FH only 4 seeds that year. Bernard in the 1946 RG (played after Wim) was indeed a surprise winner (Petra, who came from war prison, was it too at Wim). It was a year of turmoil in the majors, and Kramer didn't play at RG. Gonzalez in US 1948 was already a force to reckon with, imo seeded too low. Larsen (better on clay)was really a surprise FH winner, but Drobny was a well established force at Wim 1954 with already two finals behind his back. Anderson in US 1957 (after the pro turn of Hoad and Rosewall) was the next Aussie force together with Cooper. Stolle in FH 1966 was unseeded despite being one of the 3 best amateurs the years before and just winning German champs, he later commented the questionable seeding of the Forest Hills committee: "Not bad for an old Hacker like me!" Newcombe in 1973 was seeded too low, maybe due to his bad showings on European clay. But he had won AO in 1973. So several of these upsets wins were not really upset wins, but results of the seeding system or bad seeding by the club committees.

 

[Fantasio]

I've made a more extensive search on what I call "great exploits": low seeded or unseeded players defeating at least two high (< 9) seeds in the course of a classical major.
There are 106 such cases over 333 majors, the first one - not trusting anymore the 1928 Roland Garros - being Frank Hunter in the 1928 US Open. He was the 11th seed, but defeated Borotra (4) and Lott (3) before losing to Cochet in the final. The last one occurred just a few weeks ago, when Wawrinka (9) defeated Berdych (5) and Murray (3) before barely losing to Djokovic in the semifinal.

The 106 cases can be splitted in many ways, for example:

- four victories: just once (Wilander in 1982, unseeded).
- three victories: 26 times (14 unseeded), last one being Baghdatis in AO 2006 (unseeded, defeated Roddick (2), Ljubicic (7), Nalbandian (4)).
- two victories: 79 times (39 unseeded), last one being Wawrinka.

- won the major: 13 seeded, 11 unseeded (were 32 before, 'cause 5 times there's just one major victory, twice none at all, the missing one is Cochet)
- lost in final: 20 seeded, 21 unseeded
- lost in semifinal: 18 seeded, 23 unseeded

- '20: 3 times
- '30: 10
- '40: 9
- '50: 13
- '60: 11
- '70: 15
- '80: 13
- '90: 14
- '00: 14
- '10: 4 (Cilic, AO 10, Berdych, WB 10, Tsonga, WB 12, Wawrinka US 13)

This time there are NO big changes in the last decades: such exploits always occur once in a three majors, no matter when. This, I find of the greatest interest.

And of course it didn't take just two minutes. I was working on this since yesterday (such queries need a step-by-step refinement, a process that may take hours).

 

[Fantasio]

Don McNeil in RG 1939 was together with Riggs the leading US player, i would have assumed he should have been seeded at least top 8 (if 8 seeds were intact at RG at all).

That's right: only 2 seeds are reported in RG 39 (if official site can be trusted).

Hunt won US 1943 in the middle of the War, but he was alongside Kramer the great US hope (had played DC final doubles in 1939). Maybe they had at FH only 4 seeds that year.

That's not the case instead: seeds were Parker/Segura/Kramer/Talbert/Wood/Cooke/G. Hunt/Greenberg. Maybe the reason was Hunt not playing much in 1941-1942.

 

[BobbyOne]

Going by the list (thanks for the information) from the top of my head, i think, many of the low seeded or unseeded winners were caused by the 8 seeds system (sometimes maybe only 4 seeds), and/or by bad seeding of established players.

Don McNeil in RG 1939 was together with Riggs the leading US player, i would have assumed he should have been seeded at least top 8 (if 8 seeds were intact at RG at all). Hunt won US 1943 in the middle of the War, but he was alongside Kramer the great US hope (had played DC final doubles in 1939). Maybe they had at FH only 4 seeds that year. Bernard in the 1946 RG (played after Wim) was indeed a surprise winner (Petra, who came from war prison, was it too at Wim). It was a year of turmoil in the majors, and Kramer didn't play at RG. Gonzalez in US 1948 was already a force to reckon with, imo seeded too low. Larsen (better on clay)was really a surprise FH winner, but Drobny was a well established force at Wim 1954 with already two finals behind his back. Anderson in US 1957 (after the pro turn of Hoad and Rosewall) was the next Aussie force together with Cooper. Stolle in FH 1966 was unseeded despite being one of the 3 best amateurs the years before and just winning German champs, he later commented the questionable seeding of the Forest Hills committee: "Not bad for an old Hacker like me!" Newcombe in 1973 was seeded too low, maybe due to his bad showings on European clay. But he had won AO in 1973. So several of these upsets wins were not really upset wins, but results of the seeding system or bad seeding by the club committees.

urban, I agree.

I think that Stolle referred to his win at Forest Hills. It was a shame that both he and Newcombe were unseeded.

 

[Benhur]

I've made a more extensive search on what I call "great exploits": low seeded or unseeded players defeating at least two high (< 9) seeds in the course of a classical major.
There are 106 such cases over 333 majors, the first one - not trusting anymore the 1928 Roland Garros - being Frank Hunter in the 1928 US Open. He was the 11th seed, but defeated Borotra (4) and Lott (3) before losing to Cochet in the final. The last one occurred just a few weeks ago, when Wawrinka (9) defeated Berdych (5) and Murray (3) before barely losing to Djokovic in the semifinal.

The 106 cases can be splitted in many ways, for example:

- four victories: just once (Wilander in 1982, unseeded).
- three victories: 26 times (14 unseeded), last one being Baghdatis in AO 2006 (unseeded, defeated Roddick (2), Ljubicic (7), Nalbandian (4)).
- two victories: 79 times (39 unseeded), last one being Wawrinka.

- won the major: 13 seeded, 11 unseeded (were 32 before, 'cause 5 times there's just one major victory, twice none at all, the missing one is Cochet)
- lost in final: 20 seeded, 21 unseeded
- lost in semifinal: 18 seeded, 23 unseeded

- '20: 3 times
- '30: 10
- '40: 9
- '50: 13
- '60: 11
- '70: 15
- '80: 13
- '90: 14
- '00: 14
- '10: 4 (Cilic, AO 10, Berdych, WB 10, Tsonga, WB 12, Wawrinka US 13)

This time there are NO big changes in the last decades: such exploits always occur once in a three majors, no matter when. This, I find of the greatest interest.

And of course it didn't take just two minutes. I was working on this since yesterday (such queries need a step-by-step refinement, a process that may take hours).

Thank you, Fantasio. That database of yours is a treasure trove of information. Interesting to see that the frequency is the same as the early upset rate of the top 8 we had seen before. I think the apparently higher stability through the decades is probably due to not differentiating between the number of victories. What I mean is that the total of 28 cases that occurred in the 90s and 00s probably involved, on average, a slightly higher number of such victories per case than in previous decades. I like all this stuff very much. Thanks again.

 

[Fantasio]

Thank you, Fantasio. That database of yours is a treasure trove of information.

I have to thank you myself. There's a lot of people - much more than expected - who don't appreciate this kind of information, even when they do not contradict their believings.

What I mean is that the total of 28 cases that occurred in the 90s and 00s probably involved, on average, a slightly higher number of such victories per case than in previous decades.

An average is quickly done, but I think it doesn't show any particular pattern. That's why:

- '20: 2.15
- '30: 2.10
- '40: 2.33
- '50: 2.62
- '60: 2.09
- '70: 2.33
- '80: 2.46
- '90: 2.07
- '00: 2.21
- '10: 2

I also made a second calculation, including all "normal" exploits (one victory alone over high seeds, not just 2/3/4), but results are much alike, varying from 1.09 to 1.28. Both times, higher average lies in the '50.
What's interesting, the total number of "exploits" (a low seeded or unseeded player defeating a high seed) is 1163: exactly 3.5 for major!