There were no more matches to be played at the time of the article. Buchholz says that the troupe disbanded after the final stand on Nov. 26 and everyone went home.
With Buchholz not stating outright that the tour was for the championship, you're using an argument from silence -- which is always a very problematic type of argument. One great problem is that something may not be stated outright if it is understood universally. And that report from Noordwijk refers to that event (listed by Buchholz as one of the tour events) as part of a world championship series.
On top of that there is the question of how Rosewall could possibly be named number one player in the world if the tour merely solidified his position, as you say. He didn't have much activity beyond the events named by Buchholz -- certainly nothing comparable to the long series of big tournaments that the tour comprised. There was nothing else on the calendar comparable in importance to such a year-long series of tournaments (which included the top tournaments then in existence; I think only Cleveland was left out).
Laver's statement does not have to mean that there was no championship series in '64. It probably just means that in his opinion, considering everything (championship tour and all other tour matches), he had the best record for the year. A lot of us here have made that same judgment without also concluding that there was no championship series.
And Laver's statement is counterbalanced by Rosewall's statement in '93 that he (Ken) was number one for '64. They had different opinions (just like Borg and Vilas did in '77). That does not necessitate the conclusion that there was no championship tour.
Buchholz there is speaking of the troupe as a whole. For most of them, becoming number one in '64 was not a realistic goal; he's simply saying that going on the '64 tour would improve them as players (a step toward possibly becoming number one in the future) and bring in a good income. If he were speaking exclusively of why Laver and Rosewall chose to play this series, that would be something else; but here he's clearly speaking of the group as a whole.
I just don't think the conclusion that there was no championship series in '64 fits all of the evidence. Rosewall's statement that he was number one for 1964 would be inexplicable, because he didn't have much activity beyond the tour referred to by Buchholz. Buchholz's statement that Rosewall was number one at the end of '64, when all tennis for the year had been played, would be likewise inexplicable, for the same reason: he says that Rosewall finished with the most points on the tour, but if it was just another tour, then he would have said that Rosewall won the tour; but he would not have said that Rosewall was still unquestionably number one in the world; there was no basis for saying so, apart from the tour he describes.
Also, in this scenario, the report from Noordwijk would have to be an inexplicable mistake: if Noordwijk was not part of a "world championship series", then what championship series is being referred to?
This scenario would explain Laver's statement, but nothing else.
But if there was a championship tour, then all the evidence, including Laver's statement, is explained. All of these statements (Laver and Rosewall's personal statements; the Noordwijk report; the AP year-end report; the Buchholz article) then would have a logical basis.
Doesn't Laver in his recent book say that he and Ken won 7 tournaments each in 1964?
I read it that way too: as their thoughts before the tour began. But realistically most of the troupe were not expecting to topple both Laver and Rosewall and grab the top spot in '64 (if ever). For a second-tier pro you'd need some more reasons, other than chasing the #1 ranking, if you're going to spend that much time away from family. Improving as a player (with the eventual goal of reaching number one) and grabbing a piece of all the money on hand make excellent reasons.
Laver's statement was clear but it does not require the absence of a championship tour. Eliminating the championship tour just creates more problems, in the other statements.
I do think many of the details of the tour are still unknown, for example we don't have a definitive list of what tournaments comprised the tour. We have the tournaments listed by Buchholz, which leaves (only) a few other tournaments that year with questionable status (ie, were they part of the tour or not?)
Buchholz describes a great change in Gonzalez (much more mellowed out) and he seems to connect it to the fact that he is "no longer number one" and is now "well over the peak for a touring pro."
Technically he still had a shot at number one and he did have a winning record over Laver (but a terrible one against Rosewall), on this tour. Of course, this was still unknown, when the tour began. Gonzalez was just coming out of a long retirement, when the tour started (his sole match at '63 US Pro the exception). Eventually, if I recall correctly, he dropped out of the last events of the tour.
Oh yes, that's right. Why only mention those important titles though? and what seven titles were they? Could it help determine the nature of this tour?
It seems to me that there were too many "World Championships" on the pro tour for the term to have the meaning implied. I get the feeling that the term was little more than a marketing term. Given that this was a pro tour, and that the players on the pro tour left the amateur tour and the ability to win major titles in order to make money, in my view, it seems that the events that paid the highest purses should be given the most weight.
Having said that, given the respective records of Laver and Rosewall in 1964 that you set forth, it seems that, by today's standards, Laver would have had the higher point total at year end, and would be considered the year end #1, even if Rosewall was #1 during part of that the year.
70sHollywood, You disappoint me. Why still doubting Rosewall's official No.1 place for 1964 and the official tour which determined that status of Ken?.
In the tour Rosewall won 7 events, Laver won 6. Rosewall was runner-up 4 times, Laver was runner-up once.
What kind of help do you guys still need?
I must say, i generally don't want to paricipate on this thread further, because its going nowhere, all is said and known now, and its only turning bitter. On the 1964 situation a last comment, simply out of interest and because pc1 asked me. Yes, i read once, that Gonzalez was on the US part of the circuit for a period Nr. 2. That would also explain, that Laver had to beat Rosewall and him at US pro Boston (as Nr. 3 seeded). In 1965, Rosewall was obviously Nr. 3 seeded, going into Boston, because Gonzalez was Nr. 2 for the spring US period.
The whole 1964 situation is still not clear. Wasn't Buchholz implying somewhere, that Laver might be Nr. 1 under a Playoff System. And those newspaper reports left some questions: How could Gimeno suddenly turn Nr. 3, if only the 17 tourneys counted, where Gonzalez was Nr. 3. Were there more tournaments in France in late 1964, than MCCauley covered. Also McCauley speaks of 7 important tournaments won for both Laver and Rosewall, he obviously included the Port Elizabeth and Cleveland 8 men events. We all should consider, that the situation among the pros own counting and ranking was often very diffuse, so put it mildly. I have read so many different and controversial rankings of pro promoters like Kramer and Harris. And its quite a stupendous thing, that the players themselves like Anderson and Buchholz have to write reports of some tours, often with no detailled results, while no journalists are covering those tours and making the reports and offering precise stats. For many years, we have no definitive final stats, like the (for the ranking) very important exact hth score of Gonzalez-Hoad for 1959.
Rosewall was never officially ranked #1 in his career. His highest official ranking was #2 which, in my view, is extremely dubious at best.
