Men's Season with the most achievement

[BobbyOne]

You invent strange things. That is manifest. Plainly.

I do not need to contradict your words because contradiction is unnecessary and superfluous. What you state is conjecture and supposition (or at best unfounded opinion).

And everyone herein can witness the motivation behind it.

hoodjem, I never invented anything in my more than 8300 posts. Don't make false accusations.

Yes, you don't contradict me as you don't give any serious contra-arguments. You do much worse: You mock me ("jewel"), you insult me ("you invent") you insinuate ("the motivation behind it").

Please note: Even if I would be wrong with my memory that I have read about Rosewall's non-practicing, it would be a memory's fault and not an intentional invention in order to pump up Rosewall's resume, to make excuses for his losses etc. which is your INSINUATION!

Your kind of communication with me is just disgusting!

 

[BobbyOne]

It's not invented. McCauley writes that while Hoad went into a period of intensive training for the upcoming tour against Laver, Rosewall "seemed unphased". That is likely to be based on something that McCauley read in World Tennis which was his main source; and I've found myself when looking through World Tennis how closely McCauley tended to follow that publication when making any of his claims.

I thought it was well known that Hoad took the challenge seriously and made every effort to get back in shape (because he was not in shape) and that Rosewall pointedly did not go into any special preparation. I thought I even saw that documented somewhere other than in McCauley (perhaps I saw it in World Tennis); though I did not save the reference.

I am deeply familiar with BobbyOne's work about Rosewall and I have never seen him talk about an injury without a source.

krosero, Thanks a lot for your hint to McCauley's statement. I was away from home for several hours but I was going to quote Joe's book even though Joe did not say explicitly that Rosewall did not practice at all. I found his hint when searching for the source in several books myself. By the way, I did not find the word "unphased" in my big dictionary...

Yes, I do know that Joe possessed most or even all issues of World Tennis (plus Lawn Tennis & Badminton, by the way).

When I read that Rosewall did not practice (or not significantly) I firstly thought if that was not an arrogant attitude but I soon realized that the gap between Muscles and Rocket at that time was so wide that the former was not forced to fear Rod at that time and to practice especially for the series.

Thanks for your defending words about my attitude to write about Rosewall.

My great Thank You for pc1 and his "like" for your post! I'm a bit surprised, to be honest.

 

[BobbyOne]

Okay. Thank you.

This is exactly what I was asking for--some source or reference for the statement that "Ken did not practice."

hoodjem, This your (too) short post is really a jewel!

You did not just "ask for a source", you at the same time already insinuated and insulted in a bad way. And you repeated your "style" in your next post...

I'm awaiting your apology.

Your "brutal" (sic) fellow poster BobbyOne.

 

[BobbyOne]

The UPI poll of 85 sports editors was done late Jan. 1963, not in December 1962....you and your sources are looking back from Dec. 1962.

Dan, How can UPI rank regarding 1962 when using the January 1963 results. That's "too high" for me...

 

[BobbyOne]

I am still waiting for Bobby's source and explanation for the supposed "neck injury" in the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, Rosewall certainly was not wearing a neck brace in that final, as is clear from the clip that I provided. Did he sleep on a hard pillow and get a sore neck muscle? That is not an injury within the ordinary understanding of the term.

Both Hoad and Rosewall practiced for some time with Laver in preparation for the 1963 Australian tour.

Dan, I don't know where Muscles slept. Maybe on his big wallet..

I found a detailed description of Ken's neck injury in "Grand Prix Tennis", a magazine of 1975 with a long article on Rosewall by John Barrett (who was and is a close friend and admirer of Laver). Barrett wrote that that neck irritation hampered Ken at the service and the forehand during the final.

You could be right that Rosewall practiced with Laver. A serious question: Do you remember where you have read about this? One thing should be clear though: that Rosewall did not practice as much as Hoad did to get in shape.

 

[krosero]

Both Hoad and Rosewall practiced for some time with Laver in preparation for the 1963 Australian tour.

I'd like to see the source for this too, Dan. I know you've mentioned it before but I can't find a source stating that they all practiced against each other before that tour.

I have Andrew Tas' record of Laver's and Rosewall's career. Laver was occupied with the Davis Cup Challenge Round, which did not end until December 28, in Brisbane. Hoad was not there; the Sydney Morning Herald reported that he had chosen to stay in Sydney (where the tour was to begin) rather than go see the Cup matches.

On Jan. 5, when the Laver tour began, they reported: "Hoad has practised hard for the past few weeks for his match against Laver."

Laver did not even arrive in Sydney until five or six days before the tour was to begin (there was a Davis Cup dinner to attend to, at the end of the Challenge Round; plus he had to meet with the press and make his formal announcement that he was turning pro).

Now whether the three men picked up racquets and sparred against each other in those few days before the tour began -- I suppose it's possible but I'd like to see a source.

 

[krosero]

One thing should be clear though:that Rosewall did not practice as much as Hoad did to get in shape.

This is in Laver's memoir, from 1970:

“Right after I’d turned pro in January of 1963, I played a series of matches in Australia against Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall. It was an inspiring indoctrination. Lew beat me seven out of seven. Kenny beat me four out of six, and he wasn’t in very good shape at the time. I felt like a midget ....”​

 

[urban]

Speaking of fairness. If this schedule of two players go on one in best of five matches, with no time for recuperation for the one guy, would be fair, like on this tour early 1963, the 1960 World Series was a walk in the park in comparison.

 

[BobbyOne]

This is in Laver's memoir, from 1970:

“Right after I’d turned pro in January of 1963, I played a series of matches in Australia against Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall. It was an inspiring indoctrination. Lew beat me seven out of seven. Kenny beat me four out of six, and he wasn’t in very good shape at the time. I felt like a midget ....”​

krosero, It's strange that Laver wrote there were seven matches against Hoad in Australia. Mostly there are eight of them given.

 

[hoodjem]

hoodjem, This your (too) short post is really a jewel!

You did not just "ask for a source", you at the same time already insinuated and insulted in a bad way. And you repeated your "style" in your next post...

I'm awaiting your apology.

Your "brutal" (sic) fellow poster BobbyOne.

I apologize.

I still wish you had simply provided the source. The way you phrased it (i.e. "I'm sure that was because . . . ") made it sound rather like "one can assume," that is as if you were indeed inventing this information. Here is the way you offered this (now corroborated) statement: "You know how Laver fared in his pro debut. He was also slaughtered. Rosewall lost two matches to Rod but I'm sure that was because Ken did not practice at all for their series while Hoad tried to get his best form with intensively practicing."

Allow me to re-compose: You know how Laver fared in his pro debut. He was also slaughtered. Rosewall lost two matches to Rod but I'm sure that was because, as McCauley indicates, Ken did not practice at all for their series while Hoad tried to get his best form with intensively practicing.

Yes, you don't contradict me as you don't give any serious contra-arguments. You do much worse: You mock me ("jewel"), you insult me ("you invent") you insinuate ("the motivation behind it").

Your kind of communication with me is just disgusting!

I am usually better at ignoring, I shall try harder. The Ignore function is your friend.

"No one was match tough or sharp": This statement is just another of the many Dan jewels I have read. Please don't tell your claim to Ken Rosewall or Andres Gimeno...

Actually, I was merely imitating your turn of phrase. (Persons say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, How can UPI rank regarding 1962 when using the January 1963 results. That's "too high" for me...

Obviously, the implication is that there was insufficient play in 1962 to make a definitive ranking, and that the Jan. 1963 tour clarified the relative ranking of the three players.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I don't know where Muscles slept. Maybe on his big wallet..

I found a detailed description of Ken's neck injury in "Grand Prix Tennis", a magazine of 1975 with a long article on Rosewall by John Barrett (who was and is a close friend and admirer of Laver). Barrett wrote that that neck irritation hampered Ken at the service and the forehand during the final.

You could be right that Rosewall practiced with Laver. A serious question: Do you remember where you have read about this? One thing should be clear though: that Rosewall did not practice as much as Hoad did to get in shape.

Obviously, Hoad was not in shape, and required more fitness training, not playing time, than Rosewall.
A "neck irritation"? What in the world is that supposed to refer to?
It could mean that he merely slept on a hard pillow and had a stiff neck muscle, which is not an "injury" as you claimed.
The commentators noted that Ken played brilliantly in that final, and Rosewall IMPROVED as the match progressed...that is not what happens when a player is injured.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I'd like to see the source for this too, Dan. I know you've mentioned it before but I can't find a source stating that they all practiced against each other before that tour.

I have Andrew Tas' record of Laver's and Rosewall's career. Laver was occupied with the Davis Cup Challenge Round, which did not end until December 28, in Brisbane. Hoad was not there; the Sydney Morning Herald reported that he had chosen to stay in Sydney (where the tour was to begin) rather than go see the Cup matches.

On Jan. 5, when the Laver tour began, they reported: "Hoad has practised hard for the past few weeks for his match against Laver."

Laver did not even arrive in Sydney until five or six days before the tour was to begin (there was a Davis Cup dinner to attend to, at the end of the Challenge Round; plus he had to meet with the press and make his formal announcement that he was turning pro).

Now whether the three men picked up racquets and sparred against each other in those few days before the tour began -- I suppose it's possible but I'd like to see a source.

I have read in several Australian sources that the three played together in preparation for the Jan. series. Perhaps "privately" anytime between October and late December.
I will look for those sources.

 

[BobbyOne]

I apologize.

I still wish you had simply provided the source, (rather than going off in a paranoid tizzy).

I am usually better at ignoring, I shall try harder.
Actually, I was merely imitating your turn of phrase. (Persons say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

hoodjem, I take your apology. Thanks.

I had a reason for not quoting from Joe's book immediately as his words were not really definite and I wanted to find a better source. But as told to krosero, I would have given the McCauley statement still yesterday if I would not have found a better source.

By the way, I have some reason for my "paranoia". I f.i. remember that I was "brutal" before my ban...

 

[BobbyOne]

Obviously, the implication is that there was insufficient play in 1962 to make a definitive ranking, and that the Jan. 1963 tour clarified the relative ranking of the three players.

Dan, there was really enough play in 1962 from January till December. See Joe's book.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, there was really enough play in 1962 from January till December. See Joe's book.

I see a very limited schedule in Joe's book.

 

[BobbyOne]

Obviously, Hoad was not in shape, and required more fitness training, not playing time, than Rosewall.
A "neck irritation"? What in the world is that supposed to refer to?
It could mean that he merely slept on a hard pillow and had a stiff neck muscle, which is not an "injury" as you claimed.
The commentators noted that Ken played brilliantly in that final, and Rosewall IMPROVED as the match progressed...that is not what happens when a player is injured.

Dan, Rosewall had a serious injury according to Barrett which hampered Ken at his service and at his forehand. His backhand was not touched and therefore might have been as fantastic as ever. Oh yes, an injury can improve during a match albeit not a big injury.

 

[BobbyOne]

I see a very limited schedule in Joe's book.

Dan, Have you tried already better glasses? Sorry but there was enough competition including two big majors in Europe. Rosewall won 7 greater tournaments, Hoad won 2.

Rosewall was better than Laver in January 1963 (4:2 matches). But I begin to getting tired when always explaining the same matter to you...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Rosewall had a serious injury according to Barrett which hampered Ken at his service and at his forehand. His backhand was not touched and therefore might have been as fantastic as ever. Oh yes, an injury can improve during a match albeit not a big injury.

Bobby, you are elevating a "neck irritation" into a "serious neck injury"...that is a huge exaggeration.
A neck "irritation", UNDEFINED by Barrett, could merely be a stiff neck from a hard pillow, hardly an injury.
A neck injury affecting a serve or forehand would require a neck brace for support, something which clearly did not happen, if you look at the clip which I provided.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Have you tried already better glasses? Sorry but there was enough competition including two big majors in Europe. Rosewall won 7 greater tournaments, Hoad won 2.

Rosewall was better than Laver in January 1963 (4:2 matches). But I begin to getting tired when always explaining the same matter to you...

There was no pro tour in 1962, just a few stand-alone events...Hoad played about 30 matches that year, Rosewall only a few.

Rosewall looked weaker than Laver in the five set matches, which is why the UPI poll of that month rated Laver ahead of Rosewall.

 

[krosero]

Speaking of fairness. If this schedule of two players go on one in best of five matches, with no time for recuperation for the one guy, would be fair, like on this tour early 1963, the 1960 World Series was a walk in the park in comparison.

This is such a great point Urban, has there ever been a precedent to that 2-on-1 setup?

The only thing that comes to mind is Perry who for a time during the '37 WS had to play both Tilden and Vines.

I found when I tabulated the scores of that series, that Perry had a modest edge in all matches of 30 games or more. But he lost all six matches that went to 42 games or more. That seemed strange, but then I checked the dates; all those matches were played in April. His matches against Tilden were played March 24-April 10. I think it's quite likely that the double-time duty took something out of him -- just enough to make a difference at the end of long matches.

But nothing compares to the Laver setup, all in best of five. He never stood a chance.

 

[urban]

Laver knew the rules and accepted the schedule, so it was his own responsibility. But that was the life of the old pros, extremely hard and no pampering for anyone, the least for the new rookie. You made it, or you got broken. As they said: If you play, you are fit. If you aren't fit, you don't play.

 

[krosero]

Laver knew the rules and accepted the schedule, so it was his own responsibility. But that was the life of the old pros, extremely hard and no pampering for anyone, the least for the new rookie. You made it, or you got broken. As they said: If you play, you are fit. If you aren't fit, you don't play.

All true, and Laver not only knew the rules going in; it was his choice to play this tour, rather than accept an offer from Gonzalez who wanted the two of them to go alone on a H2H tour.

 

[krosero]

I have read in several Australian sources that the three played together in preparation for the Jan. series. Perhaps "privately" anytime between October and late December.
I will look for those sources.

Great, will be interesting to see the sources

 

[pc1]

This is such a great point Urban, has there ever been a precedent to that 2-on-1 setup?

The only thing that comes to mind is Perry who for a time during the '37 WS had to play both Tilden and Vines.

I found when I tabulated the scores of that series, that Perry had a modest edge in all matches of 30 games or more. But he lost all six matches that went to 42 games or more. That seemed strange, but then I checked the dates; all those matches were played in April. His matches against Tilden were played March 24-April 10. I think it's quite likely that the double-time duty took something out of him -- just enough to make a difference at the end of long matches.

But nothing compares to the Laver setup, all in best of five. He never stood a chance.

As Urban said Laver did know the rules. There are no excuses. Laver lost and that's it. What did the Aussie say, if you play you're not injured, if you're injured you don't play. This is along the same lines.

Incidentally it's almost fair in a way to say Perry and Vines were tied on that tour since it was double duty for Perry. I think a lot of it for both tours was the interest in the amateur champion Perry and the amateur champion Laver. People wanted to see them. It was I would guess a monetary thing.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, you are elevating a "neck irritation" into a "serious neck injury"...that is a huge exaggeration.
A neck "irritation", UNDEFINED by Barrett, could merely be a stiff neck from a hard pillow, hardly an injury.
A neck injury affecting a serve or forehand would require a neck brace for support, something which clearly did not happen, if you look at the clip which I provided.

Dan, John Barrett, a true tennis expert, wrote that Rosewall was handicapped in that final. For example he could not throw up the ball properly at the service. Don't doubt all what I write!

 

[BobbyOne]

There was no pro tour in 1962, just a few stand-alone events...Hoad played about 30 matches that year, Rosewall only a few.

Rosewall looked weaker than Laver in the five set matches, which is why the UPI poll of that month rated Laver ahead of Rosewall.

Dan, No pro tour but many tournaments and tour matches. Rosewall did not play "only a few". Actually he played at least 63 matches. Hoad played at least 50 matches.You must have looked in a wrong book or on wrong pages...

Rosewall did not play five-set matches thus it's bold to claim that Laver looked better than Rosewall. You are the only expert (?) who neglect Ken's dominance over Rod at that time.

 

[BobbyOne]

This is such a great point Urban, has there ever been a precedent to that 2-on-1 setup?

The only thing that comes to mind is Perry who for a time during the '37 WS had to play both Tilden and Vines.

I found when I tabulated the scores of that series, that Perry had a modest edge in all matches of 30 games or more. But he lost all six matches that went to 42 games or more. That seemed strange, but then I checked the dates; all those matches were played in April. His matches against Tilden were played March 24-April 10. I think it's quite likely that the double-time duty took something out of him -- just enough to make a difference at the end of long matches.

But nothing compares to the Laver setup, all in best of five. He never stood a chance.

krosero, Do you think the schedule was unfair? Laver had to play his first 7 matches within 14 days. I would say hard but still not unfair.

 

[Dan Lobb]

This is such a great point Urban, has there ever been a precedent to that 2-on-1 setup?

The only thing that comes to mind is Perry who for a time during the '37 WS had to play both Tilden and Vines.

I found when I tabulated the scores of that series, that Perry had a modest edge in all matches of 30 games or more. But he lost all six matches that went to 42 games or more. That seemed strange, but then I checked the dates; all those matches were played in April. His matches against Tilden were played March 24-April 10. I think it's quite likely that the double-time duty took something out of him -- just enough to make a difference at the end of long matches.

But nothing compares to the Laver setup, all in best of five. He never stood a chance.

Laver actually started well, and had good results in Australia...he seemed worn down in the NZ tour.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, John Barrett, a true tennis expert, wrote that Rosewall was handicapped in that final. For example he could not throw up the ball properly at the service. Don't doubt all what I write!

Bobby, you made a wild exaggeration by suggesting that Rosewall had "a serious neck injury", while all that he had here is a "stiff neck" which Rosewall worked out during the match.
You misquoted your own source.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, No pro tour but many tournaments and tour matches. Rosewall did not play "only a few". Actually he played at least 63 matches. Hoad played at least 50 matches.You must have looked in a wrong book or on wrong pages...

Rosewall did not play five-set matches thus it's bold to claim that Laver looked better than Rosewall. You are the only expert (?) who neglect Ken's dominance over Rod at that time.

Yes, Bobby, I see that Hoad played abut 51 matches in McCauley's listing. That is significantly more than Hoad played in 1960 1961, 1963.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, you made a wild exaggeration by suggesting that Rosewall had "a serious neck injury", while all that he had here is a "stiff neck" which Rosewall worked out during the match.
You misquoted your own source.

Dan, Okay, maybe "serious" was misleading. I meant that the irritation actually hampered Rosewall as Barrett wrote (which you doubted). Barrett also wrote that Muscles could not set himself comfortably on the forehand side.

Thanks that you concede that the injury got better during the final (also the scores indicate that).

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Okay, maybe "serious" was misleading. I meant that the irritation actually hampered Rosewall as Barrett wrote (which you doubted). Barrett also wrote that Muscles could not set himself comfortably on the forehand side.

Thanks that you concede that the injury got better during the final (also the scores indicate that).

Again, Bobby, an "irritation" or "stiff muscle" is NOT an injury, but a problem typically addressed by a massage or a trainer.
Perhaps this is a question of your lack of familiarity with the English language?

 

[NonP]

Let's bring this thread back where it should be. For some time I was nagging @pc1 for info on Mac's '84 and now that I have it (he actually emailed it to me nearly two weeks ago, so the ridiculous delay is entirely on me) I thought I'd provide y'all with yet another (in)valuable lesson.

Some of you may recall me wondering at the end of last year's YEC (I refuse to ever adopt WTF, and not because I'm a prude, I assure you) if Novak just had an even better season than Mac's 84 or Fed's '06. I eventually decided that Mac's funhouse season was still better, but I was still somewhat hesitant about it for what I felt to be good reasons. Well, it's not very often I say this but I'm even more certain about it now. First let's run the numbers:

Mac in '84 (including the YEC in early '85)

• 82-3 win-loss match record, for 96.5% (the stat y'all are most familiar with)
• 195-23 set record, for 89.4% won
• 1279-679 game record, for 65.32% won

Fed in '06

• 92-5, or 94.8%
• 221-40, or 84.7%
• 1556-965, or 61.7%

Nole in '15

• 82-6, or 93.2%
• 195-37, or 84.1%
• 1369-815, or 62.7%

As you can see, while the match win-loss %s alone may be close between the three Mac has a big edge over the other two in %s of sets and games (both service and return) won, and as pc1 correctly argues those %s are better indicators of overall tennis prowess than the ubiquitous match winning % (FYI Rafa himself never exceeded the 61% range). And get this: Mac had a stunning 24-2 record against his 10 top peers (92.3%), his remaining 3rd loss coming against the dangerous big-serving floater Amritraj, while Fed had a 19-4 record against his own top 10 (82.6%) and Novak went 31–5 (86.11%) last year. Djokovic's "record" 2015 season doesn't sound so unprecedented now, does it? (For the record he still had a record # of wins vs. top 10, but obviously that ain't everything.) Even considering the unreliability of the ATP rankings at the time a 6-10% advantage here is huge.

And here are Mac's H2Hs against his own Big 3: 6-1 vs. Lendl (yes, that one at RG was his lone loss), 6-0 vs. Jimbo, and 3-0 vs Wilander. Again Fed and Novak lag clearly behind. Given all these advantages to Mac and considering his doubles achievements in the same year I just don't see how one can make a strong argument against his '84 being the 2nd best season of the Open era. The only thing I can think of is that Mac suffered not one but two big losses that year, the 2nd spoiler being Sundstrom in the DC finals, but that's obviously comparing apples and oranges (needless to say neither Fed nor Novak played the DC finals in his respective season, or participated all the way for that matter which if anything works in Mac's favor) and as Moose told me Henrik played one hell of a match to dethrone Mac:

So there it is. For me the only season superior to Mac's '84 is Laver's still unsurpassed '69, and only because Rocket managed to win the most important event on every surface. One slip by Rod and I would've declared Mac the winner without hesitation.

P.S. pc1 also gave me the %s of games won in the following notable years:

Budge in '37 - 982 GW, 549 GL for 64.14%
Budge in '38 - 780 GW, 464 GL for 62.70%
Fed in '04 - 1245 GW, 767 GL for 61.88%
Agassi in '95 - 1192 GW, 746 GL for 61.51%

 

[pc1]

Let's bring this thread back where it should be. For some time I was nagging @pc1 for info on Mac's '84 and now that I have it (he actually emailed it to me nearly two weeks ago, so the ridiculous delay is entirely on me) I thought I'd provide y'all with yet another (in)valuable lesson.

Some of you may recall me wondering at the end of last year's YEC (I refuse to ever adopt WTF, and not because I'm a prude, I assure you) if Novak just had an even better season than Mac's 84 or Fed's '06. I eventually decided that Mac's funhouse season was still better, but I was still somewhat hesitant about it for what I felt to be good reasons. Well, it's not very often I say this but I'm even more certain about it now. First let's run the numbers:

Mac in '84 (including the YEC in early '85)

• 82-3 win-loss match record, for 96.5% (the stat y'all are most familiar with)
• 195-23 set record, for 89.4% won
• 1279-679 game record, for 65.32% won

Fed in '06

• 92-5, or 94.8%
• 221-40, or 84.7%
• 1556-965, or 61.7%

Nole in '15

• 82-6, or 93.2%
• 195-37, or 84.1%
• 1369-815, or 62.7%

As you can see, while the match win-loss %s alone may be close between the three Mac has a big edge over the other two in %s of sets and games (both service and return) won, and as pc1 correctly argues those %s are better indicators of overall tennis prowess than the ubiquitous match winning % (FYI Rafa himself never exceeded the 61% range). And get this: Mac had a stunning 24-2 record against his 10 top peers (92.3%), his remaining 3rd loss coming against the dangerous big-serving floater Amritraj, while Fed had a 19-4 record against his own top 10 (82.6%) and Novak went 31–5 (86.11%) last year. Djokovic's "record" 2015 season doesn't sound so unprecedented now, does it? (For the record he still had a record # of wins vs. top 10, but obviously that ain't everything.) Even considering the unreliability of the ATP rankings at the time a 6-10% advantage here is huge.

And here are Mac's H2Hs against his own Big 3: 6-1 vs. Lendl (yes, that one at RG was his lone loss), 6-0 vs. Jimbo, and 3-0 vs Wilander. Again Fed and Novak lag clearly behind. Given all these advantages to Mac and considering his doubles achievements in the same year I just don't see how one can make a strong argument against his '84 being the 2nd best season of the Open era. The only thing I can think of is that Mac suffered not one but two big losses that year, the 2nd spoiler being Sundstrom in the DC finals, but that's obviously comparing apples and oranges (needless to say neither Fed or Novak played the DC finals in his respective season, or participated all the way for that matter which in anything works in Mac's favor) and as Moose told me Henrik played one hell of a match to dethrone Mac:

So there it is. For me the only season superior to Mac's '84 is Laver's still unsurpassed '69, and only because Rocket managed to win the most important event on every surface. One slip by Rod and I would've declared Mac the winner without hesitation.

P.S. pc1 also gave me the %s of games won in the following notable years:

Budge in '37 - 982 GW, 549 GL for 64.14%
Budge in '38 - 780 GW, 464 GL for 62.70%
Fed in '04 - 1245 GW, 767 GL for 61.88%
Agassi in '95 - 1192 GW, 746 GL for 61.51%

I watched McEnroe in 1984 in person many times and on television many times. To say he was awesome is an understatement.

 

[krosero]

P.S. pc1 also gave me the %s of games won in the following notable years:

Budge in '37 - 982 GW, 549 GL for 64.14%
Budge in '38 - 780 GW, 464 GL for 62.70%
Fed in '04 - 1245 GW, 767 GL for 61.88%
Agassi in '95 - 1192 GW, 746 GL for 61.51%

I have a more updated record for Budge (with additions and corrections): http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/don-budge-1937-38-seasons.550672/

I've got all the GW's calculated in Excel, but there are different ways to calculate it. Do the modern numbers include Mac's full season of sanctioned and unsanctioned events?

For Budge there are his numbers including Davis Cup and formal tournaments (ie, the things included today on an ATP player's page). On top of that you can add the Davis Cup Test matches, which I think should be added, because they were seen as important in their time (though obviously below Davis Cup itself). Then there were pure exos (single-day events; team events that had nothing to do with Davis Cup and did not have fixed teams or rules; etc.), that were regarded in the bottom tier of events so to speak.

 

[NonP]

I watched McEnroe in 1984 in person many times and on television many times. To say he was awesome is an understatement.

IMO '84 Mac is the only guy in the Open era who'd have more than a puncher's chance to take down Sampras or Federer at his best. If forced to pick I'd say Pete's superior power and athleticism would be just enough to edge out Mac, but of course that might just be the fanboy in me talking.

I have a more updated record for Budge (with additions and corrections): http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/don-budge-1937-38-seasons.550672/

I've got all the GW's calculated in Excel, but there are different ways to calculate it. Do the modern numbers include Mac's full season of sanctioned and unsanctioned events?

For Budge there are his numbers including Davis Cup and formal tournaments (ie, the things included today on an ATP player's page). On top of that you can add the Davis Cup Test matches, which I think should be added, because they were seen as important in their time (though obviously below Davis Cup itself). Then there were pure exos (single-day events; team events that had nothing to do with Davis Cup and did not have fixed teams or rules; etc.), that were regarded in the bottom tier of events so to speak.

I thought pc1 had already incorporated your research. So how would you calculate Budge's GW %s? As for Mac's I just went by the ATP tally. Mac's '84 playing activity page on the ATP site is missing about half of the year's rankings, so I had to do the other half manually by going to each player's rankings history and looking up the info myself (which BTW is why it took me so long to put it all together). Of course there are some grey areas, like Dallas WCT which was apparently held over several weeks (so I had to google exactly when Mac played Curren when the South African was still ranked in the top 10) and like the Team World Cup whose results could be excluded as it was closer to an exo than a bona fide tourney.

But however you slice them I think Mac's %s would still be higher by some margin than either Fed's or Novak's, and that's really the main takeaway here. To clearly surpass Mac's miracle season one would need to win all the major tourneys on every surface in the same year a la Laver and maintain Mac's ridiculous consistency which even Rocket never approached. That's a virtually unthinkable achievement in the modern era, given how even Fed and Nole fell short (in fact neither of them came within a set of winning his FO final, unlike Mac).

 

[krosero]

IMO '84 Mac is the only guy in the Open era who'd have more than a puncher's chance to take down Sampras or Federer at his best. If forced to pick I'd say Pete's superior power and athleticism would be just enough to edge out Mac, but of course that might just be the fanboy in me talking.



I thought pc1 had already incorporated your research. So how would you calculate Budge's GW %s? As for Mac's I just went by the ATP tally. Mac's '84 playing activity page on the ATP site is missing about half of the year's rankings, so I had to do the other half manually by going to each player's rankings history and looking up the info myself (which BTW is why it took me so long to put it all together). Of course there are some grey areas, like Dallas WCT which was apparently held over several weeks (so I had to google exactly when Mac played Curren when the South African was still ranked in the top 10) and like the Team World Cup whose results could be excluded as it was closer to an exo than a bona fide tourney.

But however you slice them I think Mac's %s would still be higher by some margin than either Fed's or Novak's, and that's really the main takeaway here. To clearly surpass Mac's miracle season one would need to win all the major tourneys on every surface in the same year a la Laver and maintain Mac's ridiculous consistency which even Rocket never approached. That's a virtually unthinkable achievement in the modern era, given how even Fed and Nole fell short (in fact neither of them came within a set of winning his FO final, unlike Mac).

PC1 sent me those Budge GW's a couple of years ago and they excluded the pure exos but they included everything else, ie, tournaments, Davis Cup, and, I believe, the Davis Cup Test Matches as well (PC1 can correct if I've got this wrong).

So I would do it the same way. There's no parallel today to the Test Matches but they were important in their day.

I presume Mac's GWs are calculated from his sanctioned play only (82-3), so this would be the exact parallel with Budge (tournaments and DC only), with my updates and corrections:

Budge in '37 – 1118 GW, 602 GL for 65.00% (win/loss 62-2)
Budge in '38 – 760 GW, 408 GL for 65.07% (win/loss 40-2)

If we throw in the DC Test matches, which I think we should, even though there is no exact parallel to such matches today:

Budge in '37 – 1160 GW, 640 GL for 64.44% (win/loss 63-3)
Budge in '38 – 810 GW, 462 GL for 63.68% (win/loss 41-4)

These are only slightly higher than the old numbers, but they're a complete record.

[Edited to incorporate one more tournament match win found at Tennis Base]

 

[BobbyOne]

Again, Bobby, an "irritation" or "stiff muscle" is NOT an injury, but a problem typically addressed by a massage or a trainer.
Perhaps this is a question of your lack of familiarity with the English language?

Dan, My English is not very good of course but at least I can understand what you use to write, unfortunately also your "funny" claims...

"Irritation" is yet an English word for a medical phenomenon.

It's interesting that you mention the word "massage". The article by Barrett begins as follows: "The masseur dug his fingers into the muscular neck. "There's nothing much I can do", he confidet. "You've nipped the nerve and got some fibrositis there- I'm afraid you're going to have a stiff neck for a couple of days".

Please attack Mr. Barrett, not me.

Generally spoken, communication with you is not easy for me because, like your "brother in spirit", NatF, contradict to virtually ALL my sentences and claims, not only regarding tennis but also classical music and even religion..

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, My English is not very good of course but at least I can understand what you use to write, unfortunately also your "funny" claims...

"Irritation" is yet an English word for a medical phenomenon.

It's interesting that you mention the word "massage". The article by Barrett begins as follows: "The masseur dug his fingers into the muscular neck. "There's nothing much I can do", he confidet. "You've nipped the nerve and got some fibrositis there- I'm afraid you're going to have a stiff neck for a couple of days".

Please attack Mr. Barrett, not me.

Generally spoken, communication with you is not easy for me because, like your "brother in spirit", NatF, contradict to virtually ALL my sentences and claims, not only regarding tennis but also classical music and even religion..

Bobby, classical music was my business for several years until recently. I was deeply involved in educational work for a symphony orchestra in secondary schools.

Now that you have given us the full quote above, we can see that this neck problem was not a "serious neck injury" but a temporary inflammatory condition lasting only a couple of days, treatable by a massage therapist.

Thank you.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, classical music was my business for several years until recently. I was deeply involved in educational work for a symphony orchestra in secondary schools.

Now that you have given us the full quote above, we can see that this neck problem was not a "serious neck injury" but a temporary inflammatory condition lasting only a couple of days, treatable by a massage therapist.

Thank you.

Dan, I have clearly shown (by Barrett's words and the quotings of the masseur) that the irritation hampered Rosewall's game in the final at his most "delicate" strokes, i.e. service and forehand. So stop to doubt my remarks about Ken's disadvantage in the match. Please note: Laver admirer Barrett called Rosewall's injury a handicap. Imagine what it means to play handicapped by an injury against peak Laver...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I have clearly shown (by Barrett's words and the quotings of the masseur) that the irritation hampered Rosewall's game in the final at his most "delicate" strokes, i.e. service and forehand. So stop to doubt my remarks about Ken's disadvantage in the match. Please note: Laver admirer Barrett called Rosewall's injury a handicap. Imagine what it means to play handicapped by an injury against peak Laver...

This "irritation" or stiff neck was not an INJURY, you are still exaggerating...and the tennis reporters did not even notice it, stated that Rosewall played brilliantly and IMPROVED as the match progressed...that does not happen with an injury.

 

[Dan Lobb]

• Bobby, classical music was my business for several years until recently. I was deeply involved in educational work for a symphony orchestra in secondary schools.
  
  Now that you have given us the full quote above, we can see that this neck problem was not a "serious neck injury" but a temporary inflammatory condition lasting only a couple of days, treatable by a massage therapist.
  
  Thank you.

  Bobby, I studied piano for four years with the foremost piano professor in this country, was a full-time university music student, and performed for many years as church organist and pianist...I know how to evaluate classical musical performance. This country has produced more prominent pianists than any other since WWII.

 

[pc1]

• 
  I studied piano for four years with the foremost piano professor in this country, was a full-time university music student, and performed for many years as church organist and pianist...I know how to evaluate classical musical performance. This country has produced more prominent pianists than any other since WWII.

I'm impressed Dan.

 

[NonP]

PC1 sent me those Budge GW's a couple of years ago and they excluded the pure exos but they included everything else, ie, tournaments, Davis Cup, and, I believe, the Davis Cup Test Matches as well (PC1 can correct if I've got this wrong).

So I would do it the same way. There's no parallel today to the Test Matches but they were important in their day.

I presume Mac's GWs are caculated from his sanctioned play only (82-3), so this would be the exact parallel with Budge (tournaments and DC only), with my updates and corrections:

Budge in '37 – 1106 GW, 602 GL for 64.75% (win/loss 61-2)
Budge in '38 – 760 GW, 408 GL for 65.07% (win/loss 40-2)

If we throw in the DC Test matches, which I think we should, even though there is no exact parallel to such matches today:

Budge in '37 – 1148 GW, 640 GL for 64.21% (win/loss 62-3)
Budge in '38 – 810 GW, 462 GL for 63.68% (win/loss 41-4)

These are only slightly higher than the old numbers, but they're a complete record.

Agreed that the DC Test matches should be included. (pc1, can you confirm that your stats include everything but the pure exos?)

I thought about investigating non-sanctioned matches/events for Mac but just getting the time-specific rankings of his opponents proved too time-consuming. (Others are welcome to dive in if they so choose.) Still our comparisons should be more or less apples to apples as long as we're going by roughly the same criteria (except arguable ones like Budge's Test matches).

• 
  Bobby, I studied piano for four years with the foremost piano professor in this country, was a full-time university music student, and performed for many years as church organist and pianist...I know how to evaluate classical musical performance. This country has produced more prominent pianists than any other since WWII.

Say waaaaaaa? Dude, Russia is the one and only answer here. Are you really saying Gould, Hewitt, Hamelin (throw in Oscar if you want) > Ashkenazy, Berman, Pletnev, Berezovsky, Kissin, Trifonov, Kern, who the hell knows how many/who else? And that Russian roster doesn't even include the heavyweights who could be said to have been groomed after the war.

And I say this as someone who has heard most of these guys/gals live (Gould and Berman are the only exceptions). I guarantee you I've encountered far more Muscovites than Canucks in my listening and concertgoing experience.

I'm impressed Dan.

I'm more impressed that he has yet to name-drop his piano teacher.

 

[pc1]

Agreed that the DC Test matches should be included. (pc1, can you confirm that your stats include everything but the pure exos?)

I thought about investigating non-sanctioned matches/events for Mac but just getting the time-specific rankings of his opponents proved too time-consuming. (Others are welcome to dive in if they so choose.) Still our comparisons should be more or less apples to apples as long as we're going by roughly the same criteria (except arguable ones like Budge's Test matches).



Say waaaaaaa? Dude, Russia is the one and only answer here. Are you really saying Gould, Hewitt, Hamelin (throw in Oscar if you want) > Ashkenazy, Berman, Pletnev, Berezovsky, Kissin, Trifonov, Kern, who the hell knows how many/who else? And that Russian roster doesn't even include the heavyweights who could be said to have been groomed after the war.

And I say this as someone who has heard most of these guys/gals live (Gould and Berman are the only exceptions). I guarantee you I've encountered far more Muscovites than Canucks in my listening and concertgoing experience.



I'm more impressed that he has yet to name-drop his piano teacher.

I don't believe I included the exos.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Agreed that the DC Test matches should be included. (pc1, can you confirm that your stats include everything but the pure exos?)

I thought about investigating non-sanctioned matches/events for Mac but just getting the time-specific rankings of his opponents proved too time-consuming. (Others are welcome to dive in if they so choose.) Still our comparisons should be more or less apples to apples as long as we're going by roughly the same criteria (except arguable ones like Budge's Test matches).



Say waaaaaaa? Dude, Russia is the one and only answer here. Are you really saying Gould, Hewitt, Hamelin (throw in Oscar if you want) > Ashkenazy, Berman, Pletnev, Berezovsky, Kissin, Trifonov, Kern, who the hell knows how many/who else? And that Russian roster doesn't even include the heavyweights who could be said to have been groomed after the war.

And I say this as someone who has heard most of these guys/gals live (Gould and Berman are the only exceptions). I guarantee you I've encountered far more Muscovites than Canucks in my listening and concertgoing experience.



I'm more impressed that he has yet to name-drop his piano teacher.

The Russians are great, I once had the opportunity to chat briefly with Ashkenazy, but their greatest success is in non-German repertoire. Richter had great success with the Brahms 2, some Beethoven sonatas, avoided the mature concertos. Ashkenazy recorded Mozart concertos with success.
You missed a few Canadian names...here is my list...Glenn Gould (#1), Anton Kuerti, Ronald Turini, Janina Fialkowska, Louis Lortie, Marc Andre Hamelin, Jon Kimura Parker, Angela Hewitt, Jan Lisiecki, Stewart Goodyear, plus some of my fellow students, who have issued important CD's, Arthur Rowe, Bruce Vogt, Sandra Mogenson. My professor arranged a live recording of a lecture/performance which I gave on a wonderful Bosendorfer in 1970, which I might upload some day.

 

[BobbyOne]

The Russians are great, I once had the opportunity to chat briefly with Ashkenazy, but their greatest success is in non-German repertoire. Richter had great success with the Brahms 2, some Beethoven sonatas, avoided the mature concertos. Ashkenazy recorded Mozart concertos with success.
You missed a few Canadian names...here is my list...Glenn Gould (#1), Anton Kuerti, Ronald Turini, Janina Fialkowska, Louis Lortie, Marc Andre Hamelin, Jon Kimura Parker, Angela Hewitt, Jan Lisiecki, Stewart Goodyear, plus some of my fellow students, who have issued important CD's, Arthur Rowe, Bruce Vogt, Sandra Mogenson. My professor arranged a live recording of a lecture/performance which I gave on a wonderful Bosendorfer in 1970, which I might upload some day.

Dan, Almost all of your Canadian star pianists are totally unknown in Europe. At least they never visited Vienna, still the world's capitol of classic music.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Almost all of your Canadian star pianists are totally unknown in Europe. At least they never visited Vienna, still the world's capitol of classic music.

Bobby, they are not unknown in Europe. Jan Lisiecki is well known to German orchestras and has a recording contract with Deutsche Grammaphon, his recent recording is of the Schumann concerto with a European orchestra. Louis Lortie has made many recordings with European orchestras, such as the London Symphony, as has Marc-Andre Hamelin, Jon Kimura Parker, unless you consider the Royal Philharmonic and Andre Previn to be non-European....really.
Angela Hewitt records in Britain on a British label.

You are still specializing in unsupported statements....just trying to get a laugh?

Now that Brendel is no longer active, I am hard pressed to think of a prominent Austrian pianist still going.

Badura Skoda is still playing at 89?

Till Fellner is good, but he makes his recordings in Montreal with the Montreal Symphony, right? You guys need good Canadian orchestral support.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, they are not unknown in Europe. Jan Lisiecki is well known to German orchestras and has a recording contract with Deutsche Grammaphon, his recent recording is of the Schumann concerto with a European orchestra. Louis Lortie has made many recordings with European orchestras, such as the London Symphony, as has Marc-Andre Hamelin, Jon Kimura Parker, unless you consider the Royal Philharmonic and Andre Previn to be non-European....really.
Angela Hewitt records in Britain on a British label.

You are still specializing in unsupported statements....just trying to get a laugh?

Now that Brendel is no longer active, I am hard pressed to think of a prominent Austrian pianist still going.

Badura Skoda is still playing at 89?

Till Fellner is good, but he makes his recordings in Montreal with the Montreal Symphony, right? You guys need good Canadian orchestral support.

Dan, You have partly convinced me. Here you have experienced what I must face every day from your side at tennis matters: Almost never getting any support. I'm sorry for me not knowing the Canadians. But still Vienna has the better orchestras.