Krosero argues that the points standings indicate that South Africa was included, making about 16 total events.
Men's Season with the most achievement
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
[Post by Krosero]
Krosero stated:
I've had another email from BobbyOne, which has prompted me to do a little more digging into this Ampol series. He noted that the total points I calculated for the players for the entire year-long series do not line up with the numbers given by McCauley (on p. 99 McCauley gives the total points earned in the "Australian tournaments").
BobbyOne also doubted that Wembley was not included in the series. On both counts his instincts have proven right. I've done a little searching today and have found Wembley listed as one of the Ampol tournaments.
I've found, too, a lot of conflicting information about the total number of tournaments. A lot of the information can be reconciled, especially for the first 5 events of the year; there appears no question about those and all the numbers line up nicely; but a lot of the material just brings up more questions.
I do think that Anderson's original statement that there were 14 tournaments is a solid basis and may yet be proven correct. But instead of attempting to answer all these questions myself, let me just start by getting the new information out there. Any ideas and comments would be welcome.
Ampol announced its plan at the beginning of the year: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131618684.
They name 11 tournaments: Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Paris, Wembley, Vienna, Forest Hills, Los Angeles and “a tournament at Melbourne Olympic pool in November, 1959.”
Ampol standings after 2 events: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103090581
LA Times, in a preview of the Masters on June 3:
Up to this point everything is actually clear. All the numbers line up perfectly, and all of the first 6 events can be identified.
Questions start popping up right after the Masters.
- Was Toronto one of the tournaments? It's not listed in any article I've found. Yet Gonzalez won this event, and without winning 7 points there he would not reach the 32 points that we know he had on the eve of the French Pro: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593. He reaches 32 exactly, if he's given points for Toronto and the next tournament, Forest Hills.
- What about South Africa? It's on the LA Times list as one of the events, but does that mean the South Africa tour of November? If so, was the whole tour counted, or just a portion? Rosewall, Anderson, Segura and Cooper all participated. It does make some sense that this was included, because in the final standings at the end of the year, per McCauley, Rosewall trailed Gonzalez in total points by only 41 to 43. Rosewall won 2 of the 14 tournaments we named upthread, while Gonzalez won 4, which should put Gonzalez well ahead of Rosewall in points. But Rosewall won this South Africa tour which could explain how he got so close to Gonzalez by year's end.
- What about those last 5 events in Australia, in December? The Sept. 23 link names all of them as part of the world series, but other links name only Melbourne as one of the Ampol events. Including all 5, as well as Toronto, Wembley and South Africa, takes us beyond 14.
Again any comments/ questions/help is welcome. Again thanks to Dan for putting his list together; and to BobbyOne for, essentially, proofing my work.
Dan Lobb writes:
[Krosero, here is where we left the discussion. You can see that Perth and Adelaide are included.]
Krosero stated:
I've had another email from BobbyOne, which has prompted me to do a little more digging into this Ampol series. He noted that the total points I calculated for the players for the entire year-long series do not line up with the numbers given by McCauley (on p. 99 McCauley gives the total points earned in the "Australian tournaments").
BobbyOne also doubted that Wembley was not included in the series. On both counts his instincts have proven right. I've done a little searching today and have found Wembley listed as one of the Ampol tournaments.
I've found, too, a lot of conflicting information about the total number of tournaments. A lot of the information can be reconciled, especially for the first 5 events of the year; there appears no question about those and all the numbers line up nicely; but a lot of the material just brings up more questions.
I do think that Anderson's original statement that there were 14 tournaments is a solid basis and may yet be proven correct. But instead of attempting to answer all these questions myself, let me just start by getting the new information out there. Any ideas and comments would be welcome.
Ampol announced its plan at the beginning of the year: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131618684.
They name 11 tournaments: Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Paris, Wembley, Vienna, Forest Hills, Los Angeles and “a tournament at Melbourne Olympic pool in November, 1959.”
Ampol standings after 2 events: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103090581
LA Times, in a preview of the Masters on June 3:
There are 10 pro net tournaments booked around the world this year and this is the sixth. Still to be held are the championships at New York, Paris, Wembley (London), South Africa and Melbourne.
After half of these tests Hoad leads with 20 points. He will be the favorite here. The definite Australia imprint on Kramer’s troupe is shown by the fact that Rosewall is second with 17 and Sedgman third with 16. Gonzales, the product of Los Angeles public courts and the LATC, stands fourth with 14.
$5,000 Goes to Winner
When the 10 tournaments have run their course the player with the most points collects $5,000 and the Ampol trophy, donated by an Aussie firm.
In addition to this, and the opening up of his purse strings for the California Youth Tennis Foundation, Kramer is paying the winner of the most matches here—each player meets the rest—$3,000. Second place is worth $2,000 and $1,600 goes to the third best.
After half of these tests Hoad leads with 20 points. He will be the favorite here. The definite Australia imprint on Kramer’s troupe is shown by the fact that Rosewall is second with 17 and Sedgman third with 16. Gonzales, the product of Los Angeles public courts and the LATC, stands fourth with 14.
$5,000 Goes to Winner
When the 10 tournaments have run their course the player with the most points collects $5,000 and the Ampol trophy, donated by an Aussie firm.
In addition to this, and the opening up of his purse strings for the California Youth Tennis Foundation, Kramer is paying the winner of the most matches here—each player meets the rest—$3,000. Second place is worth $2,000 and $1,600 goes to the third best.
Up to this point everything is actually clear. All the numbers line up perfectly, and all of the first 6 events can be identified.
Questions start popping up right after the Masters.
- Was Toronto one of the tournaments? It's not listed in any article I've found. Yet Gonzalez won this event, and without winning 7 points there he would not reach the 32 points that we know he had on the eve of the French Pro: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593. He reaches 32 exactly, if he's given points for Toronto and the next tournament, Forest Hills.
- What about South Africa? It's on the LA Times list as one of the events, but does that mean the South Africa tour of November? If so, was the whole tour counted, or just a portion? Rosewall, Anderson, Segura and Cooper all participated. It does make some sense that this was included, because in the final standings at the end of the year, per McCauley, Rosewall trailed Gonzalez in total points by only 41 to 43. Rosewall won 2 of the 14 tournaments we named upthread, while Gonzalez won 4, which should put Gonzalez well ahead of Rosewall in points. But Rosewall won this South Africa tour which could explain how he got so close to Gonzalez by year's end.
- What about those last 5 events in Australia, in December? The Sept. 23 link names all of them as part of the world series, but other links name only Melbourne as one of the Ampol events. Including all 5, as well as Toronto, Wembley and South Africa, takes us beyond 14.
Again any comments/ questions/help is welcome. Again thanks to Dan for putting his list together; and to BobbyOne for, essentially, proofing my work.
Dan Lobb writes:
[Krosero, here is where we left the discussion. You can see that Perth and Adelaide are included.]
Last edited:
The final rankings for the double season of 1959-60 represent the greatest season ever for pro tennis, and should be reflected in the choice of all-time GOAT tennis player.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I still haven't seen a compelling argument for a better year than Laver's 1969 which included:
- The Grand Slam
- 18 Total Titles (including four more big titles - the U.S. Pro, Wembley, U.S. Pro Indoor, the South Africa Open)
- 106 Total Match Wins
The quality of opposition was much greater in 1959.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure the quality of competition was greater at all, much less much greater. However, I am sure that the depth of competition in the open era of 1969 was "much" greater than the pro tour of 1959.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Amazingly depth in 1969 with Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Ashe, Smith, Okker, Nastase, Gimeno, Gonzalez among others. All tough players and all with the chance of winning a major. Gonzalez as great as he was would probably have the least chance to win a major due to his age yet he did win the near major in the Howard Hughes in 1969 beating Newcombe, Rosewall and crushing Ashe in three straight sets in the final. Most of these players were at or near their prime.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Possible the average level of competition was among the best ever when you look at the names.
Early 1950s were pretty good too with possibly prime Kramer and peak Gonzalez. Two possible GOATs imo. You add Segura, Kovacs, Riggs and Budge. However the depth wasn't as good as the mid 1950s imo and Budge was clearly over the hill.
Mid 1950s to later 1950s lost a strong Kramer (although Kramer did play some) to semi retirement but it added Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad among others. I don't think any of these players played at the consistent high level that Kramer did although you could argue Hoad was better for periods of time and matches.
The players at the top fared poorly against the stars of 1959.
I would think that a Gonzales or Hoad of 1959 would be too much for a Rosewall or Laver o 1964 or 1965.
Krosero, you can see that Kooyong and other premium venues were used for that 1959 tour.
First of all, we are talking about the pre open era here. Also, until fairly recently, todays slams were called Majors, Not slams.
In 62, Rosewall probably would h
They did play the pro Majors though, with Rosewall beating Hoad at Wembly and the French Pro. Had he been on the amateur tour, Ken probably would have won 3 or 4 slams, as he and Hoad dominated Laver in 63. Laver would have been lucky to win 1 slam in 62. Looking at the US pro winners in Cleveland on Wikipedia, you are right that before 63, that tournament had rather poor competition, plus matches were 2 of 3 sets and should have not been considered a Major event most years.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
In my view, Laver of 64'-70' would have a winning record over both 59' Gonzalez and Hoad. Rosewall wouldn't have a winning record against them, but, it would be close.
Yes, the Cleveland event was billed as the Pepsi-Cola World Professional Championships, but really included only the touring pro players that year, two big names.
I think that Laver's showing early in 1963 is underrated, he actually evenly split his five-set matches with Rosewall on the year.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Laver did finish number two for the year after starting off (understatement of the year) very slowly in being beaten badly by Hoad and Rosewall. Finishing number two wasn't that bad. Would Laver have finished number two for the year if he was playing (assuming the same year for Laver) if he started in 1954 or 1959? In 1954 he had Kramer, Gonzalez, Segura and Sedgman. In 1959 he had Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman and Segura. I doubt it because the pros was imo stronger in those years. Better depth and the top players like Sedgman and Segura were younger.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Possibly but I'm not 100% sure about Gonzalez and Hoad. Gonzalez was in his thirties and Hoad wasn't always at top level but they were still awesome opponents. I would think so but I wouldn't bet on it. I would think Gonzalez would have a comfortable edge over Rosewall if they played a head to head tour and I would think Hoad also but it would be closer.
I agree that Laver would not finish number one in those very tough fifties fields.
However, Laver made an even split of his five-set matches against Rosewall for the 1963 year, including the early Australian tour, where he was 2 and 2 against Rosewall in the five-setters.
In the extended 1963 hth world pro championship tour, Laver claimed that he developed a back problem which determined the final score.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Interesting. I didn't know that Laver had a back problem. Can you elaborate more on that Dan?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Thanks Dan. I'll try to find the article or publication.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The thought occurred to me that the most accomplished season may not be the highest level of play season. For example I believe Laver in 1967 who won the four top tournaments on the Old Pro Tour in the Wimbledon Pro, Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro played at a higher level than Laver's 1969 Grand Slam Season. I also think it's a very good possibility of Laver's 1966 season. However just about everyone agrees that Laver's 1969 season was his most accomplished season.
One reason is that I believe Laver injured his wrist during the 1968 season and it was to trouble him for the rest of his career. This was not a problem in 1966 and 1967. So I do believe the Laver of 1966 probably would defeat the Laver of 1969 a bit more than fifty percent of the time.
One reason is that I believe Laver injured his wrist during the 1968 season and it was to trouble him for the rest of his career. This was not a problem in 1966 and 1967. So I do believe the Laver of 1966 probably would defeat the Laver of 1969 a bit more than fifty percent of the time.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Thanks Dan.
Yes but I think there is a good chance Laver was better for average level of play in 1966 and 1967.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
No doubt but I do think Laver does deserve credit for possibly being the greatest ever.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Well to be fair to Laver he probably would have crushed all the top players in a head to head at worst from 1965 onward. But yes the greats of the past do deserve a lot of extra credit. To be honest I'm not sure how much credit Rosewall deserves for a World Championship Tour since he was beaten pretty soundly by Gonzalez. He did beat rookie Laver which is fair I suppose and Gonzalez beat Rosewall as a rookie so I guess that evens it up.
I am no longer certain of Laver's strength in a long hth, look at what happened in 1963, Rosewall lobbed (and I hesitate to use this term), lobbed him to death, gave Laver an injured back.
Kramer did not rate Laver in his top group of players, largely because of his physical stature.
There is no doubt about Laver's strength in a tournament format.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Let's just say that peak Laver was unproven in a head to head tour although I think he would be extremely strong. Kramer and Gonzalez were obviously the Kings of the Head to Head tour and they were also proven in tournament play. I might add Vines to that list also since he won a number of head to head tours before losing to Budge. Vines however was injured when he played Budge and frankly was burn out from playing. He was perhaps more interested in golf at that point.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I thought it was pretty good until he developed arthritis.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Kramer, according to his book came down with it in the summer of 1950 when he came down with a stiff neck. Eventually it moved to his playing shoulder. It was so bad he coudlnt' even raise his arm high enough to serve! Kramer was examined and found that he had bony spurs, the calcification of a man of seventy! Now Kramer was lucky enough that they had a new drug at the time called cortisone. It stopped the symptoms but he did gain weight until his body adjusted.
I believe it had to have affected him severely but he adjusted. Apparently if I recall, in the late 1950s when he would occasionally fill in as a sub he defeated Rosewall for one of the rare times but the amazing thing was he beat Rosewall despite not being able to bend down!
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's possible.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps Bill Tilden's 1930 season is feasible. He won Wimbledon and the championships of five other nations including the Italian, Dutch, German, Austrian and the Netherlands. He also Queens club, Monte Carlo etc. In all if I counted correctly he won 19 tournaments out of 27 on a 120-6 record.
Kramer was able to win long hth's against Segura and Sedgman after this period, and won the Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor in 1951, so it does not appear that the problems he had were severe("bony spurs" is not the same thing as "arthritis", so presumably you are saying that he had a combination of both, which is not unusual.)
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Or perhaps he was so good he beat them despite the problems. Kramer himself felt he could no longer make the shots he used to make when he played Sedgman on their first tour.
I was looking at Tennis Base and Kramer's record during his peak in the amateurs was quite impressive, even for the amateurs.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Tilden was according to Tennis Base 215-3 from 1923 to 1925. I noticed some fairly unknown tournaments like the Illinois Championship had 128 man fields with some recognizable names like Tilden, Lott, Johnston, Norton, Kinsey, Bell, Wallace Johnson. It is a bigger field than US Nationals which was a 64 man field. Interesting. Perhaps some of these fields were stronger than some more well known tournaments! Just a thought.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I agree. I was just pointing out Kramer's decline to get an idea how strong he was when at full health.
Riggs in his prime was a great player and also imo underrated.
So many try to explain away losses because of injury. As the Aussies used to say, if you're injured don't play. If you play you're not injured.
I think that it is fair to point out injuries, but it should not cloud our assessment of a player's peak performance.
Kramer played his toughest opposition in the early fifties, in Gonzales and Sedgman, so we have to be careful not to "explain away" his big losses to these players as injury-related unless we have solid evidence. Kramer seems to have been on a roll against both of these players, so it is difficult to see where the injury was.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Obviously Gonzalez and Sedgman were two of the great opponents, especially I would think on an indoor court.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Tom Brown was Kramer's frequent opponent in the amateur majors, but Kramer always referred to him as "my pidgeon".
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Well a lot of players were Kramer's pigeons. That is what makes a great player. Segura was his pigeon for a while too as was Gonzalez, Frank Parker, Don Budge and Bobby Riggs.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Looking at Kramer's record prior to turning pro and shortly after turning pro before the arthritis affected him badly and it was fantastic. You add some of the testimonials from greats and experts like Segura, Riggs, Bromwich, Braden, Budge, Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert that he was the finest (in Trabert's case tied with Laver) player they had seen and there's no doubt in my mind he is at worse one of the greatest ever. Segura and Braden's opinions are very impressive since Segura was a brilliant genius of the game and Braden used to use computer analysis to supplement his logic.
I know for a fact Braden thought Kramer was the finest player he had seen up to a few weeks before he passed away a little while ago.
