Number one in 1977... finally the poll!

[jimbo333]

And that's only 77. In the early 70's green clay was used even less in the important tournaments!

 

[pc1]

I've really enjoyed this thread, and have learnt quite a few things, one being that:-

The overall majority of IMPORTANT tournaments in the 70's were definitely not on clay, fact!

Jimbo333,

However in 1977 two of the four majors were on clay and there were a huge clay court circuit in 1977.

In just a glance at the ITF site, I counted Vilas entered in at least twenty clay tournaments. That's a lot. And of course as you know he won the two big clay events in the French and the U.S. Open.

I think most people agree here that Borg played at a higher level during the year and was a better player but was it enough to overcome the huge quantity of activity by Vilas. Vilas did play very well also in 1977. However the main problem for many and it was mentioned in 1977 also was that Vilas did not play a balanced schedule and most of his tournament wins were on clay and he was not nearly as good on other surfaces.

The people who supported Borg for number one that year pointed to the fact Borg was excellent on all surfaces, grass, clay, indoors etc and that his winning percentage was the best of the year. Some sources state Borg as winning 13 of 20 tournaments that year. Vilas won several more than that plus an extra major but he entered far more tournaments than Borg. According to the Collins Encyclopedia (which can be a bit off) Vilas won 17 tournaments. Here's Vilas' French Open results in 1977. The opponents are decent but no big deal on clay. The toughest seems to be Raul Ramirez but Vilas always seemed to be the master of Ramirez in big matches. It's a major but it doesn't seem that strong.

French Open France
SL 23 May 1977 to 05 Jun 1977 Entry: DA Clay (O)
128 W Zeljko FRANULOVIC (YUG) 6-1 6-2 6-4
64 W Belus PRAJOUX (CHI) 2-6 6-0 6-2 6-0
32 W Bernie MITTON (RSA) 6-1 6-4 6-2
16 W Stan SMITH (USA) 6-1 6-2 6-1
QF W Wojtek FIBAK (POL) 6-4 6-0 6-4
SF W Raul RAMIREZ (MEX) 6-2 6-0 6-3
FR W Brian GOTTFRIED (USA) 6-0 6-3 6-0

Here's a tournament Borg played on clay that same year and the results.
Barcelona Spain
GP 17 Oct 1977 to 23 Oct 1977 Entry: DA Clay (O)
64 W Rafael RUIZ (ESP) 6-0 6-0
32 W Jose MORENO-TALLADA (ESP) 6-3 4-6 6-4
16 W Victor PECCI (PAR) 6-2 6-3
QF W Jose HIGUERAS (ESP) 6-0 6-1
SF W Eddie DIBBS (USA) 6-0 6-0 6-4
FR W Manuel ORANTES (ESP) 6-2 7-5 6-2

The last three players can be argued to be better than anyone Vilas played at the French, especially Orantes, who won the U.S. Clay Courts over Connors that year. Even Pecci could be awesome at times on clay as demonstrated by his showing in the French in the future, defeating Vilas and Connors on his way to the final.

Anyway Borg won this event, it's not a major but a far more impressive performance against a much tougher field. Still the French is a major.

 

[Benhur]

Interesting. According to SgtJohn - in 1977 these were the best attended ("masters quality" - if you will) events (after RG, Wimbledon, US Open and the Masters):

Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, Rome, Dallas, Indianapolis, Boston, Stockholm and Wembley.

That's 13 events - of them three are on red clay, three on green clay.

I'm sure Benhur will jump in here and say something like "look, the most common surface is clay". But those more reasonable will acknowledge that red and green clay were very different surfaces and Vilas was still avoiding the big ones, even on his favorite surface.

LOL. You guys are a riot.
You give a string of tournaments, a disproportionate numbe of them in the US, ranked by a certain "attendence " number given by a certain Sargent John. Even after that entertaining presentation, it turns out most of them are on clay. And you hinge your argment on the observation that red and green are not the same.

If you look at the total number of tennis tournaments played around the world in the 70s, the result will be an overwhelming, I mean overwhelming, preponderance of clay. That’s a fact.

 

[CyBorg]

LOL. You guys are a riot.
You give a string of tournaments, a disproportionate numbe of them in the US, ranked by a certain "attendence " number given by a certain Sargent John. Even after that entertaining presentation, it turns out most of them are on clay. And you hinge your argment on the observation that red and green are not the same.

If you look at the total number of tennis tournaments played around the world in the 70s, the result will be an overwhelming, I mean overwhelming, preponderance of clay. That’s a fact.

Let's for a second assume that your claim is correct - you haven't shown it to be so.

You still have to show how it is that this purported fact problematizes what it is I say about surfaces.

It's a kind of a strawman, because you don't really tackle my arguments. Rather you just superficially address one tidbit of it and then pretend to shut it down by making an unsupported claim.

 

[jimbo333]

Jimbo333,

However in 1977 two of the four majors were on clay and there were a huge clay court circuit in 1977.

In just a glance at the ITF site, I counted Vilas entered in at least twenty clay tournaments. That's a lot. And of course as you know he won the two big clay events in the French and the U.S. Open.

I think most people agree here that Borg played at a higher level during the year and was a better but was it enough to overcome the huge quantity of activity by Vilas. Vilas did play very well also in 1977. However the main problem for many and it was mentioned in 1977 also was that Vilas did not play a balanced schedule and most of his tournament wins were on clay and he was not nearly as good on other surfaces.

The people who supported Borg for number one that year pointed to the fact Borg was excellent on all surfaces, grass, clay, indoors etc and that his winning percentage was the best of the year. Some sources state Borg as winning 13 of 20 tournaments that year. Vilas won several more than that plus an extra major but he entered far more tournaments than Borg. According to the Collins Encyclopedia (which can be a bit off) Vilas won 17 tournaments. Here's Vilas' French Open results in 1977. The opponents are decent but no big deal on clay. The toughest seems to be Raul Ramirez but Vilas always seemed to be the master of Ramirez in big matches. It's a major but it doesn't seem that strong.

French Open France
SL 23 May 1977 to 05 Jun 1977 Entry: DA Clay (O)
128 W Zeljko FRANULOVIC (YUG) 6-1 6-2 6-4
64 W Belus PRAJOUX (CHI) 2-6 6-0 6-2 6-0
32 W Bernie MITTON (RSA) 6-1 6-4 6-2
16 W Stan SMITH (USA) 6-1 6-2 6-1
QF W Wojtek FIBAK (POL) 6-4 6-0 6-4
SF W Raul RAMIREZ (MEX) 6-2 6-0 6-3
FR W Brian GOTTFRIED (USA) 6-0 6-3 6-0

Here's a tournament Borg played on clay that same year and the results.
Barcelona Spain
GP 17 Oct 1977 to 23 Oct 1977 Entry: DA Clay (O)
64 W Rafael RUIZ (ESP) 6-0 6-0
32 W Jose MORENO-TALLADA (ESP) 6-3 4-6 6-4
16 W Victor PECCI (PAR) 6-2 6-3
QF W Jose HIGUERAS (ESP) 6-0 6-1
SF W Eddie DIBBS (USA) 6-0 6-0 6-4
FR W Manuel ORANTES (ESP) 6-2 7-5 6-2

The last three players can be argued to be better than anyone Vilas played at the French, especially Orantes, who won the U.S. Clay Courts over Connors that year. Even Pecci could be awesome at times on clay as demonstrated by his showing in the French in the future, defeating Vilas and Connors on his way to the final.

Anyway Borg won this event, it's not a major but a far more impressive performance against a much tougher field. Still the French is a major.

Hi, yeah I realise clay was an important surface in 77, my comment was a reply to someone else about 70's as a whole. As an example mentioned by someone else, in 74 Connors the clear No.1 in the world didn't play much at all on clay.

More quality info here anyway, excellent!

I can see there is a really good argument for Borg in 77. I really am undecided now.

 

[krosero]

You're taking this out of context. The Olympic analogy came from something that bootleg Borg said, and I asked can you, or much can you penalize, for someone else's absence. Yes Borg didn't go to RG, but can you 9well him), and how much can Vilas be pealized for that?? That's where the Olympic anaology came in. I asked can you say Carl Lewis was not the best sprinter in 1984?? I mean numerous countries boycotted the 1984 games.

And that's where the world championship/olympic analogy came in. I just said over the course of that year one may have been better head to head, or may not have had the opportunity, but at the end of the day who's results were superior and why??

The anolgy was to show when it's all said and donrone had better results, even though the other may have had circumstances that prevented him doing that.

In the case of Carl Lewis I remember the '84 Olympic boycott. I remember reading in TIME magazine that the best athletes in many sports came from the Eastern bloc and were absent, but that Carl Lewis would have won his medals anyway, even if he had faced his best competitors from the Eastern bloc.

Carl Lewis was the same as Borg, not Vilas.

Now for those Olympic athletes that won because superior competitors were absent, I don't know exactly how to judge their Olympic gold because I need more information on the sport and on what happened throughout the year. But that's where I'm done with this analogy. I'd rather learn about tennis in 1977 instead of Olympic sports in 1984, and this thread is providing useful information.

 

[380pistol]

In the case of Carl Lewis I remember the '84 Olympic boycott. I remember reading in TIME magazine that the best athletes in many sports came from the Eastern bloc and were absent, but that Carl Lewis would have won his medals anyway, even if he had faced his best competitors from the Eastern bloc.

Carl Lewis was the same as Borg, not Vilas.

Now for those Olympic athletes that won because superior competitors were absent, I don't know exactly how to judge their Olympic gold because I need more information on the sport and on what happened throughout the year. But that's where I'm done with this analogy. I'd rather learn about tennis in 1977 instead of Olympic sports in 1984, and this thread is providing useful information.

This what you're mistaking. When I say Carl Lewis, I'm not saying Lewis 1984 = Vilas 1977, I'm just Carl Lewis as in "any" athlete that participated in the 1984 games. You can take a swimmer, gymnast, wieghtlifter, long jumper.

Like you said you don't know how to judge their Olympic results, neither do I. For those 1984 athletes, I just go based on results (over the course of the year), that's why I tried to differentiate between Player Of The Year and who's the best, as there are circumstances where they are not one in the same.

 

[380pistol]

Am I the only one who thought this a little complicated?

Just realised I wasn't the only one

"Simple minded fools/ foil grimy crews"
-Nas

SCENARIO #1
It's not that difficult. Let's take 1999. If we take all the particapants on tour that year over the course of 11 months, and the winner is who's at the top in December, then I'd go with Agassi. I don't give a rat's ass if Sampras hands him his ass 4 out of their 5 meetings, or didn't do that, what I know is from Jan 1st to Dec 31st nobody performed better than Agassi. Hence he's "Player Of The Year".


SCENARIO #2
If we took all the participants from 1999, and had a singular tour, who would be the one to go with?? Sampras. Hence he may be considered "the best". Agassi may have a better year, and dealt with everyone (Pete incl.) over that span, but if he and Sampras meet in the final, it's not looking good for Dre.


Now relate this 1977. One scenario is Vilas, and one is Borg. I'll let you put whom where you see fit.

 

[380pistol]

Oh, man. You are so incredibly, incredibly dense.

I'm going to stop explaining why the two are different. I only wind up repeating the same point and you then keep ignoring it.

I've made my argument quite clear enough. If it doesn't work for you, then fine - you go your own separate way and believe whatever you wish to believe.

You don't read what I say do you Bootleg Borg?? What I tell krosero regarding this issue??

Let me simplify. When I mentioned 1974 in relaition to 1977 it was showing how cyBorg likes to present the facts. I'm not saying Connors would or would have won the French Open in 1974, that's beside the point.

If you knew nothing about tennis, and learned about it listening to cyBorg, you would know that Vilas won the Frnch Open in 1977, but you would also damn sure know that Borg did not play, and all of the 101 reasons why.

You would sure as hell know that Borg won the 1974 French Open, but Connors not particpating, would be a small fact, the fine print, an "oh by the way" sort of thing. The guy has a "way" of preesenting things, and he ain't fooling me.

I mean I'm not gonna debate which draw was stronger 1977 or 1974 cuz frankly I don't care. But I do know one thing, Connors (who by many was player of the year and the best player in 1974) didn't play in Paris (nothing against Borg)..... and that sure as hell didn't make the draw/field stronger. But Bootleg Borg won't tell you that though.

But of course the #1 player not going to slam doesn't effect the draw does it. If that helps you sleep at night.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

CyBorg, I'm quoting these posts of yours from another thread because they've highlighted some key differences between the early Open Era and today. Just as an amateur student of history (one of my favorite subjects), there are a few things that you're doing which I really appreciate: 1) Context is everything; 2) don't judge the past by today's standards; 3) don't reduce everything to numbers.

Hello krosero and CyBorg.

We had strong disagreements in the past and we probably have others in the future but these 3 above postulates are wholly right.
1977 was the first year I truly witnessed the world tour tennis competition (the first time I heard of tennis champions was in 1973 but I was a 10-year old kid then) and at the time Borg, Vilas and even Connors were considered as the very top players and each one had numerous fans considering their favourite player as the top dog (most considered that at his very best Connors was the best of the three and so some of them still considered Jimbo as the #1 because of that).
It is clear that the context was very important : the French Open was not that important (except in my countrymen's view) then, Wimby was clearly more important (Forest too) than the French especially the years when many great players didn't bother to enter Garros. It is also clear that standards have dramatically changed since the past and will continue to in the future (perhaps Madrid would be a major and Paris a forgotten event, who knows ?).
Here I voted Borg as #1 but as I've said several times elsewhere with no absolute certainty, perhaps Vilas was #1.
As Borgforever put it in another post, for the moment, I think that Ashe-Connors, Connors-Borg, Borg-Vilas were co-No1 respectively in 1975, 1976 and 1977 but I grant a very slight edge to the first name of each year.
As said by others, if Borg had won the Masters, many would have voted for the Swede. However it's interesting to note that at the time I'm writing this, Vilas leads the vote. It only convinces me even harder that one day or another I will have to study that year to make my mind clear.

The one thing I cannot understand is how anyone can pick Connors as number one for 1977. Can the people who picked Connors explain their reasoning to me?

Hello pc1,
given my last statement I am not absolutely sure that Connors wasn't #1 in 1977.
For the moment he was #3 in my opinion but Connors has won the Masters which I consider as the 3rd (ahead of Garros) or at worse the 3rd ex aequo event in 1977 and Jimbo reached the two greatest finals of the year besides on opposite surfaces (true grass and clay (but it is true on har tru) which neither Borg nor Vilas did, far from that.
In those 3 events (Wimby, Forest, MSG), possibly the most important of 1977 because the only ones where these 3 players entered,
Connors won 16 matches and lost 3 = 1 title + 2 finals,
Borg won 13 matches and lost 2 or 3 (it depends if we count his default in the Masters Round Robin or not) = 1 title + 1 final + 1 R of 16
and Vilas won 11 matches and lost 2 or 3 (as Borg, Guillermo defaulted in the Masters) = 1 title, 1 semi, 1 R of 32.
So Connors won the most important event on indoor, was 2nd in the most important grass event and was also 2nd in the most important clay (but har tru) event
whereas Borg clearly failed at the clay event (almost entirely due to his injury) and Vilas did the same at the grass event.
So in conclusion my first three for 1977 right now would be Borg-Vilas-Connors in that order but until I will have truly studied that year (and in reality all the years) I can't guarantee that this order is definitively fixed and I even don't dismiss Connors from the first place (but the probability that I place Connors #1 one day is very much closer to 0 than 1).

 

[CyBorg]

haha .. Carlo Colussi votes Vilas. Carlo Giovanni Colussi however prefers Borg.

We've got dual personalities at work, Carlo?

 

[CyBorg]

I added a vote for Borg, although as mentioned it's very close and I see good reason for this to be a three-way tie.

 

[krosero]

I just put in a vote for Borg, too, though I think this competition is extremely close. If there had been an option for Co-#1's, I might have gone with that.

 

[jimbo333]

"Simple minded fools/ foil grimy crews"
-Nas

SCENARIO #1
It's not that difficult. Let's take 1999. If we take all the particapants on tour that year over the course of 11 months, and the winner is who's at the top in December, then I'd go with Agassi. I don't give a rat's ass if Sampras hands him his ass 4 out of their 5 meetings, or didn't do that, what I know is from Jan 1st to Dec 31st nobody performed better than Agassi. Hence he's "Player Of The Year".


SCENARIO #2
If we took all the participants from 1999, and had a singular tour, who would be the one to go with?? Sampras. Hence he may be considered "the best". Agassi may have a better year, and dealt with everyone (Pete incl.) over that span, but if he and Sampras meet in the final, it's not looking good for Dre.


Now relate this 1977. One scenario is Vilas, and one is Borg. I'll let you put whom where you see fit.

"Pass the dutchie on the left hand side" - Musical Youth

Look mate we are never going to agree on this!!!

I've explained many times that the agreed "player of the year" by analysis of results is ALWAYS the best player that year.

Any imaginary match up on an imaginary "fair" court, is irrelevant and just that, imaginary. Also head to head results is only part of the overall results when making the full analysis. I've made my point clearly before, and we will never agree.

(I'm right)

 

[jimbo333]

Hello krosero and CyBorg.

We had strong disagreements in the past and we probably have others in the future but these 3 above postulates are wholly right.
1977 was the first year I truly witnessed the world tour tennis competition (the first time I heard of tennis champions was in 1973 but I was a 10-year old kid then) and at the time Borg, Vilas and even Connors were considered as the very top players and each one had numerous fans considering their favourite player as the top dog (most considered that at his very best Connors was the best of the three and so some of them still considered Jimbo as the #1 because of that).
It is clear that the context was very important : the French Open was not that important (except in my countrymen's view) then, Wimby was clearly more important (Forest too) than the French especially the years when many great players didn't bother to enter Garros. It is also clear that standards have dramatically changed since the past and will continue to in the future (perhaps Madrid would be a major and Paris a forgotten event, who knows ?).
Here I voted Borg as #1 but as I've said several times elsewhere with no absolute certainty, perhaps Vilas was #1.
As Borgforever put it in another post, for the moment, I think that Ashe-Connors, Connors-Borg, Borg-Vilas were co-No1 respectively in 1975, 1976 and 1977 but I grant a very slight edge to the first name of each year.
As said by others, if Borg had won the Masters, many would have voted for the Swede. However it's interesting to note that at the time I'm writing this, Vilas leads the vote. It only convinces me even harder that one day or another I will have to study that year to make my mind clear.



Hello pc1,
given my last statement I am not absolutely sure that Connors wasn't #1 in 1977.
For the moment he was #3 in my opinion but Connors has won the Masters which I consider as the 3rd (ahead of Garros) or at worse the 3rd ex aequo event in 1977 and Jimbo reached the two greatest finals of the year besides on opposite surfaces (true grass and clay (but it is true on har tru) which neither Borg nor Vilas did, far from that.
In those 3 events (Wimby, Forest, MSG), possibly the most important of 1977 because the only ones where these 3 players entered,
Connors won 16 matches and lost 3 = 1 title + 2 finals,
Borg won 13 matches and lost 2 or 3 (it depends if we count his default in the Masters Round Robin or not) = 1 title + 1 final + 1 R of 16
and Vilas won 11 matches and lost 2 or 3 (as Borg, Guillermo defaulted in the Masters) = 1 title, 1 semi, 1 R of 32.
So Connors won the most important event on indoor, was 2nd in the most important grass event and was also 2nd in the most important clay (but har tru) event
whereas Borg clearly failed at the clay event (almost entirely due to his injury) and Vilas did the same at the grass event.
So in conclusion my first three for 1977 right now would be Borg-Vilas-Connors in that order but until I will have truly studied that year (and in reality all the years) I can't guarantee that this order is definitively fixed and I even don't dismiss Connors from the first place (but the probability that I place Connors #1 one day is very much closer to 0 than 1).

Great stuff, this seems to be what great analysis is all about

(Connors No.1 for 77)
(Or Borg)
(Or Vilas)

 

[Borgforever]

Quote from Björn Borg after Colgate (YEC) Masters -- Swedish Newspaper, January 1978.

"I couldn't do what Vilas did last year -- I would've gotten everyone against me. He's feeling it now though from everybody. Only the South American-players support him -- some reluctantly. But many outside tennis don't know how he achieved his results. Some of them are fine. Many are not. I want to win against the best. What's the point otherwise?"

Björn Borg on Vilas -- from his book MY LIFE AND GAME, written with Gene Scott -- interview from 1979 regarding Vilas:

"Guillermo is not as quick as McEnroe, Gerulaitis, Connors or myself. But we play the same type of game, except that I may do many things just a little bit better. Four or five years ago we used to practise(sic) together all the time. He was my best friend on the tour. Then Tiriac became Vilas's manager and our relationship changed. He hasn't seemed as open as before. Tiri even tried to change Vilas's game by making him serve and volley more. He doesn't seem to have as much confidence as when he was staying in the backcourt. His great winning streak in 1977 of ten tournaments in a row, including the USO, was all on clay. His ranking has dropped to six in the world. Maybe he should return to playing the way he used to. But I think Vilas needs someone like Tiri to lean on. It helps him mentally. When I play Vilas it's strange because I feel that I'm stronger -- which sounds crazy because Vilas is such a bull. Yet I sense if we rally back and forth seventy-five times, I'm going to outlast him. Of course I lose a lot of points, but I have the confidence to stay with him for ever. How can he hurt me? He can't serve and volley, and I can out-rally him."

Ion Tiriac on Borg (from the same book):

"Basically Borg is a more solid player than Vilas. You can beat Borg in only two ways, by attacking, or by outrunning him from the baseline. Vilas doesn't attack that well yet, and Borg is slightly better from the backcourt, so how can Vilas win? What makes the situation worse is Borg is so strong mentally. Normally, given Borg's slight stroking superiority, Vilas would win one out of three times, but because of his head, he loses eight out of eight times..... ....He also moves better than Rosewall. He gets to the ball way in advance, meaning he's both quick on his feet, and anticipates well. The final ingredient that puts Borg in the untouchable class is his percentage tennis. Vilas plays percentages from the backcourt but he's not as patient as Bjorn. Vilas is not just playing against Borg now, you know. We're all playing against his legend."

And here's SI article from January 1978 about the YEC Masters-tourney and the debate about who's Boss 1977:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1135777/index.htm

Quote:

'"That's the best I can play," Connors said afterward. "Who's No. 1? It looks like we'll have to go out and do it all over again, doesn't it?"

Well, yes. Having lost Wimbledon to Borg and the U.S. Open to Vilas, Connors must have looked on the Masters as a close encounter of the third kind. Third place in the world rankings was staring him square in the face, even though the USTA computer ranked him first.

Let's look at the numbers. Though Connors won eight of the 21 tournaments he entered, his match record for the year was only 70-11, not as good as Borg's (13 victories in 20 tournaments, 78-8 in matches) and Vilas', who played just about every waking minute in compiling his 139-14 match record and 21 wins in 34 tournaments.

Borg's percentage, then, is slightly the best and he won the world championship as well. But Vilas won the U.S. and French titles and put together a streak of 55 clay victories while winning 83 of 85 matches on all surfaces. But Connors won the big bowl game at the end. What now? Head-to-head? Borg is 5-1 against the other big two, while Vilas is 2-3 and Connors a woeful 1-4.

If the Masters did not entirely decide who is No. 1, it did bring big-time tennis back to the Garden and, in the process, show everybody that the Masters is the Super Bowl of the game and the only real conclusion a tennis season has.

Perhaps because the tournament had only twice graced American soil, the Masters never had caught on. But this year Colgate—those same wonderful folks who invented Dermassage, Handi-Wipes and Dinah Shore—took over the tournament, signed a three-season deal with the Garden, moved the affair to an off-week for pro football, sold it to TV and promised to make the Masters an event. Among other marvelous arrangements, Colgate raised the total prize money to $400,000 and spent another $400,000 on advertising.

The most significant thing Colgate did, however, was persuade the eight best players in the world—Gottfried, Manuel Orantes, Raul Ramirez, Roscoe Tanner and Eddie Dibbs also were on hand—to show up, a feat previously considered impossible unless you guaranteed each of them $100,000 first-place money and a position at the head of the line at Studio 54. When Connors, who had skipped this tournament the past three years, barely qualified for the final berth and agreed to play, tournament organizers knew they had a winner.

The last time New Yorkers had seen—and been obnoxed by—Connors was when he stormed out of Forest Hills last September, claiming that his U.S. Open title had been "stolen" because of rude crowd behavior and bad line calls while he was losing the championship match to Vilas. Connors' return last week was less stimulating. He merely disrupted a player picture-taking session, walked out on a TV interviewer and snapped at a journalist who had the effrontery to ask why Connors was finally gracing the Masters with his presence. "Because I feel like it," he snorted.

Not surprisingly, Vilas, who had won the regular-season Grand Prix points race and its bonus pool of $300,000, did not seem to feel like it.

One day Vilas ripped the tournament to shreds in his soft, charming voice. "This Masters used to mean very much to me when it was in December and changed continents every year," he said. "Hopefully, someday it will be on clay. I don't prepare for this. If I don't have to come to collect $300,000, I no come. How badly I want to win? No badly."

Vilas' last remark would come as a shock to the crowd of 18,590 that packed the Garden on Thursday night to watch his 6-4, 3-6, 7-5 repeat victory over Connors."'

Also Björn Borg cheated in my opinion if he faked sickness to w.o. in his third round-robin. That's not okey in my book even if it's allowed. In January 1981 Borg tanked his last round-robin match at YEC Masters against Gene Mayer going down in flames to the tune of 6-0, 6-3. That's also a cheat even if it's allowed.

I dislike behaviour -- not people...

 

[Borgforever]

Also in 1977 Borg had a winning percentage of 92,2% (!)...

With so many official tourney victories Borg raked in 300 000 total in 1977. He accepted playing at WTT for sixteen weeks for compensation of 300 000. Not chicken-feed in comparison to the other income. Borg accepted playing at WTT, not actually because of this sum, but because Mariana could play WTT and they could see each other more often. Playing the ordinary Grand Prix would've meant a lot of time away from each other. He sacrificed RG 1977 for their relationship basically.

At first playing for Cleveland Nets at WTT Borg made No. 1 results and stats, never being lower than third in the stats but mostly on top -- then came Wimbledon, which he won, then he returned to WTT to the surprise that his team-owner had sold all his home arena matches to the highest bidder (on the basis that a Wimby-winner was bringing in more cash for him playing around the States all the time) forcing him travel and play to dangerous amount. The injuries grew in number -- his results took a nose-dive and in August a muscle-pull in his shoulder became really bad when he practiced with Billy Martin -- an injury he had first felt during the hectic WTT-schedule. He could barely lift his arm to serve. But he entered the USO anyway. Usually I blame the player for injuries -- case in point, Wimby-1976-stomach-pull. No-one forced Borg to practice serve so much that he injured himself. But he was mistreated and forced by the team manager at WTT.

A further quote from Borg from the above mentioned book about the weird parallel tours and how they were manipulated by some players in those days:

"Players are now very clever at beating the computer system and often can calculate how their ranking will improve drastically by sitting out a week."

 

[pc1]

Fantastic last two posts. I didn't realize Borg played WTT for Mariana.

It's a shame in retrospect, playing WTT potentially robbed him of two majors, the French and the U.S. Open.

It's funny but now that you mentioned WTT for Borg, I have a memory of Borg defeating Nastase in the WTT All Star Game 6-1 with Laver and Okker in the doubles against some other team that I can't remember. I think Laver and Okker won 6-1. This is from memory and I could be wrong. I think it was 1977.

 

[DMan]

In 1977 if the ATP used today's ranking system, Vilas would have been the clear cut #1. They used an average system back then, which is why Connors was able to eke out #1.

Most experts tend to place a premium on majors won, overall excellence and consistency, and H2H.

Connors and Borg chose to skip a major - the French. And that was their choice to skip it. Same for the Australian (although I realize the Australian wasn't as big an event then as it is now. Then again, Connors wouldn't have pooh-poohed his Australian Open win in 1974.)

Also, everyone's basis for a ranking system is different. So those who favor winning big tournaments, and having the H2H advantage would take Borg over Vilas. Those who think the ATP computer was infallible (it wasn't) give the nod to Connors. Others still look at Vilas' season, and see how many matches he won, including 2 majors, and give him the nod.

1977 was one of the most interesting seasons in the Open era because 3 guys had a legitimate claim to being no. 1. And there were 5 majors contested that year to boot, with Gerulaitis claiming Australian Open II. All in all I think it was one of the most solid, most competitive seasons among the top 10 in the history of the men's game.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

haha .. Carlo Colussi votes Vilas. Carlo Giovanni Colussi however prefers Borg.

We've got dual personalities at work, Carlo?

My usual name is "Carlo Colussi" and this is what I use(d) in Wikipedia. Then I discovered TalkTennis but someone else was already registered under that name (possibly his true name too) so I chose to use my full name "Carlo Giovanni Colussi" to enter that forum.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Fantastic last two posts. I didn't realize Borg played WTT for Mariana.

It's a shame in retrospect, playing WTT potentially robbed him of two majors, the French and the U.S. Open.

It's funny but now that you mentioned WTT for Borg, I have a memory of Borg defeating Nastase in the WTT All Star Game 6-1 with Laver and Okker in the doubles against some other team that I can't remember. I think Laver and Okker won 6-1. This is from memory and I could be wrong. I think it was 1977.

In Evans's book Nastase said that he beat Borg for the last time in August 1977 in a WTT match 7-5 after Borg had led 5-2.

 

[pc1]

In Evans's book Nastase said that he beat Borg for the last time in August 1977 in a WTT match 7-5 after Borg had led 5-2.

That may been regular season but I'm talking about the All Star Game.

Funny how you remember certain things. I recall Borg taking a huge swing forehand volley at the net and putting the ball away in that match and I thought to myself how unusual that was for Borg.

I'm fairly certain about the Borg Nastase all star game match but I'm a bit less certain on the doubles with Laver and Okker. I know they played together but I'm less certain of the score.

 

[CyBorg]

In 1977 if the ATP used today's ranking system, Vilas would have been the clear cut #1.

Not likely. Assuming you also mean today's rules and surface standardization Vilas would not have gotten to double digits in events won.

 

[jean pierre]

I don't even understand how it's possible to discuss about 1977 ! Just compare Borg's palmares and Vilas's palmares ! It's not the same world !

 

[CyBorg]

I don't even understand how it's possible to discuss about 1977 ! Just compare Borg's palmares and Vilas's palmares ! It's not the same world !

I just ate some palmares. They were delicious.

 

[Borgforever]

Hey CyB -- I made a poor answer to your WCT 1978 question since I didn't remember this. Borg signed to play WCT in 1977 but the WTT and Mariana suddenly became an option so he actually broke contract and left WCT 1977 and Hunt threatened with a major lawsuit which didn't happen since Borg offered to join in 1978 -- which he subsequently did -- but WCT merged with Grand Prix and -- well, read it all instead here instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Championship_Tennis

 

[CyBorg]

Hey CyB -- I made a poor answer to your WCT 1978 question since I didn't remember this. Borg signed to play WCT in 1977 but the WTT and Mariana suddenly became an option so he actually broke contract and left WCT 1977 and Hunt threatened with a major lawsuit which didn't happen since Borg offered to join in 1978 -- which he subsequently did -- but WCT merged with Grand Prix and -- well, read it all instead here instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Championship_Tennis

The question was about the withdrawal from the semifinal of Dallas in 1978. That's what I was wondering. I thought maybe Borg had gotten hurt.

He should have won that event.

 

[krosero]

The best Vilas for me? YEC Masters at Kooyong in 1974. There was a super-Guillermo if ever there was one. I wonder where he went...

Apparently he made quite an impression defeating Newcombe and others.

This is from the New York Times:

Before the start of play, Vilas received a check for $119,844 for having finished first in the Grand Prix held over the last seven months. The eight top finishers are in the playoff here.

Australian tennis fans had suspected that Vilas won the top prize only because he had played in more tournaments than anyone else. But they sat stunned under heavy, overcast skies as he scored repeatedly against Newcombe with a sharp backhand and heavily spun lob.

Old-time Aussie stars, such as Frank Sedgman and Neale Fraser, said that on today's performance Vilas was the equal of Rod Laver.

Newcombe offered no excuses. He said:

"I was short of serving practice for the the last week because I had pulled a stomach muscle, but it didn't trouble me today. Vilas played great tennis. I didn't hit my volleys deep enough to keep him back and I paid the penalty for it."

Vilas, who has rarely played on grass, nevertheless said he was confident as he walked on the slick center court.

 

[DMan]

Not likely. Assuming you also mean today's rules and surface standardization Vilas would not have gotten to double digits in events won.

I was just talking about the ranking system. Not surface standardization or anything like that. If they used a "Best of" system, the few bad losses Vilas suffered would have been discounted. With 2 majors, plus a RU at another I am sure Vilas would have been a clear cut #1. That said I like the system of averages. I am just not sure how they awarded and calculated the points back in 1977. Still seems odd Vilas was seeded #4 by the time of the US Open, given his YTD results (esp. compared to Gottfried).

 

[CyBorg]

I was just talking about the ranking system. Not surface standardization or anything like that. If they used a "Best of" system, the few bad losses Vilas suffered would have been discounted. With 2 majors, plus a RU at another I am sure Vilas would have been a clear cut #1. That said I like the system of averages. I am just not sure how they awarded and calculated the points back in 1977. Still seems odd Vilas was seeded #4 by the time of the US Open, given his YTD results (esp. compared to Gottfried).

You haven't fully read the thread, have you? Let's pretend you're a student writing a short essay. Here's the question you have to address.

Q: What did CyBorg say about the problematics of counting majors and why is this important in regards to the decade in question?

 

[Vegito]

I think that Vilas deserved to be number one, at least for one or two months(september-october, for his victory in the US Open and other tournaments), but the best in all the year was Connors because he had a better average in the major tournaments.

 

[jean pierre]

I think that Vilas deserved to be number one, at least for one or two months(september-october, for his victory in the US Open and other tournaments), but the best in all the year was Connors because he had a better average in the major tournaments.

??? Connors did'nt win 1 Grand Slam this year !

 

[jimbo333]

You haven't fully read the thread, have you? Let's pretend you're a student writing a short essay. Here's the question you have to address.

Q: What did CyBorg say about the problematics of counting majors and why is this important in regards to the decade in question?

You're talking about yourself in the third person again, I warned you about that

 

[jimbo333]

I think that Vilas deserved to be number one, at least for one or two months(september-october, for his victory in the US Open and other tournaments), but the best in all the year was Connors because he had a better average in the major tournaments.

Yep, good point, if you just looked at the majors, Connors argubly had the best results due to consistency making him the No1 for 77

Unfortunately the majors is only part of the story, so it is officially a 3 way tie!!!

 

[paolo2143]

Very hard to decide, i started watching tennis around 1975 so i remember this era from my youth and to me this was go9lden era of tennis.I personally went for Borg because that year he had to withdraw injured from us open and could not play french open both of which vilas one.I know vilas played well at french that year but at that time borg more or less owned vilas and in their 2 h2h matches that year borg won both comfortably so i think he would have beaten vilas at french.

Also over the year borg ahd the best win to loss ratio of all the top 3 hmself, vilas and connors.As i said there will always be a huge question mark over this year but i do remember the players at year end vote gave award of best player of year to Borg for 1977 which should count for something.

 

[jean pierre]

Very hard to decide, i started watching tennis around 1975 so i remember this era from my youth and to me this was go9lden era of tennis.I personally went for Borg because that year he had to withdraw injured from us open and could not play french open both of which vilas one.I know vilas played well at french that year but at that time borg more or less owned vilas and in their 2 h2h matches that year borg won both comfortably so i think he would have beaten vilas at french.

Also over the year borg ahd the best win to loss ratio of all the top 3 hmself, vilas and connors.As i said there will always be a huge question mark over this year but i do remember the players at year end vote gave award of best player of year to Borg for 1977 which should count for something.

I'm sorry, but it's absurd to say "if Borg was at the French ...". We just have to compare the results, and not to say "if". And the results of Vilas were very very better in 1977 than the results of Borg. That's all !

 

[jimbo333]

I'm sorry, but it's absurd to say "if Borg was at the French ...". We just have to compare the results, and not to say "if". And the results of Vilas were very very better in 1977 than the results of Borg. That's all !

Well if you are just going to look at results mate. The official No.1 at year end was Connors, this is a result

 

[jean pierre]

Well if you are just going to look at results mate. The official No.1 at year end was Connors, this is a result

You're right ! But I was not talking about the official ranking ATP, but about results on tournaments. Rios was n°1 at the ATP, and it's ridiculous : he never won any big tournament.

 

[jimbo333]

You're right ! But I was not talking about the official ranking ATP, but about results on tournaments. Rios was n°1 at the ATP, and it's ridiculous : he never won any big tournament.

Was Rios really ranked ATP No.1 at the end of any year at all? Really? When? Which year?

 

[jean pierre]

Was Rios really ranked ATP No.1 at the end of any year at all? Really? When? Which year?

Not at the end of the year. But even in the middle of the year, it was ridiculous. And it is ridiculous that Vilas has never been n°1 ATP, even in the middle of the year.

 

[paolo2143]

I'm sorry, but it's absurd to say "if Borg was at the French ...". We just have to compare the results, and not to say "if". And the results of Vilas were very very better in 1977 than the results of Borg. That's all !

sorry that is simply not true ,borg had a better overall win loss record than anybody that year including vilas and he did win their 2 h2h matches as well.The fact is there will never be total agreement about that year and even the experts at the time were pretty evenly divided amongst all 3 players but at end of year poll the players did give the nod to borg.

 

[jimbo333]

I'm sorry, but it's absurd to say "if Borg was at the French ...". We just have to compare the results, and not to say "if". And the results of Vilas were very very better in 1977 than the results of Borg. That's all !

sorry that is simply not true ,borg had a better overall win loss record than anybody that year including vilas and he did win their 2 h2h matches as well.The fact is there will never be total agreement about that year and even the experts at the time were pretty evenly divided amongst all 3 players but at end of year poll the players did give the nod to borg.

Well you can't rely on what the players thought. Most of them still hated Connors for a start, after the 74 dabacle!

If you had to pick one, I suppose it would have to be Vilas, but really it should be a 3 way tie

 

[paolo2143]

As i said there will never be a unanimous outcome for this year,all i can say is that the majority of experts at time gave slight nod to borg but as you said it could just as easily have been 3 way tie.That uear in 77 was where borg really stated for first time to take edge over connors which he expanded on over next 4 seasons and vilas whilst remaining a great player never quite reached same heights again in terms of consistency.

 

[jean pierre]

Vilas, end of story. If Borg played in the French Open things might have been different, but he didn't, so the Bull from Pampas is 1977 Player Of The Year.

That's the truth ! Bravo !

 

[hoodjem]

It'll never end.



P.S. Was there a time when Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, and Lendl were ranked 1-5 in the world?

 

[David_86]

I think Borg was the better player in 1977 but Vilas deserved the no.1 ranking. If they had entered the same tournaments then I bet Borg would have shown himself to be clearly superior but they didn't and it is not fair to hold that against Vilas. He put in the effort.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I dont think Connors deserved #1 in 1977 at all personally but he still should atleast be included on the poll with Borg and Vilas.

same here...

unfortunately, until 1989 there was these both ATP/GP ranking systems co-working, so the year-end #1 (ATP) spot is sometimes a bit suspicious, such as in 1977 !

did anybody try to re-compute the rankings for those years ?
(even if setting some parameters for the ranking system is always debatable...)

 

[borg number one]

Hoodjem, you asked about the top 5, Borg/Mcenroe, Connors, Vilas, Lendl. If I remember correctly, Lendl hit the scene with force in 1981. By then, I believe Vitas was around the top 5, with Vilas farther down perhaps 6-10, along with Clerc and others. When Lendl emerged, Vitas dropped off, so I don't think it was ever Borg, Mcenroe (1-2, or 2-1), Connors, Vilas and Lendl in that top 5 group. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

 

[hoodjem]

^^^I bet you are correct.

I was just imagining that these five (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, and Lendl) might be the best/strongest top-5 OAT, if it existed.

 

[borg number one]

Very good point Hoodjem, I think we just missed out on that happening, but man were there a lot of good players at the top back then!