Rosewall

[BobbyOne]

This is true. We have established that Laver was no. 1 (just barely but definitively) ahead of Rosewall in 1964.

And 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969.

And possibly, probably 1970.

hoodjem, it's fine that "we" have established that Laver was No. 1 in 1964. I agree he was but only tied with Rosewall because the Little Master won the official world series of that year which consisted of 17 or 18 big tournaments. Additionally Rosewall won the "Heavyweight World Professional Title" in Johannesburg against Laver in straight sets. He was the acknowledged No.1 pro as Butch Buchholz wrote in a long review of the 1964 season in World Tennis. Several experts of that time ranked Rosewall as the top pro but I always felt that both he and Laver deserve the No.1 spot.

 

[BobbyOne]

I tend to believe Laver was #1 for 1964 to 1970. Despite not winning a traditional major in 1970 he won Dunlop (de facto AO) and the Champions classic as well as well as 13 other titles for a total of 15. Rosewall and Newcombe had superior records at the traditional majors but Laver crushes them in terms of titles won and dominated the tour to a greater extent.

NatF, You are right that Laver did not win a traditional major in 1970. That's not the problem some experts have with Rod giving the No.1 place for 1970. In fact he did not reach any quarter-final of the two biggest tournaments of that year (the only GS tournaments where the three No.1 candidates participated: Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver). Even Rod's close friend, Bud Collins, ranked Laver only fourth in 1970, behind Newcombe, Rosewall and Roche. "Tennis Pope", Lance Tingay, ranked him third. I suggest to give Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe a split top place (Rosewall outplayed Newk in several parameters including a 5:2 hth). I regret that most experts hesitate to give tied places.

 

[NatF]

NatF, You are right that Laver did not win a traditional major in 1970. That's not the problem some experts have with Rod giving the No.1 place for 1970. In fact he did not reach any quarter-final of the two biggest tournaments of that year (the only GS tournaments where the three No.1 candidates participated: Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver). Even Rod's close friend, Bud Collins, ranked Laver only fourth in 1970, behind Newcombe, Rosewall and Roche. "Tennis Pope", Lance Tingay, ranked him third. I suggest to give Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe a split top place (Rosewall outplayed Newk in several parameters including a 5:2 hth). I regret that most experts hesitate to give tied places.

Giving tied places feels like a cop out for me. Otherwise we should do it for many other years IMO.

As for who was #1 in 1970. I suppose it would make sense to defer to the experts. Not reaching a QF is a blemish but Laver has a lot of plus's in his corner as well. Were these rankings from the 1970 itself or done after the fact?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Giving tied places feels like a cop out for me. Otherwise we should do it for many other years IMO.

Agreed, we should always rank people at No 1, 2, 3 etc. A recent year which was "close" was 2013, but we shouldn't say that Nadal and Djokovic were co-No 1s. Nadal was No 1 and Djokovic No 2.

 

[NatF]

Agreed, we should always rank people at No 1, 2, 3 etc. A recent year which was "close" was 2013, but we shouldn't say that Nadal and Djokovic were co-No 1s. Nadal was No 1 and Djokovic No 2.

That year is quite clear in my mind. A year like 2003 is 'closer' in my opinion.

 

[70sHollywood]

73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 89, 91, 98, 03 and even 2012 could all have co-number 1's I think. Depending on your criteria it is unlikely you would have all of them.

For 1970, on the one hand I understand going with the expert view. On the other hand, I'm absolutely certain that if Marty Riessen or Cliff Richey had won Wimbledon no expert would rank them as the number 1. I would be fairly comfortable picking Rosewall as the outright number 1 for this year, though co-#1's are probably fairer.

 

[BobbyOne]

Giving tied places feels like a cop out for me. Otherwise we should do it for many other years IMO.

As for who was #1 in 1970. I suppose it would make sense to defer to the experts. Not reaching a QF is a blemish but Laver has a lot of plus's in his corner as well. Were these rankings from the 1970 itself or done after the fact?

NatF, You may feel it's a cop out. I feel it's unfair and illogical to decide in every year and at every place who was the better of two players (or even of three players). Life and mathematics tell us that sometimes two or three players have records where it's not possible to exactly distinguish which player had the better one. Look at 1959: Gonzalez or Hoad? 1977: Borg or Vilas or Connors? As you know there are experts who decided it was Pancho. Others who decided for Hoad. The same regarding 1977. All of them have good arguments for their favourite.

Even Lance Tingay who never split regarding first place, sometimes put three players equally on tenth place. I never understood his logic by the way.

Yes, we should do the splitting for several or many years. I give tied top places for 1930, maybe 1931, maybe 1936, maybe 1937,(the last three after reading some arguments from krosero), 1938, 1947, 1952, 1959, maybe 1960, 1961, 1964, maybe 1965, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1982. I have not studied later years. My list sounds very long and strange but, for instance, are you able to decide if Smith or Nastase (won US Open and lost to Smith at Wimbledon in a five sets final) deserves the No.1 place? Can you differ between Connors or Lendl in 1982? I can't do.

Regarding 1970 it might be a blemish for Rosewall and Newcombe winning much less tournaments than Laver but they can argue that they succeeded at the two events that (by far) mattered most. Thus Tingay and Collins, the men with the greatest reputation among the tennis experts of that time, ranked Laver No.3 and 4. I'm between them and the majority of the TT posters. Maybe not too unfair...

Tingay's and Collins' rankings were compiled in 1970.

 

[BobbyOne]

73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 89, 91, 98, 03 and even 2012 could all have co-number 1's I think. Depending on your criteria it is unlikely you would have all of them.

For 1970, on the one hand I understand going with the expert view. On the other hand, I'm absolutely certain that if Marty Riessen or Cliff Richey had won Wimbledon no expert would rank them as the number 1. I would be fairly comfortable picking Rosewall as the outright number 1 for this year, though co-#1's are probably fairer.

70sHollywood, Thanks for continuing my list of "doubtful" years.

You might be right regarding Riessen and Richey. On the other hand, Newcombe also reached the US Open SF.

Yes, Co-No.1 places for 1970 are fairer than the top spot only for Rosewall.

Thanks for calling me a legend even before my comeback here.

 

[Phoenix1983]

That year is quite clear in my mind. A year like 2003 is 'closer' in my opinion.

Agreed 2003 is close, but Roddick was ranked No 1 as per the ATP computer.

 

[Phoenix1983]

NatF, You may feel it's a cop out. I feel it's unfair and illogical to decide in every year and at every place who was the better of two players (or even of three players). Life and mathematics tell us that sometimes two or three players have records where it's not possible to exactly distinguish which player had the better one.

I don't understand this statement. In a 100m race, the person who crosses the line first wins. As per the ATP computer, the person who gets the most points is world No 1. It's very clear - assuming the ATP computer's system is logical (it often wasn't in the early days of the rankings, I concede) - who should be No 1, who should be No 2, etc.

Personally I dislike the subjective awarding of co-No 1's by experts.

 

[hoodjem]

hoodjem, it's fine that "we" have established that Laver was No. 1 in 1964. I agree he was but only tied with Rosewall because the Little Master won the official world series of that year which consisted of 17 or 18 big tournaments. Additionally Rosewall won the "Heavyweight World Professional Title" in Johannesburg against Laver in straight sets. He was the acknowledged No.1 pro as Butch Buchholz wrote in a long review of the 1964 season in World Tennis. Several experts of that time ranked Rosewall as the top pro but I always felt that both he and Laver deserve the No.1 spot.

In 1964, the pros had an internal point system on a 18 or 20 tournament basis, with no difference between the status of the events. Many matches and some tournaments, especially on the South African tour late in the year, were not counted. Rosewall, who led the US tour until July 1964, finished on top in a close race under this system. But Laver had a 15-4 head to head, won US pro and Wembley, the two pro biggies, and won 11 events to Rosewalls 10, and if one looks closely, it seems, that Laver surpassed Rosewall with his Wembley win in September and closed out the year with his domination of the South African tour.

1964 again

So in 1964 Laver is a clear number 1. More tournaments wins, more Major wins and dominant head to head. What I don't understand is why some commentators at the time had Rosewall as number 1 - he doesn't seem to be under any criteria. Any ideas anyone?

1964/5

laver is clearly number one in 1964 he won 11 to 10 tournaments, 2 majors to one,and had head to head 15-4 advantage. rosewall is behind on every statistic when you analyse all play. laver's win loss percentage is also far better.

laver is ahead in 1965 because he won 17 events to 6 for rosewall, and had big head to head advantage about 13-5. rosewall was 2 to one in majors but was completely out played outside the majors. laver was regarded as number one at the time and clealy still deserves it according to these facts.

rosewall is only number 2 in both years.

jeffrey

I have discovered some new information that perhaps has my quote in bold above as incorrect. The McCauley book, while one of the finest tennis books of all time in my opinion I believe has some flaws. If we assume that 1963 was totally Rosewall's year which it should be then any achievements by Laver in 1964 is what may make Rod number one in 1964. Laver in his last autobiography wrote and I quote "By the end of 1964, in just less than 24 months, I had already earned more than my $110,000 guarantee. I had also edge ahead of Rosewall to be the top ranked pro."

Also regarding 1970, Laver won a huge amount of big money tournaments and could not enter the Australian because his WCT group weren't entering that major. The Dunlop in 1970 was essentially a major and Laver won it over Rosewall. He also won the Tennis Champions Class, another huge big money tournament which essentially was a major. Laver wrote that he won five of the top fifteen events. Considering that he won 15 total tournaments it's entirely feasible Laver had the best year of any player in 1970. Unlike the old Pro Head to Head World Championship tours, unfortunately tennis in those years was basically dependent on the individual standards and opinions of some voters. Some use to always pick teh Wimbledon winner every year regardless of how well the other players may have done. One thing I am fairly certain of is that Laver in actuality was the strongest player in the world.

I believe that Urban, Tim, Jeffrey, and PC make good, logical sense here.

 

[BobbyOne]

I don't understand this statement. In a 100m race, the person who crosses the line first wins. As per the ATP computer, the person who gets the most points is world No 1. It's very clear - assuming the ATP computer's system is logical (it often wasn't in the early days of the rankings, I concede) - who should be No 1, who should be No 2, etc.

Personally I dislike the subjective awarding of co-No 1's by experts.

I'm sorry, Phoenix, but I must disagree totally.

1) Tennis is not a 100 m race. In the race you can (mostly) clearly see who reached the finish (goal) first. In tennis there are several criteria where players can succeed. Take 1959: Gonzalez won the World Series ahead of Hoad. Thus most experts including pc1 said or say he is the undisputed world's champion and (alone) the No.1 in 1959. But Hoad reached second place in that WS, won the peronal clashes with Pancho (they were 15:13; 23:23 all year). He won the long and important (ask Dan!!!) AMPOL tournament world tour consisting of (probably) 14 first class tourneys. He beat "clay king" Rosewall at Paris.

In other words, they ran in two races. Gonzalez won one of them (but losing to his rival in hth). Hoad won the other race. Can somebody really honestly decide who was No.1? I confess, I cannot because I would feel it's UNJUST (I avoid to put in also Rosewall who had the best record of all players and was 8:4 against the "official" king, Pancho).

2) Even in athletic races sometimes two runners reach the finish line at the same time. Then the judges decide who was in front with his nose and who was ahead with his brest and so on.

3) ATP rankings are NOT the only criterion to decide places. Take 1977: Do you really give Connors the top spot? If yes you are very courageous. Maybe only KG1965 will follow you. I give Vilas, Borg and Connors together the title for 1977.

4) ITF has not seldom awarded a different player as World Champion than computer has counted. I plead to give both players the title (at least in some of those cases).

5) I respect your dislike (and other people's dislike) to award "subjective" Co-No.1 places. But I find it even more subjective to decide exactly for every year who the No.1 player was. Giving Connors the No.1 spot for 1982 may be subjective. But awarding McEnroe (No.1 in ATP list) seems equally subjective. To make the case even more difficult: I think that Lendl should also get a No.1 place because he won the Masters and 15 other titles while Connors won only 7 and McEnroe only 6. Please tell me who of the three reached the finish firstly!

 

[BobbyOne]

I believe that Urban, Tim, and Jeffrey make good, logical sense here.

hoodjem, we can shorten up the discussion. It would be very strange to not give A (not THE) No.1 place for the man who won the official world tour that was known (even before it started) to all players as the main criterion for the rankings. Furthermore the players themselves crowned Muscles with the title world pro champion (see Buchholz's article). If Laver then felt Rosewall is only No.2, he probably would have commentated Butch's long article and review and would have "improved" the latter's ranking which he gave. Don't you think so?

By the way, the Wembley final was decided with the smallest margin thinkable (see the scores). Furthermore Rosewall had some bad luck that a few of his shots ended as net-cords in Rod's favour in crucial moments, the last one leading to Laver's matchpoint. The match was as close as the famous Dallas 1972 final where I say Laver was equally strong as Rosewall. There should have been two winners... At the US Pro Ken was handicapped by a poisoning illness. I guess the players then knew that Rosewall still was one of two equally strong players.

 

[BobbyOne]

If you check Tennis Archives for Hoad, you will see that on March 17, Hoad defeated Rosewall in the Adelaide final, also beating Gimeno and Sedgman. Rosewall won the January events at Adelaide and Kooyong, but Hoad appeared to play better in February and March, beating Rosewall in the television final and winning at Adelaide.

McCauley does not list the Facis players, so it is possible that Gimeno and Rosewall played the Italian tour.

The UPI poll to choose the top player of 1962 was conducted at the end of January 1963, using the results of the Australian tour with Hoad, Laver, and Rosewall as a year-end event to rate the three.

Why would Rosewall skip the U.S. Pro, which was supposedly a major tournament? Strange.

Actually, the Cleveland World Pro was not the U.S. Pro, as the name indicated. Sorry.

Dan, I don't understand. Firstly you ask why Rosewall (and Hoad partly) skipped the US Pro for five years. Then you say that Cleveland was not a major. Why then should he play there? In fact Muscles had financial reasons to skip it from 1958 to 1962.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I don't understand. Firstly you ask why Rosewall (and Hoad partly) skipped the US Pro for five years. Then you say that Cleveland was not a major. Why then should he play there? In fact Muscles had financial reasons to skip it from 1958 to 1962.

I was asking a rhetorical question, that is, if Cleveland was a major tournament, why would Rosewall skip it?
The answer of course, is that it was not a major tournament, which explains why he would skip it. Rosewall did not skip Wembley or Roland Garros in 1962, even though there was no formal tour that year.

 

[Drob]

There was no U.S. Pro held between 1952 and 1961, according to the USPLTA, who were responsible for authorizing these events.
The Cleveland event was actually billed, The Cleveland World Professional Championships.

I won't dispute you. But McCauley, Collins et al. call it the US Pro. For our purposes the important thing is that it was a Pro Major and should be counted as such. If we include the WCS or one-night-stand tours (with the exception of a few with weak competition), along with the Pro Majors (including the Cleveland event and the Tournament of Champions 1956-59) then Rosewall and Gonzalez have 24 majors each, Laver 19 and Tilden 16 or 17 (I am also counting the early 1920s World Hard Court Championship as a Major, to Tilden's (and Cochet's) favor, as it was the world clay-court championship before the French Nationals opened up to the rest of the world in 19250.

 

[Drob]

This is true. We have established that Laver was no. 1 (just barely but definitively) ahead of Rosewall in 1964.

And 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969.

And possibly, probably 1970.

Laver definitely 1970 world No. 1. Played two Slams, where he was knocked out. But won 6 of the 10 next most important tournaments. Rocket even has a partial claim for '71, a year when there was no clear No. 1 Again went 0-2 in Majors, but won the effective clay-court championship for that year, at the Foro Italico (defeating the French Open champion), accomplished his incredible 13-0 record against the best competition to win his second Champions Classic and the biggest payday by far in the history of the sport. This last was thought to be one of the top feats in the history of tennis. Runnerup at the next most lucrative event, the WCT finals and winner of about 10 tournaments total. In other words, if you wanted to show you were number-one over Laver, you needed to beat him where the money was - that is where Laver was concentrating at this time, not on the traditional Majors. At the big money tournaments, Laver was still the strongest player.

 

[hoodjem]

Laver definitely 1970 world No. 1. Played two Slams, where he was knocked out. But won 6 of the 10 next most important tournaments. Rocket even has a partial claim for '71, a year when there was no clear No. 1 Again went 0-2 in Majors, but won the effective clay-court championship for that year, at the Foro Italico (defeating the French Open champion), accomplished his incredible 13-0 record against the best competition to win his second Champions Classic and the biggest payday by far in the history of the sport. This last was thought to be one of the top feats in the history of tennis. Runnerup at the next most lucrative event, the WCT finals and winner of about 10 tournaments total. In other words, if you wanted to show you were number-one over Laver, you needed to beat him where the money was - that is where Laver was concentrating at this time, not on the traditional Majors. At the big money tournaments, Laver was still the strongest player.

So Laver was world no. 1 from 1964-1970, for a total of 7 years.

 

[Drob]

So Laver was world no. 1 from 1964-1970, for a total of 7 years.

Think 1964 a co-No. 1 w Rosewall. Still, this puts him more or less tied w Tilden (20-25, 30); Kramer 1947-51; '54; just behind Gonzalez 1954-61 and ahead of everyone else.

 

[BobbyOne]

I won't dispute you. But McCauley, Collins et al. call it the US Pro. For our purposes the important thing is that it was a Pro Major and should be counted as such. If we include the WCS or one-night-stand tours (with the exception of a few with weak competition), along with the Pro Majors (including the Cleveland event and the Tournament of Champions 1956-59) then Rosewall and Gonzalez have 24 majors each, Laver 19 and Tilden 16 or 17 (I am also counting the early 1920s World Hard Court Championship as a Major, to Tilden's (and Cochet's) favor, as it was the world clay-court championship before the French Nationals opened up to the rest of the world in 19250.

Drob, Rosewall has won 25 majors (including Dallas finals) or 27 if you consider 1963 World Series and 1964 tournament world series.

 

[BobbyOne]

Laver definitely 1970 world No. 1. Played two Slams, where he was knocked out. But won 6 of the 10 next most important tournaments. Rocket even has a partial claim for '71, a year when there was no clear No. 1 Again went 0-2 in Majors, but won the effective clay-court championship for that year, at the Foro Italico (defeating the French Open champion), accomplished his incredible 13-0 record against the best competition to win his second Champions Classic and the biggest payday by far in the history of the sport. This last was thought to be one of the top feats in the history of tennis. Runnerup at the next most lucrative event, the WCT finals and winner of about 10 tournaments total. In other words, if you wanted to show you were number-one over Laver, you needed to beat him where the money was - that is where Laver was concentrating at this time, not on the traditional Majors. At the big money tournaments, Laver was still the strongest player.

Drob, Collins, Tingay and McCauley did not rank Laver as No.1 for 1970 (Laver's close friend, Collins, only at fourth place behind Newcombe, Rosewall and Roche) because he failed at the two important tournaments.

I believe it's fair to split the No.1 spot between Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe.

Laver was not No.1 in 1971 because he failed again at the majors. I split between Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe.

 

[BobbyOne]

So Laver was world no. 1 from 1964-1970, for a total of 7 years.

hoodjem, Yes, but in some years only tied with other players.

 

[BobbyOne]

Think 1964 a co-No. 1 w Rosewall. Still, this puts him more or less tied w Tilden (20-25, 30); Kramer 1947-51; '54; just behind Gonzalez 1954-61 and ahead of everyone else.

Drob, I'm glad you give Tilden the No.1 place for 1930 (I also do it- tied with Cochet).

You meant Kramer 1953, not 1954.

 

[Drob]

Drob, Rosewall has won 25 majors (including Dallas finals) or 27 if you consider 1963 World Seris and 1964 tournament world sries.

Counting 8 traditionals, 15 pro Slams, 1963 WCS. Not counting WCTs for this purpose. Was unaware of a 1964 WCS. First I heard of it.

 

[Drob]

Drob, I'm glad you give Tilden the No.1 place for 1930 (I also do it- tied with Cochet).

You menat Kramer 1953, not 1954.

Yes, exactly, 1953

 

[BobbyOne]

Counting 8 traditionals, 15 pro Slams, 1963 WCS. Not counting WCTs for this purpose. Was unaware of a 1964 WCS. First I heard of it.

Drob, In 1964 there was a long tournament World Champion Tour that determinated the No.1 pro. Rosewall finished first, Laver second, and Gonzalez third (8 players involved).

Why not count WCT Finals? They were more important than the amateur GS tournaments and the weak 1972 AO. Rosewall valued them as his greatest wins at all.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Drob, In 1964 there was a long tournament World Champion Tour that determinated the No.1 pro. Rosewall finished first, Laver second, and Gonzalez third (8 players involved).

Why not count WCT Finals? They were more important than the amateur GS tournaments and the weak 1972 AO. Rosewall valued them as his greatest wins at all.

Where do we stop? Why not include the TCC for 1970 and 1971?

 

[urban]

Exactly. Why not include the tournament series of 1965, 1966, 1967. Or the WCT tournament series of 1971 or 1972?

 

[BobbyOne]

Where do we stop? Why not include the TCC for 1970 and 1971?

Dan, TCC 1970 was not a big event, TCC 1971 is debatable.

 

[BobbyOne]

Exactly. Why not include the tournament series of 1965, 1966, 1967. Or the WCT tournament series of 1971 or 1972?

urban, Yes, the tournament series of 1965, 1966 and 1967 are debatable even though I don't excactly know if they were as determinating as the 1964 issue.

1971 and 1972 series did not determinate the true top player of the year as 1964 did.