The true no.1 of 1977

Borg beat gottfried in the final in memphis. He beat the lowly ranked tom gulikson in the sf. He gets points for beating gottfried nothing for Gullikson. In rankings beating a quality like Gottfried (top 50) is worth something. borg's wins over vilas in '77 are always highlighted.He beat john lloyd in 2 finals and they are worth nothing. this sysyem is trying to highligh top wins and so it should. The more restrictive it is the higher empasis for top 3 wins.

About surface. No ranking system has ever distinguished between surfaces. Today's atp system does not. Neither did any of the 70's systems whether by atp, grand prix or WCt. In 1977 clay was king, both the usopen and french wre on clay and all the events leading up to them wre on clay. It was the most important surface.

The atp rankings are a joke in the 70s. Neither WCT or the masters counted anything. Money decided the reltive points and high prize money events like Las vegas was awarded a huge amount of points. In 1977 on the grand prix the slams were awarded 250 points; vegas would be 175 and the field was just ok( 2 top tenners ramirez and connors).; ludicrous. At the unplayed johanaesbrg final both Borg and vilas were awarded 105 points after beating mediocre players because the event put up 150,000. Nice where they both reached the final playing players of a similar qulaity, Borg picked 50 for winning and vilas 35 because the event only put up 50,000. Vilas's achievement was the same in both events as far as i'm concerned. Money does not mean quality.

Now with the super 9 you are guarranteed quality. you can award extra points. In 1997 only one event philadeplhia justified the description. That's why I treated all the rest the same, execept for 4 man event (only 2 matches), and gave them all 50 points and then gave bonuse based on who you actually beat, restricting it to the top 17 with a heavy bias towards the top 3.

Moose malloy sems to have infated some of the events. Barcelona was only 100,000, wembly 125,000, Memphis 175,000. all regular WCT events like monte carlo 100,000.

John Necombe played every Aussie open between 1969 and 1976 (he was injured at the start of 77). No other player matched that. Whatever he said in his book , he regarded it as a prestige event. Tanner's win is his most impotrant and remembered performance along with is runner-up in 1979 at wimbledon. The world of tennis yearbook in 1977 gave as much coverage to the Ausie open as the other 3 slams; a lot more than memphis. Remember I only awarded 75 ppints compared to 150 for Wimbledon, but its still a prestige event as was the WCT finals. Borg had 5 to choose from; he only turned up at 2; he needed to play both the WCT and the french to be competitive given vilas' 17 wins, including 2 slams.


jeffrey
.
Very good points. Particularly about the surfaces. Clearly clay was a much more important surface in the 70s than today. Hard courts did not began to acquire their current status until the US Open switched to it, and later the AO. Today the balance is very heavily tilted toward hard, of course, to the point where clay is almost seen as a less worthy surface, and the green clay events have almost completely disappeared in the US and are disappearing elsewhere also. This, along with the disappearance of grass from the AO, is one of the most regretful developments of tennis since the 80s. Much more than the change in racquet technology I think. The human body did not evolve to prance and bounce on flat rocks, but rather to glide and dance gracefully on the soft earth and the cushy green grass. Cement is an abomination and an insult to the art of tennis.
 
The atp rankings are a joke in the 70s. Neither WCT or the masters counted anything. Money decided the reltive points and high prize money events like Las vegas was awarded a huge amount of points. In 1977 on the grand prix the slams were awarded 250 points; vegas would be 175 and the field was just ok( 2 top tenners ramirez and connors).; ludicrous. At the unplayed johanaesbrg final both Borg and vilas were awarded 105 points after beating mediocre players because the event put up 150,000. Nice where they both reached the final playing players of a similar qulaity, Borg picked 50 for winning and vilas 35 because the event only put up 50,000. Vilas's achievement was the same in both events as far as i'm concerned. Money does not mean quality.
Great post, jeffrey. You'd provided more specific info on exactly how the ranking system worked in the 70s/80s than anyone else on this board has provided over all the years I've posted here. It seemed like such a mystery.

You confirm some of what I thought - that the big money events (sans WCT) offered pretty big points in the 70s/80s.

I have many questions (maybe you can point in me in the direction of where to find this out, if you don't wish to answer them. I'd love to get ahold of those World of Tennis Yearbooks. I notice you post on wikepedia, do you have any articles detailing the ranking methods/points of the time there?)

You mentioned the slams offered 250 pts in 1977, do you know how long that number was the case? how much did you get for a Runner-Up at the majors in '77? did that number hold true in the early 80s as well? Also you mentioned that Vegas in '77 offered 175 pts, do you have the ranking pts breakdown of all the events that counted for ranking that year for Connors, Vilas, Borg? Was it a close race in the ATP ranking?

I have a Year in Review tennis magazine issue for 1982, that year Mac finished at #1 with a 122.58 average & Connors finished with a 121.47 average for #2, a very close margin. I wondered how many pts Connors got for his W & USO wins that year & how Mac managed to top him.

Also, concerning prize money - I mentioned I was trying to compile a list of the 1st place prize money for majors & other big events over the years, do you know where I can find that? Right now I'm just using old magazines, or the actual videos of the finals to learn how much prize money went to the winner.

For instance, do you know much the AO, FO, W, & USO champions got in '77? or '82? I'm curious if there was a big difference & want to see how much the money increased over the years.

As I mentioned, I thought it was interesting that the WCT finals (& other WCT events that year) offered more prize money to the winners than the USO champion that year. I wonder how long this was the case, that the majors didn't offer the biggest prizes on tour.
 
For the record, the ATP and Tennis Magazine both awarded Borg player of the year for 1977
But in 1978, Tennis Magazine picked Connors as #1!

I have an issue which has all their top 10s until the mid-90s(when they discontinued doing that since their ranking & the atp were now basically the same) They also have what they voted as the top 5 players on all surfaces (clay, indoor, hard, grass) over the years. Some interesting names.

This was the panel that voted on top 10 in the 80s(presumably the same that voted in 1977)

John Barrett
Peter Bodo
Judith Elian
Alexander McNab
Rino Tommasi
Alan Trengrove
Wataru Tsukagioshi

It's too bad I don't have the '77 issue, I'm curious how the vote went(in the 80s issues I have, they listed their specific top 10s as well. In 1982 6 of the 7voted Connors as #1, Tommasi picked Lendl)

This was their top 10 for '77(which didn't differ from the names that finished in the ATP top 10, just in the order)

Borg
Vilas
Connors
Gottfried
Gerulaitis
Orantes
Ramirez
Stockton
Dibbs
Nastase
 
But in 1978, Tennis Magazine picked Connors as #1!
That was closer than it looks. Connors won a handful of top-level singles titles that year, did not play the French and avenged the Wimby loss to Borg in the US Open.

Philly may have been the fourth biggest event in 1978 and Connors won it.
 
Last edited:
Tennis magazine had Borg at Nr.1 in 1977, World Tennis had Vilas (he was on the cover with a green Fila shirt). I bought that magazine then in Germany, but don't know, if i still have it. On the internet auction side, several year end magazines of the time are sold at the moment. These magazine rankings were pretty high accepted at the time, in some circles more than the computer ranking.
 
hello moose.

The points on the atp rankings changed each year during the 70's and early 80s due to inflation. The points total got higher as prize money went up. The ratio between a slam and the next tier, usually las vegas or palm springs did not change much. In 1975 A slam was 160; Las Vegas 120.

In 1977 connors did just edge it out . Vilas and Borg suffrerd a bit because the they played some 50,000 events like Nice which only gave 50 points. In 1982 the same problem arises, the slams only have a 1/3 mark up on the next tier. With today's ratio of 2, Connors would be an easy winner over McEnroe. 1982 was a year of dispute. no WCT events counted towards the rankings. Hence Lendl is usually credited with winning 15 of 23 events in 1982, but according to the ATP he only played 12 or 13. Lendl had a far better record than McEnroe.

Highest 1st prize money events:

1970 Champions tennis classic 70000 laver
1971 Champions tennis classic 160000 Laver
1972 WCT finals 50000 Rosewall
1973 WCT finals 50000 Smith
1974 Wct finals 50000 Necombe
!975 WCt finals 50000 Ashe
1976 Avis challenge cup nastase 180000
1977 WCT challenge cup 180000 Connors
1978 WCT challenge cup 170000 nastase

Of the slams the US open, always paid the most In 1970 and 1971 20,000. In 1973 25000. I've forgotten the rest but it rose fairly rapidly. Neither the US open or Wimbledon ever lost their prestige as the most important events, save 1971-73 when there were political disputes. Laver and others openly boycotted '71 US open because of the ITF ban which stopped WCT pros playing Wimbledon 1972; Rosewall and laver regarded their WCT showdown in '71 as more important. In the Borg/connors era Wimbledon and the US open were always the most important events whatever the prize money.

In 1978 Connors won 11/14 ATp events counting events; Borg 7/14. And of courses the French slam had lower ratio to other events as I mentioned at the top. Looking at true competition, Connors won 12/18 and borg 9/18, but Borg won 2 slams to Connors' one. Borg had 2-1 head to head advantage ( or 3-2 depending on the legitimacy of evens).

I would very much like to see the full panel list of world rankings you mentioned from tennis magazine.

jeffrey
 
Hi Jeffrey,

Thank you for all this information!

Do you or anyone else have information about the Champions Classic in New York? I couldn't find draws on atptennis nor itftennis.com...

Jon

EDIT: I saw on an older post that it was a winner-take-all series with a final between the best 2, according to urban. Do you know who was in the final? Was it widely considered as the main event of the year (before the Masters)?

I now realize that the early Open Era is probably the period I know the least about. Even for the 1880s or other ancient eras I have a pretty clear idea of the main tournament and their winners, but the 70s are a mess!
Do you have a list of the few top-prize money events for each year, as well as an indication of whether the draws were good (I don't think a huge prize money always leads to stellar draws: I found those of the WCT Challenge cup for the late 70s and they were not remarkable. We could say the same about the Grand Slam Cup in the late 90s).

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Maybe Jeffrey has more information, i must go to the World of Tennis yearbooks for results of matches. At the moment this: The Classic Series was played in 1970 and 71 between the top ten pro players in US indoor arenas for then unheard big money. It had a complicated system. The winner of the first match was challenged by the next in line player, the winner subsequently challenged by the next. Loser of first and second rounds of preliminary matches could qualify, to challenge again. Then there was a semifinal and final with the top four qualifiers at the Garden in New York. In 1970 sf, Laver beat Gonzales in straight and Rosewall beat Emerson in a tough five-setter. In July, Laver beat Rosewall 64,63,63 for the crown and 35ooo $. In January to March 1971, Laver beat all comers, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Ashe again, Ralston, Emerson, Taylor, Emerson again in succession, 11 winner take all matches in all. Then he won the sf over Ralston and the final over Okker (63,63,61), booking another 35ooo $.
 
Jeffrey, the atp "vault" website lists the '70 US Open prize money as $137,800...Is it a typo??
That sounds plausible as the total prize money for a 128 player event with a $20,000 prize for the winner. As far as 100,000+ to just the winner, the USO didn't hit that mark until 1983 or so.

1971 Champions tennis classic 160000 Laver
That's quite an amazing number for just winning one event back then. In an ATP guide I have they have all the prize money leaders year by year, & Laver is at #1 with 292,000 for all of 1971. 2nd place was Rosewall with 138,000.

1976 Avis challenge cup nastase 180000
Do you know who he beat in the final? Trying to see if it is listed on itf or my ATP guide(which has events listed that aren't on the atp site)

I would very much like to see the full panel list of world rankings you mentioned from tennis magazine.
I only have individual lists for the panel for 1982. I have all the overall top 10 lists that tennis magazine listed for 1972-1991(the year they stopped publishing rankings)

What lists do you want to see specifically?

here was 1972:

1. Smith
2. Rosewall
3. Nastase
4. Laver
5. Newcombe
6. Ashe
7. Okker
8. Orantes
9. Drysdale
10. Riessen
 
Nastase beat borg in sf and ashe F in 1976


The prize money is for winning the event.

The ATP prize money is always dubious in the 70s. Nastase's win would not have counted in '76. The USTA prize money list is better

I would like to see all rankings between '73 and '83. It always interesting to see a panel vote rather than one man's view

jeffrey
 
1973:
1.Nastase
2.Newcombe
3.Smith
4.Okker
5.Connors
6.Laver
7.Kodes
8.Ashe
9.Rosewall
10.Gorman/Orantes

1974:
1.Connors
2.Newcombe
3.Rosewall
4.Borg
5.Vilas
6.Laver
7.Smith
8.Nastase
9.Ashe
10.Orantes

1975:
1.Ashe
2.Connors
3.Borg
4.Orantes
5.Vilas
6.Nastase
7.Ramirez
8.Laver
9.Rosewall
10.Tanner

1976:
1.Connors
2.Borg
3.Nastase
4.Vilas
5.Ramirez
6.Orantes
7.Panatta
8.Dibbs
9.Solomon
10.Tanner

1978:
1.Connors
2.Borg
3.Gerulaitis
4.Vilas
5.Dibbs
6.McEnroe
7.Gottfried
8.Ramirez
9.Solomon
10.Barazzutti
 
here are the rest of the list, jeffrey

1979:
1.Borg
2.McEnroe
3.Connors
4.Gerulaitis
5.Tanner
6.Vilas
7.Solomon
8.Higueras
9.Dibbs
10. Pecci

1980
1.Borg
2.McEnroe
3.Connors
4.Lendl
5.Mayer
6.Vilas
7.Gerulaitis
8.Solomon
9.Clerc
10.Gottfried

1981
1.McEnroe
2.Borg
3.Connors
4.Lendl
5.Clerc
6.Vilas
7.Mayer
8.Tanner
9.Teltscher
10.McNamara

1982
1.Connors
2.Lendl
3.McEnroe
4.Vilas
5.Wilander
6.Gerulaitis
7.Mayer
8.Clerc
9.Noah
10.Higueras

1983
1.McEnroe
2.Connors
3.Lendl
4.Wilander
5.Noah
6.Arias
7.Higueras
8.Vilas
9.Scanlon
10.Clerc

You didn't ask for it, but was a bit surprised at the Tennis rankings for 1988, they dropped Lendl to #4.
 
Backing 77, don't forget the spaguetti raquet>>> look this post:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=78496

Michel Sutter, a recognized journalist - tennis historian, choose Vilas over Bjorn too (and the true is that I'm a fan of BORG, he played better for me, but... that year Guillermo take advantage of Iceman injuries and bad choices>>> not Vilas fault, he won the events).
 
Last edited:
That's an opinion, of course. I don't have thr true.
I really really like Ice (he's the GOAT for me!), but at some point results (always in 77) are more important that "if, would".
Thanks to Moose, Jeffrey and urban for the info.
 
I agree largely with what is being said here, however I belive that Vilas defenitly deserves the number 1 year end ranking. While both Connors and Borg have a greater pedigree than Vilas this was Vilas's year. Vilas's 16 tournaments are the 2nd most won in a single year in the open-era (after Laver's 1969). Vilas won 2 grand slams compared to Borg's 1. Borg beat Connors at SW19 but Vilas beat Connors at the USO. The performance by Vilas at the USO final was remarkable. The bagel he gave Connors in the 4th set was one of the best induvidual sets of tennis you will see. Vilas did win both slams on clay but red clay in Europe is very different from green clay in the USA (just ask Borg). Vilas also had his record breaking streak and clay court streak (clay court streak has since been exceeded by Nadal). Without Nastase's use of the spaghetti racket with streak would likely have been far longer. Vilas also made the final of the AO, which although had a weaker field than larger events, still shows Vilas's versitility to win on grass.

Ultimately I think there is confusion on what being world number 1 means. I don't think it means "being the best player in the year", I think it means "having the best results of the year". While I accept that Borg would have been very likely to win the FO (had he participated in the event). Borg did not participipate and Vilas captilased on this. Likewise if Federer quit tennis he could not be the number 1 player this time next year, even if he was the best player. You need to win the events to prove yourself best and you need to beat players from an entire draw, not just your fellow number 1 competitors.
Totally agree. The injuries of Connors and Borg are not Vilas problem. And not all the titles won by the argentine were mickey mouse tournies (so... & Pepsi Grand Slam? 4 men draw?), like Borg titles are'nt all "greats". 2 slams, 1 final in a depleted Aussie Open (but a Slam too, and IN GRASS!). Borg or Connors don't won Hamburg or Rome too. A straight run "cuts" by a spaghetti raquet.


I think that some day, ATP will recognize Vilas at number one at least at one "week" in 77. Not today, of course.:)
 
As jeffrey mentioned, Borg was hurt by choosing to play World Team Tennis(& we all know why -$$) instead of some significant events in the spring(Dallas for one)
I believe he skipped the French in order to prepare for Wimbledon.
Then he got injured & wasn't able to play any events between Wimbledon & the USO. Again, I think the #1 was a close call that year.
Not Vilas fault.:)
 

Q&M son

Professional
I saw all the discussion on this thread, very interesting: for me, numbers said that Vilas was the N° 1 in 77. We're talking about points. So... 16 tournies (2 GS) is enough for me.
Greetings.

Lucio.
 
Back by popular demand.

I agree that overall Borg was a better player, on clay, grass, and maybe even hard-court. After all, Borg beat Vilas at the FO finals in 1975 and 1978.
Borg was 3-0 against Vilas in 1977 - this is year-specific.

But this debate is just about 1977. In 1977 Vilas had better results: more titles. In 1977 Vilas won the USO dropping only a single set in the entire tournament--in the finals against Connors. He won every other round in straight sets.
Yes, Vilas' US Open victory is very impressive. But Borg's win at Wimbledon isn't less so. Maybe even more so. I think that Vilas' French Open accomplishment is a big deal, but there is a lot of things to keep in mind, in retrospect. It wasn't big enough for Borg to play in, as he went to play World Team Tennis. Vilas' victory there is not more impressive than Borg's dismantling of Vilas in Monte Carlo.

At the USO in 1977, Borg retired in the fourth round trailing Dick Stockton, who was immediately beaten in the quarters by Harold Solomon, who was trounced in straight sets by Vilas in the semis. In 1977 Borg's only major was Wimbledon.
Borg retired due to an injury, while leading.

I find that facts are more convincing than "These are such weak arguments. Borg was a better player on every single surface."
These facts aren't 'objective' in the full meaning of the word, because they are skewed. Vilas gets rewarded for playing more, for being picky with his tournaments and for avoiding the really heavy fields. Borg played less; missed a few months due to an injury; participated in higher profile events and still won 11 singles titles. In a more standardized ATP-led schedule, Vilas wouldn't get to double digits in titles. This is why context is important and it reveals to us that Vilas' year isn't what it was cracked up to be. He dominated on clay the whole year round in events where the real top player was not participating.

Borg, overall was the better player, but in 1977 Vilas was the better player--as indicated by the records of each player.
W-L is a silly way of comparing these guys. I have already explained why.

And I am not only arguing that Borg was the better player. He also had the better year, by having better results on all surfaces than Vilas and by dominating Vilas head-to-head. Vilas' only truly great victory in 1977 was the US Open.
 
Yes, Vilas' US Open victory is very impressive. But Borg's win at Wimbledon isn't less so. Maybe even more so.
I never said it was less impressive. Who did? I regard these as equal.


[The 1977] French Open wasn't big enough for Borg to play in, as he went to play World Team Tennis.

Irrelevant as to why Borg did not play. That's his business, and interpreting it makes no sense. You can't win a world class tournament if you don't play. It was certainly important enough for Borg in 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981.

You can't award Borg any credit for not playing and then say Monte Carlo is equally impressive. A win at Monte Carlo is simply not as impressive as a win at the FO. This logic does not hold--take way everything else and suggest that player X beats player Y at Monte Carlo. Player X does nothing else all year. But player Y wins at the French Open. Player Y is and should be ranked higher: he won a bigger tournament and was runner-up in another. All Player X did was win one less-important tournament.


Yes, Vilas' US Open victory is very impressive. But Borg's win at Wimbledon isn't less so. Maybe even more so. I think that Vilas' French Open accomplishment is a big deal.
OK, then Borg has Wimbledon, and Vilas has the USO and the FO.

I certainly do not regard Borg's victory at Monte Carlo as equal to Vilas's victory at Roland Garros.
 
Last edited:
Just the facts in 1977 :

- Grand Slam :
Vilas : 2 victories, 1 Final
Borg : 1 victory
- ATP Tournaments :
Vilas : 16 victories (almays a record)
Borg : 11 victories
- Matches won consecutively :
Vilas : 46 (always a record)

But Borg is n°1 because he beats Vilas 3 times ??? It's a joke.
OK, so the real n°1 since three years is not Federer, it's Nadal, because he beats Federer a lot of times.
 
Irrelevant as to why Borg did not play. That's his business, and interpreting it makes no sense. You can't win a world class tournament if you don't play. It was certainly important enough for Borg in 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981.
I subscribe to the Bill James mentality on this one.

He's a baseball statistician and writer who wrote about the relative worth of baseball players in the WWII years when many were in the middle of their military service and thus were not playing.

His argument was that these players lost valuable years because of military service, but were nevertheless great players when they were away. He assigned them a fixed value for these years, stating that even though these players were away they were still objectively speaking amongst the best in the world but were affected by circumstances beyond their control. He added that players who had injuries did not have the same excuse.

In my situation Borg's situation is similar in that what matters is that he was objectively better than Vilas on clay and in this case there are results that actually prove this. Now, your argument would be stronger if you could demonstrate that the French Open was as irreplaceable as it is today. But it wasn't - it was not uncommon for a player to skip the event to play World Team Tennis. There were also tremendous restrictions and bannings in place in this era, which speaks to circumstances that were beyond the players' control. Saying that Borg should have foreseen the future and chosen to play at the French Open is frankly unfair. The aspect that is beyond Borg's control is the contemporary perception of the French Open, which sees the event as indispensable, something that wasn't the case 30 years ago.

You can't award Borg any credit for not playing and then say Monte Carlo is equally impressive. A win at Monte Carlo is simply not as impressive as a win at the FO. This logic does not hold--take way everything else and suggest that player X beats player Y at Monte Carlo. Player X does nothing else all year. But player Y wins at the French Open. Player Y is and should be ranked higher: he won a bigger tournament and was runner-up in another. All Player X did was win one less-important tournament.
Weak logic. Player X did do something else all year. Player X was playing World Team Tennis and not merely sitting on his ass. He chose one high profile event for the time over another.

OK, then Borg has Wimbledon, and Vilas has the USO and the FO.

I certainly do not regard Borg's victory at Monte Carlo as equal to Vilas's victory at Roland Garros.
It was better. Borg beat Vilas in Monte Carlo. Vilas beat Gottfried in Roland Garros.
 
Last edited:
It was better. Borg beat Vilas in Monte Carlo. Vilas beat Gottfried in Roland Garros.
Holds little water. Winning at the FO is always better than winning at Monte Carlo: more players, more rounds, more sets, more history.

And don't forget Borg beat Vilas at Nice also. But Vilas's record was better than Borg's record in 1977. Period.
 
Holds little water. Winning at the FO is always better than winning at Monte Carlo: more players, more rounds, more sets, more history.
Sgt John and I agree on this in principle. See the discussions about Rome vs. French Open in 1971.

Again, standardization began in 1990. Until then few events were objectively better than any others particularly when it came to the French Open up until the 1980s.

It was worse with the women. Evert skipped this event for a number of years in the 1970s. I guess you would also argue that whoever won this title in her absence was better.

And don't forget Borg beat Vilas at Nice also. But Vilas's record was better than Borg's record in 1977. Period.
Platitude.
 
I subscribe to the Bill James mentality on this one.

He's a baseball statistician and writer who wrote about the relative worth of baseball players in the WWII years when many were in the middle of their military service and thus were not playing.

His argument was that these players lost valuable years because of military service, but were nevertheless great players when they were away. He assigned them a fixed value for these years, stating that even though these players were away they were still objectively speaking amongst the best in the world but were affected by circumstances beyond their control. He added that players who had injuries did not have the same excuse.

In my situation Borg's situation is similar in that what matters is that he was objectively better than Vilas on clay and in this case there are results that actually prove this. Now, your argument would be stronger if you could demonstrate that the French Open was as irreplaceable as it is today. But it wasn't - it was not uncommon for a player to skip the event to play World Team Tennis. There were also tremendous restrictions and bannings in place in this era, which speaks to circumstances that were beyond the players' control. Saying that Borg should have foreseen the future and chosen to play at the French Open is frankly unfair. The aspect that is beyond Borg's control is the contemporary perception of the French Open, which sees the event as indispensable, something that wasn't the case 30 years ago.



Weak logic. Player X did do something else all year. Player X was playing World Team Tennis and not merely sitting on his ass. He chose one high profile event for the time over another.



It was better. Borg beat Vilas in Monte Carlo. Vilas beat Gottfried in Roland Garros.
OK. So, in 2003, Memphis is more important than Roland-Garros, because in Memphis Taylor Dent beats Roddick, and in RG, Ferrero beats Verkerk. Idem in 1986 : Dallas was more important than Roland-Garros, because in Dallas Jarryd beats Becker, and in RG, Lendl beats Pernfors. And in 1983, any tournament is more important than Wimbledon, because McEnroe beats Chris Lewis in final !! ........
 
OK. So, in 2003, Memphis is more important than Roland-Garros, because in Memphis Taylor Dent beats Roddick, and in RG, Ferrero beats Verkerk. Idem in 1986 : Dallas was more important than Roland-Garros, because in Dallas Jarryd beats Becker, and in RG, Lendl beats Pernfors. And in 1983, any tournament is more important than Wimbledon, because McEnroe beats Chris Lewis in final !! ........
None of this is similar. Read the thread again.
 
CyBorg,

I respect your opinion in this matter, and I think it's provocative and worthy. But I do not and cannot agree.

I also don't think there is anything to be gained by continuing to debate: I don't believe I will convince you, and I don't believe that you will convince me.

I propose that we agree to disagree.
Salute,
Hoodjem
 
CyBorg,

I respect your opinion in this matter, and I think it's provocative and worthy. But I do not and cannot agree.

I also don't think there is anything to be gained by continuing to debate: I don't believe I will convince you, and I don't believe that you will convince me.

I propose that we agree to disagree.
Salute,
Hoodjem
Yeah - that's fine. Your position is quite reasonable and partly chaognosis-esque (in that you feel that Roland Garros herein has a particular kind of fixed prestige value).

I think that context provides more complex revelations, which I think explains why much of the world at the time rated Borg's year higher than Vilas' (probably about half-and-half). Ultimately this debate is fairly open-ended, particularly in light of the fact that we cannot approach a year like this by employing common standards.
 
Yes, incredible injustice. It's totally absurd. The rules of the ATP has changed today, and with the rules of today, Vilas would have been n°1 during several monthes. But everybody (or almost everybody) consider that Vilas is the world champion in 1977, and the magazine "World Tennis", which was the autority at this period, has elected Vilas as the N°1. Some people (but only a few persons) consider that Borg was the N°1 because he beats Vilas 3 times in 1977 : it's absurd, because the n°1 is the guy who has the best palmares, and not the guy who beats X or Y. Vilas won 16 torunaments (record) and Borg 11, Vilas won 46 matches consecutively (record), and in the Grand Slam Vilas has 2 victories and 1 final, and Borg only 1 victory. So, there's no doubt, Vilas is the world champion. Everybody is agree with that.
 
Top