Top 3 players per year from 1877 to 2020 (with a regular update)

[NoMercy]

Yes, and the same is true for Lacoste in 1926 and 1927. Crucial were his Davis Cup results and hth wins over Tilden in 1927 and his Davis Cup win over Tilden in 1926 plus his US title on foreign turf. The Davis Cup performance stood above everything else. Even Macauley in his Wimbledon book mentions Little Bill Johnston's performance in the Davis Cup 1922 against Australia as his finest career achievement, when he made "mincemeat" of Patterson and Anderson, losing only 5 resp. 6 games..

1922 is the only year Johnston can have a little argument over Tilden.
Well, apart of 1919, where Johnston is clear ahead of Big Bill In rankings.

 

[Ivan69]

Now, i didn't say the quote above, but in the context of the discussed question of evaluating the leading player of the year in the 1920s, its quite correct.

I explicitly wrote in my post that the quote is from NoMercy and you liked it, i.e. you agree with the quote.

But even in the view of the Wimbedon officials themselves, the Wimbledon champ was not automatically the world Nr. 1 player. I found the account of the 1923 Wimbledon event in the book by Duncan Macauley (with John Smyth), London 1965, p. 24f. Colonel Macauley was the long time secretary of the All England Club, and witnessed every Wimbledon since 1922. In his account of the 1923 version, he first mentioned all top contenders, who were MISSING, including Patterson the holder, Tilden the 1920-21 champion and "the leading player in the world", Gore and Cochet. He noted, that the US sent a good contingent, Johnston, Hunter and Richards, and the French also sent a good team over the channel (excluding Cochet). The Wimbledon officials in the 1920s accepted, that the international participation in their championships was sporadic, and over two third of the draw consisted of British players. Generally, travel wasn't easy or cheap, it was a long time to travel via a boat from the US or Australia to Britain and Europe. So in the 1920s it was rather the order of the day, that the defending holder was missing from the draw (see Tilden, Patterson, Johnston and so on).

I think nobody shares the opinion here that the Wimbledon champ was automatically the world Nr. 1 player. Pointing out the missing names in Wim you would agree that US field was the same. The same "missing" persons from the mentioned + Lowe were absent in US. 90+% were Americans. By saying this Colonel Macauley for sure did not know it.

Still even the British experts and officials like MaCauley or Wallis Myers are calling Tilden the monarch, leading player, Mr. Tennis, Nr. 1 of the world, what ever you want, for all those years 1920 to 1925, even when he missed Wimbledon. In my understanding it was still a thinking along the lines of the challenge system. You had to beat the Nr. 1 on his own turf in Davis Cup or in his backyard at the US Nationals.

The discussions about the experts are endless. It seems that you unreservedly trust to their opinions. That's not a problem. But every reasonable person should ask himself about the reasons and explanations of their opinions. In fact such explanations are missing. Saying player A is "the monarch, leading player, Mr. Tennis, Nr. 1 of the world" is extremely insufficient for the public. The public would naturally ask why this player, what is his success in the year, what is the success of other players.

How McCauley and Myers would explain the leading position when in 1923 Tilden played only in the USA and didn't met ANY European players???
How did they know that the announced No 1 player would not have been beaten by players if having played in Europe???
How can anybody prove (count, announce) somebody's leading position or No 2, 3, 4 ... if he didn't compete with the top players???
Did McCauley and Myers know (I doubt) that the only top matches of Tilden in 1923 were 6 matches with Johnston and Richards out of 70 or more for the year?!?

We may come to a soft answer to these questions - the "sacred" US Nationals. Having read about 15 Myers' articles from this time all these names for Tilden came right after US Nationals. So, we reached to the presumption (again) that US Nationals had been considered the top of the top by both. That's the key stone of the misunderstanding.
US Nationals were not the top of the top because:
1. It was not sanctioned by ILTF.
2. The "sacred" status of the event as well as other sport and non-sport events are closely connected to the political status of the USA after WW1. Though have been an allied partner to Britain and France, the USA became in fact the only world leader. Due to the war the economics of the other winners Britain and France collapsed. They borrowed from the USA $4.4 billion ($66 billion current value) and $1.7 billion ($26 billion) respectively and became as per the historians fully dependent on the US policy. In sport a process of showing supremacy and disregarding other countries began. USLTA felt that it could have ruled the world tennis but IT DIDN"T SUCCEED.
3. Already discussed that field-wise the event was not better than the other.
4. only big advertisement world-wide didn't bring additional value to the Nationals.

That "thinking along the lines of the challenge system" bothers me a lot. The same challenge system which was reassessed as wrong, unfair and irrelevant and rejected step by step till 1922. That "thinking" became rather a sluggish inertia along the river.

As Wimbledon champ was not automatically the world Nr. 1, so the US champ was not automatically the world Nr. 1.

It's not so crucially important for us if a player A or player B were No 1 for a year. Important is to reach to the evaluation of these players as you said in the first sentence. Evaluation implies a process of critical judging and calculating the quality, amount or value of something. I think accepting somebody's opinions as a pure coin is not that process. Historians of all branches reassess the history and fix the mistakes or conclusions in a proper way since ages.

 

[Drob]

As mentioned above, 1959 might have been The Year in history of Pro tennis. It is marred only by Gonzalez's "boycott" of Wemley and Roland Garros because of business disputes with Kramer. (IMO, while Gorgo no doubt acted the jerk, Kramer was the jerk responsible for problem - Kramer engaged in what the Brits call "sharp practice.") Too bad for tennis history.

Still, you had a wildly competitive field, even though you had all-time players not far off the Big Three. Fortunately there were several Big tournaments.

I also characterized late September 1957 - 1960, or possibly 1961, as the Golden Era for the pros. Here are the results, or most of them. I just used the Chris Jordan book, so I am sure there are a few other tournaments. I did not count 4-man RRs.


1957

Gonzalez had won the WCS; Segura won the Sydney T.O.C., Gonzalez the US Pro and the Masters RR among the significant tournaments up to the arrival of Lew Hoad to round out the top six in the world. After his arrival:

Forest Hills T.O.C. (Major): Gonzalez 5-0

Masters Pro: Gonzalez 5-1

Wembley: Rosewall def. Segura five sets



1958

Gonzalez wins WCS tour

Significant Finals
Melbourne T.O.C. RR: Hoad 5-0 (This is a Major because of the inordinate prize money for the time, and it is the perfect draw)
Sydney ("Australian Pro"): Sedgman def. Trabert five sets
US Pro: Gonzalez def. Hoad five sets
Forest Hills T.O.C. RR (Major) Gonzalez def. Rosewall
Masters Pro RR: Segura 6-0
Slazenger Pro: Rosewall def Trabert five sets
French Pro: Rosewall def Hoad four sets
Wembley: Sedgman def Trabert straight sets



1959

Gonzalez wins WCS tour

FINALS

Victorian Pro: Sedgman def Gonzalez four sets
Queensland: Rosewall def. Trabert five sets
Perth: Hoad def. Cooper
Sydney T.O.C.: Gonzalez def Sedgman for sets
Adelaide: Hoad def Rosewall 2 sets to 1
US Pro: Gonzalez def. Hoad three straight sets
Masters Pro RR: Gonzalez def. Hoad straight sets
O'Keefe Pro: Gonzalez def. Sedgman three straight sets
Forest Hills T.O.C. (Major): Hoad def. Gonzalez four sets
Slazenger Pro: Cooper def. Hoad five sets
French Pro: Trabert def. Sedgman straigth sets
Wembley: Anderson def. Segura 5 sets
Sydney -2 (NSW Pro): Gonzalez def. Hoad straight sets
Queensland - 2 : Roswall def. Gonzalez four sets.


1960

Gonzalez wins WCS tour, then take "first retirement"


Significant finals

Melbourne RR: Hoad def Rosewall five sets
Australian Pro Indoor: Rosewall def Hoad five sets
US Pro: Olmedo def Trabert straight sets
Masters Pro RR: Rosewall de Hoad two sets to one
French Pro: Rosewall def. Hoad four sets
Wembley: Rosewall def Segura four set
Japan Pro: Hoad de Rosewall five sets
Jack Kramer Pro: Rosewall def Gimeno straight sets.


1961 is borderline - it is starting to fall off a bit. It is hard to maintain these Golden Eras.


1961

Gonzalez returns, wins WCS

Finals

US Pro: Gonzalez def. Sedgman straight sets
Dutch Pro: Segura def. Gimeno
Geneva Gold Trophy: Gonzalez def Rosewall straight sets
French Pro: Rosewall def. Gonzalez four sets
Wembley: Rosewall def Hoad four sets
Scandanavian Pro Indoors: Gonzalez def. Olmedo four sets
Milan Pro: Gonzalez def. Cooper straight sets
Austrian Pro: Gonzalez def. McKay straight sets
Durban Pro: Rosewall def. Buchholz straight sets
Cape Town: Trabert def. Rosewall straight sets.
NSW Pro: Rosewall def. Buchholz straight sets

By 1962, the tour is taking on water. Gonzalez is gone. Sedgman is basically out of it, both in commitment and results, ditto Trabert, who wins his last significant title. Gimeno is still a work in progress. The tour is Rosewall, Hoad and Segura . . . and Hoadie and Sneaky are on borrowed time in different ways. The Pros will bounce back in 1964-65 and finish strong in 1967, but never see again this level of competition.

The Pros late 1957-61 is roughly in the same class as 2008-14, or the late 1980s-early 1990s. It is maybe not quite as strong as the first few years of the Open era. It looks to be by far the strongest period pre-Open era in either circuit.
Sept. 1957 through 1961

19 for Gorgo (9 Major)

14 for Muscles (6 major)

5 for Hoadie (2 Major)

3 for Sedge (one Major)

2 for Sneaky

2 for Trabert (one Major)

1 for Anderson (Major)

1 for Olmedo (Major)

1 for Cooper


Although shorter in duration, less than four seasons

 

[urban]

Now, about history i do know quite a bit, due to my profession. The main goal for a historian is to understand the past, to get via methodical analysis of sources and perpectives a complex view on the material conditions, backgrounds and processes, but also on the mental concepts, the ideas (sometimes ideologies) and the virulent self-images of an era. Its certainly necessary to reflect the own standingpoint.

Now for tennis history, it is imo necessary to understand the frames, structures, concepts, mechanics, dynamics of a time period. Its not simply a matter of stats and numbers, although every analysis should be of course fact-based. Those material conditions and mental frames change dramatically over the years, and any time period or time frame needs a specific analysis, considering the general and specific athletical conditions, and also the concepts of contemporary sources, of officials, experts and especially of the players themselves. In the periods pre 1914, and a little different in the early 1920s, we have in short terms, very specific conditions: a very limited and difficult travel, a exclusive amateur game, and very little international competition with top players meeting only twice or 3 times in a year. So it was consequent, that experts, officials and players did concentrate and focus on the main international competition, that is the Davis Cup. To put it into the context of sports evolution: The Davis Cup was one of the very first international competitions in all sports, it started just a few years after the invention of the modern Olympics 1896. No wonder, that this ever evolving competition dominated and framed the concepts of all people, who were involved in tennis.

One note on the sources: Those writers like Myers, Tingay, Danzig, Laney, Maskell, Barrett, Macauley, Joubert, Menzel knew their trade, they were professional tennis writers, they didn't do another job, than follwoing tennis all over the world. Before the internet era began, Tingay was by far the leading statistican in the tennis history, he knew and noted every match he found, could name the longest, shortest match ever, and you never will find an error on his published pages. They had notebooks on paper, private archives and could consult the archives of the Telegraph, The Times, the New York Times, the Wimbledon Library and so on. And most of the articles they had written themselves. Above all: Those writer have seen firsthand more tennis matches of amateurs and pros, than we can imagine today. Of course we can critizise some of their rankings and perpectives, but we should have deep respect for their status as eye-witnesses.

 

[treblings]

Now, about history i do know quite a bit, due to my profession. The main goal for a historian is to understand the past, to get via methodical analysis of sources and perpectives a complex view on the material conditions, backgrounds and processes, but also on the mental concepts, the ideas (sometimes ideologies) and the virulent self-images of an era. Its certainly necessary to reflect the own standingpoint.

Now for tennis history, it is imo necessary to understand the frames, structures, concepts, mechanics, dynamics of a time period. Its not simply a matter of stats and numbers, although every analysis should be of course fact-based. Those material conditions and mental frames change dramatically over the years, and any time period or time frame needs a specific analysis, considering the general and specific athletical conditions, and also the concepts of contemporary sources, of officials, experts and especially of the players themselves. In the periods pre 1914, and a little different in the early 1920s, we have in short terms, very specific conditions: a very limited and difficult travel, a exclusive amateur game, and very little international competition with top players meeting only twice or 3 times in a year. So it was consequent, that experts, officials and players did concentrate and focus on the main international competition, that is the Davis Cup. To put it into the context of sports evolution: The Davis Cup was one of the very first international competitions in all sports, it started just a few years after the invention of the modern Olympics 1896. No wonder, that this ever evolving competition dominated and framed the concepts of all people, who were involved in tennis.

One note on the sources: Those writers like Myers, Tingay, Danzig, Laney, Maskell, Barrett, Macauley, Joubert, Menzel knew their trade, they were professional tennis writers, they didn't do another job, than follwoing tennis all over the world. Before the internet era began, Tingay was by far the leading statistican in the tennis history, he knew and noted every match he found, could name the longest, shortest match ever, and you never will find an error on his published pages. They had notebooks on paper, private archives and could consult the archives of the Telegraph, The Times, the New York Times, the Wimbledon Library and so on. And most of the articles they had written themselves. Above all: Those writer have seen firsthand more tennis matches of amateurs and pros, than we can imagine today. Of course we can critizise some of their rankings and perpectives, but we should have deep respect for their status as eye-witnesses.

Thank you for this wonderful post. You´ve summarized better, far more complete and with the insight of a historian what i believe to be true.

 

[NoMercy]

“The main goal for a historian is to understand the past”

Short, simple, perfect

 

[Ivan69]

Now, about history i do know quite a bit, due to my profession. The main goal for a historian is to understand the past, to get via methodical analysis of sources and perpectives a complex view on the material conditions, backgrounds and processes, but also on the mental concepts, the ideas (sometimes ideologies) and the virulent self-images of an era. Its certainly necessary to reflect the own standingpoint.

Now for tennis history, it is imo necessary to understand the frames, structures, concepts, mechanics, dynamics of a time period. Its not simply a matter of stats and numbers, although every analysis should be of course fact-based. Those material conditions and mental frames change dramatically over the years, and any time period or time frame needs a specific analysis, considering the general and specific athletical conditions, and also the concepts of contemporary sources, of officials, experts and especially of the players themselves. In the periods pre 1914, and a little different in the early 1920s, we have in short terms, very specific conditions: a very limited and difficult travel, a exclusive amateur game, and very little international competition with top players meeting only twice or 3 times in a year. So it was consequent, that experts, officials and players did concentrate and focus on the main international competition, that is the Davis Cup. To put it into the context of sports evolution: The Davis Cup was one of the very first international competitions in all sports, it started just a few years after the invention of the modern Olympics 1896. No wonder, that this ever evolving competition dominated and framed the concepts of all people, who were involved in tennis.

One note on the sources: Those writers like Myers, Tingay, Danzig, Laney, Maskell, Barrett, Macauley, Joubert, Menzel knew their trade, they were professional tennis writers, they didn't do another job, than follwoing tennis all over the world. Before the internet era began, Tingay was by far the leading statistican in the tennis history, he knew and noted every match he found, could name the longest, shortest match ever, and you never will find an error on his published pages. They had notebooks on paper, private archives and could consult the archives of the Telegraph, The Times, the New York Times, the Wimbledon Library and so on. And most of the articles they had written themselves. Above all: Those writer have seen firsthand more tennis matches of amateurs and pros, than we can imagine today. Of course we can critizise some of their rankings and perpectives, but we should have deep respect for their status as eye-witnesses.

The goals and principles of a historian are clear. Crucial factors are missing in your description - completeness, correctness and relevance of the facts and sources (not only numbers). On second place the historians should put their best efforts to fill the gaps and to fix the factual mistakes given by the predecessors. Then the historian could start with any analyses, concepts, evaluations and so on.
While in mathematics, physics, chemistry and other punctual sciences the facts are scientifically verifiable, in sciences like political history, sports history and any kind of history the facts should be checked, cross-checked, analysed, assessed, reassessed etc..

Talking about "professional writers" and "leading statisticians" sounds great. Only in the last 4-5 years we conducted thousands of discussions about the experts' opinions and statements in this forum. You were probably a witness of them, maybe not of all but at least most of them. We all were witnesses how many mistakes those experts made through the years. Not 1-2-10 but thousands of mistakes. Discovered and factually proven by multiple posters not by one!!!
Still in 2012 or 2014, I can't remember, a poster here had compiled a 2-3 pages list with the mistakes of McCauley. And this list is not full.
Just a fresh case - you said you read the book of Jordan. If you have time please compare it with McCauley. I haven't read Jordan's book but I am sure it has far more data and far more correct data. I am really surprised (maybe I shouldn't anymore) that NoMercy liked your post because as I know the book's info is given by NoMercy and krosero (at least that was what Jordan asked for) !!! And the same NoMercy had several postings through the years blaming one or another expert for his mistakes !!! I didn't find any opposition to those posts back then, except me, Bobby and the Great Dan (from time to time !). The problem is not liking a post, the problem has another name called hypocrisy by some people (not you). I believe the new book info differs largely from McCauley. And this was just 20 years ago when "History of ..." had been considered the Bible for the pro tennis. What to say about 50 years ago, 100 years ago !!! Though, I don't blame those experts. I understand they lived in difficult times, in a big lack of information, in a big lack of communication. We are blessed to have all these. Our children and grandchildren would have even more.
That's the reason we are able to see the grand picture better and more complete than McCauley, Myers, Tingay and company. And that's objectively the natural evolution of the history's completeness and correctness. In all branches of life! 100 years ago and more, in the next 100 years and more!

I respect your profession and agree on the principles you said. But in our case you haven't applied those principles. Accepting the experts' opinion as a pure coin contradicts to any of the principles you mentioned. "Understanding of facts" doesn't mean copy / paste of opinions, especially when they were no official rules for evaluating a player, tournament and making conclusions (in fact as per the ILTF rules for the period 1913-1923 the title "World champion" has been adopted based on the performance in the 3 official championships but I didn't find any official year rankings). In a lack of strict rules many experts and journalists may make their own interpretations and conclusions which of course were/are later a subject of an appropriate judgement by the next experts.

Maybe the first law of the historians includes the (in)completeness, the (in)accuracy and the (ir)relevance of the information they work with. Very often if not almost always they are finding a lot of new info and reassess the facts, the results, the conclusions.
It seems that you didn't pay attention to the words "critical judgement" from my previous post. Every reasonable expert or historian or whatever you call him should ask himself more and more questions to the old experts' words, opinions etc. If he didn't find enough reasonable answers he stayed reserved regarding those opinions. The words "why", "how", "where" were/are his everyday questions.
I posted several questions on the grounds of those experts' opinions. I haven't received any direct answers. The usual responses "expert A said this, expert B said that, Wimbledon is useless" is NOT an analytical critical judgement by any standards of evaluating the history. And I am sure you realize that.

Re the famous challenge system that you and other guys rely on here as a leading factor I will not argue anymore. We can only mention its pretty short history, limited usage (USA, Britain) and its natural rejection by the players and organizers. I would just add that we have today an excellent example for a challenge system - pro boxing. World-wide consideration is that pro boxing is not a sport since years or decades. It is purely considered a show and big moneymaker. The players play 1 match per year (maybe 2 when being generous). Is it a coincidence when a player X may have played only at and won US Nationals and when he has been automatically announced the World champion, the Monarch, the King, the Tzar after the final ? I don't know.

In the lack of strict and appropriate rules for evaluation of players till the Open era the only fair and adequate criterion for evaluation is the PERFORMANCE. I said that explicitly in the first post of the thread. Somebody would ask why exactly the performance. Because the performance is the only criterion which went through the TEST OF TIME. Many different tennis systems were applied, changed and FINALLY REJECTED, with a effective life of 3, 5, 15, 30 years. The performance, the wins, the titles continue to live in the mind of the players yet for 143 years. I believe that this criterion would not be changed in the next 1,000 years. Players like Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Connors, Lendl, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Vines, Budge, Wilding will be remembered with their performance but not because expert A or journalist B said so or expert C said something else.

 

[Drob]

I recently read a pithy aphorism along the lines of "Science proceeds by proving itself wrong." It was something like that. I wrote it into the notes on my telephone and then the telephone cracked. But this cute sentence is consistent with the spirit and rules of the scientific method.

History is a science, albeit a "soft science." It does not require the same rigor of scientific method as physics, but it does require hypothesis testing, which might be done simply through deeper research into original sources, or through thinking through a question. I don't mean empirical research - that is difficult to set up in a historical inquiry.

I thought this excerpt from an article in the publication Sports Science was helpful. Here it is and I will comment after:



The scientific process: Disprove it!





26 Feb 2014 Posted by Ross

I came across this quite excellent video earlier today. It is simple, but effective, in conveying a key concept of scientific thinking, namely that we should seek to disprove, rather than prove our beliefs. If you have five minutes, it’s well worth a watch, and I hope that it challenges you to think hard about your own ‘rules’.
It highlights how easily we can leap to false conclusions in our (human) desire to confirm what we already know. As a consequence, our understanding of any subject, whether it is a rule for increasing numbers or a complex explanation for say, obesity, injury, or performance, is limited by how capable we are of recognizing what is not always obvious and accepting that our rule may not be the rule.
If you are and athlete or coach, for instance, think about how this change in thinking might affect your tactical planning and the methods you use to teach players skills, or to train. How might you be blinding yourself to reality in your desire to confirm your belief? Is the answer obvious, but you’re ‘choosing’ not to see it? For scientists, well, it should be fairly obvious what the implication of the video is:

Top Don’t be the informercial. Rather look for black swans
If you believe something to be true, you absolutely have to set out to disprove it, because otherwise you become the scientific (or coaching) equivalent of a television informercial (Verimark, for SA readers), which gathers the life-changing testimonies of many who have succeeded after trying Product X, and offers them as “conclusive evidence” or proof. And we can start by seeking people for whom X does not work.
So look for the Black Swans, take pleasure in discovering a world that disagrees with you, because you recognize the incompleteness of your own rules, and that understanding grows more from disagreement than confirmation. The extension of this realization should be to reign in your desire to dogmatically and definitively dismiss anything that does not fit your “rule” as fallacious and irrelevant. The mere fact that these initially invisible rules exist should force us to reflect.

The scientific process: Disprove it!

The scientific process asks us to seek contradiction, to disprove what we believe. We make the error of trying to confirm our own beliefs. This simple video illustrates this and leaves us with a va…

sportsscientists.com

 

[Drob]

One neat example of this was carried out by @krosero , with your servant as the "opponent".

Krosero was probing the accepted historical "fact" that Ellsworth Vines hit 32 aces in 12 service games at the 1932 Wimbledon. The wise men of tennis journalism seemed to accept this "fact" and it came through the years into the Collins Encyclopedias. Collins, as I understand, had a huge library of old tennis books the likes of which we would all envy. These most surely included the illustrious tennis writers Urban mentions.

Krosero was uneasy because the statistic did not fit well with some of the other stroke analysis of the match. It just sort of remained out there as a kind of oddity for a long time.

One day, I don't remember how, Krosero found a highly detailed account of the 1932 Wimbledon final in a contemporaneous, and apparently-first-hand, account in Lawn Tennis and Badminton, a British journal at the time. According to this article, the number of "clean aces" was only four! The rest were described as what we call "unreturnables", grazing the racket, netted, or even some return attempts that nearly landed in!

I was happy to let go of the unbelievable figure of 32 aces/game, but was not excited about accepting only four. Krosero's conclusion, based on other information he had learned, was that during that time the British counted pretty well all service winners as "aces" while Americans counted clean aces as aces. I found an intriguing article in The New York Times, not by Danzig, but by the Times reporter in London. Ferdinand Khun was a good journalist and an American. His article indicated 16 - 20 clean aces, different from LTB. Khun was clearly not relying on the official scorekeeper and used the word "about". I argued that the description by Khun was in itself so remarkable that the Times sports desk would question it before publishing it. Based on that account, and Danzig's later description of Vines throwing "service ace after service ace beyond their reach" in reference to the semifinal and final against Crawford and Austin, respectively. "Service ace after service ace beyond their reach" is not a meager four aces. And there were post-mortems in the London press about how British players simply must develop a smashing service to have any chance to compete.

What was all the hoopla about if it was only four aces? It had to be many more, and The New York Times was telling us it was many more. Krosero stuck to his story - the story in LTB. This was, after all, a more specific accounting and a flat-out statement that the number of clean aces was four. Krosero, I believe, surmised that the reporter Khun might have adopted the British method of counting aces. Yet Khun's figure is much lower than the 32 aces that come down through history - Khun describes it as four aces in Vines' fourth service game, and then "about" two aces per game thereafter ≈ 20. When I allowed for the "about" and some sportswriter hyperbole, I brought that down to a more manageable 15-17 aces - something within believability with a wooden racquet and the older service rules but still a remarkable achievement that would explain all the exclamations of awe.

So it stood. Did Krosero have the stronger argument? Yes. I don't disparage LTB at all and theirs is the more specific account. And his speculation that (a) Khun adopted the British method, and (b) this extraordinary figure got its way past the NYT sports editors, is not a stretch - both these things might have occurred.

So, there I was, just a few days ago: having to edit and put-to-bed a chapter on myths surrounding Ellsworth Vines and what to make of them. At this point I had come up short in "disproving" the LTB report. I thought maybe I should try to find microfiche of either the Paris Herald Tribune (Al Laney) or possibly an Associated Press account (possibly an American correspondent). There would have been few American reporters at that match. On re-review of the whole matter, what do I find? Buried among some other clippings recovered by Krosero is an Associated Press account which I cannot read on my computer. I look for reading glasses, which I never use and I find a pair. At the very bottom of the story, I can just read that "Although Vines scored few service aces, Austin never got back a good return and drove many of the American's sizzlingly serves weakly into the net or out of bounds." Good-bye Mr. Khun, good-bye New York Times sports desk, good-bye my reasoned doubts, good-bye too many hours spent fretting over this question.

Time wasted? Shouldn't have overlooked the clipping? (Krosero must have overlooked this last sentence of this hard-to-read article - he hadn't mentioned it). Or, just the process of "soft science" inquiry?

 

[Drob]

What does this story have to do with the point of seeking to disprove your own beliefs and not rejecting out of hand the "black swans."

Two things.

First, while I agree with Urban regarding the pedigree and competence of the key tennis writers of old, some of these fellows are the very ones that created or let pass the "fact" of Vines' 32 aces in 12 service games at the 1932 Wimbledon final. i don't think a one of them ever clarified what was meant by "aces", even years later. I mean has Plutarch gone uncorrected through all these centuries? Has Gibbon been found to be wrong on aspects of Roman history? Is Adolphe Thiers's seminal work on The French Revolution not to questioned, or Thomas Carlyle's famous history counter to Thiers? Would we count on either contemporaneous observer, Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine, for an accurate view of the Revolution? Have we learned more about National-Socialist Germany since William Shirer? More about Churchill since Martin Gilbert? More about Abe Lincoln since Carl Sandburg? More about Babe Ruth since Tom Considine? More about Bill Tilden since Frank Deford? More about John McEnroe since Richard Evans? In all cases, the answer is that we know more than the first writers told us and that we look at them admiringly but not with complete confidence, with varying degrees of skepticism.

Two obvious examples are the relative hostility of some of these writers to the pro game itself. Several also suffered from good-old-days-ism.

Second, in regards to Ivan69's hypothesis, I did not just turn away from the "black swan." I tried to look deeper into certain years to see if this might lead me to change my views. As I described, I looked at the 1930s and barely changed my views. I looked yet more deeply at 1946-52, but yet again change only so slightly my views of the relative strength of the pro and amateur game. And I looked more closely at the period I suspected might be where Ivan's blanket assertion would have strongest support - 1957-61. Here, indeed, the "facts" almost support the idea of the pro game being twice as strong. For 1959-60 he might actually on the money. In doing this review, however, I also noticed that 1962 and 1966 are rather shaky for the Pros.

I went to the trouble because I see Ivan as a serious student of tennis history. The idea of amateurs at 50 percent the strength of the pros struck me as outlandish (and some of the top-three rankings were strange, but that was not my interest). But Ivan deserved to be heard and his idea examined based on the information he provided. I did that to a certain, reasonable degree. I think it was clear that I concluded that Ivan is very far off the mark with regard to most of the 1930s, and 1946-52, and that he is only close to accurate from late 1957 to 1960 or maybe 1961. All other years from 1953 are somewhere in-between, but in a range more like 70 to 100 percent than 50 percent.

This is not in-betweenism, or whatever someone called it. This is (was) looking to see if I could disprove my own views - a "soft science" inquiry. Ultimately, I could not. But I now know better why I had the impressions I had of those comparative eras. And I appreciate even more so than before how bloody gol darn overwhelming the Pro game was 1957-61.

Thank you, Ivan69, as Treblings said. Thanks urban, elegos7, NoMercy, timnz, DMP and others who contributed to the inquiry.

 

[Ivan69]

I recently read a pithy aphorism along the lines of "Science proceeds by proving itself wrong." It was something like that. I wrote it into the notes on my telephone and then the telephone cracked. But this cute sentence is consistent with the spirit and rules of the scientific method.

History is a science, albeit a "soft science." It does not require the same rigor of scientific method as physics, but it does require hypothesis testing, which might be done simply through deeper research into original sources, or through thinking through a question. I don't mean empirical research - that is difficult to set up in a historical inquiry.

I thought this excerpt from an article in the publication Sports Science was helpful. Here it is and I will comment after:



The scientific process: Disprove it!





26 Feb 2014 Posted by Ross

I came across this quite excellent video earlier today. It is simple, but effective, in conveying a key concept of scientific thinking, namely that we should seek to disprove, rather than prove our beliefs. If you have five minutes, it’s well worth a watch, and I hope that it challenges you to think hard about your own ‘rules’.
It highlights how easily we can leap to false conclusions in our (human) desire to confirm what we already know. As a consequence, our understanding of any subject, whether it is a rule for increasing numbers or a complex explanation for say, obesity, injury, or performance, is limited by how capable we are of recognizing what is not always obvious and accepting that our rule may not be the rule.
If you are and athlete or coach, for instance, think about how this change in thinking might affect your tactical planning and the methods you use to teach players skills, or to train. How might you be blinding yourself to reality in your desire to confirm your belief? Is the answer obvious, but you’re ‘choosing’ not to see it? For scientists, well, it should be fairly obvious what the implication of the video is:

Top Don’t be the informercial. Rather look for black swans
If you believe something to be true, you absolutely have to set out to disprove it, because otherwise you become the scientific (or coaching) equivalent of a television informercial (Verimark, for SA readers), which gathers the life-changing testimonies of many who have succeeded after trying Product X, and offers them as “conclusive evidence” or proof. And we can start by seeking people for whom X does not work.
So look for the Black Swans, take pleasure in discovering a world that disagrees with you, because you recognize the incompleteness of your own rules, and that understanding grows more from disagreement than confirmation. The extension of this realization should be to reign in your desire to dogmatically and definitively dismiss anything that does not fit your “rule” as fallacious and irrelevant. The mere fact that these initially invisible rules exist should force us to reflect.

The scientific process: Disprove it!

The scientific process asks us to seek contradiction, to disprove what we believe. We make the error of trying to confirm our own beliefs. This simple video illustrates this and leaves us with a va…

sportsscientists.com

Lovely article giving an unconscious measurement of the human perception. The theory is interesting.

 

[Ivan69]

The idea of amateurs at 50 percent the strength of the pros struck me as outlandish (and some of the top-three rankings were strange, but that was not my interest).

All other years from 1953 are somewhere in-between, but in a range more like 70 to 100 percent than 50 percent

Drob, please take a look at post No 130. The percentages are in fact 66% to 76%.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

Just a fresh case - you said you read the book of Jordan. If you have time please compare it with McCauley. I haven't read Jordan's book but I am sure it has far more data and far more correct data. I am really surprised (maybe I shouldn't anymore) that NoMercy liked your post because as I know the book's info is given by NoMercy and krosero (at least that was what Jordan asked for) !!! And the same NoMercy had several postings through the years blaming one or another expert for his mistakes !!! I didn't find any opposition to those posts back then, except me, Bobby and the Great Dan (from time to time !). The problem is not liking a post, the problem has another name called hypocrisy by some people (not you). I believe the new book info differs largely from McCauley. And this was just 20 years ago when "History of ..." had been considered the Bible for the pro tennis. What to say about 50 years ago, 100 years ago !!! Though, I don't blame those experts. I understand they lived in difficult times, in a big lack of information, in a big lack of communication. We are blessed to have all these. Our children and grandchildren would have even more.
That's the reason we are able to see the grand picture better and more complete than McCauley, Myers, Tingay and company. And that's objectively the natural evolution of the history's completeness and correctness. In all branches of life! 100 years ago and more, in the next 100 years and more!

I find it a good principle when reviewing a book to have actually read it. Yes my book The Professional Tennis Archive does indeed have much more data and much more correct data than McCauley's book. The bulk of my research was conducted when I was working many hours each day on my book (but a small portion was from years earlier, as I have been a tennis researcher for many years). Some of the data is newly discovered (in some cases I have unearthed results that have not been published since the day of the original match reports). Some data comes from excellent researchers who are (or have been) members of this forum such as NoMercy, krosero and AndrewTas (I emailed AndrewTas after originally publishing). All the results they emailed to me are listed in the introduction. I did not consult mainstream writers of tennis history books because they have not published research on the pre-open era pro tour (do some of them even know what the pro tour was?!) McCauley died long ago so I could not speak to him. Geist was no longer a member of this forum when I joined so I did not speak to him (I was sad to learn he has recently died). Geist provided a lot of data to McCauley.

NoMercy is one of the very best tennis researchers there has ever been, I don't care whether you like him or not Ivan, that is a fact. Tennisbase contains NoMercy's data, but some is not from him (and the data not from him is of varying quality). Tennisbase and McCauley were used as sources in parts of my book (I sifted out some errors when I went through this data). I have continued to work on my book since first publishing in 2019 and I believe I have eradicated virtually all errors now. I can update it when necessary and it is now 10 pages longer than the original version of April 2019 (I found quite a number of results in the past 6 months). The majority of results have been found now. There are still some results outstanding and some matches that were never reported anywhere so the results of these matches will never be known. Full itineraries for the pros were not published, so we do not know how many matches remain to be found, but we can estimate. McCauley's book was a very important book and probably the main reason I became so interested in pro tennis in the first place, but there are a lot of errors in that book and a lot of results he did not find.

I agree very much with urban's post about eyewitnesses. Before the open era there is very little surviving TV footage (and virtually none of the pro tour). A few pro matches were televised, but knowing the wiping policies of the BBC in the 1950s and 1960s, it is doubtful whether much footage of Wembley still exists. On youtube there are newsreel fragments. Therefore we rely heavily on the accounts of players and journalists to learn what the sport of tennis was like back then. A ranking list for 1937 of 1. Hans Nusslein 2. Bill Tilden (no mention of Vines or Perry) is not based on any sense of reality at all. Any system that came up with this ranking is deeply flawed and does not give sufficient weight to the annual pro tour which was the main reason players turned pro in the first place. That's a great shame, as it is clear that you have spent a long time compiling this list, but if the ranking system is so flawed, it exposes you to a lot of criticism.

 

[NoMercy]

I find it a good principle when reviewing a book to have actually read it. Yes my book The Professional Tennis Archive does indeed have much more data and much more correct data than McCauley's book. The bulk of my research was conducted when I was working many hours each day on my book (but a small portion was from years earlier, as I have been a tennis researcher for many years). Some of the data is newly discovered (in some cases I have unearthed results that have not been published since the day of the original match reports). Some data comes from excellent researchers who are (or have been) members of this forum such as NoMercy, krosero and AndrewTas (I emailed AndrewTas after originally publishing). All the results they emailed to me are listed in the introduction. I did not consult mainstream writers of tennis history books because they have not published research on the pre-open era pro tour (do some of them even know what the pro tour was?!) McCauley died long ago so I could not speak to him. Geist was no longer a member of this forum when I joined so I did not speak to him (I was sad to learn he has recently died). Geist provided a lot of data to McCauley.

NoMercy is one of the very best tennis researchers there has ever been, I don't care whether you like him or not Ivan, that is a fact. Tennisbase contains NoMercy's data, but some is not from him (and the data not from him is of varying quality). Tennisbase and McCauley were used as sources in parts of my book (I sifted out some errors when I went through this data). I have continued to work on my book since first publishing in 2019 and I believe I have eradicated virtually all errors now. I can update it when necessary and it is now 10 pages longer than the original version of April 2019 (I found quite a number of results in the past 6 months). The majority of results have been found now. There are still some results outstanding and some matches that were never reported anywhere so the results of these matches will never be known. Full itineraries for the pros were not published, so we do not know how many matches remain to be found, but we can estimate. McCauley's book was a very important book and probably the main reason I became so interested in pro tennis in the first place, but there are a lot of errors in that book and a lot of results he did not find.

I agree very much with urban's post about eyewitnesses. Before the open era there is very little surviving TV footage (and virtually none of the pro tour). A few pro matches were televised, but knowing the wiping policies of the BBC in the 1950s and 1960s, it is doubtful whether much footage of Wembley still exists. On youtube there are newsreel fragments. Therefore we rely heavily on the accounts of players and journalists to learn what the sport of tennis was like back then. A ranking list for 1937 of 1. Hans Nusslein 2. Bill Tilden (no mention of Vines or Perry) is not based on any sense of reality at all. Any system that came up with this ranking is deeply flawed and does not give sufficient weight to the annual pro tour which was the main reason players turned pro in the first place. That's a great shame, as it is clear that you have spent a long time compiling this list, but if the ranking system is so flawed, it exposes you to a lot of criticism.

And 1935?

I don’t like combined rankings, because it‘s fanta-tennis, but Tilden ahead of Perry?
That’s hilarious.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I recently read a pithy aphorism along the lines of "Science proceeds by proving itself wrong." It was something like that. I wrote it into the notes on my telephone and then the telephone cracked. But this cute sentence is consistent with the spirit and rules of the scientific method.

History is a science, albeit a "soft science." It does not require the same rigor of scientific method as physics, but it does require hypothesis testing, which might be done simply through deeper research into original sources, or through thinking through a question. I don't mean empirical research - that is difficult to set up in a historical inquiry.

I thought this excerpt from an article in the publication Sports Science was helpful. Here it is and I will comment after:



The scientific process: Disprove it!





26 Feb 2014 Posted by Ross

I came across this quite excellent video earlier today. It is simple, but effective, in conveying a key concept of scientific thinking, namely that we should seek to disprove, rather than prove our beliefs. If you have five minutes, it’s well worth a watch, and I hope that it challenges you to think hard about your own ‘rules’.
It highlights how easily we can leap to false conclusions in our (human) desire to confirm what we already know. As a consequence, our understanding of any subject, whether it is a rule for increasing numbers or a complex explanation for say, obesity, injury, or performance, is limited by how capable we are of recognizing what is not always obvious and accepting that our rule may not be the rule.
If you are and athlete or coach, for instance, think about how this change in thinking might affect your tactical planning and the methods you use to teach players skills, or to train. How might you be blinding yourself to reality in your desire to confirm your belief? Is the answer obvious, but you’re ‘choosing’ not to see it? For scientists, well, it should be fairly obvious what the implication of the video is:

Top Don’t be the informercial. Rather look for black swans
If you believe something to be true, you absolutely have to set out to disprove it, because otherwise you become the scientific (or coaching) equivalent of a television informercial (Verimark, for SA readers), which gathers the life-changing testimonies of many who have succeeded after trying Product X, and offers them as “conclusive evidence” or proof. And we can start by seeking people for whom X does not work.
So look for the Black Swans, take pleasure in discovering a world that disagrees with you, because you recognize the incompleteness of your own rules, and that understanding grows more from disagreement than confirmation. The extension of this realization should be to reign in your desire to dogmatically and definitively dismiss anything that does not fit your “rule” as fallacious and irrelevant. The mere fact that these initially invisible rules exist should force us to reflect. or "Scientists say" or "

The scientific process: Disprove it!

The scientific process asks us to seek contradiction, to disprove what we believe. We make the error of trying to confirm our own beliefs. This simple video illustrates this and leaves us with a va…

sportsscientists.com

Whenever some advocate of a view, especially with political or economic ramifications, spouts out the phrase "Science tells us" or "scientists say", or "the science shows", they obviously have no idea what "science" is. Science is not a body of knowledge, but rather a methodology of inquiry, testing hypotheses against facts in an attempt to disprove the hypothesis. The hypothesis is never "proved", but is allowed to remain standing until it is disproved.

 

[DMP]

First of all I want to commend the high level of argument being forward by many. It is a pleasure to read.

I have one main comment about the discussion and that is to to do with the question of INTENT, which is, I think a crucial aspect of everything.

I think there are two aspects.

The first is what was the INTENT of those past observers when they wrote about tennis? The facts of what they wrote are available to a diligent, or lucky, historian, and it is very important to find it. But in reading what they wrote one must also ask what was their intent? My guess is that if questioned they would say they were trying to describe as honestly as possible what they had seen. However there could also have been other intents - they could have been trying to boost the record of a player because they were a compatriot, or they particularly liked the style of play, or they were traditionalists who preferred the status quo to radical changes (e.g. Maskell, Hopman), or any one of a number of biases people can have.

So one other task for a historian is to try to get inside the mind of those past authors and unearth any biases, to try to get the truest picture possible of what happened. This is where history gets messy and contentious, but it is something that must be done.

The second INTENT is that of the players. What was important to them and which matches and competitors were critical in each year to them? I have given the example before of the early years of Open tennis when I believe there was a disconnect between what was important to the players (money and respect), and what was important to the more traditional tennis writers (the traditional tournaments). In general I would say the drivers of the intent of players is one of three things - money, prestige, or bragging rights (beating particular players at particular venues). I think any assessment of the top players in every year must look at what the players themselves considered important, not necessarily what writers, or authorities, or even audiences thought was important. Again this a difficult area because how do you get in the mind of a player from 50 or 100 years ago?

Only by assessing both what was reported, and the mindset of the reporters and players, do you get a true picture. Some years it is easy, some years it is really hard.

 

[urban]

I didn't mention Joe McCauley, but Duncan Macauley in my post. Joe has a lot of errors, especially in dates and scores, maybe because he used tons of handwritten material. Nevertheless his book on pro tennis was ground breaking. Bud Collins was a fine writer and commentator, but not that good of a statistican. In his book "Total Tennis" he had an appendix with stats for individual players, which were sampled by some co-editors, but were quite horrible. By the way, i emailed him about some errors, and he accepted it, and in the next editions of his now called "History of Tennis" he dismissed this appendix completely. Generally, most tennis books were more narratives, than collection of results. One exception was the Wimbledon book of John Barrett in the edition of 1986, because it contained in an appendix all results and draws of Wimbledon since 1877.

But Tingay or Maskell or Barrett are different matters. I mentioned Maskells account of the pro tour 1929-1939. The book is not a collection of results, but a biographical narrative, but - to my surprise - its very accurate and precise, from his own participation at the US pro 1930 with a questionable seeding (the foreign pros had to play first under themselves), to the big world series tours in the US, and the Tilden tours across Europe with places like Southport, Berlin with so new so called World pro champs at Rot-Weiß, or Vienna, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Hamburg and many other cities and sometimes individual matches and results. Maskell was playing there on the pro tour with guys like Ramillon, Plaa, Vines, Cochet, Hunter, Barnes and Budge and was active and instrumental in founding the Wembley and Olympia pro events at London. Like Myers and Tingay, he was present at the fine Wembley round robin 1939, where Budge, Vines, Tilden and Nüsslein competed, and Budge beat Nüsslein in an excellent match. It is the best narrative account, i have read on the pre WWII pro tour.

Tingay has virtually no errors, and he had an ultra wide data base to rely on. In his Guiness Book of Tennis, he mentions for instance the win of Eric Potter over Tilden at Cannes 1930. He must have had those Riviera results of 1930. Or he mentions the first ever issued British ranking of 1881 by R. D. Osborn: 1 W. Renshaw, 2. Lawford, Richardson, 4.Woodhouse, 6. E. Renshaw, 6. Lubbock, 7. Hartley. Now, he certainly had no Tennis Base to his use, but must have relied on written documents, nobody can remember those list in his head. Same goes for Duncan Macauley, he gives en passant all Wimbledon seedings since the invention of seedings. Those Wimbledon seedings are imo quite important, because they give a good representation of the common sense World Rankings of the previous period.

The big gaps in tennis history were in the field of statistical collections of titles, matches and events, and especially for the old pro tennis tours. Michel Sutter filled it a bit for the post 1945 era (on the basis of L'Equipe). the former player Jim McManus wrote a large book with all tournament and winners he could find. The fault and reason for those gaps laid however more in the poor record keeping by the tennis pros themselves, due to the bad organisation status of the pros. In other sports, especially in US pro sports, but also in semi-pro soccer leagues in Europe, you could find since the 1920s reliable year end results of matches, individual players, goal scorers and so on. But not so in pro tennis, nobody, no Pyle, Harris, Kramer, Trabert, Sedgman or Rosewall has written down or published the basic data of the pro year, say the complete results, the win-loss records, prize money for those 10-12 pros on the tour. Nobody gave those lists to AP or UPI or New York Times or wherever, to publish ist. Only in 1966, when Wally Dill, and later when McCall and Hunt took over pro tennis, ther were more regular pubished updates first on the US tour, and since 1968 for the whole tour of NTL and WCT. And even the ATP for a too long time had very poor record keeping for the first years of open tennis.

So to fill these gaps more and more with the help of the internet, it required the hard work of people like No Mercy, Krosero, Scott Tennis and others. To find those missing results in a reliable way, you have to reconstruct the schedule, the dates and places of the pros, then to go the hard way, to write to far away local newspaper archives with foreign languages, and extract some new findings out of completely disordered, often chaotic newspaper material. I hope, those new findings will go more into the ATP stats. The ATP as some responsiblity also for the past of the sport, and it should give those studies of pro tennis history more room, maybe in an own section on their webside. I see a progress here: One example, when i first read the ATP side some 20 years ago, Laver had 39 titles in the open era, now he has 72.

 

[NoMercy]

First of all I want to commend the high level of argument being forward by many. It is a pleasure to read.

I have one main comment about the discussion and that is to to do with the question of INTENT, which is, I think a crucial aspect of everything.

I think there are two aspects.

The first is what was the INTENT of those past observers when they wrote about tennis? The facts of what they wrote are available to a diligent, or lucky, historian, and it is very important to find it. But in reading what they wrote one must also ask what was their intent? My guess is that if questioned they would say they were trying to describe as honestly as possible what they had seen. However there could also have been other intents - they could have been trying to boost the record of a player because they were a compatriot, or they particularly liked the style of play, or they were traditionalists who preferred the status quo to radical changes (e.g. Maskell, Hopman), or any one of a number of biases people can have.

So one other task for a historian is to try to get inside the mind of those past authors and unearth any biases, to try to get the truest picture possible of what happened. This is where history gets messy and contentious, but it is something that must be done.

The second INTENT is that of the players. What was important to them and which matches and competitors were critical in each year to them? I have given the example before of the early years of Open tennis when I believe there was a disconnect between what was important to the players (money and respect), and what was important to the more traditional tennis writers (the traditional tournaments). In general I would say the drivers of the intent of players is one of three things - money, prestige, or bragging rights (beating particular players at particular venues). I think any assessment of the top players in every year must look at what the players themselves considered important, not necessarily what writers, or authorities, or even audiences thought was important. Again this a difficult area because how do you get in the mind of a player from 50 or 100 years ago?

Only by assessing both what was reported, and the mindset of the reporters and players, do you get a true picture. Some years it is easy, some years it is really hard.

The only important intent is the players one.
I don’t really care about journalists, writers or whatever.
I care only about players and what they thought it was important to be the best.

So, if Johnston went to Europe only twice (and one was because of the Davis Cup), it means that he didn’t care to win Wimbledon. He didn’t even went back in 1924 as defending champion.

If Tilden didn’t go to Europe 1922-1926, it means that he didn’t care to win Wimbledon or the other European tournaments.
When did he go back? In 1927?
Why? Because in 1926 he lost to Lacoste and Cochet and he knew he was not the best anymore. And to be the best, in those years, you must beat the best. That’s why he went back in 1927.

If Lacoste never came back to USA after 1927 (as double defending champion!), it means that the US Nationals were not important to him. Because the Davis Cup was won and the best were in Europe now.

If Cochet didn’t mind to play the US Nationals in 1929 (as defending champion) and in 1930, it means he didn’t care. Because he was already the number one guy after winning the Davis Cup.

All these info are pretty basic, but it seems some people can’t understand them.

 

[Ivan69]

I don’t really care about journalists, writers or whatever.

Oh, really? Wasn't you who liked urban's posts about defending the journalists and writers?

 

[Dan Lobb]

The only important intent is the players one.
I don’t really care about journalists, writers or whatever.
I care only about players and what they thought it was important to be the best.

So, if Johnston went to Europe only twice (and one was because of the Davis Cup), it means that he didn’t care to win Wimbledon. He didn’t even went back in 1924 as defending champion.

If Tilden didn’t go to Europe 1922-1926, it means that he didn’t care to win Wimbledon or the other European tournaments.
When did he go back? In 1927?
Why? Because in 1926 he lost to Lacoste and Cochet and he knew he was not the best anymore. And to be the best, in those years, you must beat the best. That’s why he went back in 1927.

If Lacoste never came back to USA after 1927 (as double defending champion!), it means that the US Nationals were not important to him. Because the Davis Cup was won and the best were in Europe now.

If Cochet didn’t mind to play the US Nationals in 1929 (as defending champion) and in 1930, it means he didn’t care. Because he was already the number one guy after winning the Davis Cup.

All these info are pretty basic, but it seems some people can’t understand them.

Another reason why these champions of the 1920's did not go to extraordinary lengths to defend their titles was the difficulty of travel across the Atlantic, and Lacoste, for example, made his money in the clothing business and did not have much time to travel by boat. No airplane service then.
Who would try for the Grand Slam? Vines was the first in 1933, but the long boat trip and subsequent heat wave in Australia may have reduced his play level, and it was Crawford who made the first near GS in 1933. Budge made the big trip to Australia in 1938 to try for the GS. You wouldn't even make this huge trip unless you had a good chance of winning the GS, it was expensive travel.

 

[Ivan69]

Another reason why these champions of the 1920's did not go to extraordinary lengths to defend their titles was the difficulty of travel across the Atlantic, and Lacoste, for example, made his money in the clothing business and did not have much time to travel by boat. No airplane service then.
Who would try for the Grand Slam? Vines was the first in 1933, but the long boat trip and subsequent heat wave in Australia may have reduced his play level, and it was Crawford who made the first near GS in 1933. Budge made the big trip to Australia in 1938 to try for the GS. You wouldn't even make this huge trip unless you had a good chance of winning the GS, it was expensive travel.

I would say not another reason but basic reason - long travel and finances.

 

[NoMercy]

Oh, really? Wasn't you who liked urban's posts about defending the journalists and writers?

I like urban posts in general.
Also, if I like a post, I can like just most of it or part of it.
I know, it can be a difficult understanding for you, but it’s what it is.

 

[NoMercy]

Another reason why these champions of the 1920's did not go to extraordinary lengths to defend their titles was the difficulty of travel across the Atlantic, and Lacoste, for example, made his money in the clothing business and did not have much time to travel by boat. No airplane service then.
Who would try for the Grand Slam? Vines was the first in 1933, but the long boat trip and subsequent heat wave in Australia may have reduced his play level, and it was Crawford who made the first near GS in 1933. Budge made the big trip to Australia in 1938 to try for the GS. You wouldn't even make this huge trip unless you had a good chance of winning the GS, it was expensive travel.

Exactly.
They were traveling only for the titles that really matter: the Davis Cup.

 

[urban]

Maybe the top players in the 1920s were also aware of the bad experience of Suzanne Lenglen in 1921. She was ill after the long boat travel to New York, and had to play immediately the US Nationals. And when a player defaulted, she had to play top contender Molla Mallory first. Still unwell and ill, she lost by own default after one set. That was the only loss in her prime, and it did shake her image in the USA. Tilden said even before the match, that he had experienced a similar loss of form in the wake of the long travel, when arriving in France. I think, in 1921 Tilden had serious health problems in Europe, even before Wimbledon.
We should also consider regarding the spare international status of sports in general, that the first soccer World Cup started only in 1930, some 30 years after the Davis Cup. And many top European nations missed this Uruguay WC, because of the long boat trip. Vice versa, the champions Uruguay didn't defend their title in Italy 1934. England, which had the oldest pro soccer game, had no interest in the WC, and participated only in 1950 (and lost to the USA).

 

[NoMercy]

Maybe the top players in the 1920s were also aware of the bad experience of Suzanne Lenglen in 1921. She was ill after the long boat travel to New York, and had to play immediately the US Nationals. And when a player defaulted, she had to play top contender Molla Mallory. Still unwell and ill, she lost by own default after one set. That was the only loss in her prime, and it did shake her image in the USA. Tilden said before the match, that he had experienced a similar loss of form in the wake of the long travel, when arriving in France. I think, in 1921 Tilden had serious health problems in Europe, even before Wimbledon.

Yes.
Tilden in 1921 was never at his best because of that trip. He arrived in Europe sick, he played the WHHC completely out of form, he skipped Beckenhan and he played only the CR at Wimbledon.
Back in the states, he was still out of shape and was lucky to win the Us Nationals because Johnston got food poison.
So he went back to Europe only when it really mattered: after his losses at the hands of Cochet and Lacoste (and of course for the Davis Cup).

 

[NonP]

What does this story have to do with the point of seeking to disprove your own beliefs and not rejecting out of hand the "black swans."

Two things.

First, while I agree with Urban regarding the pedigree and competence of the key tennis writers of old, some of these fellows are the very ones that created or let pass the "fact" of Vines' 32 aces in 12 service games at the 1932 Wimbledon final. i don't think a one of them ever clarified what was meant by "aces", even years later. I mean has Plutarch gone uncorrected through all these centuries? Has Gibbon been found to be wrong on aspects of Roman history? Is Adolphe Thiers's seminal work on The French Revolution not to questioned, or Thomas Carlyle's famous history counter to Thiers? Would we count on either contemporaneous observer, Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine, for an accurate view of the Revolution? Have we learned more about National-Socialist Germany since William Shirer? More about Churchill since Martin Gilbert? More about Abe Lincoln since Carl Sandburg? More about Babe Ruth since Tom Considine? More about Bill Tilden since Frank Deford? More about John McEnroe since Richard Evans? In all cases, the answer is that we know more than the first writers told us and that we look at them admiringly but not with complete confidence, with varying degrees of skepticism.

Two obvious examples are the relative hostility of some of these writers to the pro game itself. Several also suffered from good-old-days-ism.

Second, in regards to Ivan69's hypothesis, I did not just turn away from the "black swan." I tried to look deeper into certain years to see if this might lead me to change my views. As I described, I looked at the 1930s and barely changed my views. I looked yet more deeply at 1946-52, but yet again change only so slightly my views of the relative strength of the pro and amateur game. And I looked more closely at the period I suspected might be where Ivan's blanket assertion would have strongest support - 1957-61. Here, indeed, the "facts" almost support the idea of the pro game being twice as strong. For 1959-60 he might actually on the money. In doing this review, however, I also noticed that 1962 and 1966 are rather shaky for the Pros.

I went to the trouble because I see Ivan as a serious student of tennis history. The idea of amateurs at 50 percent the strength of the pros struck me as outlandish (and some of the top-three rankings were strange, but that was not my interest). But Ivan deserved to be heard and his idea examined based on the information he provided. I did that to a certain, reasonable degree. I think it was clear that I concluded that Ivan is very far off the mark with regard to most of the 1930s, and 1946-52, and that he is only close to accurate from late 1957 to 1960 or maybe 1961. All other years from 1953 are somewhere in-between, but in a range more like 70 to 100 percent than 50 percent.

This is not in-betweenism, or whatever someone called it. This is (was) looking to see if I could disprove my own views - a "soft science" inquiry. Ultimately, I could not. But I now know better why I had the impressions I had of those comparative eras. And I appreciate even more so than before how bloody gol darn overwhelming the Pro game was 1957-61.

Thank you, Ivan69, as Treblings said. Thanks urban, elegos7, NoMercy, timnz and others who contributed to the inquiry.

Are you seriously trying to compare your good-faith disagreement with krosero to what's going on here? The former concerns the number of aces in a particular match which, hazy definitions notwithstanding, is a simple enough factual matter for those of us who can accept relevant findings even when they conflict with our currently (and strongly!) held views and beliefs, while the latter is a context-free distortion of history which rejects any contemporary accounts as "sympathies or personal feelings" of "journalists" when they run counter to a preconceived "methodology" that is little more than a bean-counting operation.

And sorry but your bud is by no means "a serious student of tennis history." A serious historian tries to match his narratives and analyses with facts and evidence, not the other way around, and he certainly has enough foresight and humility to recognize that when his own conclusions differ from long-standing consensus he's likely missed several wrinkles which explain the discrepancies. You can't possibly say any of this describes the wannabe historian here.

Not gonna bother with your list of big-name historians because it is frankly too silly to take seriously. To compare this "inquiry" with the centuries-old scholarship surrounding the masterworks of a Plutarch, Gibbon, Carlyle, Burke or Shirer is like saying Robert Caro and Rush Limbaugh deserve to be treated with similar respect. That's why I used the admittedly contentious term "bothsidesism" earlier, and it still applies, despite this latest effort on your part to convince us otherwise.

One more thing:

I find it a good principle when reviewing a book to have actually read it. Yes my book The Professional Tennis Archive does indeed have much more data and much more correct data than McCauley's book. The bulk of my research was conducted when I was working many hours each day on my book (but a small portion was from years earlier, as I have been a tennis researcher for many years). Some of the data is newly discovered (in some cases I have unearthed results that have not been published since the day of the original match reports). Some data comes from excellent researchers who are (or have been) members of this forum such as NoMercy, krosero and AndrewTas (I emailed AndrewTas after originally publishing). All the results they emailed to me are listed in the introduction. I did not consult mainstream writers of tennis history books because they have not published research on the pre-open era pro tour (do some of them even know what the pro tour was?!) McCauley died long ago so I could not speak to him. Geist was no longer a member of this forum when I joined so I did not speak to him (I was sad to learn he has recently died). Geist provided a lot of data to McCauley.

NoMercy is one of the very best tennis researchers there has ever been, I don't care whether you like him or not Ivan, that is a fact. Tennisbase contains NoMercy's data, but some is not from him (and the data not from him is of varying quality). Tennisbase and McCauley were used as sources in parts of my book (I sifted out some errors when I went through this data). I have continued to work on my book since first publishing in 2019 and I believe I have eradicated virtually all errors now. I can update it when necessary and it is now 10 pages longer than the original version of April 2019 (I found quite a number of results in the past 6 months). The majority of results have been found now. There are still some results outstanding and some matches that were never reported anywhere so the results of these matches will never be known. Full itineraries for the pros were not published, so we do not know how many matches remain to be found, but we can estimate. McCauley's book was a very important book and probably the main reason I became so interested in pro tennis in the first place, but there are a lot of errors in that book and a lot of results he did not find.

I agree very much with urban's post about eyewitnesses. Before the open era there is very little surviving TV footage (and virtually none of the pro tour). A few pro matches were televised, but knowing the wiping policies of the BBC in the 1950s and 1960s, it is doubtful whether much footage of Wembley still exists. On youtube there are newsreel fragments. Therefore we rely heavily on the accounts of players and journalists to learn what the sport of tennis was like back then. A ranking list for 1937 of 1. Hans Nusslein 2. Bill Tilden (no mention of Vines or Perry) is not based on any sense of reality at all. Any system that came up with this ranking is deeply flawed and does not give sufficient weight to the annual pro tour which was the main reason players turned pro in the first place. That's a great shame, as it is clear that you have spent a long time compiling this list, but if the ranking system is so flawed, it exposes you to a lot of criticism.

As far as I know your opportunistic nonreader has yet to come up with a tenth of original research as his BFF @NoMercy and yet he somehow pretends to know better about the eras in question. Call me biased but that strikes me as more of the same posturing we've come to expect from him.

 

[NoMercy]

Another nice story that hopefully can make understand the mentality of that period.

In 1928 Tilden wrote some newspapers articles in England during Wimbledon.
And he was paid for that.
As an amateur he could not be paid for articles regarding a tournament in which he was playing.
So it was banned from the Davis Cup by the US federation.
Lacoste and Cochet were very disappointed and went to US and French consuls to express their disappointment. They said they were not going to play in the CR if Tilden was not playing. And that would have been a major problem for French tennis.
So US consul, willing to avoid an international political problem, overruled the US federation call and Tilden played.

What does this tell us?
That even if Davis Cup was top of the tops, without beating Tilden (even if he was not the best anymore, he was still Tilden), it didn‘t have the same importance for Lacoste and Cochet.

 

[Ivan69]

If Tilden didn’t go to Europe 1922-1926, it means that he didn’t care to win Wimbledon or the other European tournaments.

"W. T. Tilden evidently contemplated going to Wimbledon for the English championships; but at the last moment wrote to W. M. Johnston, who is In Europe, that he could not go. As to Tilden, it has yet to be seen how he will shape with his injured finger."
Referee, Sydney, 13 Jun 1923

"Richards, the American tennis player, arrived in London today in order to participate in the competitions at Wimbledon. He expressed the opinion that the American Association will not permit Tilden to partner Norman Brookes, the Australian player, and believes that the association will insist on Tilden being a partner with an American Olympic tennis player with a view to practice."
Reuter, London, 11 Jun 1924

"The settlement of the dispute between Tilden and the American Association will leave him free to go to England.
Richards, the American tennis player, expressed the opinion that the American Association will not permit Tilden to partner Norman Brookes, the Australian player, and believes that the association will insist on Tilden being a partner with an American Olympic tennis player with a view to practice, They (AA), of course, have a perfect right to say this, if they pay Tilden's expenses as one of a team to go to Europe for the Olympic Games; but still, it would be a great interference with a player's freedom of choice. After all, lawn tennis is only a game, and they don't own a man because they send him to Europe. It is such pin-pricks that create trouble."
Referee, Sydney, 18 Jun 1924

(Finally Tilden refused to play in partnership with a second hand player neither in London nor in Olympics and did not travel to Europe.)

Before someone pretends to understand the facts he needs first to know the facts. We have heard here too many interpretations !!!

 

[Ivan69]

Exactly.
They were traveling only for the titles that really matter: the Davis Cup.

That even if Davis Cup was top of the tops

"If Tilden plays in the doubles with Brookes, we shall have one of the best Wimbledons in the history of the world's greatest tournament. The settlement of the dispute between Tilden and the American Association will leave him free to go to England. It would scarcely have done for him to go while stating that business prevented him playing for his country in the Davis Cup. "

Referee, Sydney, 11 Jun 1924

Tilden was able to not play for Davis due to his business.

NO COMMENTS!
(not saying it's the greatest but at least not weaker than DC)

 

[NoMercy]

"If Tilden plays in the doubles with Brookes, we shall have one of the best Wimbledons in the history of the world's greatest tournament. The settlement of the dispute between Tilden and the American Association will leave him free to go to England. It would scarcely have done for him to go while stating that business prevented him playing for his country in the Davis Cup. "

Referee, Sydney, 11 Jun 1924

Tilden was able to not play for Davis due to his business.

NO COMMENTS!
(not saying it's the greatest but at least not weaker than DC)

Not sure to understand what you want to say.
Tilden didn’t go to Europe, why?
Because he had something else to do?
Why did he go in 27-28-29-30?

“Tilden was able to not play for Davis due to his business.”
Not sure to understand this.
In 1924 Tilden didn’t play in Davis Cup?
Really?

 

[Ivan69]

Not sure to understand what you want to say.
Tilden didn’t go to Europe, why?
Because he had something else to do?
Why did he go in 27-28-29-30?

“Tilden was able to not play for Davis due to his business.”
Not sure to understand this.
In 1924 Tilden didn’t play in Davis Cup?
Really?

You always don't understand when you want not to understand.
1. The newspaper called Wim "the world's greatest tournament" in contrary to you.
2. Tilden was willing to not play Davis if he was forced to stop writing. US association finally agreed that he can continue to write and re-entered him in the playlist. Davis was not something what mattered most for him. It was his business.

I told why he didn't go in Europe. It's not that he didn't care.

 

[NoMercy]

You always don't understand when you want not to understand.
1. The newspaper called Wim "the world's greatest tournament" in contrary to you.
2. Tilden was willing to not play Davis if he was forced to stop writing. US association finally agreed that he can continue to write and re-entered him in the playlist. Davis was not something what mattered most for him. It was his business.

I told why he didn't go in Europe. It's not that he didn't care.

Apparently you don’t know what you are talking about.
Tilden and the US federation found an agreement about player-writer situation.
They told Tilden that he could have continued writing but at the condition that he was not permitted to write any articles under his name regarding tournaments he was playing.
Tilden also tried to cheat on this decision, writing articles using a fake alter-ego that was “interviewing” him regarding the tournament he was playing, but he was discovered and suspended.
He finally decided to agree to US federation limits, because in 1924 he was not ready yet to give up amateurism.

Even in 1928, when he was already at very bad relation with the USLTA, he agreed to further limit his job according US federation rules, just to be reinstated after the suspension.

In 1923 he didn’t go to Europe because he had already decided to play tournaments and exhibitions in the mid-West.
Because he didn’t care to go to Europe.
"When the news that johnston was going across first flashed over the wire a few weeks ago, many of the fans thought that 'Big Bill' Tilden would immediately make plans to join his little rival in the invasion.
But unfortunately Tilden had already promised to play in various tournaments through the middle west."

You should really not talk to me about tennis. You just ridicule yourself.
You should try with other sports, maybe darts??

 

[Drob]

That Tilden was planning to go to the 1924 Olympics (and by extension Wimbledon), or at least considering it, makes sense. His most recent biographer, Alan Hornblum (American Colossus), explains that Tilden was planning to go to Europe but 1924 was the year of the first big dispute between Bill and the USLTF regarding so-called "poisonous" activity in the form of professional JOURNALISM. Tilden "half resigned" - not going to the Olympics but stating he would play Davis Cup, which he did. At the end of the year a compromise was reached on the player journalism rules and it was thought that Tilden had stood up to the lords of amateur tennis and struck a blow.

I am doubtful about 1923, although not of the article you cite from a Sydney newspaper. Things are always blowing in the wind. But Bill's finger was a big question mark in the spring of 1923. I don't think he ever considered Europe in 1923. I have never heard or read that before, and I recently completed approx. seven biographies or partial biographies of Tilden (Deford, Hornblum, Tilden, Laney, Fisher, Baltzell and Voss) and no hint of any plans to go to Europe in 1923.

Tilden the amateur made trips to Europe unrelated to Davis Cup in 1921, '27 and '30. Cochet made at least a couple of trips to the USA (one including to west coast to try himself at the cement court championships) unrelated to Davis Cup. I pointed out in an earlier post a number of trips between 1921 and 1933 that were not for Davis Cup. But they are exceptions. To paraphrase what NoMercy and Urban have been stressing, there is a high correlation between a top player's appearance at a top tournament far from his homeland and that player's need to be in the neighborhood for a Davis Cup tie or ties. NoMercy's assertion was that this was the situation through the year 1933, so I just stuck with that. I have thought that this is generally correct, although I found some exceptions. How great are the exceptions? I didn't think about it, but let's think about it.

So, Let's Try to Disprove the Hypothesis

 

[NoMercy]

That Tilden was planning to go to the 1924 Olympics (and by extension Wimbledon), or at least considering it, makes sense. His most recent biographer, Alan Hornblum (American Colossus), explains that Tilden was planning to go to Europe but 1924 was the year of the first big dispute between Bill and the USLTF regarding so-called "poisonous" activity in the form of professional JOURNALISM. Tilden "half resigned" - not going to the Olympics but stating he would play Davis Cup, which he did. At the end of the year a compromise was reached on the player journalism rules and it was thought that Tilden had stood up to the lords of amateur tennis and struck a blow.

I am doubtful about 1923, although not of the article you cite from a Sydney newspaper. Things are always blowing in the wind. But Bill's finger was a big question mark in the spring of 1923. I don't think he ever considered Europe in 1923. I have never heard or read that before, and I recently completed approx. seven biographies or partial biographies of Tilden (Deford, Hornblum, Tilden, Laney, Fisher, Baltzell and Voss) and no hint of any plans to go to Europe in 1923.

Tilden the amateur made trips to Europe unrelated to Davis Cup in 1921, '27 and '30. Cochet made at least a couple of trips to the USA (one including to west coast to try himself at the cement court championships) unrelated to Davis Cup. I pointed out in an earlier post a number of trips between 1921 and 1933 that were not for Davis Cup. But they are exceptions. To paraphrase what NoMercy and Urban have been stressing, there is a high correlation between a top player's appearance at a top tournament far from his homeland and that player's need to be in the neighborhood for a Davis Cup tie or ties. NoMercy's assertion was that this was the situation through the year 1933, so I just stuck with that. I have thought that this is generally correct, although I found some exceptions. How great are the exceptions? I didn't think about it, but let's think about it.

So, Let's Try to Disprove the Hypothesis

Tilden wanted to play the Olympics.
He didn’t care about Wimbledon 1924 or other European tournament.
Everything fell apart because of the player-writer dispute.
A compromise was reached on June 6th (not at the end of the year) and Tilden accepted some restrictions.

 

[Drob]

Disprove the Hypothesis of the "Davis Cup Correlation, 1919-33"?



Musketeers:

Lacoste - Of his four US Nationals, played only one w/o needing to be in USA for Davis Cup. Also played a short winter sprint in USA for no DC reason (or no direct reason). Lacoste had one "absence" - meaning did not bother to go to USA - and by 1929 was prematurely retired.

Cochet - Of four US Nationals appearances, two were tied to DC Challenge Round. Cochet had about seven "absences".

Borotra - Of his six US Nationals appearances, three were tied to DC. He came three times unrelated to DC. He had four or five "absences" Played winter 1924 in USA unrelated to DC. Went to Australia unrelated to DC.

Brugnon - Three of his five participations at US Nationals tied to DC. One trip to Australia unrelated to DC. Say two "absences" for Toto?

Musketeer correlation: 15 of 24 appearances at US Nationals or Australian directly related to Davis Cup obligations. Borotra and Lacoste made additional US trip in 1924 and Cochet went to West Coast in 1928. Approximately 14-15 "absences" from US Championship, and countless absences from Australian.

Went when not necessitated by Davis Cup = 9

Absences (US Championships only) ≈ 15

15 of 24 appearances rel. to DC plus 15 absences means very roughly there was a 20-25 percent chance a Musketeer would be at a US National w/o a Davis Cup reason. That is a pretty high "Davis Cup Correlation."


Yankees:

Tilden: Of six Wimbledon appearances, two related directly to DC matches in England and two related to DC matches in France (or possibly England and France). Played Wimbledon twice w/o any DC connection. Participation at WHCC and French International related to DC except 1927. Played one grand tour of European clay court tournaments w/o connection to DC.

Johnston: Played Wimbledon twice, once independent of any DC matches. Roughly five "absences" from Wimbledon.

Richards: Played three Wimbledons, all w/o connection to DC. Let's say three "absences".


American Correlation: Five of 10 Wimbledons connected to DC obligations. Wimbledon "absences" ≈ 10. So 25 percent chance an American would go to Wimbledon w/o DC connection. Similar to the French correlation - pretty high.


Aussies:


Patterson: Two of three appearances at US Nationals connected to DC Challenge Round. Roughly six "absences". Three of his four appearances at Wimbledon connected to DC ties. Six "absences".

Anderson: Looks like he has one trip to US Nationals unrelated to DC. His appearances at Wimbledon look to be related to DC ties occurring in England. Otherwise absent.

Adrian Quist and Jack Crawford - one appearance at US Nationals unrelated to DC. Wimbledon appearances linked to DC matches either in England or France.

Australian correlation: The "Davis Cup Correlation" is extremely high for the Australians.



Great Britain:

Perry - four trips to US Nationals unrelated to DC, including trips to PSW and PCC, and one trip to Australia through 1933. Nothing was going to stop Fred.

Austin - At least two appearances at US Nationals and one trip to Australia (separate from Fred's).


GB Correlation: Practically a zero "Davis Cup Correlation"



Others:

Japan

Zenzo Shimizu - one US National appearance unrelated to DC

Jiro Satoh - made two appearances at US Nationals unrelated to DC, and one at Australian.

Japan Correlation - looks very high at first glance, even if I am missing a couple entries.


South Africa

Brian Norton - participated at four US Nationals despite no DC connection.


Italy

To my knowledge, neither de Morpugo nor de Stefani went to US Nationals.


Germany

Up to 1933 it does not readily appear that any German player made it to Forest Hills


The Brits fly in face of the hypothesis, but the overall for everyone else would show what I thought when urban and NoMercy first mentioned this - a generally accurate description of the situation at the time. Exceptions are notable, but there was an obvious correlation. If I strictly counted the absences of the Italian players from Forest Hills, and Prenn and Cramm and all the years a Japanese player could have participated, the correlation would wind up being quite high.


Conclusion: The Hypothesis Is Not Disproven . But I would think of it as a marked tendency, certainly not an absolute.

It seems like something important to keep in mind. It is a much different thing to say Tilden won 3 of 6 Wimbledons entered than to say Tilden won 3 Wimbledons in his career; Lacoste won two of four US Nationals entered rather than Lacoste won two US Nationals in his career, etc. The flip side, of course, is some editions were relatively weak.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

As far as I know your opportunistic nonreader has yet to come up with a tenth of original research as his BFF @NoMercy and yet he somehow pretends to know better about the eras in question. Call me biased but that strikes me as more of the same posturing we've come to expect from him.

We do enjoy Ivan's repartee with his BFF NoMercy though!

 

[NoMercy]

Disprove the Hypothesis of the "Davis Cup Correlation, 1919-33"?



Musketeers:

Lacoste - Of his four US Nationals, played only one w/o needing to be in USA for Davis Cup. Also played a short winter sprint in USA for no DC reason (or no direct reason). Lacoste had one "absence" - meaning did not bother to go to USA - and by 1929 was prematurely retired.

Cochet - Of four US Nationals appearances, two were tied to DC Challenge Round. Cochet had about seven "absences".

Borotra - Of his six US Nationals appearances, three were tied to DC. He came three times unrelated to DC. He had four or five "absences" Played winter 1924 in USA unrelated to DC. Went to Australia unrelated to DC.

Brugnon - Three of his five participations at US Nationals tied to DC. One trip to Australia unrelated to DC. Say two "absences" for Toto?

Musketeer correlation: 15 of 24 appearances at US Nationals or Australian directly related to Davis Cup obligations. Borotra and Lacoste made additional US trip in 1924 and Cochet went to West Coast in 1928. Approximately 14-15 "absences" from US Championship, and countless absences from Australian.

Went when not necessitated by Davis Cup = 9

Absences (US Championships only) ≈ 15

15 of 24 appearances rel. to DC plus 15 absences means very roughly there was a 20-25 percent chance a Musketeer would be at a US National w/o a Davis Cup reason. That is a pretty high "Davis Cup Correlation."


Yankees:

Tilden: Of six Wimbledon appearances, two related directly to DC matches in England and two related to DC matches in France (or possibly England and France). Played Wimbledon twice w/o any DC connection. Participation at WHCC and French International related to DC except 1927. Played one grand tour of European clay court tournaments w/o connection to DC.

Johnston: Played Wimbledon twice, once independent of any DC matches. Roughly five "absences" from Wimbledon.

Richards: Played three Wimbledons, all w/o connection to DC. Let's say three "absences".


American Correlation: Five of 10 Wimbledons connected to DC obligations. Wimbledon "absences" ≈ 10. So 25 percent chance an American would go to Wimbledon w/o DC connection. Similar to the French correlation - pretty high.


Aussies:


Patterson: Two of three appearances at US Nationals connected to DC Challenge Round. Roughly six "absences". Three of his four appearances at Wimbledon connected to DC ties. Six "absences".

Anderson: Looks like he has one trip to US Nationals unrelated to DC. His appearances at Wimbledon look to be related to DC ties occurring in England. Otherwise absent.

Adrian Quist and Jack Crawford - one appearance at US Nationals unrelated to DC. Wimbledon appearances linked to DC matches either in England or France.

Australian correlation: The "Davis Cup Correlation" is extremely high for the Australians.



Great Britain:

Perry - four trips to US Nationals unrelated to DC, including trips to PSW and PCC, and one trip to Australia through 1933. Nothing was going to stop Fred.

Austin - At least two appearances at US Nationals and one trip to Australia (separate from Fred's).


GB Correlation: Practically a zero "Davis Cup Correlation"



Others:

Japan

Zenzo Shimizu - one US National appearance unrelated to DC

Jiro Satoh - made two appearances at US Nationals unrelated to DC, and one at Australian.

Japan Correlation - looks very high at first glance, even if I am missing a couple entries.


South Africa

Brian Norton - participated at four US Nationals despite no DC connection.


Italy

To my knowledge, neither de Morpugo nor de Stefani went to US Nationals.


Germany

Up to 1933 it does not readily appear that any German player made it to Forest Hills


The Brits fly in face of the hypothesis, but the overall for everyone else would show what I thought when urban and NoMercy first mentioned this - a generally accurate description of the situation at the time. Exceptions are notable, but there was an obvious correlation. If I strictly counted the absences of the Italian players from Forest Hills, and Prenn and Cramm and all the years a Japanese player could have participated, the correlation would wind up being quite high.


Conclusion: The Hypothesis Is Not Disproven . But I would think of it as a marked tendency, certainly not an absolute.

It seems like something important to keep in mind. It is a much different thing to say Tilden won 3 of 6 Wimbledons entered than to say Tilden won 3 Wimbledons in his career; Lacoste won two of four US Nationals entered rather than Lacoste won two US Nationals in his career, etc. The flip side, of course, is some editions were relatively weak.

Most of the times, these exceptions have explanations.

Regarding Tilden, in 1927 he went because he wanted to challenge Cochet and Lacoste, not because RG or Wimbledon.
In 1930 he was there because he spent Nov/Dec 1929 in England, acting in theaters.
Or do you think he left USA to play those crappy tournaments vs Mr Nobodys in the Riviera?

 

[urban]

I think, since 1933 we see a progress into the direction of a more world wide tournament tennis competition. It could be, that the boat trips got a bit faster and easier. In other sports one can see parallels, the Olympics had more entries, in boxing people like Schmeling or Carnera became champions, even the famous runner Paovo Nurmi made a tour across the USA. I know, that the boxer Max Schmeling quite often made the transatlantic tour per boat (i saw pictures of him together with pros Nüsslein and Najuch at the captains dinner), he even flew a few times with the "Hindenburg" (pre disaster). He had many bouts in the US, and also a US Jewish manager, Jim Jacobs.

In tennis regarding 1933, out of the Davis Cup the concept of the Grand Slam was born, as the championships of the 4 Davis Cup winner nations. Kieran coined the phrase for Crawford, but also Vines seemed to be eager to play those new "majors" in 1933. Roland Garros as the home of the Davis Cup holders had got more attention since 1928, Borotra was the first foreign winner in Australia. We should remember, that the French and Australian championships had been not really open until 1925/26. But even in the 1930s participation of European nations in the US tournaments was seldom. In 1937/38 von Cramm and Henkel with the German team went on a long tour to the US, Asia and Australia to play the US Nationals and Australian, but also many intercontinental team matches, which were quite importnat then, and are underrated now.
Perry seems to be an exception, i think he liked the USA very much and became later a US citizen. On a lighter side: He also had pretty close bounds to some Hollywood stars, maybe his main goal was a date with Marlene.

 

[Ivan69]

In 1923 he didn’t go to Europe because he had already decided to play tournaments and exhibitions in the mid-West.
Because he didn’t care to go to Europe.

Absolutely wrong. In 1923 Tilden planned to play on Wimbledon but a finger injury prevented him. He wrote that to Johnston. I quoted the article.
In 1924 Tilden planned to play on Wimbledon and Olympics. A disagreement with the US association about the partner in doubles made him to not travel to Europe. I quoted 2 articles on that.

Stop with the hilarious words "he didn't care". They were wrong. They were objective reasons for not playing. That's not my problem If you don't want to understand the facts. I will talk about tennis because this is not the first time you are misleading the people.

 

[Ivan69]

That Tilden was planning to go to the 1924 Olympics (and by extension Wimbledon), or at least considering it, makes sense. His most recent biographer, Alan Hornblum (American Colossus), explains that Tilden was planning to go to Europe but 1924 was the year of the first big dispute between Bill and the USLTF regarding so-called "poisonous" activity in the form of professional JOURNALISM. Tilden "half resigned" - not going to the Olympics but stating he would play Davis Cup, which he did. At the end of the year a compromise was reached on the player journalism rules and it was thought that Tilden had stood up to the lords of amateur tennis and struck a blow.

I am doubtful about 1923, although not of the article you cite from a Sydney newspaper. Things are always blowing in the wind. But Bill's finger was a big question mark in the spring of 1923. I don't think he ever considered Europe in 1923. I have never heard or read that before, and I recently completed approx. seven biographies or partial biographies of Tilden (Deford, Hornblum, Tilden, Laney, Fisher, Baltzell and Voss) and no hint of any plans to go to Europe in 1923.

Tilden the amateur made trips to Europe unrelated to Davis Cup in 1921, '27 and '30. Cochet made at least a couple of trips to the USA (one including to west coast to try himself at the cement court championships) unrelated to Davis Cup. I pointed out in an earlier post a number of trips between 1921 and 1933 that were not for Davis Cup. But they are exceptions. To paraphrase what NoMercy and Urban have been stressing, there is a high correlation between a top player's appearance at a top tournament far from his homeland and that player's need to be in the neighborhood for a Davis Cup tie or ties. NoMercy's assertion was that this was the situation through the year 1933, so I just stuck with that. I have thought that this is generally correct, although I found some exceptions. How great are the exceptions? I didn't think about it, but let's think about it.

So, Let's Try to Disprove the Hypothesis

Somewhere in the end of 1922 or beginning of 1923 (the article says it was in the winter) the joint of the middle finger of the played hand had been amputated due to a problem. Somewhere in May/June 1923 a finger infection showed up (not saying specifically is it the same finger). Tilden played tennis but felt pains. Finally he decided not to travel for Wimbledon and treat the finger. That's why he wrote to Johnston to tell him that. He played only domestically some tournaments and exos as the media said "with pain".
These are pure facts, not hypothesis. The hypothesis is that he felt himself not enough prepared for Wim. And that's understandable.

 

[NoMercy]

Absolutely wrong. In 1923 Tilden planned to play on Wimbledon but a finger injury prevented him. He wrote that to Johnston. I quoted the article.
In 1924 Tilden planned to play on Wimbledon and Olympics. A disagreement with the US association about the partner in doubles made him to not travel to Europe. I quoted 2 articles on that.

Stop with the hilarious words "he didn't care". They were wrong. They were objective reasons for not playing. That's not my problem If you don't want to understand the facts. I will talk about tennis because this is not the first time you are misleading the people.

Ivan, really, give up.
Tilden injured his finger in October 1922 and spent two months at the hospital.
He lost part of his middle finger, he had to change his grip on the racket.
Tilden started the 1923 season thinking he was not able anymore to play high level tennis but he came back stronger than ever.
Tilden played tennis almost every day during the period Johnston was in Europe.
Tournaments and exhibitions.
In my post, I quoted an article written by Vincent Richards.

 

[Ivan69]

Ivan, really, give up.
Tilden injured his finger in October 1922 and spent two months at the hospital.
He lost part of his middle finger, he had to change his grip on the racket.
Tilden started the 1923 season thinking he was not able anymore to play high level tennis but he came back stronger than ever.
Tilden played tennis almost every day during the period Johnston was in Europe.
Tournaments and exhibitions.
In my post, I quoted an article written by Vincent Richards.

To give up on your nonsense? Ha. Tilden wrote that to Johnston and Johnston confirmed that from London. The problem was medical. Also confirmed that Tilden played at this time in US with pains in the hand. Only NM's interpretations that "he didn't care".

 

[Ivan69]

Disprove the Hypothesis of the "Davis Cup Correlation, 1919-33"?



Musketeers:

Lacoste - Of his four US Nationals, played only one w/o needing to be in USA for Davis Cup. Also played a short winter sprint in USA for no DC reason (or no direct reason). Lacoste had one "absence" - meaning did not bother to go to USA - and by 1929 was prematurely retired.

Cochet - Of four US Nationals appearances, two were tied to DC Challenge Round. Cochet had about seven "absences".

Borotra - Of his six US Nationals appearances, three were tied to DC. He came three times unrelated to DC. He had four or five "absences" Played winter 1924 in USA unrelated to DC. Went to Australia unrelated to DC.

Brugnon - Three of his five participations at US Nationals tied to DC. One trip to Australia unrelated to DC. Say two "absences" for Toto?

Musketeer correlation: 15 of 24 appearances at US Nationals or Australian directly related to Davis Cup obligations. Borotra and Lacoste made additional US trip in 1924 and Cochet went to West Coast in 1928. Approximately 14-15 "absences" from US Championship, and countless absences from Australian.

Went when not necessitated by Davis Cup = 9

Absences (US Championships only) ≈ 15

15 of 24 appearances rel. to DC plus 15 absences means very roughly there was a 20-25 percent chance a Musketeer would be at a US National w/o a Davis Cup reason. That is a pretty high "Davis Cup Correlation."


Yankees:

Tilden: Of six Wimbledon appearances, two related directly to DC matches in England and two related to DC matches in France (or possibly England and France). Played Wimbledon twice w/o any DC connection. Participation at WHCC and French International related to DC except 1927. Played one grand tour of European clay court tournaments w/o connection to DC.

Johnston: Played Wimbledon twice, once independent of any DC matches. Roughly five "absences" from Wimbledon.

Richards: Played three Wimbledons, all w/o connection to DC. Let's say three "absences".


American Correlation: Five of 10 Wimbledons connected to DC obligations. Wimbledon "absences" ≈ 10. So 25 percent chance an American would go to Wimbledon w/o DC connection. Similar to the French correlation - pretty high.


Aussies:


Patterson: Two of three appearances at US Nationals connected to DC Challenge Round. Roughly six "absences". Three of his four appearances at Wimbledon connected to DC ties. Six "absences".

Anderson: Looks like he has one trip to US Nationals unrelated to DC. His appearances at Wimbledon look to be related to DC ties occurring in England. Otherwise absent.

Adrian Quist and Jack Crawford - one appearance at US Nationals unrelated to DC. Wimbledon appearances linked to DC matches either in England or France.

Australian correlation: The "Davis Cup Correlation" is extremely high for the Australians.



Great Britain:

Perry - four trips to US Nationals unrelated to DC, including trips to PSW and PCC, and one trip to Australia through 1933. Nothing was going to stop Fred.

Austin - At least two appearances at US Nationals and one trip to Australia (separate from Fred's).


GB Correlation: Practically a zero "Davis Cup Correlation"



Others:

Japan

Zenzo Shimizu - one US National appearance unrelated to DC

Jiro Satoh - made two appearances at US Nationals unrelated to DC, and one at Australian.

Japan Correlation - looks very high at first glance, even if I am missing a couple entries.


South Africa

Brian Norton - participated at four US Nationals despite no DC connection.


Italy

To my knowledge, neither de Morpugo nor de Stefani went to US Nationals.


Germany

Up to 1933 it does not readily appear that any German player made it to Forest Hills


The Brits fly in face of the hypothesis, but the overall for everyone else would show what I thought when urban and NoMercy first mentioned this - a generally accurate description of the situation at the time. Exceptions are notable, but there was an obvious correlation. If I strictly counted the absences of the Italian players from Forest Hills, and Prenn and Cramm and all the years a Japanese player could have participated, the correlation would wind up being quite high.


Conclusion: The Hypothesis Is Not Disproven . But I would think of it as a marked tendency, certainly not an absolute.

It seems like something important to keep in mind. It is a much different thing to say Tilden won 3 of 6 Wimbledons entered than to say Tilden won 3 Wimbledons in his career; Lacoste won two of four US Nationals entered rather than Lacoste won two US Nationals in his career, etc. The flip side, of course, is some editions were relatively weak.

Excellent info, Drob! Excellent way of correlating the attendances!

 

[NoMercy]

To give up on your nonsense? Ha. Tilden wrote that to Johnston and Johnston confirmed that from London. The problem was medical. Also confirmed that Tilden played at this time in US with pains in the hand. Only NM's interpretations that "he didn't care".

Tilden activity in 1923, while johnston was in Europe.

19 May, ONS, Buffalo, Park Club, clay
Tilden d. Murray 64 1614

20 May, ONS, Niagara Falls Country Club
Tilden d. Murray 36 64 64

23-30 May, Philadelphia and District Tennis Champs, Cynwyd Club, clay
R64: Tilden d.
R32: Tilden d.
R16: Tilden d. Gus Amsterdam 60 60
QF: Tilden d. Shafer 60 60
SF: Tilden d. Hawk 63 46 63
F: Tilden d. Johnson 36 63 119 75

28 May - 2 Jun, Eastern Pennsylvania Champs, Philmont Country Club, clay
R64: Tilden d. Jack Solis Cohen 60 61
R32: Tilden d. Frank Weider 61 62
R16: Tilden d. Gus Amsterdam 64 60
QF: Tilden d. Harold Lane 61 61
SF: Tilden d. Samuel Gilpin 60 75
F: Tilden d. Alonso 16 46 64 63 62

3 Jun, ONS, South Orange, Orange Lawn Tennis Club, grass
Tilden d. Alonso 63 64

4 Jun, ONS, Ottawa Tennis and Bowling Club, clay
Tilden d. Murray 36 64 61

5 Jun, ONS, Rochester Tennis Club, clay
Tilden d. Willard Crocker 63
Tilden d. Murray 16 62 75

8-9 Jun, Church Cup, New York, West Side Tennis Club, grass
RR: Tilden d. Nathaniel Niles 63 64
RR: Tilden d. Richards 57 64 64

11-16 Jun, New England Champs, Hartford Golf Club, clay
R64: Tilden d. Ray Snow 60 60
R32: Tilden d. H. Leland 60 61
R16: Tilden d. Charles Wood 61 64
QF: Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 62 63
SF: Tilden d. Frank Anderson 63 86
F: Tilden d. Alonso 75 75 68 63

17 Jun, ONS, Easton, Northampton Country Club, clay
Tilden d. Fukuda 60 60

20-24 Jun, Great Lakes and Western New York Champs, Buffalo, Park Club, clay
R64: BYE
R32: Tilden d. William Henderson 60 62
R16: Tilden d. Eugene Carson 60 60
QF: Tilden d. John Gowans 62 60
SF: Tilden d. Jack Castle 61 60 60
F: Tilden d. Alonso 75 63 63

25-30 Jun, Western Pennsylvania Champs, Pittsburgh Athletics Association Courts, clay
R128: Tilden d. E.C. Dilworth 60 60
R64: Tilden d. Tom McGowan 60 60
R32: Tilden d. W.H. Alexander 61 61
R16: Tilden d. Rufus Cooper 61 60
QF: Tilden d. Collie Burgwin 60 62
SF: Tilden d. Garland 62 63
F: Tilden d. Alonso 64 57 64 79 61

2-8 Jul, Illinois Champs, Chicago, Skokie Country Club, clay
R128: BYE
R64: Tilden d. Lester de Swarte 60 62
R32: Tilden d. C.O. Carlstrom 60 63
R16: Tilden d. Allen Behr 61 61
QF: Tilden d. Walter Wesbrook 63 63
SF: Tilden d. Walter Hayes 62 60 60
F: Alonso d. Tilden 86 1113 63 61

9-15 Jul, US Clay Courts Champs, Indianapolis, Woodstock Country Club, clay
R64: Tilden d. Claude Watkins 60 61
R32: Tilden d. Albrecht Kipp 57 63 64
R16: Tilden d. Fritz Bastian 62 63
QF: Tilden d. Phil Bettens 64 63 60
SF: Tilden d. Robert Kinsey 63 06 64 46 63
F: Tilden d. Alonso 62 68 61 75

16 Jul, ONS, Cleveland, University Club Courts, clay
Tilden d. Alonso 63 119

21-22 Jul, ONS, Santa Barbara, Montecito Golf and Country Club, hard
Tilden d. Alonso 63 64
Tilden d. Alonso 61 64 64

23-28 Jul, Southern California Champs, Los Angeles Tennis Club, hard
R64: Tilden d. Gerald Hodgeson 60 60
R32: Tilden d. Elon Galusha 60 60
R16: Tilden d. Craig Biddle 61 61
QF: Tilden d. Eugene Warren 61 61
SF: Tilden d. Tom Ferrandini 61 63
F: Tilden d. Alonso 97 64 62

29 Jul, ONS, Berkeley Tennis Club, hard
Tilden d. Alonso 46 63 64 46 63

It's definitely a schedule of an injured player!
A player that feels so much pain, that plays even in his days off between tournaments

 

[Ivan69]

Tilden activity in 1923, while johnston was in Europe.

19 May, ONS, Buffalo, Park Club, clay
Tilden d. Murray 64 1614

20 May, ONS, Niagara Falls Country Club
Tilden d. Murray 36 64 64

23-30 May, Philadelphia and District Tennis Champs, Cynwyd Club, clay
R64: Tilden d.
R32: Tilden d.
R16: Tilden d. Gus Amsterdam 60 60
QF: Tilden d. Shafer 60 60
SF: Tilden d. Hawk 63 46 63
F: Tilden d. Johnson 36 63 119 75

28 May - 2 Jun, Eastern Pennsylvania Champs, Philmont Country Club, clay
R64: Tilden d. Jack Solis Cohen 60 61
R32: Tilden d. Frank Weider 61 62
R16: Tilden d. Gus Amsterdam 64 60
QF: Tilden d. Harold Lane 61 61
SF: Tilden d. Samuel Gilpin 60 75
F: Tilden d. Alonso 16 46 64 63 62

3 Jun, ONS, South Orange, Orange Lawn Tennis Club, grass
Tilden d. Alonso 63 64

4 Jun, ONS, Ottawa Tennis and Bowling Club, clay
Tilden d. Murray 36 64 61

5 Jun, ONS, Rochester Tennis Club, clay
Tilden d. Willard Crocker 63
Tilden d. Murray 16 62 75

8-9 Jun, Church Cup, New York, West Side Tennis Club, grass
RR: Tilden d. Nathaniel Niles 63 64
RR: Tilden d. Richards 57 64 64

11-16 Jun, New England Champs, Hartford Golf Club, clay
R64: Tilden d. Ray Snow 60 60
R32: Tilden d. H. Leland 60 61
R16: Tilden d. Charles Wood 61 64
QF: Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 62 63
SF: Tilden d. Frank Anderson 63 86
F: Tilden d. Alonso 75 75 68 63

17 Jun, ONS, Easton, Northampton Country Club, clay
Tilden d. Fukuda 60 60

20-24 Jun, Great Lakes and Western New York Champs, Buffalo, Park Club, clay
R64: BYE
R32: Tilden d. William Henderson 60 62
R16: Tilden d. Eugene Carson 60 60
QF: Tilden d. John Gowans 62 60
SF: Tilden d. Jack Castle 61 60 60
F: Tilden d. Alonso 75 63 63

25-30 Jun, Western Pennsylvania Champs, Pittsburgh Athletics Association Courts, clay
R128: Tilden d. E.C. Dilworth 60 60
R64: Tilden d. Tom McGowan 60 60
R32: Tilden d. W.H. Alexander 61 61
R16: Tilden d. Rufus Cooper 61 60
QF: Tilden d. Collie Burgwin 60 62
SF: Tilden d. Garland 62 63
F: Tilden d. Alonso 64 57 64 79 61

2-8 Jul, Illinois Champs, Chicago, Skokie Country Club, clay
R128: BYE
R64: Tilden d. Lester de Swarte 60 62
R32: Tilden d. C.O. Carlstrom 60 63
R16: Tilden d. Allen Behr 61 61
QF: Tilden d. Walter Wesbrook 63 63
SF: Tilden d. Walter Hayes 62 60 60
F: Alonso d. Tilden 86 1113 63 61

9-15 Jul, US Clay Courts Champs, Indianapolis, Woodstock Country Club, clay
R64: Tilden d. Claude Watkins 60 61
R32: Tilden d. Albrecht Kipp 57 63 64
R16: Tilden d. Fritz Bastian 62 63
QF: Tilden d. Phil Bettens 64 63 60
SF: Tilden d. Robert Kinsey 63 06 64 46 63
F: Tilden d. Alonso 62 68 61 75

16 Jul, ONS, Cleveland, University Club Courts, clay
Tilden d. Alonso 63 119

21-22 Jul, ONS, Santa Barbara, Montecito Golf and Country Club, hard
Tilden d. Alonso 63 64
Tilden d. Alonso 61 64 64

23-28 Jul, Southern California Champs, Los Angeles Tennis Club, hard
R64: Tilden d. Gerald Hodgeson 60 60
R32: Tilden d. Elon Galusha 60 60
R16: Tilden d. Craig Biddle 61 61
QF: Tilden d. Eugene Warren 61 61
SF: Tilden d. Tom Ferrandini 61 63
F: Tilden d. Alonso 97 64 62

29 Jul, ONS, Berkeley Tennis Club, hard
Tilden d. Alonso 46 63 64 46 63

It's definitely a schedule of an injured player!
A player that feels so much pain, that plays even in his days off between tournaments

No interpretations, bro! These were the facts. He played in US but also said that to Johnston. Neither me nor you were witnesses of what was the pain and how he felt. Accept the facts, don't interpret or change them. Tilden was considered a decent person. He would not have written to Johnston and not have lied to him.

 

[NoMercy]

No interpretations, bro! These were the facts. He played in US but also said that to Johnston. Neither me nor you were witnesses of what was the pain and how he felt. Accept the facts, don't interpret or change them. Tilden was considered a decent person. He would not have written to Johnston and not have lied to him.

There is no interpretation.
Tilden played constantly though 1923.
Even 3/4 matches a day during the period Johnston was in Europe.
He had no pain, there is no American newspaper report about this “injury” or “pain”.

You are using a June 13 Australian newspaper! Where they say ”it has yet to be seen how he will shape with his injured finger”. You don’t even realize they are talking about the finger he injured in October 1922. How Tilden was going to play was the big question Mark of the year.
Also, neither in your “quote” there is evidence of Tilden having pain. Where did you find that?
In a Sri Lanka newspaper?

 

[Dan Lobb]

That Tilden was planning to go to the 1924 Olympics (and by extension Wimbledon), or at least considering it, makes sense. His most recent biographer, Alan Hornblum (American Colossus), explains that Tilden was planning to go to Europe but 1924 was the year of the first big dispute between Bill and the USLTF regarding so-called "poisonous" activity in the form of professional JOURNALISM. Tilden "half resigned" - not going to the Olympics but stating he would play Davis Cup, which he did. At the end of the year a compromise was reached on the player journalism rules and it was thought that Tilden had stood up to the lords of amateur tennis and struck a blow.

I am doubtful about 1923, although not of the article you cite from a Sydney newspaper. Things are always blowing in the wind. But Bill's finger was a big question mark in the spring of 1923. I don't think he ever considered Europe in 1923. I have never heard or read that before, and I recently completed approx. seven biographies or partial biographies of Tilden (Deford, Hornblum, Tilden, Laney, Fisher, Baltzell and Voss) and no hint of any plans to go to Europe in 1923.

Tilden the amateur made trips to Europe unrelated to Davis Cup in 1921, '27 and '30. Cochet made at least a couple of trips to the USA (one including to west coast to try himself at the cement court championships) unrelated to Davis Cup. I pointed out in an earlier post a number of trips between 1921 and 1933 that were not for Davis Cup. But they are exceptions. To paraphrase what NoMercy and Urban have been stressing, there is a high correlation between a top player's appearance at a top tournament far from his homeland and that player's need to be in the neighborhood for a Davis Cup tie or ties. NoMercy's assertion was that this was the situation through the year 1933, so I just stuck with that. I have thought that this is generally correct, although I found some exceptions. How great are the exceptions? I didn't think about it, but let's think about it.

So, Let's Try to Disprove the Hypothesis

Vines went to Australia late 1932 not related to Davis Cup, Budge went to Australia late 1937 not related to Davis Cup. I suspect that both were looking to win the GS.

 

[Ivan69]

There is no interpretation.
Tilden played constantly though 1923.
Even 3/4 matches a day during the period Johnston was in Europe.
He had no pain, there is no American newspaper report about this “injury” or “pain”.

You are using a June 13 Australian newspaper! Where they say ”it has yet to be seen how he will shape with his injured finger”. You don’t even realize they are talking about the finger he injured in October 1922. How Tilden was going to play was the big question Mark of the year.
Also, neither in your “quote” there is evidence of Tilden having pain. Where did you find that?
In a Sri Lanka newspaper?

No, bro! The article mentions this injury while discovering that Tilden wrote that to Johnston. In June 1923, not in October 1922. Maybe it was a sequel of the winter operation maybe not, I don't want to speculate. It's at least clear that his finger was injured in June and this was the mentioned reason for him to not travel to England. Let's just keep to the rough facts.
It's not my problem if you disregard other than American newspapers. Moreover that the source of this info came to Australia probably either from the USA or from England, the 2 closest countries. Theme is exhausted. No need of further digging.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Disprove the Hypothesis of the "Davis Cup Correlation, 1919-33"?



Musketeers:

Lacoste - Of his four US Nationals, played only one w/o needing to be in USA for Davis Cup. Also played a short winter sprint in USA for no DC reason (or no direct reason). Lacoste had one "absence" - meaning did not bother to go to USA - and by 1929 was prematurely retired.

Cochet - Of four US Nationals appearances, two were tied to DC Challenge Round. Cochet had about seven "absences".

Borotra - Of his six US Nationals appearances, three were tied to DC. He came three times unrelated to DC. He had four or five "absences" Played winter 1924 in USA unrelated to DC. Went to Australia unrelated to DC.

Brugnon - Three of his five participations at US Nationals tied to DC. One trip to Australia unrelated to DC. Say two "absences" for Toto?

Musketeer correlation: 15 of 24 appearances at US Nationals or Australian directly related to Davis Cup obligations. Borotra and Lacoste made additional US trip in 1924 and Cochet went to West Coast in 1928. Approximately 14-15 "absences" from US Championship, and countless absences from Australian.

Went when not necessitated by Davis Cup = 9

Absences (US Championships only) ≈ 15

15 of 24 appearances rel. to DC plus 15 absences means very roughly there was a 20-25 percent chance a Musketeer would be at a US National w/o a Davis Cup reason. That is a pretty high "Davis Cup Correlation."


Yankees:

Tilden: Of six Wimbledon appearances, two related directly to DC matches in England and two related to DC matches in France (or possibly England and France). Played Wimbledon twice w/o any DC connection. Participation at WHCC and French International related to DC except 1927. Played one grand tour of European clay court tournaments w/o connection to DC.

Johnston: Played Wimbledon twice, once independent of any DC matches. Roughly five "absences" from Wimbledon.

Richards: Played three Wimbledons, all w/o connection to DC. Let's say three "absences".


American Correlation: Five of 10 Wimbledons connected to DC obligations. Wimbledon "absences" ≈ 10. So 25 percent chance an American would go to Wimbledon w/o DC connection. Similar to the French correlation - pretty high.


Aussies:


Patterson: Two of three appearances at US Nationals connected to DC Challenge Round. Roughly six "absences". Three of his four appearances at Wimbledon connected to DC ties. Six "absences".

Anderson: Looks like he has one trip to US Nationals unrelated to DC. His appearances at Wimbledon look to be related to DC ties occurring in England. Otherwise absent.

Adrian Quist and Jack Crawford - one appearance at US Nationals unrelated to DC. Wimbledon appearances linked to DC matches either in England or France.

Australian correlation: The "Davis Cup Correlation" is extremely high for the Australians.



Great Britain:

Perry - four trips to US Nationals unrelated to DC, including trips to PSW and PCC, and one trip to Australia through 1933. Nothing was going to stop Fred.

Austin - At least two appearances at US Nationals and one trip to Australia (separate from Fred's).


GB Correlation: Practically a zero "Davis Cup Correlation"



Others:

Japan

Zenzo Shimizu - one US National appearance unrelated to DC

Jiro Satoh - made two appearances at US Nationals unrelated to DC, and one at Australian.

Japan Correlation - looks very high at first glance, even if I am missing a couple entries.


South Africa

Brian Norton - participated at four US Nationals despite no DC connection.


Italy

To my knowledge, neither de Morpugo nor de Stefani went to US Nationals.


Germany

Up to 1933 it does not readily appear that any German player made it to Forest Hills


The Brits fly in face of the hypothesis, but the overall for everyone else would show what I thought when urban and NoMercy first mentioned this - a generally accurate description of the situation at the time. Exceptions are notable, but there was an obvious correlation. If I strictly counted the absences of the Italian players from Forest Hills, and Prenn and Cramm and all the years a Japanese player could have participated, the correlation would wind up being quite high.




It seems like something important to keep in mind. It is a much different thing to say Tilden won 3 of 6 Wimbledons entered than to say Tilden won 3 Wimbledons in his career; Lacoste won two of four US Nationals entered rather than Lacoste won two US Nationals in his career, etc. The flip side, of course, is some editions were relatively weak.

Lacoste had the highest DC correlation, because he had a full-time business which required most of his time, a pure amateur.

 

[Ivan69]

Vines went to Australia late 1932 not related to Davis Cup, Budge went to Australia late 1937 not related to Davis Cup. I suspect that both were looking to win the GS.

Vines hasn't won RG in 1932, so obviously no chances for GS.
In these times Australia was held in January (February) not in December.
I also believe that Budge had the GS target for 1938.