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

[Dan Lobb]

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.

No, Ivan, Vines travelled to Australia in LATE 1932, to attempt to win the Aussie title in early 1933, and thus begin the GS hunt. The 1932 RG title is not relevant here..

As I pointed out above, Budge also was hunting for the GS when he travelled to Australia in late 1937.
But Vines was the first in late 1932.

 

[NoMercy]

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.

You are hopeless.

 

[Ivan69]

No, Ivan, Vines travelled to Australia in LATE 1932, to attempt to win the Aussie title in early 1933, and thus begin the GS hunt. The 1932 RG title is not relevant here..

As I pointed out above, Budge also was hunting for the GS when he travelled to Australia in late 1937.
But Vines was the first in late 1932.

No, Dan. Vines travelled in late 1932 to Australia in order to play in NSW and Victorian. Ended in mid-December. Australian ch. started on 21 or 22 January 1933, IIRC.
In late 1937 Budge went to Australia for Victorian. Australian ch. started something around 22-23 January 1938.
RG was relevant and Budge did care of that in 1938.

 

[Ivan69]

You are hopeless.

What am I is not important. Important is that your theory "Tilden didn't care about Wimbledon" is proven wrong. I don't expect from you to admit it. Yet, admitting is a function of the ego.

 

[NoMercy]

What am I is not important. Important is that your theory "Tilden didn't care about Wimbledon" is proven wrong. I don't expect from you to admit it. Yet, admitting is a function of the ego.

I am positive people who read this thread will have an idea about this.

 

[Ivan69]

I am positive people who read this thread will have an idea about this.

Ah, you worry about the support. Don't worry so much, you have trusted persons here. But remember, even the support can't change the data. Interpretations are possible.

Let's now enjoy to United-City match.

 

[NoMercy]

Ah, you worry about the support. Don't worry so much, you have trusted persons here. But remember, even the support can't change the data. Interpretations are possible.

Let's now enjoy to United-City match.

Oh no, I don’t need support.
I like when people have a clear picture of the situation.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No, Dan. Vines travelled in late 1932 to Australia in order to play in NSW and Victorian. Ended in mid-December. Australian ch. started on 21 or 22 January 1933, IIRC.
In late 1937 Budge went to Australia for Victorian. Australian ch. started something around 22-23 January 1938.
RG was relevant and Budge did care of that in 1938.

No, Ivan, Vines trip to Australia was aimed at winning the Aussie title. First step in the GS.
Also Budge in 1937/38. First step in the GS.
That was a long voyage, and they needed some time to get acclimatized prior to the national championships.
You are certainly a champion nit-picker, but you missed the big picture here.

 

[Drob]

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.

Right about Vines to Australia - good look. I stopped at 1933, but Vines trip was 1932 as you say.

Vines skipped the French two years running. Questionable he was seeking the non-existent Grand Slam. I have a quote from him somewhere to the effect the GS was made up by journalists in 1933. In my research on Elly I never saw that he contemplated the GS, but of course my sources were not complete by any means. Had he won Australia he might well have tried the French.

I still wonder if he "ducked" the French, the way Kramer admittedly did in 1946-47. When he decided to go to RG in 1935 he beat Nusslein and earned plaudits throughout Europe.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Right about Vines to Australia - good look. I stopped at 1933, but Vines trip was 1932 as you say.

Vines skipped the French two years running. Questionable he was seeking the non-existent Grand Slam. I have a quote from him somewhere to the effect the GS was made up by journalists in 1933. In my research on Elly I never saw that he contemplated the GS, but of course my sources were not complete by any means. Had he won Australia he might well have tried the French.

I still wonder if he "ducked" the French, the way Kramer admittedly did in 1946-47. When he decided to go to RG in 1935 he beat Nusslein and earned plaudits throughout Europe.

Of course, Kramer did not win the Aussie in 1946 or 1947, or perhaps he might have tried RG.
Vines might have tried RG in 1933 had he won the Aussie.
The concept of GS was relatively new at that time, started in 1930 when Bobby Jones won the golf GS.

 

[NonP]

If you still don't get how poisonous bothsidesism can be, make sure to ponder what's happening right now. This notion that all sides deserve to be heard and treated with respect regardless of merit or integrity is foolish and dangerous nonsense and should be guarded against at all times.

 

[Dan Lobb]

If you still don't get how poisonous bothsidesism can be, make sure to ponder what's happening right now. This notion that all sides deserve to be heard and treated with respect regardless of merit or integrity is foolish and dangerous nonsense and should be guarded against at all times.

Whaa?

 

[Drob]

Thanks for your explanations.
Ranking players years between 1908 and 1912 is notoriously difficult. The Davis Cup was taken away by Australasia in 1907, and because of this there were no top tournaments where all the best players participated. Until 1907 Wimbledon was sometimes such a tournament, but now the leading American and Australian players usually did not go there until 1913, when the Cup was once again back in Europe.

Brookes was regarded as the best player in the world in 1907, but in 1908 lost to Wright (US2) in the Davis Cup Challenge Round and could only narrowly beat Alexander (US3). Because of his job he confined his activities to defend the Davis Cup and did not play outside Australia until 1914. So I think he should not be placed No 1 in this period.

Who else could be in the Top3?

Bill Larned is once again US and Longwood champion, even if he won these titles in the Challenge Round, and he wins his DC matches. I am not aware of any loss in singles this year, but please do tell me where he lost matches.
Spalding Tennis Annual has this about him after winning yet again the US championships:
"Larned's victory was decidedly popular and it was the consensus of opinion that the old campaigner, after more than a score of years of competition, was better than ever before."
Clothier is US2, plays twice a 5-set match with Larned, but has more difficulty with McLoughlin than Brookes.

As for Britain, Charles Dixon in Lawn Tennis and Badminton classified British players as follows:
1: Gore and Ritchie
3: Barrett
So I agree, Gore and Ritchie were about at the same level, but winning Wimbledon was far more prestigious than anything Ritchie has done this year.
Froitzheim has beaten Ritchie twice on clay (Homburg Cup and Baden-Baden). Alexander (not ranked this year, but US3 last year) twice beat Ritchie on the Riviera.

In Australasia Wilding defeated Brookes in Melbourne and recorded a victory against the 7th ranked American. Australian critics ranked Wilding a little below the top echelon of the tennis world. 'Austral' remained convinced that the New Zealander had caught Brookes out of sorts in the Victorian Championship and thought he would also struggle against Larned, Clothier and Wright, the front-rank Americans (Wright did not play the whole year because of the effects of sunstroke that he suffered in Australia last year).

So we have regional rankings in Australia, Britain, and the USA. The problem the leading players in these three geographical areas did not meet each other.

In my opinion the Top 8 looks like this:

1​	Bill Larned
2​	Tony Wilding
3​	Norman Brookes
4​	Arthur Gore
5​	Bill Clothier
6​	Otto Froitzheim
7​	Fred Alexander
8​	Major Ritchie

I think Bill Larned deserves the Top spot because of his unbeaten record. Based on his form next year in Britain, Wilding deserves to be ranked near the top. Brookes still had a great reputation, and was clearly better than Gore in 1907. His loss to Ritchie at the Covered Courts Champs hurts Gore's resume. One could argue Clothier (US2) or Froitzheim was even better, but they did not win a really big event. Froitzheim unfortunately was not ranked by Dixon. I put Ritchie below Froitzheim and Alexander because of his losses to them.

I would be interested in other contemporary rankings (you say some experts placed Larned, other – Wilding at the top) and I am willing to change my opinion if we can find such rankings.
But finding another small tournament that Ritchie has won will not convince me he was the best. I agree, had Larned and Gore played more, they probably would have lost more matches, just as Ritchie did. But they limited their activities to the most important events, where they were better than their fellow countrymen.

Leaving Ritchie out of the top three for 1909 is not necessarily surprising, but ranking him eighth is.

"Another small tournament"? Ivan rightly points out that Ritchie's 10 titles were from solid tournaments, albeit maybe not "Big". I think only one or two of the 10 were "small". Most were "C"s, although TB gives a "B" designation to four of them (I don't necessarily agree with those "B" designations but they seem to be good tournaments).

And what of the All-Comers? How much credit do you give for that? It seems to me that winning the Wimbledon All-Comers (7 matches) should earn something close to what you would give for a Major title.

There is a value in actually going out into the world and playing a lot of tournaments and matches, against all manner of opponents in all sorts of places, as opposed to playing a very few matches but defending your biggest title. The reverse is true, also - it is great to be a defending champion who successfully defends. But your rankings suggest to me that you don't much value the former.

I defer to you as an expert on things pre WW I. But this question is of course for anyone interested in the (very) old days.

I have read your yearly rankings 1877 through 2016 and appreciate that you sometimes cut against the grain - against the traditionally accepted placements.

The idea of Ritchie No. 1 gets support from the TB yearly rankings, as you know. TB rankings are frequently weird and hard to phathom. But there must be something going on.

 

[Ivan69]

No, Ivan, Vines trip to Australia was aimed at winning the Aussie title. First step in the GS.
Also Budge in 1937/38. First step in the GS.
That was a long voyage, and they needed some time to get acclimatized prior to the national championships.
You are certainly a champion nit-picker, but you missed the big picture here.

Aimed - yes. Your wording was different.

 

[elegos7]

There is a value in actually going out into the world and playing a lot of tournaments and matches, against all manner of opponents in all sorts of places, as opposed to playing a very few matches but defending your biggest title. The reverse is true, also - it is great to be a defending champion who successfully defends. But your rankings suggest to me that you don't much value the former.

I agree, there is value in both approaches.
However, by studying contemporary rankings and classifications before 1914 it looks like the compilers of those took the second approach. I wanted my rankings to reflect what contemporary writers would have thought.

 

[Drob]

I agree, there is value in both approaches.
However, by studying contemporary rankings and classifications before 1914 it looks like the compilers of those took the second approach. I wanted my rankings to reflect what contemporary writers would have thought.

I understand. You mean writers in ca. 1909, in this case.

 

[elegos7]

I understand. You mean writers in ca. 1909, in this case.

Yes, I mean the compilers of rankings before 1914.

 

[urban]

Now i am a great fan of work rate in tennis, but in periods, when the top players played each other constantly. For the pre 1914 era, one has to take a different approach, as Elegos said, and focus more on the big occasions. Otherwise one underrates a player like "The wizard" Norman Brookes to a great extend, who played only sporadically, but with his Davis Cup and Wimbledon wins, brought Australian tennis on the map. And he was really good, at 42 he took Tilden to 4 close sets in Davis Cup, and even at the ripe age of 46, at Wimbledon 1924, he managed to beat Frank Hunter, the losing finalist (to Johnston) of 1923.

 

[Drob]

Yes, I mean the compilers of rankings before 1914.

Very good. That is a straightforward approach and I think it is the right approach for your book, which is concise summaries of each year, and not meant to be "critical history".

It is appropriate for you to report or approximate the rankings as you do, considering the objective of your book.

For me and for others, the field is wider.

The business of Ritchie actually underscores my perhaps over-rich analogies regarding "revisions" and reworkings in the history of writing about history.

There is no reason to avoid re-working yearly rankings. When you go back to 1909 or whatever it can be more problematic because of the limited number of original sources - the original sources must be given a lot of weight, even in a "critical history." Still, 10 titles, eight solid, in those days was exceptional (11 if you count the All-Comers).

My point does not apply to your "Concise History of Tennis" which stands on its own as an essential reference. But it does apply to the broad interest in understanding the history of tennis.

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

Short, simple, perfect

We can't just accept what the writers of yore said. Thanks to the statistical tools we have now (thanks to folks like NoMercy), we can make independent assessments that may differ from those of the "ancients".

 

[Drob]

Now i am a great fan of work rate in tennis, but in periods, when the top players played each other constantly. For the pre 1914 era, one has to take a different approach, as Elegos said, and focus more on the big occasions. Otherwise one underrates a player like "The wizard" Norman Brookes to a great extend, who played only sporadically, but with his Davis Cup and Wimbledon wins, brought Australian tennis on the map. And he was really good, at 42 he took Tilden to 4 close sets in Davis Cup, and even at the ripe age of 46, at Wimbledon 1924, he managed to beat Frank Hunter, the losing finalist (to Johnston) of 1923.

Esteemed colleague:

You are indeed a fan of "work rate", perhaps the biggest fan. Elegos7 acknowledges that both "work rate" and "successful defending champion" are important. That is what I was trying to say.

I accept that the situation before WW I was different. Laurie Doughtery was probably considered something of a globetrotter. I think Anthony Wilding was criticized by some for being "like a professional." So, if a player only defended a few titles, I am not going to blame the fellow for behaving like a "civilized amateur." Still, we have a different view of things today.

Everything really is relative. I understand if Larned or Brookes did not play many tournaments. More in our range of comfort, we have the cases of Johnston and Borotra tending to business, Budge and Kramer as amateurs preferring to play rather few tournaments (and Kramer as pro for that matter), Nusslein giving lessons to pay the rent instead of competing at many top tournaments, Schroeder playing very seldom most of the time, Sedgman as more-or-less a part-timer as a pro, the promising Mal Anderson becoming a one-fifth timer, and then Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Borg et al. choosing not to play all number of Slams.

How we judge the relativity, or the mixture, is the question. IMHO Major Ritchie may have been the first "tennis bum" (or that may have been Wilding), but by our lights he was out there giving battle wherever, and I for one am going to give him credit for that. Ritchie is not No. 8 for 1909, or other years. He is nearer the top. Where he ranks exactly in given years, I don't know, but it seems that it is ineluctably higher than eighth.

 

[urban]

No ranking by an individual is dogmatic set in stone, we are of course not talking about the "ex cathreda" principle of the catholic church. Myers rankings were citicized even in the 1930s by German experts, because he always preferred grass court results over clay results. But going by results in the pre 1914 era. It simply must be something wrong with a ranking system, if the workhorse Major Ritchie, who seemed to have a lot of spare time in the army, had a 1-1 record in just 1 Davis Cup tie 1908, in a 1-4 losing interzone final vs. USA, 1 Wimbledon losing final, and gets 5 Nr. 1 rankings. And Brookes gets none Nr. 1 ranking, while he won 18 out of 25 singles (18 out of 23 pre 1914) in 14 Davis Cup ties, mostly deciding matches in Challenge Rounds, and 2 (out of 3 played pre 1914) Wimbledon wins, in allcomers and Challenge Round, plus 1 allcomers).

 

[Drob]

Well, I said nothing about No. 1, or even No. 3, and nothing against Brookes, so perhaps yours was not a response to my post, but to someone else.

I am out of my depth with this era. I can only ask questions, cannot draw conclusions. My impressions may be too superficial.

 

[elegos7]

No ranking by an individual is dogmatic set in stone, we are of course not talking about the "ex cathreda" principle of the catholic church. Myers rankings were citicized even in the 1930s by German experts, because he always preferred grass court results over clay results. But going by results in the pre 1914 era. It simply must be something wrong with a ranking system, if the workhorse Major Ritchie, who seemed to have a lot of spare time in the army, had a 1-1 record in just 1 Davis Cup tie 1908, in a 1-4 losing interzone final vs. USA, 1 Wimbledon losing final, and gets 5 Nr. 1 rankings. And Brookes gets none Nr. 1 ranking, while he won 18 out of 25 singles (18 out of 23 pre 1914) in 14 Davis Cup ties, mostly deciding matches in Challenge Rounds, and 2 (out of 2 played pre 1914) Wimbledon wins, in allcomers and Challenge Round.

Brookes also played at Wimbledon in 1905, when he lost in the Challenge Round to Laurie Doherty.
In this season Lawn Tennis and Badminton classified the British players and the American and Australian visitors, and it can be regarded as the first world rankings, because all the leading players played in England in this season.
1 L. Doherty 2 Wright 3 Brookes 4 Smith 5 Ward 6 Larned 7 Gore 8 Ritchie.

In 1906 the best American and Australasian players did not make the trip again, and London Telegraph ranked only the British players (together with Wilding). In this year Ritchie was ranked 8th once again.

Unfortunately, I could not find any international rankings for 1907, the last time before 1913 that the best American and Australasian players participated at Wimbledon. But Brookes must have made a lasting impression. Brookes was the toughest player to rank for me between 1908 and 1913, because he practically limited his activity to defend the Davis Cup. He was still regarded by A.E. Crawley and Dewhurst as the best player in the world in 1912 (before the Davis Cup challenge round, when he was beaten by Parke).

In 1908, despite his semi-retirement, Doherty was still ranked No 1 in Germany, ahead of Co No-2 Wilding, Froitzheim and Ritchie.

I suspect Myers only started his world rankings in 1913, because, with the Davis Cup back in England, he could see all the best players facing each other once again. It would be nice to read his arguments behind his 1913 rankings. It is a pity he did not start his rankings earlier, after Lawn Tennis and Badminton stopped publishing classifications.

 

[NoMercy]

 

[Drob]

I stated that Ritchie should be higher than eighth. Although I did not specify 1909, that was the year that was being discussed.

My statement was not a hypothesis, of course. But it may have been hasty. Let's see if I disprove my statement.

In my opinion the Top 8 looks like this:

1​

Bill Larned

2​

Tony Wilding

3​

Norman Brookes

4​

Arthur Gore

5​

Bill Clothier

6​

Otto Froitzheim

7​

Fred Alexander

8​

Major Ritchie

This list reflects the probable consensus of opinion at the end of 1909. I use it for that reason.

According to records at thetennisbase.com, here are the respective 1909 records:

Larned: 5-1. Won US Nat'l CR, Longwood CR, 2-0 in Davis Cup. Did not play the Davis Cup Challenge Round. I realize that was a long trip but still this fact cuts against Larned's claim to No. 1. I don't think much of a 5-1 record for an entire year.

Wilding: 29-0. Won Tarnaki, Wairarapa, Otago, Australasian, Victorian, New Zealand. 2-0 in DC Challenge Round. The Victorian is the only strong championship here in terms of field. NZ not so bad, Australasian was weak, the other three "small".

Brookes: 9-1. 2-0 in DC Challenge Round. Loss to Wilding at Victorian. No tournament titles.

Gore: 1-2. That's right, 1-2. Won Wimbledon CR.

Clothier: 14-4. US Nat'l All-Comers, Longwood All-Comers, 2-0 Davis Cup. Chose not to go to Challenge Round.

Froitzheim: 26-2. German Int'l, Hamburg, Homburg Cup, So. of England.

Alexander: 14-2. Monte Carlo, Rivera Ch., So. of France

Ritchie: 80-10. Cannes, Brit. Covered Courts, Surrey, East of Surrey, Kent, Queen's, Wimbledon All-Comers, Berkshire, European Ch., Northumberland, London Covered Courts, and 5 finals.

This is interesting.

First, I am saved from complete error by Arthur Gore. 1-2? He should not be near the top eight. It was the Wimbledon CR. Very good. Where would Federer be ranked for a year if he was 7-0, winning Wimbledon? Wherever 2,000 points would get him. In the last normal season, 2019, that would be tied for 16th. With 7 victories, not with a single victory and two losses.

Let's take Clothier next. I don't see how he can be ranked above Ritchie. They each won a Major All-Comer. Clothier did win two DC rubbers then shrugged off the CR. Against that are 10 titles (11 counting the All-Comers).

Brookes: Here is what the author said:

Brookes still had a great reputation, and was clearly better than Gore in 1907

The author is reporting the thinking at the time. I would not rank Brookes above Ritchie in 1909 based upon reputation, and I don't think it is the way we have been doing it for the last century. Brookes' DC Challenge Round victories are very important. Important enough to put him above Ritchie? I guess it is debatable.

Larned: I already said what I think of a 5-1 number-one. Larned is similar to Brookes here. I think the question between him and Ritchie is debatable. I guess it is a 2-0 DC record and a failed-to-show against 10 titles. To me, the All-Comers triumph is at least equal to one win at the US Nat'l CR.

Debateable also Froitzheim and Alexander.

Froitzheim defeated Ritchie in their two encounters. Alexander also went 2-0 versus Ritchie.

Looking at Ritchie's titles, I would have to say that besides the All-Comers, there were probably only four strong tournaments - the British Covered Courts, Kent, Queen's and London Covered Courts. At the All-Comers he beat 5 players who TB has retroactively ranked in the top-20 at the time.

Elegos7 thought that Alexander and Froitzheim's wins over Ritchie merited putting them above Josiah. There is something to the idea. It is not a factor in the rankings of modern times. Federer would have been No. 1 for 2017 if his wins over Nadal were given special weight. Still, I am not against this approach.

In the case of Froitzheim, I'll go with elegos7. The case of Alexander is harder because it seems a slim record at 14-2. I don't think Ritchie gets it just on workload, but there is quality there as well.

Here is how I think I might rank them, looking at the respective records for 1909, and deciding most debates against Ritchie.

1. Wilding
2. Brookes
3. Froitzheim/Larned
5. Ritchie/Clothier
7. Alexander
8. Gore


Davis Cup is determinative. I think Wilding is plainly No. 1. Brookes gets my No. 2 almost entirely on his two DC victories. Larned and especially Clothier are behind Ritchie in all other respects, but their success at Davis Cup, although limited and incomplete, gives them a big boost. I decided four debates against Ritchie (Brookes, Froitzheim, Larned, Clothier) and one in his favor (Alexander).

 

[Drob]

On second thought, I'll bite the bullet:

5. Ritchie
6. Clothier

 

[NoMercy]

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 no, Budge yes.

American 1932/33 team abroad trip was scheduled since mid 1932.
It was a 5 month tour, along Hawaii, Japan, Australia, NZ and maybe South Africa (I don’t remember now).
It‘s something almost all big tennis countries did back then, like France 27/28, UK 33/34.
It was like a exchange of commitment.
Australian team was doing the same, spending 4/5 months in USA or in Europe.

Budge yes, he openly declared he was going there for the Grand Slam.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No ranking by an individual is dogmatic set in stone, we are of course not talking about the "ex cathreda" principle of the catholic church. Myers rankings were citicized even in the 1930s by German experts, because he always preferred grass court results over clay results. But going by results in the pre 1914 era. It simply must be something wrong with a ranking system, if the workhorse Major Ritchie, who seemed to have a lot of spare time in the army, had a 1-1 record in just 1 Davis Cup tie 1908, in a 1-4 losing interzone final vs. USA, 1 Wimbledon losing final, and gets 5 Nr. 1 rankings. And Brookes gets none Nr. 1 ranking, while he won 18 out of 25 singles (18 out of 23 pre 1914) in 14 Davis Cup ties, mostly deciding matches in Challenge Rounds, and 2 (out of 2 played pre 1914) Wimbledon wins, in allcomers and Challenge Round.

The standards of what constitutes a major event changes from decade to decade, especially in the old pro era when the top events could be big in one year, and then not even be held the following year. How can you defend a title which disappears for some years? The standards of evaluation must change.

The difference between grass and clay is so great that it is impossible to create a combined all-surface ranking. There has to be a ranking for each surface, and the ranking lists will be drastically different depending on the surface. The problems of creating a combined amateur/pro ranking list for the old era are less than creating a combined grass/clay list.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Vines no, Budge yes.

American 1932/33 team abroad trip was scheduled since mid 1932.
It was a 5 month tour, along Hawaii, Japan, Australia, NZ and maybe South Africa (I don’t remember now).
It‘s something almost all big tennis countries did back then, like France 27/28, UK 33/34.
It was like a exchange of commitment.
Australian team was doing the same, spending 4/5 months in USA or in Europe.

Budge yes, he openly declared he was going there for the Grand Slam.

The Australian team was different, their top DC players always toured Europe each year, to allow the players to compete for big titles, and also the USA for this reason. This was one of the rewards of being on the Aussie team.

Did Budge travel alone to Australia in late 1937, or did other U.S. players also go as part of the team? I believe that at least von Cramm and the German team went there as well, so there was some element of DC preparation for both players. There is no reason why Vines could not have considered the GS in his trip to Australia, and the U.S. team would surely not plan a trip there without first consulting Vines as to his wishes.

 

[NoMercy]

The Australian team was different, their top DC players always toured Europe each year, to allow the players to compete for big titles, and also the USA for this reason. This was one of the rewards of being on the Aussie team.

Did Budge travel alone to Australia in late 1937, or did other U.S. players also go as part of the team? I believe that at least von Cramm and the German team went there as well, so there was some element of DC preparation for both players. There is no reason why Vines could not have considered the GS in his trip to Australia, and the U.S. team would surely not plan a trip there without first consulting Vines as to his wishes.

They always travelled as a team.
Because federation was paying for the trip, not the players.
But Budge requested to go, Vines just accepted the request. It’s different.

In mid 1932 Grand Slam didn’t exist yet.
The concept came out thanks to Crawford, there was no real interest in the Australian Champs.

 

[NoMercy]

The Australian team was different, their top DC players always toured Europe each year, to allow the players to compete for big titles, and also the USA for this reason. This was one of the rewards of being on the Aussie team.

Did Budge travel alone to Australia in late 1937, or did other U.S. players also go as part of the team? I believe that at least von Cramm and the German team went there as well, so there was some element of DC preparation for both players. There is no reason why Vines could not have considered the GS in his trip to Australia, and the U.S. team would surely not plan a trip there without first consulting Vines as to his wishes.

1932 is not 1933.
Crawford’s run changed the perception of tennis glory. All the hype behind his possible Grand Slam switched the focus from leading H2H to making the Grand Slam.
Cochet goes to NY in 1932 not for the US nationals, but for Vines.
It‘s not a coincidence he went back to NY after 4 years. He went back because he lost to Vines in Davis Cup and his leading position in tennis world was weakening.
If Cochet had beaten Vines in Davis Cup, Cochet wouldn’t have gone to NY.
He needed to beat Vines. But he lost again.
Vines is number one in 1932 for his 2-0 vs Cochet in big events, not for the tournaments he won.

Crawford changed everything.

 

[elegos7]

Here is how I think I might rank them, looking at the respective records for 1909, and deciding most debates against Ritchie.

1. Wilding
2. Brookes
3. Froitzheim/Larned
5. Ritchie/Clothier
7. Alexander
8. Gore

Can you tell me exactly which match Bill Larned lost in 1909? I thought he had an unbeaten record that year.

Already in 1908 Larned was the best player, ahead of US2 Wright and beating Ritchie in Davis Cup. Brookes in 1908 lost to Wright (US2) in the Davis Cup Challenge Round and could only narrowly beat Alexander (US3). Brookes did not have a significant win in 1908 and 1909, and he could be ranked even lower than I did, but he had such a great reputation before and after that.

I would not rank Wilding No 1 either, as in 1908 he was inferior to Gore and Roper Barrett at Wimbledon, and lost to Wright as well in Davis Cup. In 1909 he only played in Australasia, and did not face British or leading American players.

In those years only the head-to-head results in big events counted, there is no use establishing a retrospective point system, based on the conceptions of modern times. Yes, in those days defending the Wimbledon title was often enough to be ranked No 1, unless the player lost in Davis Cup. Even in 1924, Lenglen was still No 1 according to Myers, because she was unbeaten the whole year, winning just a few tournaments on the Riviera. But she was dominant in 1923 and no one beat her in 1924.

It was far more important to whom you lost, than how many opponents you beat. That is why I am interested in losses.
Concerning Gore’s record, what was his second defeat that year? I thought he only lost in the British Covered Court challenge round to Ritchie.
I would also be interested where Clothier lost matches apart from his two close defeats by Larned.

I would not rank Froitzheim too high, he had not played at Wimbledon or the Davis Cup yet.

 

[Dan Lobb]

They always travelled as a team.
Because federation was paying for the trip, not the players.
But Budge requested to go, Vines just accepted the request. It’s different.

In mid 1932 Grand Slam didn’t exist yet.
The concept came out thanks to Crawford, there was no real interest in the Australian Champs.

The GS concept was popularized by the press in 1930 to describe Bobby Jones' sweep of the major golf titles.
It was a small step to move the concept to the major tennis titles.
Are you saying that Budge told the American team to go to Australia? I doubt that this happened.
We don't really know if Vines initiated the Australia tour in 1932.

 

[NoMercy]

The GS concept was popularized by the press in 1930 to describe Bobby Jones' sweep of the major golf titles.
It was a small step to move the concept to the major tennis titles.
Are you saying that Budge told the American team to go to Australia? I doubt that this happened.
We don't really know if Vines initiated the Australia tour in 1932.

I’m saying that Budge openly declared he wanted to go for the Grand Slam.

And I’m saying that Vines didn’t do the same.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I’m saying that Budge openly declared he wanted to go for the Grand Slam.

And I’m saying that Vines didn’t do the same.

The bottom line, though...did Budge instruct the American team that he wanted them to go to Australia?
That is the question.
It is possible that Budge did make such a request, as he was top guy in the tennis game in that year.
Likewise, Vines had the same kind of stature in 1932, he could make a "suggestion" along the same lines.

 

[Drob]

Can you tell me exactly which match Bill Larned lost in 1909? I thought he had an unbeaten record that year.

Already in 1908 Larned was the best player, ahead of US2 Wright and beating Ritchie in Davis Cup. Brookes in 1908 lost to Wright (US2) in the Davis Cup Challenge Round and could only narrowly beat Alexander (US3). Brookes did not have a significant win in 1908 and 1909, and he could be ranked even lower than I did, but he had such a great reputation before and after that.

I would not rank Wilding No 1 either, as in 1908 he was inferior to Gore and Roper Barrett at Wimbledon, and lost to Wright as well in Davis Cup. In 1909 he only played in Australasia, and did not face British or leading American players.

In those years only the head-to-head results in big events counted, there is no use establishing a retrospective point system, based on the conceptions of modern times. Yes, in those days defending the Wimbledon title was often enough to be ranked No 1, unless the player lost in Davis Cup. Even in 1924, Lenglen was still No 1 according to Myers, because she was unbeaten the whole year, winning just a few tournaments on the Riviera. But she was dominant in 1923 and no one beat her in 1924.

It was far more important to whom you lost, than how many opponents you beat. That is why I am interested in losses.
Concerning Gore’s record, what was his second defeat that year? I thought he only lost in the British Covered Court challenge round to Ritchie.
I would also be interested where Clothier lost matches apart from his two close defeats by Larned.

I would not rank Froitzheim too high, he had not played at Wimbledon or the Davis Cup yet.

For Larned I counted a walkover win and a walkover defeat at Englewood. Perhaps that is a mistake and it should be 4-0. ATP does not count walkovers for head-to-head, but appears to count them for the player's won-loss record, and obviously does for tournament results, meaning on its website if you go to ATP Finals 2014, it says Djokovic Defeats Federer W/O. Then if you go to Federer's "Activity" on the ATP website, it will list that match as a loss and it counts as a loss toward the total of 12 losses for that season, per the ATP.

Clothier's other two were also walkovers - at Middle States and Meadow Club.

Gore lost at Nottinghamshire to Doherty.

 

[Ivan69]

I stated that Ritchie should be higher than eighth. Although I did not specify 1909, that was the year that was being discussed.

According to records at thetennisbase.com, here are the respective 1909 records:

Larned: 5-1. Won US Nat'l CR, Longwood CR, 2-0 in Davis Cup. Did not play the Davis Cup Challenge Round. I realize that was a long trip but still this fact cuts against Larned's claim to No. 1. I don't think much of a 5-1 record for an entire year.

Wilding: 29-0. Won Tarnaki, Wairarapa, Otago, Australasian, Victorian, New Zealand. 2-0 in DC Challenge Round. The Victorian is the only strong championship here in terms of field. NZ not so bad, Australasian was weak, the other three "small".

Brookes: 9-1. 2-0 in DC Challenge Round. Loss to Wilding at Victorian. No tournament titles.

Gore: 1-2. That's right, 1-2. Won Wimbledon CR.

Clothier: 14-4. US Nat'l All-Comers, Longwood All-Comers, 2-0 Davis Cup. Chose not to go to Challenge Round.

Froitzheim: 26-2. German Int'l, Hamburg, Homburg Cup, So. of England.

Alexander: 14-2. Monte Carlo, Rivera Ch., So. of France

Ritchie: 80-10. Cannes, Brit. Covered Courts, Surrey, East of Surrey, Kent, Queen's, Wimbledon All-Comers, Berkshire, European Ch., Northumberland, London Covered Courts, and 5 finals.

Let's take Clothier next. I don't see how he can be ranked above Ritchie. They each won a Major All-Comer. Clothier did win two DC rubbers then shrugged off the CR. Against that are 10 titles (11 counting the All-Comers).

Brookes: The author is reporting the thinking at the time. I would not rank Brookes above Ritchie in 1909 based upon reputation, and I don't think it is the way we have been doing it for the last century. Brookes' DC Challenge Round victories are very important. Important enough to put him above Ritchie? I guess it is debatable.

Larned: I already said what I think of a 5-1 number-one. Larned is similar to Brookes here. I think the question between him and Ritchie is debatable. I guess it is a 2-0 DC record and a failed-to-show against 10 titles. To me, the All-Comers triumph is at least equal to one win at the US Nat'l CR.

Debateable also Froitzheim and Alexander.

Froitzheim defeated Ritchie in their two encounters. Alexander also went 2-0 versus Ritchie.

Looking at Ritchie's titles, I would have to say that besides the All-Comers, there were probably only four strong tournaments - the British Covered Courts, Kent, Queen's and London Covered Courts. At the All-Comers he beat 5 players who TB has retroactively ranked in the top-20 at the time.

Elegos7 thought that Alexander and Froitzheim's wins over Ritchie merited putting them above Josiah. There is something to the idea. It is not a factor in the rankings of modern times. Federer would have been No. 1 for 2017 if his wins over Nadal were given special weight. Still, I am not against this approach.

Here is how I think I might rank them, looking at the respective records for 1909, and deciding most debates against Ritchie.

1. Wilding
2. Brookes
3. Froitzheim/Larned
5. Ritchie/Clothier
7. Alexander
8. Gore

Davis Cup is determinative. I think Wilding is plainly No. 1. Brookes gets my No. 2 almost entirely on his two DC victories. Larned and especially Clothier are behind Ritchie in all other respects, but their success at Davis Cup, although limited and incomplete, gives them a big boost.

Already in 1908 Larned was the best player, ahead of US2 Wright and beating Ritchie in Davis Cup. Brookes in 1908 lost to Wright (US2) in the Davis Cup Challenge Round and could only narrowly beat Alexander (US3). Brookes did not have a significant win in 1908 and 1909, and he could be ranked even lower than I did, but he had such a great reputation before and after that.

I would not rank Wilding No 1 either, as in 1908 he was inferior to Gore and Roper Barrett at Wimbledon, and lost to Wright as well in Davis Cup. In 1909 he only played in Australasia, and did not face British or leading American players.

In those years only the head-to-head results in big events counted, there is no use establishing a retrospective point system, based on the conceptions of modern times. Yes, in those days defending the Wimbledon title was often enough to be ranked No 1, unless the player lost in Davis Cup. Even in 1924, Lenglen was still No 1 according to Myers, because she was unbeaten the whole year, winning just a few tournaments on the Riviera. But she was dominant in 1923 and no one beat her in 1924.

It was far more important to whom you lost, than how many opponents you beat. That is why I am interested in losses.
Concerning Gore’s record, what was his second defeat that year? I thought he only lost in the British Covered Court challenge round to Ritchie.
I would also be interested where Clothier lost matches apart from his two close defeats by Larned.

I understand the pattern of elegos7, urban and Drob to make their rankings for those times the key factor had been the Davis Cup.
What I don't understand is why they change their own criteria during the discussions and I ask for their concrete answers. Let's forget for now Ritchie. I will come to this later.

In some posts elegos7 mentioned how many times player A beat player B or player C beat player D in Davis in a given year. That's OK according to his criteria. In the same time elegos7 told that his No 1 for 1909 is Larned. We should expect that Larned won DC that year. Was it so? We know the answer. So, other (new) reasons appeared in elegos7' choice - US Nationals, unbeaten record of 4-0 and ... his results in 1908 (!?!).

The first natural question - why elegos7 did gave up in 1909 from the widely proclaimed DC - the icon of tennis ?
Why he has chosen US Nationals as maybe the second best icon of tennis ? Why not Wimbledon ?
Why elegos7 has chosen the "unbeaten record of 4-0" but not the unbeaten record of 29-0 ? As I know 29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.
Since when the ranking in a given year is determined (by default) by the results of the previous year ?

Drob placed Wilding and Brookes No 1 and No 2 for 1909, obviously based on DC (Australia and Victorian ch. were far from the good). urban agreed. I propose that the guys know that in these early 1900s the participating countries in Davis were 3 (in the first 2-3 years only 2). So, DC should have been the standard of the top tennis when only 2 or 3 countries participated (usually the USA, Britain and Australia). Some people would say these were the leading tennis countries. I would say that if DC was the top of the tops it would have been NOT so limited.
Drob says DC in 1909 was determinative for his choice (No 1 and No 2). elegos placed Wilding and Brookes No 2 and No 3 based on DC. Now let's see who were the opponents of Wilding and Brookes in the challenge round - 18 years old McLaughlin and Long, far from the top US players. McLaughlin's big career started maybe in 1911 through 1915. Long didn't reach even close to the top.
So, in a 3 countries tournament (Davis Cup) Australia played only the CR where the experienced Wilding and Brookes won vs pimply young players. And DC should have been the standard for top tennis !!! Really ? Forget for a moment any experts' opinions and ask yourselves. Does the quality of tennis matter before the open era ?

Drob, you presented an excellent methodology for Davis cup. I appreciated it. But why did you made an exclusion for 1909 ? 3 matches for Wilding and Brookes and that vs weak opponents. If it is not a major up to your criteria how can it be "determinitive" for 1909 ?

Drob, if you counted 5 top titles for Ritchie how much are they for Froitzheim? 2?

Drob raised another good theme - the scope of play of some players in a year. As we see from his stats some players have played shockingly few matches. But they are on the top. elegos7 and urban, do you really think that players with 5, 10, 15 matches in the year deserve the top places ? Even when they didn't meet the other top players. Forget for a moment again any experts' opinions or long-held theories.
Does somebody realize that such theories in fact do penalize other players like Wilding, Ritchie, Gore, Doherty having played 50+ matches a year? Were all they so stupid to play significantly a lot?
If 4-0 is the standard of the top tennis and a highly valuable "record" what should we say about Wilding's and Tilden's 100+ records? Everybody knows that the probability of making a loss out of 100 matches is 25 times higher than out of 4 matches.

Why should we ignore the fact that in those days tournaments like Irish ch., British Covered courts, Queen's, Monte Carlo, Nice, Eastbourne, Beckenham had much more deep and strong field than Davis ? Were hundreds of players and hundreds of tournaments so deluded that their product doesn't matter? Or the easiest way is to recognize 4 matches a year at the No 1 spot.

Re Ritchie - I don't claim that he was the best player for 1909. The term "best player" is too too subjective and not measurable in an environment of a real inter-atlantic lack of play. I claim that Ritchie made the best season among all other players. No matter if his balance was 80-10 or 90-15 it is comparable with the best standards of the top players.

I respect somebody's different method of evaluation. Still they are too many questions with no reasonable answers.

 

[NoMercy]

The bottom line, though...did Budge instruct the American team that he wanted them to go to Australia?
That is the question.
It is possible that Budge did make such a request, as he was top guy in the tennis game in that year.
Likewise, Vines had the same kind of stature in 1932, he could make a "suggestion" along the same lines.

Everything is possible.
But for Budge we know he wanted to go to Australia and in 1938 Grand Slam meant already something.
For Vines we don’t know. Trip was already planned before the US nationals and Australian Champs were not yet a very interesting (for the players) tournament.

 

[elegos7]

In some posts elegos7 mentioned how many times player A beat player B or player C beat player D in Davis in a given year. That's OK according to his criteria. In the same time elegos7 told that his No 1 for 1909 is Larned. We should expect that Larned won DC that year. Was it so? We know the answer. So, other (new) reasons appeared in elegos7' choice - US Nationals, unbeaten record of 4-0 and ... his results in 1908 (!?!).
The first natural question - why elegos7 did gave up in 1909 from the widely proclaimed DC - the icon of tennis ?
Why he has chosen US Nationals as maybe the second best icon of tennis ? Why not Wimbledon ?
Why elegos7 has chosen the "unbeaten record of 4-0" but not the unbeaten record of 29-0 ? As I know 29 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.
Since when the ranking in a given year is determined (by default) by the results of the previous year ?

elegos7 and urban, do you really think that players with 5, 10, 15 matches in the year deserve the top places ? Even when they didn't meet the other top players. Forget for a moment again any experts' opinions or long-held theories.
Does somebody realize that such theories in fact do penalize other players like Wilding, Ritchie, Gore, Doherty having played 50+ matches a year? Were all they so stupid to play significantly a lot?
If 4-0 is the standard of the top tennis and a highly valuable "record" what should we say about Wilding's and Tilden's 100+ records? Everybody knows that the probability of making a loss out of 100 matches is 25 times higher than out of 4 matches.

Why should we ignore the fact that in those days tournaments like Irish ch., British Covered courts, Queen's, Monte Carlo, Nice, Eastbourne, Beckenham had much more deep and strong field than Davis ? Were hundreds of players and hundreds of tournaments so deluded that their product doesn't matter? Or the easiest way is to recognize 4 matches a year at the No 1 spot.

Wright's victories at the 1908 Davis Cup Challenge round imply he, as US2 was better than Brookes or Wilding. That is why I gave Larned, the official US1, the top spot in 1908. Larned played Davis Cup in 1908, but probably did not have the time to make the long ship voyage to Australia for the Challenge Round. It was known before he played his matches against the British Isles that he cannot take part in the Challenge Round.

The situation is similar in 1909, Larned was undefeated and could not participate in the Challenge Round (the 1909 Challenre Round provides little info because the available American team was rather weak). I give Larned the top spot in 1909, and also in 1910, because he obtained it in 1908 and did not lose a match till the end of 1911, when he lost in the Challenge Round.
In years when the top players did not face each other (it is especially true for the 1908 to 1912 period) I started from the previous year's rankings, and observed whether the top players defended their titles, and to whom they lost matches.
When I studied the classifications published before 1914, it became apparent that players often obtained the top positions by simply defending their big titles, without playing too many matches. For many years William Renshaw played only one singles match in a season, when he defended his Wimbledon title. He played a lot in doubles, and probably in singles handicaps (Ernest Renshaw was the best handicap player based on reports), but did not want to be a pot-hunter, as some of the players were called who played singles in many tournaments.
All tournaments were important because they counted for the head-to-head record. Still, players with a 1-0 or 2-0 yearly record could obtain the top spot in classifications. I accept this because this is the way amateur tennis was evaluated before 1914.

 

[Ivan69]

Everything is possible.
But for Budge we know he wanted to go to Australia and in 1938 Grand Slam meant already something.
For Vines we don’t know. Trip was already planned before the US nationals and Australian Champs were not yet a very interesting (for the players) tournament.

Some say Jack Mazzoni is the best Italian DJ. Salut!

 

[Ivan69]

Wright's victories at the 1908 Davis Cup Challenge round imply he, as US2 was better than Brookes or Wilding. That is why I gave Larned, the official US1, the top spot in 1908. Larned played Davis Cup in 1908, but probably did not have the time to make the long ship voyage to Australia for the Challenge Round. It was known before he played his matches against the British Isles that he cannot take part in the Challenge Round.

Big implies, bro. Not serious.
Did not have the time? But how then if he hadn't played ?????? I may say that the 2020 US champion is Djokovic because if he would have played he would have won it.

The situation is similar in 1909, Larned was undefeated and could not participate in the Challenge Round (the 1909 Challenre Round provides little info because the available American team was rather weak). I give Larned the top spot in 1909, and also in 1910, because he obtained it in 1908 and did not lose a match till the end of 1911, when he lost in the Challenge Round.
In years when the top players did not face each other (it is especially true for the 1908 to 1912 period) I started from the previous year's rankings, and observed whether the top players defended their titles, and to whom they lost matches.

Not serious, bro. You should know better that every year is different and should be reviewed separately. A player may play better, worse, may not play!!! Rankings BY DEFAULT are not serious and not relevant. They are just experiments and free interpretations.

When I studied the classifications published before 1914, it became apparent that players often obtained the top positions by simply defending their big titles, without playing too many matches. For many years William Renshaw played only one singles match in a season, when he defended his Wimbledon title. He played a lot in doubles, and probably in singles handicaps (Ernest Renshaw was the best handicap player based on reports), but did not want to be a pot-hunter, as some of the players were called who played singles in many tournaments.
All tournaments were important because they counted for the head-to-head record. Still, players with a 1-0 or 2-0 yearly record could obtain the top spot in classifications. I accept this because this is the way amateur tennis was evaluated before 1914.

So Renshaw with 1 match is comparable with Doherty with 50 matches. Forget the classifications and tell me that you think this seriously it's logical and reasonable. Your personal perception.

If all those classifications are irrelevant and insane they are just for the thrash. A researcher or historian or whatever can't repeat the mistakes from the past. He has to fix them. A general rule of the historical science.

 

[elegos7]

So Renshaw with 1 match is comparable with Doherty with 50 matches. Forget the classifications and tell me that you think this seriously it's logical and reasonable. Your personal perception.

I agree with the contemporary classifications. It is also my personal perception that it was enough for the best players to play one or two matches to prove their superiority.
Please do not expect from me to state my opinion once again. This is what I think, and I do not want you to agree with me.

 

[Ivan69]

I agree with the contemporary classifications. It is also my personal perception that it was enough for the best players to play one or two matches to prove their superiority.
Please do not expect from me to state my opinion once again. This is what I think, and I do not want you to agree with me.

ok, but I still don't understand. To "prove the superiority" and to "presume the superiority" are 2 totally different terms. Usual are the cases when the top players did not meet in many years. If playing 1-2 matches how a superiority can be proven but not presumed? Because you understand, your presumption may be one, other peoples' may be another. You could be right, you could be wrong. So could they. None of them can defend and prove their imaginable presumptions. It is not scientifically sound and logical.
I don't want you to agree with my lists. But a scientific approach is needed for any lists or conclusions.

 

[elegos7]

ok, but I still don't understand. To "prove the superiority" and to "presume the superiority" are 2 totally different terms. Usual are the cases when the top players did not meet in many years. If playing 1-2 matches how a superiority can be proven but not presumed? Because you understand, your presumption may be one, other peoples' may be another. You could be right, you could be wrong. So could they. None of them can defend and prove their imaginable presumptions. It is not scientifically sound and logical.
I don't want you to agree with my lists. But a scientific approach is needed for any lists or conclusions. Especially for respected persons like you.

I understand what you mean. Of course no rankings are completely accurate and cannot be proven to be right, especially before 1990. The compilers of rankings had to make many presumptions to arrive at their rankings. I never claimed my rankings are the only possible ones, I just tried to make them as similar to the standards of the particular years as possible.
I think an ELO rating similar to chess could be applicable for tennis in the pre-open era. I hope someone will introduce such a ranking in the future.

 

[Ivan69]

I understand what you mean. Of course no rankings are completely accurate and cannot be proven to be right, especially before 1990. The compilers of rankings had to make many presumptions to arrive at their rankings. I never claimed my rankings are the only possible ones, I just tried to make them as similar to the standards of the particular years as possible.
I think an ELO rating similar to chess could be applicable for tennis in the pre-open era. I hope someone will introduce such a ranking in the future.

Can you elaborate on this ELO system? Do you have the complete rules? I am not a fan of chess.
But if you want we can at least make some trials to see what's happening.

 

[elegos7]

Can you elaborate on this ELO system? Do you have the complete rules? I am not a fan of chess.
But if you want we can at least make some trials to see what's happening.

I do not know the complete rules for the ELO system, but I have seen it applied to football (soccer).
I will leave it to others who have the necessary computational skills and time to work out how it can be applied to tennis.

 

[Drob]

Drob placed Wilding and Brookes No 1 and No 2 for 1909, obviously based on DC (Australia and Victorian ch. were far from the good). urban agreed. I propose that the guys know that in these early 1900s the participating countries in Davis were 3 (in the first 2-3 years only 2). So, DC should have been the standard of the top tennis when only 2 or 3 countries participated (usually the USA, Britain and Australia). Some people would say these were the leading tennis countries. I would say that if DC was the top of the tops it would have been NOT so limited.
Drob says DC in 1909 was determinative for his choice (No 1 and No 2). elegos placed Wilding and Brookes No 2 and No 3 based on DC. Now let's see who were the opponents of Wilding and Brookes in the challenge round - 18 years old McLaughlin and Long, far from the top US players. McLaughlin's big career started maybe in 1911 through 1915. Long didn't reach even close to the top.
So, in a 3 countries tournament (Davis Cup) Australia played only the CR where the experienced Wilding and Brookes won vs pimply young players. And DC should have been the standard for top tennis !!! Really ? Forget for a moment any experts' opinions and ask yourselves. Does the quality of tennis matter before the open era ?

Ivan69

I respond only because you specifically asked me to. I repeat that notwithstanding I looked at the data, I remain out of my depth, or out-of-time is more like it, regarding 1909 or any of these pre-War years. This started out as a question I asked and I ended up getting into some research and trying to make heads-or-tails of what seems to me like some secret code - apparently they did not judge players pre-WWI the way we do in the "modern era" - ca. 1919-20 onward. In making the rankings I did not completely reject the consensus view at the time. I used that as a factor of weight. I also looked at the body of work of the eight players. I think it is obvious I gave credit for accomplishments. But I combined that with some deference to the apparent standard thinking of the time in question.

Regarding Davis Cup, a few things. First, as I expressed I am uneasy at best w respect to Larned or Clothier skipping the Challenge Round. For a tennis player, this is like a track and field champion not going to the Olympic Games. If you are saying I should have been harder on Larned and Clothier for skipping, well, as I said above, I was cautious and was not trying to tear down the edifice.

Second, the rankings to me were very close (with the exceptions of Wilding and Gore at each end of the spectrum). I think you make a decent point regarding the level of competition at the CR. I also think that while Davis Cup is clearly the number-one event in tennis at this time and for decades to come, there is a limit even for Davis Cup. It does not gobble up all of world-class tennis, not in any year. When in doubt, however, Davis Cup is the North Star

To the extent that your scrutiny of the CR and so forth is a criticism of my ranking Brookes No. 2, your point is noted.

Third: This gets us to the question, why did I change my criteria. I didn't. I never said or meant to say that Brookes and Wilding's CR victories amounted to a Major. The formulas I posted are the ones I use. Now, because I gave a lot of credit for their CR victory you might have inferred I considered it a Major. I will admit I gave them a lot of credit for it. I gave Larned and Clothier a lot of credit. Without the DC, Clothier isn't even on this list and Larned would drop toward the last of the eight. The year-end ranking of players should of course be based upon their performance in that particular calendar year, not on anything in any other year. Now, whether you adopt the standards of judgment of performance prevailing at the time (assuming you can understand them) or your own standards based on some rational system, or some attempt to meld the two, that is up to the individual student of history.

I may have been too cautious in my revision of the rankings. If I was, I have explained why. I am a novice at pre-WWI tennis, not even a novice. However, I also posted that I think both the Ritchie and the Larned accomplishments are very fine things. It is wonderful to defend a major title like the US Natl's under any rules (obviously the CR method is not nearly as impressive as the play-through method). What Ritchie accomplished in 1909 is impressive, as are his accomplishments in numerous other years.

I don't know about other years in this epoch, but 1909 seems rather strange. I was aware that the Dohertys played more frequently, and, of course, in the next years, Wilding will play like crazy. But I also had a general idea that Larned did not play a lot. I never expected that he only played four matches and was still considered tops in the world.

Wilding - I stick with that. He competed as much as he could w/o going to Europe or USA. He was 29-0. He won the Davis Cup.
Brookes - In the overall context of what these eight players did in 1909, there is an argument that Brookes is indeed the No. 2. I understand you criticizing that choice. A lower placement can be argued.
Froitzheim - Fairly robust year in comparison to others in this field of eight. I leave him here.
Larned - You say I should be more exacting of the champion. Maybe so. The times were different. He defended a Major and another significant title. He was successful in a DC tie. But he didn't go to the Olympics. In deference to the standards of the time, I feel like I already dropped him enough to make my point (tied for No. 3).
Ritchie - Ritchie earns No. 5. Can you argue you should be higher? Yes.
Clothier - I think I got this one correct.
Alexander - Ditto
Gore - Ditto

Again, this is not my bailiwick. After these exchanges, it looks like we have differences of opinion. It seems that you are applying a strictly modern approach to determining the rankings. There isn't anything wrong with that. If you want to apply a rational points system, why not?

I, however, don't want to do that. I have tried to explain.

Others may want the hew closely to what tennis commentators or players or other sources said at the time in question.

 

[Ivan69]

Ivan69

I respond only because you specifically asked me to. I repeat that notwithstanding I looked at the data, I remain out of my depth, or out-of-time is more like it, regarding 1909 or any of these pre-War years. This started out as a question I asked and I ended up getting into some research and trying to make heads-or-tails of what seems to me like some secret code - apparently they did not judge players pre-WWI the way we do in the "modern era" - ca. 1919-20 onward. In making the rankings I did not completely reject the consensus view at the time. I used that as a factor of weight. I also looked at the body of work of the eight players. I think it is obvious I gave credit for accomplishments. But I combined that with some deference to the apparent standard thinking of the time in question.

Regarding Davis Cup, a few things. First, as I expressed I am uneasy at best w respect to Larned or Clothier skipping the Challenge Round. For a tennis player, this is like a track and field champion not going to the Olympic Games. If you are saying I should have been harder on Larned and Clothier for skipping, well, as I said above, I was cautious and was not trying to tear down the edifice.

Second, the rankings to me were very close (with the exceptions of Wilding and Gore at each end of the spectrum). I think you make a decent point regarding the level of competition at the CR. I also think that while Davis Cup is clearly the number-one event in tennis at this time and for decades to come, there is a limit even for Davis Cup. It does not gobble up all of world-class tennis, not in any year. When in doubt, however, Davis Cup is the North Star

To the extent that your scrutiny of the CR and so forth is a criticism of my ranking Brookes No. 2, your point is noted.

Third: This gets us to the question, why did I change my criteria. I didn't. I never said or meant to say that Brookes and Wilding's CR victories amounted to a Major. The formulas I posted are the ones I use. Now, because I gave a lot of credit for their CR victory you might have inferred I considered it a Major. I will admit I gave them a lot of credit for it. I gave Larned and Clothier a lot of credit. Without the DC, Clothier isn't even on this list and Larned would drop toward the last of the eight. The year-end ranking of players should of course be based upon their performance in that particular calendar year, not on anything in any other year. Now, whether you adopt the standards of judgment of performance prevailing at the time (assuming you can understand them) or your own standards based on some rational system, or some attempt to meld the two, that is up to the individual student of history.

I may have been too cautious in my revision of the rankings. If I was, I have explained why. I am a novice at pre-WWI tennis, not even a novice. However, I also posted that I think both the Ritchie and the Larned accomplishments are very fine things. It is wonderful to defend a major title like the US Natl's under any rules (obviously the CR method is not nearly as impressive as the play-through method). What Ritchie accomplished in 1909 is impressive, as are his accomplishments in numerous other years.

I don't know about other years in this epoch, but 1909 seems rather strange. I was aware that the Dohertys played more frequently, and, of course, in the next years, Wilding will play like crazy. But I also had a general idea that Larned did not play a lot. I never expected that he only played four matches and was still considered tops in the world.

Wilding - I stick with that. He competed as much as he could w/o going to Europe or USA. He was 29-0. He won the Davis Cup.
Brookes - In the overall context of what these eight players did in 1909, there is an argument that Brookes is indeed the No. 2. I understand you criticizing that choice. A lower placement can be argued.
Froitzheim - Fairly robust year in comparison to others in this field of eight. I leave him here.
Larned - You say I should be more exacting of the champion. Maybe so. The times were different. He defended a Major and another significant title. He was successful in a DC tie. But he didn't go to the Olympics. In deference to the standards of the time, I feel like I already dropped him enough to make my point (tied for No. 3).
Ritchie - Ritchie earns No. 5. Can you argue you should be higher? Yes.
Clothier - I think I got this one correct.
Alexander - Ditto
Gore - Ditto

Again, this is not my bailiwick. After these exchanges, it looks like we have differences of opinion. It seems that you are applying a strictly modern approach to determining the rankings. There isn't anything wrong with that. If you want to apply a rational points system, why not?

I, however, don't want to do that. I have tried to explain.

Others may want the hew closely to what tennis commentators or players or other sources said at the time in question.

I don't argue just for the dispute. 1909 was a bad year for Brookes. Did he not meet the American rookies he would have been beaten twice in the rubbers. He was far from his good tennis in 1907 - Wimbledon and Davis.
The robust year of Froitzheim consists of 5 titles (2 big) and 26-2.
The modest year of Ritchie consists of 10 titles (5 big) and 80-10.
I don't interfere in your rankings. What do you prefer to be at the end of 1909 if having this possibility - Froitzheim or Ritchie? The numbers are not even close.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Everything is possible.
But for Budge we know he wanted to go to Australia and in 1938 Grand Slam meant already something.
For Vines we don’t know. Trip was already planned before the US nationals and Australian Champs were not yet a very interesting (for the players) tournament.

I think that Vines, the top man in tennis by late 1932, could have avoided the long grueling trip to Australia if he had wanted to, and not played that onerous tour in the heat of the Aussie summer. He later complained of weariness from the extreme heat.
I suspect that Vines was looking for new worlds to conquer at that time, which could have included the Aussie title as first step in a sweep of major titles.

 

[dwightcharles]

No, Ivan, Vines travelled to Australia in LATE 1932, to attempt to win the Aussie title in early 1933, and thus begin the GS hunt. The 1932 RG title is not relevant here..

As I pointed out above, Budge also was hunting for the GS when he travelled to Australia in late 1937.
But Vines was the first in late 1932.

It looks like Perry was also trying for the slam in 1934 and 1935.