Ivan69, I like the results you've produced by your methodology. Are you actually trying to answer the question of who was best in every year with this methodology? Or does your data point to something else? Do you actually think Harry Grove was the best player of 1885? or Ritchie was the best player of 1909?
Please consider these points:
1. None of the contemporaries (to that time) consider Grove and Ritchie the best player of their respective years. It's not just one opinionated journalist 'perpetuating' a falsehood. AlLL of the players and journalists of that time (for which we have records) do not support Grove and Ritchie as best.
Understand what you mean. Actually in these times (late 19th century and early 20th) when the play was factually and geographically too too limited I think nobody could defend any position about the title "best player". The really competitive era between the continents started in the 30s when players crossed the Atlantic more frequently than before. It's my position that "the best player" should be chosen only when there is an enough real world competition between the players, when the best players from Europe, the USA and Australia (later) as leading tennis countries (continents) play each other. All contemporary reports gave the privilege and the honor to their local heroes. That's understandable and not doubtful. That was the perception and I don't like to change the rough facts. That's not my idea. Playing in a lack of any transcontinental competition there is up to me no other method to evaluate the players except to look at their performance during the year.
Let's see what happened in 1886 (Grove is No 1 for 1886 in my list not 1885) upon my data. Any additional data if you or somebody else have would be appreciated.
The best tournaments that year were: Wim, US, Irish ch., South of England ch., Middlesex ch., British covered court and Northern ch. (Liverpool). 7 tournaments which I have chosen based on the strength of field as a my criterion for the category. In addition to that all of them were 3 of 5.
Sears - won US in a challenge round only; I have no data that he played anywhere else;
Renshaw - won Wim in a challenge round only; I have no data that he played anywhere else;
Grove
won Middlesex in full rounds; won Northern ch. in full rounds; won Exmouth (not big tournament) in full rounds
finalist in North of England ch. (Scarborough), West of England ch., Warwickshire ch, London Athletic
semi in British covered
quarter in Chethenam
It's fully normal that the contemporaries at this time mentioned mostly Sears and Renshaw. They were in fact the champions, the reputed heroes. But playing and winning 1 match per year (let they be 2, 3 no matter) is far from my understanding of a champion. By just playing 1 match nobody can prove he is the best. Nobody from those contemporary writers can defend the position that player A is the best in only 1 match. Those writers didn't think so much like us. The champion at Wim (US) is automatically the best. Nothing else mattered.
Grove was in fact the best performer in the world in 1886 - quality-wise and quantity-wise. I am impressed by the performance but not by the automatic.
The same was in 1909. A couple of matches for Larned and Gore and about 90 matches, 11 titles and many other finals for Ritchie.
2. None of the other commenters in this forum consider Grove and Ritchie the best player of 1885 and 1909. This doesn't definitely prove you wrong, but it means your conclusions do not pass the peer-review test.
Yep. First, a very very very few current people are interested in those deep years. Second, most of the people generally not only tennis fans tend to float downstream. It's a natural (d)evolution of the men to go more and more on the easy way of not checking the info, not checking of historical facts, not reassessing the history.
It's a Hercules' task to turn the notions when some info is repeated and re-repeated 1000 times, stays on the Internet where most of the people don't know who gave it and what it is based on.
I don't know what will happen but my mindset tells me that I need to present a new view on these messy years. I fully understand that the skepticism will prevail. That's not demotivating me to show to the people something new. I will let them read, think, ask questions. I will respond to anybody. The peer-review test can't be limited to 2 months. Sometimes some things need 10, 20, 50 years for some outcome. I don't hurry for anywhere.
3. Your system of assessment (methodology) is highly biased... here's how. YOU decide to use a modern understanding of a worldwide tennis tour to assess a time when that did not exist. YOU decide which tournaments and matches to consider. YOU decide how many points a tournament is worth. YOU decide that the same tournament is worth different amounts at different points in time.
To the extent that you clearly define and follow your own rules you are 'consistent,' to the extent that you make public your methodology you are 'transparent.' but your system is not (and cannot be) 'unbiased' becauase you have decided what it is. Once we all realize that we are biased and even our objective systems are biased, we can begin to talk constructively with others... to build an understanding that unifies perspective and lessens the personal bias of each of our own perspectives.
Highly biased is a bit exaggerated. Even when no official rules of assessment existed, the players and the promoters knew pretty well what type of tournaments they played (organised). I don't mean any official type but if you go through the years you can establish a very consistent naturally born structure of the tours. They were tournaments where all or most of the top players played. Other tournaments where about the half of the top players played. Third where the middle-class players played. And so on. The categorisation of the tournaments is made technically by me but methodologically it fully reflects the naturally built status of every tournament.
Nope, I haven't decided which tournaments and matches to consider. Included are all tournaments and matches I have collected. These are 11,216 tournaments, 137 professional tours and about 2-3,000 one-night stands (I haven't counted them separately).
Pointing reflects the category of a tournament. It's not like looking at the wall. Crucial by the pointing are not the numbers but the internal proportion between the tournaments. For the best possible narrowing of pointing to the categories I am using 7 categories (7 point systems) from 1877 to 1996. After that they are 5. Again, technically I made the pointing but adapting it to the naturally built categories.
Different pointing of a tournament comes naturally from the category of the tournament for every year which comes naturally from the strength of the field.
So, basically I don't decide what it should be. It was never my target to show any personal bias towards a tournament or a player. I follow the logic from the past set unofficially but strongly structured as a strength of the field and public reputation. I repeat again - the players knew very well what was this or that tournament. And they decided whether to play there or not. For example tournaments like Queen's and PSW were generally a standard for the top players. Unlike other people I can say for every tournament for every year how it is categorised and why, based only on the structure of tour in the year.
4. In 2020, no one won more matches and tournaments than Rublev. In a hundred years is someone going to look back and say that Rublev was the true #1 of 2020? What if in a hundred years the current ATP points system has become lost, and Vienna has become the most important tournament in the world? Rublev could look like a convincing #1. But we know better, because we are here now. And an analyst a hundred years from now would be foolish to ignore all the voices from 2020 that said Djokovic was #1.
Well, that's theoretically possible. That's why the quality is extremely important in evaluating not only tennis but the whole sport.
Anyway, I hope that my project will exist after 1,000 years. And maybe someone will read it.
I am even now disappointed that too many current experts, fans, media pay much more attention to the quantity but not to the quality.
en.wikipedia.org
