Unbeatable records

Tenez!

Professional
Good finds, but mostly the records are only untouchable as the events themselves no longer exist.
By that token you could add "Victories on Blue Clay: Federer 5"
However the Vilas record is really impossible to achieve. 646 wins on clay is 32 a year for 20 years. Yet today's clay season (MC, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, RG) numbers just 26 matches.

However...
ATP NUMBER ONE: SAMPRAS 6
Lendl: 7 consecutive wins vs world #1.
...are flat out silly. One is going to be beaten by Djokovic barring collapse, and the second could easily happen in a new rivalry. It's not a stretch to imagine Thiem #1 in 2022, yet he's 0-4 against Delpo, 0-3 against Verdasco.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Do you support that few editions have been played?
If I understood correctly ...
This is interesting, a record has value only if a certain number of editions are disputed.
Well, there were 6 TOC events, but played at twice a year over a 3 year span.

A 3 year span is insufficient to compare players from succeeding generations, so that is only a local record, not a universal record.

What gives the TOC value is that for that group of players in the late fifties it helps to show the stature of players for that particular field.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
"Best" is subjective, it's true, we discussed it at length, it depends on who makes the evaluation, but since there was no ranking before 1973 all rankings were subjective.
Before 1973 the only possibility is ... assuming that a player has been the best player or if you prefer number one.
It seems to me that Gonzalez can be called number one on at least 7 occasions. But the dissolution is open.
Well, if there was an official ranking based on points, as in 1946, 1959, 1964, that is an objective measure, at least for the one year in question.

It does not tell us who played at the highest level, but at least it is an objective points measure, similar to the ATP system today.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
If we are sure that Lendl won an exhibition match in Zurich and not a title ... Lendl won 150 titles.

But JC I don't know has won 151 titles but 150:
149 Wiki
+ Palm Sprimgs 1971
+ Modesto 1970
+ Beaver Creek 1984 (NM)
- Asuncion 1979
- Napa Valley (1980)
Yep, we are sure about Zurich.

I don't know what is in wiki and what is not. I may check later. But Jimbo has 151.

I think South Bend is not there.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
These are not so substantial records.
Well, there were 6 TOC events, but played at twice a year over a 3 year span.

A 3 year span is insufficient to compare players from succeeding generations, so that is only a local record, not a universal record.

What gives the TOC value is that for that group of players in the late fifties it helps to show the stature of players for that particular field.
I agree, in case of few editions it is useless to talk about records.
 

KG1965

Legend
Well, if there was an official ranking based on points, as in 1946, 1959, 1964, that is an objective measure, at least for the one year in question.

It does not tell us who played at the highest level, but at least it is an objective points measure, similar to the ATP system today.
I understand that before 1973 there was no ranking and indicating a number is purely a guess, but what do you suggest? There is a great hoodjean's thread by the way ...

We surrender to computers and Tilden, Cochet, Budge, Kramer, Pancho etc ... shouldn't numbers be recognized?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
It may be that I am wrong but Wembley ro Ch.
Is exhausted in 1967 because afterwards at Wembley another tournament is played (Open Era): British Covered Court Ch. with victory of Rosewall 1968 and Laver 1969-70-71.
No. It's the same.
 

KG1965

Legend
No. It's the same.
My idea was to list only the Pro tournament (so until 1967).
The tournament played in the Open Era is a good tournament but it doesn't have the same historical significance because Wembley Pro was almost always the number 1, Wembley OE was among the 12-15 best tournaments.
At Wembley altogether Laver has won 7 times.
Wembley Pro: Rosewall has the record of 5.
Wembley OE: McEnroe with 5.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
My idea was to list only the Pro tournament (so until 1967).
The tournament played in the Open Era is a good tournament but it doesn't have the same historical significance because Wembley Pro was almost always the number 1, Wembley OE was among the 12-15 best tournaments.
At Wembley altogether Laver has won 7 times.
Wembley Pro: Rosewall has the record of 5.
Wembley OE: McEnroe with 5.
Wembley in the old pro era was sometimes the best tournament, but not every year by a long shot.

For 1959, Wembley rates outside the top five, which I would make Forest Hills, Kooyong (the richest for 1959), Sydney, L.A. Masters, Roland Garros.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I understand that before 1973 there was no ranking and indicating a number is purely a guess, but what do you suggest? There is a great hoodjean's thread by the way ...

We surrender to computers and Tilden, Cochet, Budge, Kramer, Pancho etc ... shouldn't numbers be recognized?
You had formal comprehensive championship tours in 1946, 1959, 1964 based on a points system like today, and in 1942 a fairly comprehensive field to the

round robin pro tour. That gave an official world number one, but only in those three years.

For the other years in the pre-1968 era, there is no good way to rate the players.....impossible, it all becomes a jumble of subjectivity.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
My idea was to list only the Pro tournament (so until 1967).
The tournament played in the Open Era is a good tournament but it doesn't have the same historical significance because Wembley Pro was almost always the number 1, Wembley OE was among the 12-15 best tournaments.
At Wembley altogether Laver has won 7 times.
Wembley Pro: Rosewall has the record of 5.
Wembley OE: McEnroe with 5.
Many tournaments cross both eras. There could be a difference in the category or prestige of the tournament but it's the SAME tournament. You are looking at the record of a tournament, so the roll of honor matters. Wembley pro is Wembley pro. Queen's is Queen's.
 

KG1965

Legend
You had formal comprehensive championship tours in 1946, 1959, 1964 based on a points system like today, and in 1942 a fairly comprehensive field to the

round robin pro tour. That gave an official world number one, but only in those three years.

For the other years in the pre-1968 era, there is no good way to rate the players.....impossible, it all becomes a jumble of subjectivity.
In this case the old champions will never be number one, and this is one of the main reasons why they are lost in comparison with new generations.
For example the message "Budge (or Kramer, or Gonzalez) was a great player but we don't know how many years it was number one" is devastating for those champions.
 

KG1965

Legend
Wembley in the old pro era was sometimes the best tournament, but not every year by a long shot.

For 1959, Wembley rates outside the top five, which I would make Forest Hills, Kooyong (the richest for 1959), Sydney, L.A. Masters, Roland Garros.
Many tournaments cross both eras. There could be a difference in the category or prestige of the tournament but it's the SAME tournament. You are looking at the record of a tournament, so the roll of honor matters. Wembley pro is Wembley pro. Queen's is Queen's. [/QUOTE]
I understood your point of view.
We have two hypotheses:

1) at Wembley Laver has the record of 7 titles

2) at Wembley Laver has the record of 7 titles
and
the Pro tournament has Rosewall as a recordman with 5 titles
the OE tournament has McEnroe as recordman with 5 title.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
In this case the old champions will never be number one, and this is one of the main reasons why they are lost in comparison with new generations.
For example the message "Budge (or Kramer, or Gonzalez) was a great player but we don't know how many years it was number one" is devastating for those champions.
An excellent point....which was completely lost on those old tour managers.

All they really cared about was making money out of the tours, and the idea of pitting the pro champ against the amateur champ was purely a ticket-selling

device, it made no sense from a tennis point of view.

Those old championship tours meant little in terms of all-time status of players, for that you have to look at the major pro tournaments, and even that is

hard to do, not knowing from this distance which tournaments should be rightfully labelled as majors.

If you look at this forum, you can see how much disagreement there is over identifying the real pro majors.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
In this case the old champions will never be number one, and this is one of the main reasons why they are lost in comparison with new generations.
For example the message "Budge (or Kramer, or Gonzalez) was a great player but we don't know how many years it was number one" is devastating for those champions.
Every year especially since 1954 has its No 1. I don't see any concerns.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
In this case the old champions will never be number one, and this is one of the main reasons why they are lost in comparison with new generations.
For example the message "Budge (or Kramer, or Gonzalez) was a great player but we don't know how many years it was number one" is devastating for those champions.
You are right, it is purely subjective and essentially worthless for those years without a points sytem, or at least a comprehensive field on the tours.

Only 1942, 1946, 1959, and 1964 qualify as objective ranking systems....the rest are worthless.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Many tournaments cross both eras. There could be a difference in the category or prestige of the tournament but it's the SAME tournament. You are looking at the record of a tournament, so the roll of honor matters. Wembley pro is Wembley pro. Queen's is Queen's.
I understood your point of view.
We have two hypotheses:

1) at Wembley Laver has the record of 7 titles

2) at Wembley Laver has the record of 7 titles
and
the Pro tournament has Rosewall as a recordman with 5 titles
the OE tournament has McEnroe as recordman with 5 title.
[/QUOTE]

I don't have any hypotheses. A tournament record is valid for the whole tournament history. Wembley 58 and Wembley 68 are parts of the tournament's roll of honor.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
You're right, I wasn't adequately precise: the criterion should be ATP Sanctioned and ATP Not Sanctioned.
Why not? Total titles means total titles. ATP titles means ATP titles. Everything is possible.

If you don't like South Bend you have to reduce other Connors' and Lendl's titles too.
 

KG1965

Legend
Why not? Total titles means total titles. ATP titles means ATP titles. Everything is possible.

If you don't like South Bend you have to reduce other Connors' and Lendl's titles too.
It seemed to me that we agreed that South Bend was an Intercollegiate, so not part of the not-sanctioned.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
It seemed to me that we agreed that South Bend was an Intercollegiate, so not part of the not-sanctioned.
Yes, yes. It's not the point. I mean that if you don't count SB you have to not count also other titles of Connors and Lendl which are similar to Chall.
 

TennisLBC

Professional
Come on guys. The one record that will stand the test of time, at least at the ATP level is the Golden Set. It's amazing with all the ATGs, a journeyman, Bill Scanlon owns this record.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
I understood your point of view.
We have two hypotheses:

1) at Wembley Laver has the record of 7 titles

2) at Wembley Laver has the record of 7 titles
and
the Pro tournament has Rosewall as a recordman with 5 titles
the OE tournament has McEnroe as recordman with 5 title.
I don't have any hypotheses. A tournament record is valid for the whole tournament history. Wembley 58 and Wembley 68 are parts of the tournament's roll of honor.[/QUOTE]
According to Wikipedia both Laver and Rosewall have 6 total titles.
 

KG1965

Legend
6 each, you have to look at the entire history of the event.
I don't have any hypotheses. A tournament record is valid for the whole tournament history. Wembley 58 and Wembley 68 are parts of the tournament's roll of honor.
According to Wikipedia both Laver and Rosewall have 6 total titles.[/QUOTE]
I take note of the majority opinion and correct it at the beginning of the thread.;)
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
Those that I report below are not records but individual tournaments to be recognized as very important even if they have had a short life, in the sense that only one edition or a very limited number of editions are played:

Tennis Champions Classic 1970 LAVER
Tennis Champions Classic 1971 LAVER
Madison Square Garden 1954 GONZALEZ
Madison Square Garden 1967 LAVER
Madison Square Garden 1968 LAVER
Madison Square Garden 1969 LAVER
Slazenger Pro (Scarborough) 1949 KRAMER
Slazenger Pro (Scarborough) 1953 SEGURA

Slazenger Pro (Scarborough) 1958 ROSEWALL
Wimbledon Pro 1967 LAVER
Ampol Tour 1959 HOAD (it's a tour, not a title)
Howard Hughes (Las Vegas) 1969 GONZALEZ
Howard Hughes (Las Vegas) 1970 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) 1957 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) 1958 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) 1959 HOAD
Tournament of Champions (Sydney) 1957 SEGURA
Tournament of Champions (Melbourne) 1958 HOAD
Tournament of Champions (Sydney) 1959 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Wembley) 1968 ROSEWALL

......
......
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Those that I report below are not records but individual tournaments to be recognized as very important even if they have had a short life, in the sense that only one edition or a very limited number of editions are played:

Tennis Champions Classic 1970 LAVER
Tennis Champions Classic 1971 LAVER
Madison Square Garden 1954 GONZALEZ
Madison Square Garden 1967 LAVER
Madison Square Garden 1968 LAVER
Madison Square Garden 1969 LAVER
Slazenger Pro (Scarborough) 1949 KRAMER
Slazenger Pro (Scarborough) 1953 SEGURA

Slazenger Pro (Scarborough) 1958 ROSEWALL
Wimbledon Pro 1967 LAVER
Ampol Tour 1959 HOAD (it's a tour, not a title)
Howard Hughes (Las Vegas) 1969 GONZALEZ
Howard Hughes (Las Vegas) 1970 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) 1957 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) 1958 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) 1959 HOAD
Tournament of Champions (Sydney) 1957 SEGURA
Tournament of Champions (Melbourne) 1958 HOAD
Tournament of Champions (Sydney) 1959 GONZALEZ
Tournament of Champions (Wembley) 1968 ROSEWALL

......
......
Excellent choice of events, and some of these short-lived events were the most important tennis championships of the respective years, and yielded by far

the most money ,not necessarily the most prize money, but the greatest "proceeds".

There is a difference between "prize money" and "proceeds", as I have been trying to point out here recently.
 

KG1965

Legend
Excellent choice of events, and some of these short-lived events were the most important tennis championships of the respective years, and yielded by far

the most money ,not necessarily the most prize money, but the greatest "proceeds".

There is a difference between "prize money" and "proceeds", as I have been trying to point out here recently.
I did not read your post on the proceeds.

Do you think of any other extra big event?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I did not read your post on the proceeds.

Do you think of any other extra big event?
Yes, several.

The Philadelphia/White Plains U.S. Pro Indoor tournaments of 1950, 1951, 1952, 1964.

The Qantas Kooyong in January 1960 was a big money event, at 6,000 GBP, and the Sydney Masters of 1958 was an 8,000 GBP event.

Barcelona 1966 was given major status with the Perry Cup.

Wimbledon Pro 1967 had large prize money.

Possibly Dallas 1965, which had large prize money at 25,000 USD.

The British hth mini-tour of 1961 had 25,200 USD proceeds.
 
Top