jean pierre
Professional
ATP refused to recognize him as the number one. Ridiculous, unfair and absurd.
Vilas finally not number one
- Thread starter jean pierre
- Start date
Slasher1985
New User
Here we go.:twisted:
A battle between technology's limitations and the truth. I really wonder what the tennis public will choose.
A battle between technology's limitations and the truth. I really wonder what the tennis public will choose.
Slasher1985
New User
The New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/sports/tennis/years-later-for-guillermo-vilas-hes-still-not-the-one.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/sports/tennis/years-later-for-guillermo-vilas-hes-still-not-the-one.html?_r=0
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
^ Interesting. I had assumed that Vilas should have been #1 after winning both RG and the USO (vs Connors) in '77. He also made the final of the AO in Jan '77, won 17 titles (16 by the ATP count) that year and had a 50-game win streak.
Neither Connors nor Borg played the AO or RG that year. Connors lost in the finals of the other 2 slams in 77 and ended with a 12-2 record in the slams compared to a 21-2 record for Vilas. ATP computer ranking put Connors at #1, Vilas at #2 and Borg at #3. Borg won Wimby that year and lost in round 4 at the USO. Despite this, many journalists placed Borg as #1 that year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings#The_world_number_1_and_2_rankings
Was not aware that Vilas also potentially had a claim to the #1 spot for a period in '75 and for the start of '76 (according to the NY Times article above).
Neither Connors nor Borg played the AO or RG that year. Connors lost in the finals of the other 2 slams in 77 and ended with a 12-2 record in the slams compared to a 21-2 record for Vilas. ATP computer ranking put Connors at #1, Vilas at #2 and Borg at #3. Borg won Wimby that year and lost in round 4 at the USO. Despite this, many journalists placed Borg as #1 that year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings#The_world_number_1_and_2_rankings
Was not aware that Vilas also potentially had a claim to the #1 spot for a period in '75 and for the start of '76 (according to the NY Times article above).
7
70sHollywood
Guest
The ATP should at least make it clear on their website the situation regarding how the rankings worked in those days. It seems they refuse to change the rankings, despite admitting the flaws, but still act as though their numbers are gospel.
A minor victim in this - Ivan Lendl. Am I right in saying that Lendl should have held the record for most consecutive weeks at number 1 from 1988 until whenever Federer passed him? Assuming we remove the weeks Connors was awarded...
A minor victim in this - Ivan Lendl. Am I right in saying that Lendl should have held the record for most consecutive weeks at number 1 from 1988 until whenever Federer passed him? Assuming we remove the weeks Connors was awarded...
The truth and reality is more is more complex than the simple and banal count majors.
Last edited:
And 1977 problem?
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
^ It is mentioned but did not dwell on it enough.
"It was a system based on an average of a player’s results, and it often rewarded top players who played fewer tournaments. Vilas was a workhorse, which is how he managed not to reach No. 1 in the ATP rankings in 1977, when he won the French Open, the United States Open and 14 other tournaments."
"Though Vilas was No. 1 according to some experts and year-end ranking lists in 1977, Borg finished on top in the ATP rankings."
The last statement is particuarly odd. Like some other sources, NYT has Borg at YE #1. However, the ATP and some wiki pages have Connors at #1. In both cases it appears that Vilas is #2. Go figure.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=31.12.1977&r=1&c=#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players#Year-end_no._1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...er_rankings#The_world_number_1_and_2_rankings
"It was a system based on an average of a player’s results, and it often rewarded top players who played fewer tournaments. Vilas was a workhorse, which is how he managed not to reach No. 1 in the ATP rankings in 1977, when he won the French Open, the United States Open and 14 other tournaments."
"Though Vilas was No. 1 according to some experts and year-end ranking lists in 1977, Borg finished on top in the ATP rankings."
The last statement is particuarly odd. Like some other sources, NYT has Borg at YE #1. However, the ATP and some wiki pages have Connors at #1. In both cases it appears that Vilas is #2. Go figure.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=31.12.1977&r=1&c=#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players#Year-end_no._1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...er_rankings#The_world_number_1_and_2_rankings
7
70sHollywood
Guest
The ATP gave their player of the year award to Borg, I assume that's what is meant. That award is a better indicator of the ATP number 1 than the computer rankings.
1977 is quite clear: it is a duel between Vilas and Connors . If they exclude the two YEC if the two are very close . With the two YEC is clearly first Connors .
Borg is clearly third .
Last edited:
The rewards are worth it. The number 1 has always decided the ATP ranking . Since 1973 .
jean pierre
Professional
Shame on ATP !
Mustard
Bionic Poster
The ATP cannot change it in retrospect because it would open up a can of worms, like Rios trying to stir the brown stuff in regards to losing the 1998 Australian Open final to a guy who later tested positive for nandrolone. It is also very clear that the ATP rankings from before the summer of 1984 are awful. I don't really take any notice of them.
If you read the ranking and has lived through that period, the ranking is almost perfect .
The ATP ranking has some errors and should be tested , but it's ok to 98 % .
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
ranking rules may have sucked in the past, but they were what they were: the players were aware of them (i suppose !) and could organize their schedule accordingly, if their aim was to reach the top spots.
so i think 'changing the rules' afterwards... would be awkward.
but it doesn't keep us from being critical when we look at them... and i think that's precisely what we're doing on this forum.
so i think 'changing the rules' afterwards... would be awkward.
but it doesn't keep us from being critical when we look at them... and i think that's precisely what we're doing on this forum.
newmark401
Professional
In 1977, not for the first time, Jimmy Connors finished the year atop the rankings. However, it is not difficult to argue that someone else, Vilas or Borg, was the best player across the whole of the year and, therefore, more deserving of the no. 1 ranking. This is not to deny that, regardless of the surface, Jimmy Connors was one of the, if not the, most consistent male player on the tour at that time.
-----
-----
ranking rules may have sucked in the past, but they were what they were: the players were aware of them (i suppose !) and could organize their schedule accordingly, if their aim was to reach the top spots.
so i think 'changing the rules' afterwards... would be awkward.
but it doesn't keep us from being critical when we look at them... and i think that's precisely what we're doing on this forum.
It's good to criticize the ATP ranking 1 ) because it does not count the WCT and YEC YEC GP ,
2 ) because they rely heavily scores to the finalists ,
3 ) because the Majors count for little more than Palm Springs or Las Vegas or Philadelphia .
I remember very well the 70s and
1 ) I do not agree ;
2 ) I do not agree ;
3 ) I agree , the difference between RG and other great titles was minimal .
ATP is not Association Majors Tennis.
Many ranking do with majors !!!
Good post , but the results of Borg 77 are not good . They are poor after Wimbledon .
jean pierre
Professional
ranking rules may have sucked in the past, but they were what they were: the players were aware of them (i suppose !) and could organize their schedule accordingly, if their aim was to reach the top spots.
so i think 'changing the rules' afterwards... would be awkward.
but it doesn't keep us from being critical when we look at them... and i think that's precisely what we're doing on this forum.
The problem is not "change the rules". The argentinian journalist proves that ATP ranking was not published every week and that if it was, Vilas would have been number one during 5 weeks (3 weeks in 1975 and 2 in 1976). That's not "change the rules " but only "apply the rules" ! That's why ATP decision is a scandal.
You have centered the problem , this is reason .
I agree .
The ranking is not wrong . The ranking is ok , but does not consider every week .
I's like in FORMULA ONE sometimes does not compile the rankings .
In court , however, the temporary points leader is important .
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I think your absolutely spot on. It even says in that NY Times article that no one considered the rankings to be an indicator of who the best player was during the 70s.
For the record, The ATP player of the year award in years where it differed from the ranking:
1975: Ashe
1976: Borg
1977: Borg
1978: Borg
1982: Connors
1989: Becker
By most people's opinion, a more accurate ranking, with only 76 & 77 really disputed.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
really ? then sorry, i didn't know that !
even if those were the first years for the young ATP rankings, it sounds crazy as the "week" is the fundamental time unit used for rankings...
but why didn't he care about it at the time ? (or did he ?)
he or his team didn't realize he could be #1 during those weeks ?
(despite the weird rules, i guess you didn't need a fields medal to compute it by yourself either !)
racquetreligion
Hall of Fame
Rios lost to a drug cheat, connors and borg lost their favorite crowns US Open and French Opens so we all know who was no1 that year. Vilas.
When it mattered Vilas won more tournaments and won the crowns of the clown and the ice man.
ATP is a farce, its like FIFA full of corrupt and biased chaps just angry they cant print money.
When it mattered Vilas won more tournaments and won the crowns of the clown and the ice man.
ATP is a farce, its like FIFA full of corrupt and biased chaps just angry they cant print money.
Connors 74-78
Count ranking ATP
75 Connors
76 Connors >>>>>>Borg
77 Connors > Vilas >>>Borg
78 Connors >> Borg
see BIG titles
Count ranking ATP
75 Connors
76 Connors >>>>>>Borg
77 Connors > Vilas >>>Borg
78 Connors >> Borg
see BIG titles
Slasher1985
New User
Our study did not change the rules in any way. Countless years of research have made it possible to find the exact same ranking system which was used back then, after which the rules were applied in the same manner, errors were corrected and this was discovered.
The same injustice that caused Vilas to not be seen as number 1, caused Connors to lose 3 weeks of number 1 as well.
Connors should have been number 1 on July 8, 1974, not July 29. Immediately after Wimbledon, if rankings were published, he was number 1, not Newcombe.
The same injustice that caused Vilas to not be seen as number 1, caused Connors to lose 3 weeks of number 1 as well.
Connors should have been number 1 on July 8, 1974, not July 29. Immediately after Wimbledon, if rankings were published, he was number 1, not Newcombe.
K
King Fed WW
Guest
Well he never was officially #1 but that just shows the ranking was a mess, and as has been pointed out its only purpose was for qualification and seeding. Nobody actually cared about the ranking or considered the #1 to be of value.
Laver was never #1 either, should we award him 8k points for his CYGS in retrospect, because if the rankings were alive then he would have been #1
Laver was never #1 either, should we award him 8k points for his CYGS in retrospect, because if the rankings were alive then he would have been #1
Slasher1985
New User
Look, records at #1 are measured in weeks. Connors has 268 of them. Now, you have records in weeks, you have tournaments played on a weekly schedule, but you have rankings published randomly, used for seeding into a weekly schedule. Of course, the seeding would be obsolete if you use 4 months old rankings. Players could have played 12 tournaments in that period, the rankings would be totally different, seeding would be pointless.
If you cannot accept weekly rankings, then logically, you cannot accept that Connors has 268 weeks, because only about half of those weeks were backed up by rankings, and most of the other half had tournaments being played according to schedule, without the points from them counting in any way.
This project cannot give Laver 8k points because IT DID NOT USE TODAY'S RANKING SYSTEM. It used the 1973-1978 ORIGINAL RANKING SYSTEM. And by the way, a separate 1968-1973 project was done using the 1973 ORIGINAL RANKING SYSTEM, and Laver did score 188 weeks at number 1 in the open era. Put that somewhere.
If you cannot accept weekly rankings, then logically, you cannot accept that Connors has 268 weeks, because only about half of those weeks were backed up by rankings, and most of the other half had tournaments being played according to schedule, without the points from them counting in any way.
This project cannot give Laver 8k points because IT DID NOT USE TODAY'S RANKING SYSTEM. It used the 1973-1978 ORIGINAL RANKING SYSTEM. And by the way, a separate 1968-1973 project was done using the 1973 ORIGINAL RANKING SYSTEM, and Laver did score 188 weeks at number 1 in the open era. Put that somewhere.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Korda tested positive for nandrolone at 1998 Wimbledon, and was later cleared of taking it deliberately. There is no proof about anything else. Plus, Rios played awful in the 1998 Australian Open final, getting completely outplayed by Korda.
I've seen the chatter about the push to recognize Vilas officially as a #1 player by the ATP. I always assumed it had to do with the 1977 season. I was surprised after reading the NYT article that the push was for a few weeks in 1975 and 1976.
1975 was one of those years where the 4 majors were split amongst the men, and only Ashe (widely regarded by most pundits as #1) able to claim one of the 4 majors plus one of the other big titles, the WCT Championships. Connors, who I believe was #1 for most if not all of '75 on the ATP computer rankings, had a successful year, except in the majors, losing int he finals of the 3 he won in 1974 (and not playing the French). Nor did he play in the WCT Championships or Masters.
While Vilas had a solid season, I find it difficult to fathom how he could have been calculated to reach #1 in later 1975 or early 1976.
Now, for 1977 it's a different story. It still remains a mystery to me how Vilas was ranked #4 to Brian Gottfried at #3 as late as the US Open. When Vilas had beaten Gottfried more times than he lost to him, and won more matches in 1977.
World Tennis Magazine named Vilas #1 for 1977, while Tennis Magazine gave that honor to Borg. Of course, Connors was #1 on the ATP Computer. (One of life, and tennis' biggest mystery - how Connors stayed atop the rankings despite not winning majors or as many big titles as his rivals!)
Considering his amazing tournament schedule (albeit a LOT on clay) I'd say Vilas deserves to be recognized as #1 for his 1977 season!
jean pierre
Professional
Yes, as a symbol, Vilas deserves to be recognized as the world champion 1977. But during 5 weeks in 1975-76, the study of this argentinian journalist proves that he was the number one of the ATP ranking. Shame on ATP who refuses to recognize this fact.
Slasher1985
New User
Despite the New York Times credit, the study was performed by a two-man cell:
- Eduardo Puppo (journalist) provided historical data, draws, magazine scans, hundreds of articles, time and effort spent in obtaining them, etc.
- Marian Ciulpan (programmer) performed the calculations, extracted the original ranking systems, calendars, detected the errors and redone the number with the original system.
- Eduardo Puppo (journalist) provided historical data, draws, magazine scans, hundreds of articles, time and effort spent in obtaining them, etc.
- Marian Ciulpan (programmer) performed the calculations, extracted the original ranking systems, calendars, detected the errors and redone the number with the original system.
A big thank by a tennis player , tennis enthusiast , in strict respect of the statistics and lover of justice to Puppo and Ciulpan - Slasher1985 .
Some clarifications:
1) The 1977 seems not questioned, Vilas made a huge year, much better than Borg. But 1977 Connors was better.
2) 1975 was a weak year with ranking short and is more difficult to attribute the number one.
3) does not seem to question the number one in 1975, however.
4) it is questioning the fact that a few weeks due to Vilas have been attributed to Connors. And that's not good.
5) You out of your head that the number one measure the majors, number one is the number one circuit, a circuit composed of 70 tournaments !!! Well more than 4 majors !!!
Vilas in 1975 did quite well especially winning one BIG TITLE in Washington and one good tournament to Louisville and after the US Open overcame Connors.
6) The number one the decrees the ranking ATP not World Tennis Magazine and Tennis Magazine.
Conclusion:
1) Vilas in 1977 did a good year, but Connors did better.
2) Vilas deserves the number of 1975 for a few weeks because Connors, who was the best of all, as always, until 1978, had a fall and Vilas took advantage.
Last edited:
racquetreligion
Hall of Fame
ATP tried to reverse their decision to ban him for life which they regretted not doing earlier.
Vilas won more in 1977 than any other player
No, Vilas is not the world champion in 1977. Connors is the champion in 1977 .
Vilas is the number in 1975 for a few weeks .
This is the battle.
jean pierre
Professional
I think it's impossible to be considered like the world champion without winning a Grand Slam !
How do you support that? What you mean is the number one .. of the majors . It's one else . It is not the NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD.
The circuit is made of 70 tournaments !
The Majors were worth little more than the other tournaments , just look at the score awarded by the ATP .
RG 77 hardly mattered .
Australian Open zero .
Indeed Connors and Borg do not go there .
Mustard
Bionic Poster
The ATP tried to reverse their initial decision not to ban Korda from tennis competition. The ban, when it eventually came, was 12 months.
True.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
What tournaments did Connors win in 1977?
Considering & not considering by the ATP ranking
Considering the ATP ranking
WCT Birmingham
WCT St. Louis
Las Vegas
Maui-Hawaii
Sydney
Not considered by the ATP ranking
Masters WCT, Dallas
WCT Challenge Cup, Las Vegas
Masters Grand Prix, New York
Considering the ATP ranking
WCT Birmingham
WCT St. Louis
Las Vegas
Maui-Hawaii
Sydney
Not considered by the ATP ranking
Masters WCT, Dallas
WCT Challenge Cup, Las Vegas
Masters Grand Prix, New York
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Korda wasn't banned for life. Korda wasn't initially banned at all, but the ATP appealed against their own initial decision not to ban him, and he was later banned for 12 months (September 1999 - September 2000). Korda retired after failing to qualify for 1999 Wimbledon, but played a few matches after the ban had expired.
jean pierre
Professional
Very good answer from Eduardo Puppo. ATP president refused to recognize Vilas as the number one because others players could ask something else, and he said "there is no limit". Puppo answered : "Yes, there is a limit : the truth" !
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
OK. Connors 1977 record:
1) WCT Birmingham
2) WCT St. Louis
3) Las Vegas
4) Maui-Hawaii
5) Sydney
6) Masters WCT, Dallas
7) WCT Challenge Cup, Las Vegas
8 ) Masters Grand Prix, New York
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Ironically perhaps, the Masters in New York was a round robin event, at which Connors lost to Vilas earlier but won in the finals over Borg.
Connors H2H with Vilas in 1977 was 0-2.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
It seems pretty clear to me who had the manifestly better record in 1977.
Utmost respect for your opinion.
I try to explain why, in my opinion, is not Vilas, the number for the ATP and for me.
The ranking ATP penalizes Vilas, because
1) only considers tournaments and BIG TITLES and most BIG TITLES, and does not consider the small tournaments that penalize very Vilas, making him get off the media, and the following titles are really small: Springfield, Buenos Aires, Virginia Beach, Kitzbuhel, South Orange, Paris, Bogota, Santiago, Buenos Aires (2) (Connors did not, smaller titles between 5 won);
2) penalizes players who play many tournaments and Vilas played many tournaments that year in most American.
The ranking benefits, Connors because in many ways the two finals lost in the majors, but severely penalizes the American because from one point to the Connors to win the Masters WCT, the WCT Challenge Cup and the Grand Prix Masters.
Basically one can argue that the points awarded to the finals lost in the two majors are too many, but it seems there are no errors.
In conclusion, I think the ranking is unfair to Vilas because cancels in fact the victory in 9 tournaments are considered low-level, however, the advantage of Vilas would be tight and it is absurd to Connors, they are given points of the securities Masters WCT WCT Challenge Cup and especially the Masters Grand Prix, "the event" of 1977.
With the points in these three tournaments Connors is, for me, first firmly.
It 's just my opinion. Again, utmost respect for your opinion.
And for Vilas.
jean pierre
Professional
Anyway, even if I think that Vilas was the world champion in 1977, the problem is for 1975-1976 : Eduardo Puppo's study proves that Vilas was number one during 5 weeks (3 in 1975 and 2 in 1976).
Slasher1985
New User
Our study proves that Vilas was number 1 during 7 weeks (5 in 1975 and 2 in 1976), not 5.
I have some reservations on two aspects of the ATP rankings 70 years ( except for Masters & too many points to the losing finalists ) but I find very fitting the ranking with the one I remember the 70s .
But I trust a lot of research Puppo - Ciulpan then participate 100 % in the battle for number one Vilas 7 weeks. Even one .
Viva Vilas .
Similar threads
