jean pierre
Professional
ATP refused to recognize him as the number one. Ridiculous, unfair and absurd.
^ 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).
^ 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
really ? then sorry, i didn't know that !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.
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.
Rios lost to a drug cheat
^ 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).
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 .
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I think it's impossible to be considered like the world champion without winning a Grand Slam !
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
What tournaments did Connors win in 1977?No, Vilas is not the world champion in 1977. Connors is the champion in 1977.
What tournaments did Connors win in 1977?
ATP tried to reverse their decision to ban him for life which they regretted not doing earlier.
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 .
OK. Connors 1977 record: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
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.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
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
Here's Vilas 1977 record:
1) Springfield, IL
2) Buenos Aires
3) Virginia Beach
4) French Open
5) Kitzbuel
6) Washington DC
7) Louisville
8 ) South Orange NJ
9) Columbus
10) US Open (beating Connors)
11) Paris
12) Tehran
13) Bogota
14) Santiago
15) Buenos Aires
16) Johannesburg
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.
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).
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).