Vilas was No. 1

ClaudTT

Rookie
There is a new documentary film on Netflix based on the journalist's investigation of the ATP ranks where there was an omission in 1975 and 1977.

The records shows Vilas was No. 1 for several weeks.

He deserves the recognition. Great Champion !!!

Trailer here:

 

James P

G.O.A.T.
So what's the TL;DR/TL;DW? Is it a number crunching oversight or a malicious move made by someone behind the scenes?
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Why did the ATP not revise this?

IIRC, the WTA uncovered a similar thing for Goolagong, and retrospectively awarded her the weeks at No 1 she was due.
 

ClaudTT

Rookie
Why did the ATP not revise this?

IIRC, the WTA uncovered a similar thing for Goolagong, and retrospectively awarded her the weeks at No 1 she was due.
It is corruption a possibility ? am sure something like that, we see it in Congress, etc... is institutionalized already.
And Vilas was an ATP founding member... so not precisely an outsider. Am curious to watch the movie.
 
I think I read Vilas has Alzheimer's. So, if this is true, it would be nice if the ATP gave him credit for his weeks at #1 while he can still enjoy it.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Why did the ATP not revise this?

IIRC, the WTA uncovered a similar thing for Goolagong, and retrospectively awarded her the weeks at No 1 she was due.
All answered in link below(they addressed this in 2015). I sort of agree with ATP, they only published rankings 11 times in 1975, so “filling in missing weeks” sort of changes history(maybe the seedlings at events would have been different etc if they published weekly, but they didn’t. If you make an exception for Vilas, you have to do it for everyone - maybe Ashe also got to #1 but he doesn’t have some fanboy making it his goal in life to correct that. And of course it’s likely that many people who played that year had higher career rankings than they thought at the time. So it’s totally different to Goolagong, no one filled in missing weeks to get her to #1, they found a computer error. Bottom line, this all shows how unimportant ranking was back then. Funny that the investigation shows he shouldn’t have been #1 in 77, but 75.

 

ClaudTT

Rookie
All answered in link below(they addressed this in 2015). I sort of agree with ATP, they only published rankings 11 times in 1975, so “filling in missing weeks” sort of changes history(maybe the seedlings at events would have been different etc if they published weekly, but they didn’t. If you make an exception for Vilas, you have to do it for everyone - maybe Ashe also got to #1 but he doesn’t have some fanboy making it his goal in life to correct that. And of course it’s likely that many people who played that year had higher career rankings than they thought at the time. So it’s totally different to Goolagong, no one filled in missing weeks to get her to #1, they found a computer error. Bottom line, this all shows how unimportant ranking was back then. Funny that the investigation shows he shouldn’t have been #1 in 77, but 75.

You are repeating like a parrot a nonsense. Making statements without foundation does not have any value.
Nobody is "filling" weeks. Reporting weeks that were NOT reported is the issue.
The case of Goolagong is similar, very similar.

Nevertheless, the important thing is that now the hard undisputed evidence is there that Vilas WAS No. 1 because of his production on the court and the championships he won, not some "mistake" like other Hollywood "celebrities".

Many people that criticized probably NEVER won ANYTHING in any sports. Yet they seem to have 'opinions'... Shut up and respect the man effort !!!

People like Borg think he was the No. 1 those days, I respect that.

Don't need anything else nor should Guillermo.
 

bobcolbert

New User
My guess is that they don't want to set precedent and open the door for other similar claims.
Yes, I think it's the main reason. They're lazy : "we don't want to work !!!". And they're wrong, because there will be no other similar request : Vilas is the only forgotten number 1. And the journalist Eduardo Puppo worked ten years and wrote more than 1000 pages about this subject : who can think that someone else will do the same ? ATP is ashamed in this matter.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I don't really see why it's such a big deal to award him the weeks. I doubt that Connors will care about losing a few weeks at No 1 (won't lose as many as 59 which would drop him below Nadal) - and who else suffers?
 
Yes, I think it's the main reason. They're lazy : "we don't want to work !!!". And they're wrong, because there will be no other similar request : Vilas is the only forgotten number 1. And the journalist Eduardo Puppo worked ten years and wrote more than 1000 pages about this subject : who can think that someone else will do the same ? ATP is ashamed in this matter.
Yes, you really have to watch out for us crazy argentineans once we get obsessed about something
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
I don't really see why it's such a big deal to award him the weeks. I doubt that Connors will care about losing a few weeks at No 1 (won't lose as many as 59 which would drop him below Nadal) - and who else suffers?
Well, I think the article from 2015 which quotes the head of the ATP explains why it can’t be done - the rankings of 1975 were used for all seeding, draws etc. publishing only 11 times a year was agreed upon as the official ranking. Had they used this newly discovered weekly ranking, the draws etc would have been different and many results and rankings would have been different. Who knows, different major wins, finals etc may have occurred under this new system. Also, if you do it for Vilas, you have to do it for everyone(read that article, Harold Solomon and others are quoted), so we may have had other newly discovered #1s, #2s, #3s, #4s etc. where do we stop? Maybe Orantes and Ashe got to #1 as well.
And these new rankings weren’t researched by anyone that works for atp, so it would also seem inappropriate to allow some random dude(who isn’t unbiased - he’s a Argentinian journalist!) decide tennis history.

I know most here don’t really know much about tennis history, partly due to age, but no one really cared about the #1 ranking back then for many reasons. Player of the year awards were a much bigger deal(and again, that wasn’t conclusive either, there were multiple awards)

it’s crazy how much the era of the big 3 has warped all discussions of previous eras(cause what’s super important today must have been super important decades ago...)
 
And these new rankings weren’t researched by anyone that works for atp, so it would also seem inappropriate to allow some random dude(who isn’t unbiased - he’s a Argentinian journalist!) decide tennis history.
The Argentinean journalist didn't actually do the math. It was a Romanian mathematician based out of Australia. And he is not deciding anything, just presenting a case with evidence to the ATP. I think professional courtesy would dictate that ATP should at least consider the evidence presented and provide an evidence based negative, not just base it on "we won't re/write history". BTW, as it happens with all sciences, history does get revised when new evidence comes to light.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
The Argentinean journalist didn't actually do the math. It was a Romanian mathematician based out of Australia. And he is not deciding anything, just presenting a case with evidence to the ATP. I think professional courtesy would dictate that ATP should at least consider the evidence presented and provide an evidence based negative, not just base it on "we won't re/write history". BTW, as it happens with all sciences, history does get revised when new evidence comes to light.
so do you think they should do that with every one that played in the 70s? As Harold Solomon says in The NY Times, “it’s unfair to go back and reopen this unless you go back and reopen everything for everybody.”
 
This is a strange saga. Vilas should never have been number 1 at any point in 76 or 75. If the ATP computer said he was the computer was wrong. In late 75 and ealy 76 Ashe, Connors and Orantes were all ahead of Vilas. Vilas should have had the ATP number 1 ranking in 77. The computer got this wrong. It seems strange that Vilas has looked for recognition in 75 instead of 77.
 

Drob

Professional
All answered in link below(they addressed this in 2015). I sort of agree with ATP, they only published rankings 11 times in 1975, so “filling in missing weeks” sort of changes history(maybe the seedlings at events would have been different etc if they published weekly, but they didn’t. If you make an exception for Vilas, you have to do it for everyone - maybe Ashe also got to #1 but he doesn’t have some fanboy making it his goal in life to correct that. And of course it’s likely that many people who played that year had higher career rankings than they thought at the time. So it’s totally different to Goolagong, no one filled in missing weeks to get her to #1, they found a computer error. Bottom line, this all shows how unimportant ranking was back then. Funny that the investigation shows he shouldn’t have been #1 in 77, but 75.

And the principal fanboy has been Guillermo Vilas himself. If he is in mental decline, as one poster mentioned, I am very sorry for that. But for most of this century or longer he dedicated ridiculous time and effort to rewrite history, either by being retroactively declared 1977 World No. 1, and, when that didn't work, litigating to be official recognized for these few weeks during mid-season as temporary No. 1.

I cannot think of any other player so aggressively trying to change the past. I believe he is also the only player in history to build his own museum to himself.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The Argentinean journalist didn't actually do the math. It was a Romanian mathematician based out of Australia. And he is not deciding anything, just presenting a case with evidence to the ATP. I think professional courtesy would dictate that ATP should at least consider the evidence presented and provide an evidence based negative, not just base it on "we won't re/write history". BTW, as it happens with all sciences, history does get revised when new evidence comes to light.
That is certainly true.

Sometimes history does not have to be "rewritten", but "rediscovered".

The rewrites get made erroneously, obliterating actual history, and then the erroneous new history has to be exposed.
 

urban

Legend
Imo the ATP should simply accept it, that Vilas was the computer Nr. 1 for a few weeks in 1975 and 1976. As the WTA did for Goolagong. That it was unedited then, was a system error by the ATP computer, factual Vilas was Nr 1 for a few weeks. The ATP now always thinks and writes in weekly rankings, not in monthly rankings. And i think, all would be happy, and nobody would go to trial, and nobody would demand a change of numbers from Nr. 3 or Nr. 27 or Nr. 101, not even Harold Solomon. Besides: Marian Ciulpan did a great job, he reconstructed all weekly ATP computer rankings, and even those from 1968 to 1973 on a very solid basis.
 
Last edited:

bobcolbert

New User
And the principal fanboy has been Guillermo Vilas himself. If he is in mental decline, as one poster mentioned, I am very sorry for that. But for most of this century or longer he dedicated ridiculous time and effort to rewrite history, either by being retroactively declared 1977 World No. 1, and, when that didn't work, litigating to be official recognized for these few weeks during mid-season as temporary No. 1.

I cannot think of any other player so aggressively trying to change the past. I believe he is also the only player in history to build his own museum to himself.
Nobody wants to "change the past". The point is just to recognize a fact. If, for exemple, we discover tomorrow that a war we didn't know has taken place, we should not talk about it, because it's impossible to change the past ?
 

urban

Legend
The ATP had a weekly magazine since 1974, which was called Tennis Week, founded by Gene Scott, the famous tennis writer. Because it was edited in the US and available for ATP members, i never got those exemplars in Europe, only some articles. Later it went online, was the best internet address for tennis for some time, but sadly it was finished in 2009. I always thought, that Tennis Week had published those early weekly rankings of the ATP computer. Maybe someone, who knows Tennis Week of those years better, can answer this question.
 
And the principal fanboy has been Guillermo Vilas himself. If he is in mental decline, as one poster mentioned, I am very sorry for that. But for most of this century or longer he dedicated ridiculous time and effort to rewrite history, either by being retroactively declared 1977 World No. 1, and, when that didn't work, litigating to be official recognized for these few weeks during mid-season as temporary No. 1.

I cannot think of any other player so aggressively trying to change the past. I believe he is also the only player in history to build his own museum to himself.
I put Vilas on the same level as one slam winners like Roddick, Chang and Muster. If all 4 majors had been hotly contested in Vilas' day he would have had one major, the 77 US Open. If Borg had been at the 77 Roland Garros Borg would have taken it, not Vilas. If the 2 Australian Opens Vilas won had had strong fields he would never have won them. Borg Connors McEnroe and others would have been there. The 77 US Open win was a great win though.
 

urban

Legend
Now, i am not a special Vilas fan, but to his credit, he was much more than a one trick pony. Like Lendl, he was a very strong tour campaigner, who played well on top over a whole years season. He won the ILTF Grand Prix, then the leading points race over the year, 3 times in 1974, 1975 and 1977, finishing 2nd in 1982. Only Lendl has more (5). At the year end Masters (the YEC of today) of 1974 at Melbourne, he won the leading grass court event of the year over a tough grass court field of Nastase, Newcombe, Borg and others. Missing Connors felt ill at a dentist, maybe he was afraid to lose. There were rumors then in that direction, which grew, when Connors played the AO 1975 a few weeks later (and lost to Newcombe). Vilas won a lot of important titles all over the world. Its correct, he was a clay courter originally, but he also excelled on hard courts and the har-tru courts in the US. His FO win 1977 was legit, nobody denies Borg of his RG titles, when Connors was missing due to WTT. I personally with my own eyes saw Vilas beat Borg clearly on clay at Düsseldorf WTC in 1980. He was favorite for RG then, but had an operation just before RG 1980. When he let go his ultra topspin style, which resulted in too short balls, and really began to drive through the ball, his backhand was majestic, and he was a dominant force. His win over Connors at Forest Hills in 1977 was against a Connors, who played better than at Wim 1977. In an electric atmosphere with many latino fans in the stands, both players went like bulls against each other, and Vilas in the last two sets played like Nadal today, going toe to toe with Connors, hitting winners all over the place. And begin 1978 at the Masters at Madison Square Garden in front of 20000 people he beat the eventual champion Connors again on fast carpet in the match of the tournament. No, Vilas was a really great player.
 
Last edited:

bobcolbert

New User
I put Vilas on the same level as one slam winners like Roddick, Chang and Muster. If all 4 majors had been hotly contested in Vilas' day he would have had one major, the 77 US Open. If Borg had been at the 77 Roland Garros Borg would have taken it, not Vilas. If the 2 Australian Opens Vilas won had had strong fields he would never have won them. Borg Connors McEnroe and others would have been there. The 77 US Open win was a great win though.
Sorry but the absent are always wrong ... Vilas beated 2 top 10 in FO 77, which is a great victory. And his victories in Australia are great too, because it wasn't his favorite surface, and because he beated a lot of very good grass players. Vilas won 4 Grand Slams, 1 Masters, and were number one. He's a great.
 

bobcolbert

New User
Sorry but the absent are always wrong ... Vilas beated 2 top 10 in FO 77, which is a great victory. And his victories in Australia are great too, because it wasn't his favorite surface, and because he beated a lot of very good grass players. Vilas won 4 Grand Slams, 1 Masters, and were number one. He's a great.
Vilas is far ahead from Roddick, Chang or Muster. Won more tournaments, more Grand Slams, played more Grand Slam finals, won the Masters (Chang won it, but not Muster or Roddick) ... It's not the same category ...
 

sovertennis

Professional
Well it's a great Documentary anyway, really really enjoyed watching it.
Agree completely. Great piece of doc film making. Enjoyed every minute of it. For me the overriding theme was of Vilas' obsessions and rituals (esp the diaries) and of the similar obsessions of the journo to find the evidence that would make Vilas #1 for a few weeks some 45 years ago. The archival footage was terrific and the scenes at the end with Vilas and family were very affecting.
 

Drob

Professional
Now, i am not a special Vilas fan, but to his credit, he was much more than a one trick pony. Like Lendl, he was a very strong tour campaigner, who played well on top over a whole years season. He won the ILTF Grand Prix, then the leading points race over the year, 3 times in 1974, 1975 and 1977, finishing 2nd in 1982. Only Lendl has more (5). At the year end Masters (the YEC of today) of 1974 at Melbourne, he won the leading grass court event of the year over a tough grass court field of Nastase, Newcombe, Borg and others. Missing Connors felt ill at a dentist, maybe he was afraid to lose. There were rumors then in that direction, which grew, when Connors played the AO 1975 a few weeks later (and lost to Newcombe). Vilas won a lot of important titles all over the world. Its correct, he was a clay courter originally, but he also excelled on hard courts and the har-tru courts in the US. His FO win 1977 was legit, nobody denies Borg of his RG titles, when Connors was missing due to WTT. I personally with my own eyes saw Vilas beat Borg clearly on clay at Düsseldorf WTC in 1980. He was favorite for RG then, but had an operation just before RG 1980. When he let go his ultra topspin style, which resulted in too short balls, and really began to drive through the ball, his backhand was majestic, and he was a dominant force. His win over Connors at Forest Hills in 1977 was against a Connors, who played better than at Wim 1977. In an electric atmosphere with many latino fans in the stands, both players went like bulls against each other, and Vilas in the last two sets played like Nadal today, going toe to toe with Connors, hitting winners all over the place. And begin 1978 at the Masters at Madison Square Garden in front of 20000 people he beat the eventual champion Connors again on fast carpet in the match of the tournament. No, Vilas was a really great player.
As always, Urban, you make some good points and arguments.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Vilas is far ahead from Roddick, Chang or Muster. Won more tournaments, more Grand Slams, played more Grand Slam finals, won the Masters (Chang won it, but not Muster or Roddick) ... It's not the same category ...
Do you mean the YEC? Chang never won that. Vilas did, and remains the only one to do it on grass (1974 Melbourne).
 

ClaudTT

Rookie
so do you think they should do that with every one that played in the 70s? As Harold Solomon says in The NY Times, “it’s unfair to go back and reopen this unless you go back and reopen everything for everybody.”
First: Salomon never saw any report or did anything, he speaks without any facts backing. Second: the records are NOT disputed by Vilas they just did a correct recollection of facts and recalculation. Third: it is NOT fair to issue a wrong Ranking anytime !!! is cheating on players records, is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
If that bothers somebody that has to make a decision ... TOO BAD.

The ATP bureaucrats seats and do NOTHING FOR ITS MEMBERS beyond the bare minimum as is shown... even a founding member like GV.
Somebody should FIRE THEM for not working LIKE THEIR CONTRACT ESTABLISHES.
 

bobcolbert

New User
First: Salomon never saw any report or did anything, he speaks without any facts backing. Second: the records are NOT disputed by Vilas they just did a correct recollection of facts and recalculation. Third: it is NOT fair to issue a wrong Ranking anytime !!! is cheating on players records, is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
If that bothers somebody that has to make a decision ... TOO BAD.

The ATP bureaucrats seats and do NOTHING FOR ITS MEMBERS beyond the bare minimum as is shown... even a founding member like GV.
Somebody should FIRE THEM for not working LIKE THEIR CONTRACT ESTABLISHES.
Bravo !
 

CyBorg

Legend
The rankings system was pretty screwed up in that time. A total freaking mess. So I'm sure Vilas has an argument.

But he was never the best in the world. Not even close.
 
I watched the documentary and really enjoyed it... especially the early footage of the young Vilas.

There are two main points that I thought the movie was trying to make about Vilas being #1 - first that if the computer rankings had been calculated weekly, he would have had seven weeks at #1 in late 1975 and early 1976; and secondly that he probably should have been named #1 for 1977.

For the first point - about the 7 weeks in 1975 and 1976, it's important to note that Puppo and Ciulpan do NOT say that the ATP rankings were calculated incorrectly. What they say is that IF the rankings had been calculated every week (the way they are now) then Vilas would have been #1 in seven weeks for which there was no calculation at the time. In those early years, the ATP was only calculating the ranking about once a month, so many weeks did not have calculations. What Puppo is asking, is that the ATP now retro-actively calculates (with all the easy computing power now available) weekly rankings for those in-between weeks. However, that was not the ATP practise at the time, and I can understand why the ATP would not want to go back and change the methodology that was agreed upon at that time. I think it would be great if Vilas could be recognized as #1 for a few weeks, but I also understand that it might not be fair to retro-actively override methodology that was agreed upon at the time. However, that is what the WTA did in the Goolagong case, as I understand it - they filled in some in-between weeks. I think it was good of the WTA to do it, but I don't think it's wrong for the ATP not to do it.

The second point concerns the yearend rank for 1977. There are other threads on this site that deal extensively with that issue. I don't want to re-hash all the arguments but I do want to make some observations:
1. There is a difference between the best player (what I would call the 'alpha') and the best year - based on the most and best accomplishments, titles, match wins, top-ten wins. etc. We see this easily now. But these were often conflated by rankers in the past. Many years these two are the same person and it's easy to pick #1 (if you're not using a computer). A prime example of picking the alpha over the accomplishment would be 1935 when Helen Wills was named #1 despite playing only 15 matches for the year - meanwhile Helen Jacobs would likely be rated #1 now by our current results-based rankings. My point is that in the past, these two things (best player vs best year) were not always separated by subjective rankers. And that is not wrong. It is merely the perspective of that time. It is valid for that time - even if it is not our current practise. It is generally considered bad historical practise to impose a modern lens on a past time. That is why contemporary (to that time) accounts are so important. The contemporary lens is also the ones the players of that time would have had.
2. Most of the most known and respected ranking bodies at that time gave #1 for 1977 to Borg, including the ATP player award. There was, of course, disagreement, and the most notable came from World Tennis magazine who named Vilas #1. (As an aside, Bud Collins, despite recent contradictory statements, named Borg #1 in his Encyclopedia.) We can sit here 40 years later and try to weigh evidence by our own lens or the supposed lens of past times, but the fact is that the most respected contemporary rankers of the time named Borg.
3. The modern importance we assign to particular tournaments is not the same as the importance assigned to those same tournaments in 1977. For example, the French Open and Team Tennis in 1977 must have had vastly different importance than they do now. I cannot imagine a current player skipping the French to play TT (fortunately this choice doesn't have to be made). Yet that is what Borg did, and what Connors did for a number of years. So the French must have been less important then than it is now, and TT must have been more important. Ergo, Borg's results in TT should be considered in his case for 1977 #1. Same for the Aus Open - way less important then that it is now - the top players rarely played it. So we shouldn't weight it heavily when we're trying to understand #1 for 1977. How heavily should we weight it? Super difficult for us to determine. It would be better for us to rely on the judgements of contemporary (to that time) observers - see point #2.
4. The same goes for the slew of tournaments Vilas won in 1977... many of them had very weak fields and Vilas didn't face any top 10 players in taking them. This also seriously dilutes the impact of his 46-match win streak. And his 16 tournament wins are far less impressive to me than Federer's 12 wins of 2006 in which he won 3 slams, the WTF, and four 1000's against all the top players, or Djokovic's 11 titles of 2015 in which he won 3 slams, the WTF, and six 1000's, not to mention a host of other impressive years by various players.
5. Some contemporary rankers believed Vilas was #1 for 1977. And there are excellent reasons for this - like his US Open victory, and his win streak and all the tournaments he won (even if these are less impressive than they would be now - see point 4).

To sum up: although I would like to see the ATP recalculate rankings for all the 'in-between' weeks, I think they are justified in not doing so; and while there is a case for Vilas as #1 in 1977, it is far from obvious or a consensus.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
...
3. The modern importance we assign to particular tournaments is not the same as the importance assigned to those same tournaments in 1977. For example, the French Open and Team Tennis in 1977 must have had vastly different importance than they do now. I cannot imagine a current player skipping the French to play TT (fortunately this choice doesn't have to be made). Yet that is what Borg did, and what Connors did for a number of years. So the French must have been less important then than it is now, and TT must have been more important. Ergo, Borg's results in TT should be considered in his case for 1977 #1....
WTT wasn’t “more important” than the F.O. at the time. WTT gave Borg a bag of money.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Now i understand that there was controversy about the ranking in 1977, i worked long ago with others on the wikipedia article with those different rankings, because i had bought and viewed those American magazines with their rankings. Just some notes on the contemporary views of things. The paper rankings were subjective rankings by people like McCauley or Bodo or a small group of editors of the magazines. For instance: Tennis Magazine had Borg as Nr. 1 for 1977, but for 1978 the same Tennis Magazine had Connors as Nr. 1, when Borg imo had a much bigger claim for Nr. 1 than in 1977. Other important magazines like World Tennis had Vilas as Nr. 1 for 1977, and Borg for 1978 (which imo is a better calculation).
For WTT: it was a singles, doubles and mixed affair in a carnival setting, the singles contained of one set only. I think somewhere here on this forum is a thread by Scott Tennis, who had given all results and records for the WTT years. From what i remember, then in 1977, not Borg, but Sandy Mayer had the best singles record in WTT for 1977, with Rod Laver being second as quite old rookie of the year. Borg landed somewhere behind.
That in contemprary view the French Open was a second rate event, is not true. Even the ATP computer then ranked the FO highest as one of 3 majors. So along the lines of the ATP itself, Vilas won 2 out of the 3 highest events in 1977.
All that said, nobody says that Vilas was the better player than Borg. Both had a similar topspin game, as Tiriac wrote, Borg could do all things a just bit better than Vilas. I also think, that Vilas was a bit hampered by his many training sessions with his close friend Borg. He could not surprise him with nothing. But nevertheless, Vilas record in 1977 was imo the best of the year.
 

RiverRat

Professional
I think his greatest achievement was putting up with Tiriac's sh** all of those years. Perhaps a comparison to Jesus isn't so off-base. Vilas was a consummate gentleman. I had an experience with him at the WCT in Detroit when I was a tournament chauffeur as a high school senior. I was taking him and Tiriac back to hotel in the wee hours of the night. Yes, I had class the next day. While stopped at a red light with no traffic around, Tiriac barked at me from the backseat, "Go boy." I responded very respectfully but did not go through the red light. When we got to the hotel he said, "Wait here boy, while I get Mr. Vilas's racquets to be restrung." I waited over an hour and then Vilas came down in jeans, t-shirt and sandals with wet hair. He apologized and said he had thought Tiriac had brought the racquets down and that Tiriac could be "a bit of an a**hole." Did I mention he was a gentleman?
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
This is a strange saga. Vilas should never have been number 1 at any point in 76 or 75. If the ATP computer said he was the computer was wrong. In late 75 and ealy 76 Ashe, Connors and Orantes were all ahead of Vilas. Vilas should have had the ATP number 1 ranking in 77. The computer got this wrong. It seems strange that Vilas has looked for recognition in 75 instead of 77.
Yes, this is a strange saga.
There are some certain points:

1) the ATP computer does not miscalculate

2) the parameters may be wrong (and for me they were wrong in those years).. if you want we can discuss it..

3) there are two rankings: one ATP (which unfortunately or fortunately is what counts) and another made by the fans (that of the experts makes the chickens laugh because the experts did not analyze the year but only 2 tournaments:-D). 8 times out of 10 the two coincide, twice they do not coincide.

4) fans are interested to the 4 slams, the computer is not interested to slams, all tournaments are interested in, in principle the big titles.

5) In 1975
- for ATP Connors and Vilas were very close (also Borg, Orantes, and Ashe), in 5 (or 7 ? I don't remember..) weeks Vilas was number one but accidentally ATP does not recognize him. Simple.
- for fans Vilas is not the best player, the best player is Arthur Ashe.

6) In 1977 Vilas never reached number one, for a specific reason: he won many M250. Winning M250 tournaments causes you to lose average points. I repeat: it makes you lose average points. Vilas in 1977 participates in too many weaks tournaments (and Borg too) and the computer penalizes them. Connors instead always participates in medium-high level tournaments.
For the fans only the slams count: so the number one is Vilas.

7) the best player is another thing and probably in 1977 was Borg and in 1975 Connors but it is not proven by the results.
 
Last edited:

bobcolbert

New User
Yes, this is a strange saga.
There are some certain points:

1) the ATP computer does not miscalculate

2) the parameters may be wrong (and for me they were wrong in those years).. if you want we can discuss it..

3) there are two rankings: one ATP (which unfortunately or fortunately is what counts) and another made by the fans (that of the experts makes the chickens laugh because the experts did not analyze the year but only 2 tournaments:-D). 8 times out of 10 the two coincide, twice they do not coincide.

4) fans are interested in the 4 slams, the computer is not interested in slams, all tournaments are interested in, in principle the big titles.

5) In 1975
- for ATP Connors and Vilas were very close (also Borg, Orantes, and Ashe), in 5 weeks Vilas was number one but accidentally ATP does not recognize him. Simple.
- for fans Vilas is not the best player, the best player is Arthur Ashe.

6) In 1977 Vilas never reached number one, for a specific reason: he won many M250. Winning M250 tournaments causes you to lose average points. I repeat: it makes you lose average points. Vilas in 1977 participates in too many weaks tournaments (and Borg too) and the computer penalizes them. Connors instead always participates in medium-high level tournaments.
For the fans only the slams count: so the number one is Vilas.

7) the best player is another thing and probably in 1977 it was Borg but he has not proved it with the results.
Very good synthesis. Vilas was the real world champion in 1977 (even if Borg was maybe the best player) but not the n°1 in ATP ranking. It's like that. But he was really number one in ATP ranking during 7 weeks in 1975-1976, and ATP is ridiculous and unfair to refuse to recognize that fact.
 
Top