Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by granddog29, Aug 19, 2013.
The feat itself wasn't anything special. He basically won 13 non-consecutive matches.
He actually won 13 consecutive matches. 9 in the TCC and 4 in Philadelphia. Almost all of them vs top players.
But you are right, nothing special
Yes, I agree. I believe he suffered a bit of a letdown at the majors after winning all four in '69. Plus, he did not or could not compete at AO and FO in 1970.
But I still think his non-major titles earn him the no. 1 spot.
He could not.
He actually didn't care to play in Australia (no money) but he would have played in Paris
What was the contractural dispute? NTF versus ILTF?
Wiki must be wrong again: "In 1970 the National Tennis League (NTL), . . . prevented its players from entering the tournament [AO] because the guarantees were insufficient. The tournament was ultimately won by Arthur Ashe."
The dispute was between NTL/WCT and Australian and French federations.
Pro groups ask for money guarantees (for their early rounds losers), Aus and Fre federations replied that if they want money they had to win matches, no advantages for the contracted pros (Ashe was very happy about that ).
So NTL/WCT didn't send their players to first two slams.
But in Australia almost nobody would have played, in Paris many players would have gone.
I disagree. The TCc was an event which included all of the best players in tha game, competing for the highest prize money in the history of tennis at a time when the majors paid token prize money, and it required almost twice as many match victories as a 128 man event.
Accordingly, in my view the TCC was a super major, more important and more impressive than any major title of that era, and arguably the greatest single acheivement in the history of tennis.
I was being sarcastic....
Ivan, I counted 16.
Do you have a list?
Because they seem a lot to me.
Until July 28th, NTL was still active and some tournaments were organized by them.
I'm curious to see those 16 WCT tournaments.
Then AND now:
1. Carl-Uwe Steeb
2. Kent Carlsson
3. Derek Rostagno
4. Darren Cahill
5. Thierry Tulasne
6. Cassio Motta
7. Wally Masur
8. Michiel Schapers
9. Milan Srejber
10. Nick Kyrgios
Did you mean ironic?
I have them 15 but anyway. How do you think - could 16 tournaments be a valuable and representative tour when 98 tournaments in total were played the whole year? Could 16 tournaments be enough for a representative ranking?
Buddy, this is not the only tournament with the highest prize money. Alan King, Masters 77-80, WCT Ch. Cup, Forest Hills 81, Antwerp, Grand slam Cup were most prized tournaments at that time but were NOT majors. The prize money is not a factor for a major. TCC as a playing structure and big money is mostly similar to the YE Finals. This is also very prestigious, the best event after the slams.
Prize money 7 years later is irrelevant. In 71 the TCC was bigger and more important than the majors.
What 7 years? The first Alan King was 73. No, Limpin, you have no arguments for TCC have being more important than slams. Sorry.
I have read also somewhere that TCC has only 2 editions because financially it was a pure loss for the organizers. That speaks enough. Big money but for only 2 years, not serious.
NoMercy, Did not know that some of the 1970 pro events were organized by NTL. Thought it had vanished at that time.
Ivan, Yes a true tour but no not enough for the year's ranking. The focus in 1970 was on the traditional majors.
Ivan, Dallas was more important than TCC.
A troll like Lobb...
Limpin, You speak about honesty and still have not apologized for your old but mean lie...
That's my idea - small tour and no representative WCT ranking. Yes, the majors.
No. Dallas had a small draw. TCC had a big RR, incomparable higher number of matches.
urban, The TCC was played January till March but a year, as you know, has more than three months.
NoMercy, Laver (even though not a true expert but he knows a bit about tennis) ranked himself at place 4 in 1970...
Limpin, Collins ranked Laver No. 4 both in 1970 and 1971.
Laver is clearly #1 for 1970 from all aspects, far ahead of Rosewall, Newc, Ashe, Smith and whoever you want.
If Collins had written this, he was very very very misguided.
I have already made the winning argument, supra.
No, Limpin, I understand your wish to be so, but in fact it's not. You and Bobby participate in a some race for overrating your favorites but this race is a illusion. it's great to have dreams, but in terms of your tennis illusions I will always calm you down. Laver and Rosewall are the 2 GOATs far ahead of the next. Believe me they don't need neither to be overrated nor downrated.
But far ahead?
Now you are being ironic, and hyperbolic.
your so called argument has been refuted thoroughly, completely by multiple posters.
You couldn't even respond to my post (#5779) or Ivan69's points about the money.
TCC was not even top 3 in 71. Get real.
Limpin calling the TCC a super major and the best single achievement ever is just Same category as him calling Laver the greatest athlete the sport has ever seen.
On that we agree.
With all due respect, I do think that Collins and Laver who both ranked Rod at #4, had more knowledge of the ranking system than you or any one else here. I am not trying to inflate Ken's position, but relying on what was written by the experts of the day.
Both statements are ridiculous of course
Only to those who haven't seen Laver play.
Ivan, Please accept tennis history! Dallas was the summit of a tour with 32 players. TCC was rather a series of one-night stands.
Please accept the rules of tennis history. Laver himself ranked and still ranks himself only at No.4!!! I don't understand what there is so difficult to understand.
It's not only Collins. Almost all experts ranked Laver behind Newcombe and Rosewall in 1970 and behind Newcombe and >Smith in 1971. Learn history!
Dallas was like the present day year end finals. The top 8 players competed, except that it was a single elimination event, not RR and All matches were best of 5 sets.
The old "experts" opinion is deleterious, the discussion can not evolve if we hear the serial killers of tennis.
Those who did not tell the tennis, killing him.
Many posters have the head/mind to understand if TCC was a big big tournaments, if the slams are mythical and often did suck, if amateurs circuit has a great value, if Rosewall and Vilas were number one.
Better alone than in the team of old "experts".
The old "experts" have taken us out of the way for so many years.
Today, we drive them from their brain and not from ours.
Don't worry, the Vienna guy is good and hospitable. He doesn't have a gun.
No irony. That's the truth.
The "experts" of the day haven't assessed the whole year. Their opinions are based on some tournaments. Thus they are fully irrelevant. Please look at the facts.
In 1970 Newc has 1 Wim and 3 small titles. Rosewall has 1 USO, 5 small titles, 4 finals (Wim, TCC, St. Louis and Sydney).
In 1970 Laver has 8 big titles (TCC, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Wembley, Johannesburg, Vancouver, St. Louis, and Sydney), 7 small titles and 2 finals (Boston and Masters).
thrust, the difference is obvious. No need of the opinion of Mr. Collins who's eyes were only on Wim and USO.
Separate names with a comma.