Who was #1 in 1971?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by dwightcharles, Jan 5, 2017.

  1. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Well perhaps this has been beaten to death in another thread...

    Here's what I've got for expert opinion so far. Can anyone add to this?

    Lance Tingay
    1 Newcombe
    2 Smith

    World Tennis - Joe MacCauley
    1 Newcombe
    2 Smith
    3 Laver
    4 Rosewall

    Bud Collins
    1 Newcombe
    2 Smith
    3 Rosewall
    4 Laver

    Judith Elian
    1 tie-Newcombe
    1 tie-Smith

    Ilie Nastase
    1 Smith
    2 Newcombe
    3 Kodes

    Rino Tommasi
    1 Rosewall
    2 Laver
    3 Newcombe
    4 Smith

    Martini Rosso (11 journalists)
    1 tie-Smith (96 pts - 3 first place votes)
    1 tie-Newcombe (96 pts - 3 first place votes)
    3 Rosewall (91 pts - 2 first place votes)
    4 Laver ( 90 pts - 3 first place votes)

    Using the same methodology I detailed in the 1970 thread... (players missing from any list will be given the maximum possible points for the next available position, for ties available points for tied positions averaged)... tallying this all up:

    1 Newcombe 152.5 pts = 10+10+10+9.5+9+8+96 (6.5 first place votes)
    2 Smith 149.5 pts = 9+9+9+9.5+10+7+96 (4.5 first place votes)
    3 Rosewall 139 pts = 8+7+8+8+7+10+91 (3 first place votes)
    4 Laver 137 pts = 8+8+7+8+7+9+90 (3 first place votes)

    Well things are certainly very tight, but it seems that contemporary opinion of the day comes out slightly in favour of Newcombe in both points and first place votes.

    Who would like to disagree? :)

    For the record (MacCauley - Collins - Tommasi - Martini-Rosso (anyone have Tingay's whole top 10?))
    5 Kodes 6+6+5+66 = 83
    6 Okker 4+3+3+55 = 65
    7 Ashe 5+5+4+44 = 58
    8 Nastase 1+4+6+33 = 44
    9 Drysdale 2+2+2+22 = 28
    10 Riessen 3+1+1+11 = 16
     
    Phoenix1983 and Dan Lobb like this.
    #1
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    Charles, You again provides great stuff. Generally I must say that this forum has improved since you are posting (and also krosero again). I stress I don't praise you that way because you have Rosewall as the 1970 No.1!

    1971, as 1970 plus 1972, 1973 (4 years in a row no clear-cut top player!) and several other years, is a disputed year.

    Interesting to read all those rankings.

    Nastase's list is the weakest because it only covers amateurs.

    Here Tingay's top ten for 1971 (from the 1972 World of Tennis yearbook):

    1 Newcombe
    2 Smith
    3 Laver
    4 Rosewall
    5 Kodes
    6 Ashe
    7 Okker
    8 Drysdale
    9 Riessen
    10 Nastase

    You will not be too surprised that I can add another list -my own...

    1 Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe tied.

    If I would be forced to differentiate I would rank

    1 Smith
    2 Rosewall
    3 Newcombe
    4 Laver

    (Have never reflected about 5-10).

    It's interesting that Judith Elian and Martini/Rosso give tied places just as I suggest in several or even many cases.

    Also interesting that Collins, Laver's buddy, again has Laver only at fourth place.

    Here my reasoning why I have Rosewall as Co-No.1 (I have explained it earlier in another thread months ago).

    Rosewall reached SF stage of the most important tournament, Wimbledon, after having beaten strong Richey in a classic and epic five-set match in which he was down 2 sets to nil. He then lost to very strong Newcombe who went on to win the Championships. Rosewall lost to Newk very clearly (even mor clearly than to Connors in 1974) but I'm convinced that that score happened due to that marathon match. Tingay in his Wimbledon article wrote about a Pyrrhus win and an exhausted Rosewall. But it's probable that Newcombe would have won in any case because he played superbly on that day as also Rosewall admitted.

    I rate the importance of the big tournaments in 1971 as follows:

    1 Wimbledon
    2 US Open, AO and WCT Finals tied
    5 French Open

    Rosewall won two of the top four events that year. Smith won one (and reached final at Wimbledon) and Newcombe won one.

    To be continued: My laptop makes a strike!
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #2
  3. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,362
    I like your results. Newk without a doubt in '71.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #3
  4. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,603
    1971 is much more complicated than 1970. Damn.

    The circuit is divided in two: WCT and Grand Prix
    In WCT played Laver, Rosewall, Newk, Okker, Ashe.
    In the Grand Prix Nastase, Smith, Kodes, Richey.

    The WCT tournaments seem much better (if we exclude slam tournaments).

    Laver won the TCC, Berkeley + 4 WCT tournaments but the number one is .... Newk or Muscles.

    WCT: 4 titles for each one (Newk won Philadelphia in the finals of Laver, Rosewall top Laver to Dallas-Finals) but the titles of Ken look better overall.

    Grand Prix / Grand Slam: Newk wins at Wimbledon, Rosewall won in Melbourne a very very competitive edition.

    It's hard for me.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #4
  5. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Thank you very much for those kind words, Bobby!

    In light of Tingay's list the numbers add up a little diferently now, but the relative positions stay the same:

    1 Newcombe 152.5 pts = 10+10+10+9.5+9+8+96 (6.5 first place votes)
    2 Smith 149.5 pts = 9+9+9+9.5+10+7+96 (4.5 first place votes)
    3 Rosewall 138 pts = 7+7+8+8+7+10+91 (3 first place votes)
    4 Laver 137 pts = 8+8+7+8+7+9+90 (3 first place votes)
    5 Kodes 6+6+6+5+66 = 89
    6 Okker 4+4+3+3+55 = 69
    7 Ashe 5+5+5+4+44 = 63
    8 Nastase 1+1+4+6+33 = 41
    9 Drysdale 3+2+2+2+22 = 31
    10 Riessen 2+3+1+1+11 = 18
     
    Dan Lobb and treblings like this.
    #5
  6. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    I do want to be clear and transparent about this particular point. In my own reading of the tournament data, i.e. by my judgment independent of others' opinion, I likely give #1 in 1970 to Laver. However, I recognize that I am re-interpreting history by such an exercise so I defer to the contemporary opinion of the day and conclude that they regarded Rosewall as #1, as described in the 1970 thread. Therefore I recognize Rosewall as #1 (with the caveats that many modern interpreters, and some contemporary ones, do not).
     
    NatF likes this.
    #6
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    Dan, Newcombe was the weakest of the three candidates. Without a doubt.
     
    #7
  8. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    It appears the experts of 1971 side more with Dan.
    But you are weighing the evidence differently, Bobby?
     
    #8
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    Continuation:

    Sorry for my typos that I made in the first part (had no time to correct them because my computer was on strike).

    Rosewall won the AO which had a tough field. He won without losing a set. That's very seldom in GS tournaments, especially in open era. Of course I admit that Ken had to play only five rounds.

    Rosewall won the prestigious WCT Final's final at Dallas beating Newcombe, Okker and Laver. That championship was regarded very highly at that time. Rosewall rated his win(s) there higher than his remarkable win in the US Open (I disagree with him here).

    Thus Rosewall had three top placings in majors (WCT was a major), Newcombe only one and Smith three (Wimbledon, US Open and Masters, also a major in that time).

    Rosewall won 8 tournaments that year, Newcombe 6 and Smith 6 if I counted correctly.

    Rosewall, among his titles, has the prestigious US Pro (not anymore a major but a big tournament) and the big South African Open, in both events winning the final in straight sets.

    He also won the rather big Washington Star tournament beating Laver and Smith (the latter clearly) on the way.

    Rosewall's hth against his opponents for the No.1 place: 1:0 against Smith and against Newcombe 1:3 (1:1 in majors).

    Newcombe vs. Smith probably 1:0.

    Rosewall finished 3rd on the WCT list, Newcombe 6th.

    Altogether it's clear for me that Rosewall has a very justified claim to be No.1 or at least Co.-No.1.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #9
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    Charles, I can "live" with your opinions here.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #10
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    Charles, Yes. I think some experts (especially Tingay) overrated the importance of Wimbledon in comparison with the other majors. Newk did not achieve really much apart from his Wimbledon win. In the other GS tournaments he lost to Riessen (3rd round) in the AO and to Kodes (1st round) in the US Open. I rank Smith and Rosewall slightly higher than him (or all three equally).
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #11
  12. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,603
    [​IMG]

    I finally chose Rosewall, for two reasons:
    1) won one of the most legendary matches in the history ( and lift the trophy!)
    2) won an excellent edition of the Australian Open (to the level of W & USO).
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #12
  13. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,362
    Hey, Bobby, you are entitled to your opinion, that's what we are here for.
    How did Rosewall do at the U.S. Open in 1971?
     
    pc1 and dwightcharles like this.
    #13
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    KG, I'm happy that I can agree with you again after a longer time.

    US Open was a bit weaker than in other years because of the absence of Laver and Rosewall.

    Thanks for the picture. It's very telling. But I think the photo shows L&R during the 1972 press conference.

    However, also the 1971 edition was a classic match.
     
    #14
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    Dan, He and Laver did not participate.
     
    #15
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    KG, AO in 1971 were played in Sydney (White City Stadium).
     
    KG1965 likes this.
    #16
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,362
    Which "legendary" match are you referring to? Not the 1972 WCT final?
     
    #17
  18. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,603
    I found only this photo.
     
    #18
  19. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,603
    The match that all remember was that of 1972 but also in 1971 in Dallas was played the final of the WCT. Which was the best circuit.
    Then it was passed by Grand Prix which ended up devouring it.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #19
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    KG, Also the 1971 final was regarded as a classic and great match.
     
    #20
  21. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Question for you dwightcharles, if you found statistical evidence in anything that showed a certain fact to be true, would you go with the perspective at the time? If people in 1970 thought 2+2=5 would you go with that because it was the opinion at the time or would you go with the correct information that 2+2=4.
     
    #21
  22. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Great question pc1!
    Well first, I don't think anything about naming a #1 falls into the category of 'fact' or 'obvious truth'. I don't think it's fair to say that the 1970ers were 'wrong' about #1. It is possible to say that they valued things differently than we do. There are far too many factors at play to make hard and fast statements about something as complicated as who was #1. The difficulty, I think, is that there is not a clear set of guidelines for how to value the various factors.

    To answer the question directly, I would say that the majority opinion in 1970 was 2+2=5, so we must understand their actions in the light of that. Certain things they will have done that don't make sense to us, made sense to them because they believed that to be true. People then were just as intelligent as we are, so somehow that made sense. Personally I believe 4 was the answer, but people at the time thought 5 was the answer, and it's true that that's what was accepted.

    To put that in the context of this thread...
    A simple tally of contemporary opinion (that we've been able to find) shows that majority opinion favoured Rosewall at the time.
    That statement is itself a fact (although Rosewall being #1 is not a fact).
    Many posters on this site want to look at the tournament records of 1970 and draw their own conclusions about who was #1 in 1970.
    It seems that the majority of posters in this thread, upon re-examining the evidence, choose Laver as #1 in 1970. Many posters who do so pay close attention to how they perceive the tournaments were valued at the time. The difference in opinion may reflect a lack of adequate information available to the contemporary (to 1970) rankers. However, it seems that those contemporary rankers (the ones documented in this thread) were very close followers of the game and so it may be more likely that the difference (to modern rankers) reflects that they (in the 70's) valued tournaments differently from modern rankers.

    To sum this up (as I see it):
    The tally of contemporary rankers shows that majority opinion was for Rosewall as #1 in 1970.
    The tally of current modern rankers in this thread seems (I haven't actually counted) to show that majority opinion is for Laver as #1 in 1970.
    This difference probably reflects a difference in values between the two times, in how to rank the results.

    I would say there is no right or wrong in this.
     
    #22
  23. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Hey pc1,

    do you think it's true that:

    I believe that the difference between rankers of now and then is that they value the facts differently,
    You believe that the difference between rankers of now and then is that they got the facts wrong?
     
    #23
  24. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,603
    I thinkthat the main difference are the parameters used.

    For someone the number one it is simply what looked like the best player.
    For someone who has won Wimbledon.
    For some American who won Wimbledon + US Open
    For some European who won Wimbledon + French.
    For some American who has followed the WCT circuit, who won Wimbledon, US Open and the WCT.
    For someone who has won more than those he deems great titles.
    For someone who is number one in the ATP Ranking (but in 1970 not existed ...)
    For someone the number one was decided by experts.

    The question is logically complex ... if one does not win the GS.
     
    Gary Duane, krosero and dwightcharles like this.
    #24
  25. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Agreed, so the different parameters reflect different values. People have different ideas about what is important.
     
    krosero likes this.
    #25
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    Charles, Ranking Laver No.1 for 1970 alone is a fault in any case. I still think that we should not overrate our modern lens and that we should rank Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe equally.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2017
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #26
  27. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Well obviously the facts they had were probably correct but I think they didn't have enough facts and probably didn't analyze all the information logically. Remember the rankings were a matter of opinions in those days. There really was no ranking SYSTEM.

    One guy may rank based on winning Wimbledon. Another person may ranking on winning many tournaments. Some may rank on perceived level of play. They had no real parameters in those days.

    Why should we hold with a ranking system that was based on perception in 1970? Perception is not necessarily reality. If the current information says that the standard in the past was incorrect, do we still go by the incorrect information? That last question was not just for tennis but for anything. There were a lot of things people believed years ago that we now know are incorrect. Was smoking harmless years ago because people believed it to be so? It was just as harmful then. They just didn't have the correct information.
     
    #27
  28. KG1965

    KG1965 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,603
    IMHO the point that supports pc1 is ... CENTRAL.
     
    Dan Lobb, Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
    #28
  29. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    915
    With all due respect I think your wrong. Aside from the issue of conflating two different things, this assessment that people lacked information is also clearly wrong. The reason I say this is because in the rankings at the time Laver polled very highly, in several cases scoring the number 1 rank. We can assume they were not ranking Laver on his slam performances so they must have been aware of his non-slam record.

    The other thing to consider is that the ITF does not follow the ATP rankings today. In 2013 they ranked Djokovic number 1 instead of Nadal. Were they lacking all the information?
     
    krosero likes this.
    #29
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    70sHollywood, The foremost experts all did not rank Laver at No.1 for 1970 or 1971.
     
    #30
  31. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Good point. They did have all the information. However I will say that in 2013 it was close enough that you can argue Nadal or Djokovic as number one. What hurt Nadal was that he didn't play the Australian which Djokovic won so already he was 2000 points behind. Nadal lost in the first round at Wimbledon while Djokovic reached the final so Nadal was behind here by 1190 points. So in two majors Nadal was behind Djokovic by 3190 points. The majors are obviously where a huge amount of points can be won and Nadal failed badly at two of them. I think to be honest if they want to make it totally fair they should just go by the ATP point system for the year.

    In 1970 however if there was a point system it would not be that close. Neither Rosewall or Newcombe had the dominant years that Nadal or Djokovic had in 2013. Rosewall for example won one major and finished in the finals of the other. Rosewall did not win any of the other top 15 tournaments of the year aside from the US Open. It was the same with Newcombe. Newcombe won Wimbledon and for that he was ranked number one by many experts but to be honest he really didn't deserve to be. Newcombe won three of twenty tournaments with the big one being Wimbledon. He also did not win any of the other top fifteen tournaments.

    Laver however won five of the top fifteen for at least 5000 points. I believe Laver won ten other tournaments, assuming tier 500 on average you add another 5000 points. Laver also finished in the finals of six other tournaments so that's another 1800 points. Laver has at least 11,800 points. Laver only reached the fourth round of two majors so that's another 360 points for 12,160 points. Laver won 15 of 29 tournaments.

    Rosewall won six of 25 tournaments. He won the US Open for 2000 points. He didn't win any of the other top fifteen. So assuming 500 points each for the five other tournaments he won that would be 2500 points plus 2000 for the US Open for 4500 points. He finished second in three tier 500 tournaments for 900 points and if you add the 1200 for Wimbledon you get 6600 points.

    I don't think Rosewall can catch up if we look at all the tournaments. Laver is by far in front for 1970 just on a quick calculation. It's really not close and imo an easy decision.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2017
    Phoenix1983 and Limpinhitter like this.
    #31
  32. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,440
    In addition, in my view, the current ATP points allocation system is objectively fair and reasonable, allotting exactly twice as many points for a major title as for the second most prestigious Masters titles. The system does not allot 8 or 9 times as many points for a major compared to a Masters which is what would be needed for Rosewall or Newcombe to overcome Laver's accomplishments in 1970, nor should it.
     
    #32
  33. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    915
    I asume by foremost you mean Tingay, Collins and McCauley. No they didn't, but other experts did. dwightcharles showed the info for both 1970 and 1971 where some of the martini rosso panel voted Laver as the number 1.
     
    #33
  34. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    And that's the problem with past rankings. It was basically an opinion poll. There were no parameters. Everyone went their own way. It's rather absurd when you think about it. In the past it's well known in some sports some writers didn't vote for some players because they didn't like them! That is of course unfair but that's what happens when anyone can go their own on voting.
    I agree.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2017
    #34
  35. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,440
    Unlike 1970, a definitive ranking for 1971 is more difficult considering how close the top 4 players were in overall accomplishments and what I would characterize as Laver's second year in a row of asymmetrical accomplishments: winning the TCC (in my opinion the most prestegious, highest paying and most demanding title of the year, perhaps of all time, by a wide margin), and 6 other titles, but, not winning any traditional majors. Compare 1970, where he won the TCC, the Dunlop International (the defacto 4th or 5th most important event of 1970), plus 4 more Masters equivalent titles and nine ATP 500 equivalent titles.

    However, there is no doubt in my opinion who was still playing at the highest level when on his game and not hampered by injuries. Further, in my view, the same can be said for 72' and 73'.
     
    #35
  36. thrust

    thrust Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    461
    I agree, great year for a 36 year old, or a 26 year old either!
     
    #36
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    That's the famed modern Limpin lens!
     
    #37
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    70sHollywood, Yes, but they were in clear minority.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
    #38
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    You forget 1974 and 1975: Laver had nice wins!
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #39
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,449
    thrust, As earlier told, I consider you a top tennis expert, not because you admire Rosewall but because you seem to be objective in your argumentation.
     
    #40
  41. thrust

    thrust Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    461
    Thanks! I do try to be fair, as I admire the great players mostly in discussion here
     
    #41
  42. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Hi pc1!
    This is very interesting!
    Yes, we now have easy access to the data - i.e. all the matches that happened (we presume). But it still boils down to how the matches are valued. It's one thing to say past rankers didn't have all the data (difficult to prove), but it's quite another to say they valued the matches incorrectly. When it comes to values, I don't think it's possible to say that their values were wrong. Different from ours perhaps, but not wrong. The signficance (value) attached to a match (say the Wimbledon final) can vary from ranker to ranker, but how can we say that a ranker is wrong about what they think is important?
     
    krosero likes this.
    #42
  43. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,326
    I think you are asking the right questions, but I don't always agree with your conclusions.

    I don't like the 2+2=5 analogy because it is simplistic and frankly a bit insulting to people in that era. I'm not going to assume that we have magically become so smart since then that we have it all figured out now, and that most everyone at that time was wrong. That just doesn't feel right to me.

    One very important thing to me is that we CAN'T fully understand how people of that time FELT about the system in place, how they reacted to it, how they rated their own success in THAT system, and how they adapted their schedules to that system.

    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I sometimes think you put too much faith in the modern lens.

    This is why I consistently find myself somewhere in between you and Krosero, because you lean more towards reinterpreting things through the modern lens, while Krosero seems to lean more towards simply presenting information that is clearly focused on a lens of that time.

    I like to flip lenses, figuratively, then analyze things as two separate views (at least) that will never fully agree and perhaps should not be expected to.

    By the way, here is my thinking:

    I was just recently looking at a whole bunch of Twilight Zone episodes, run on a marathon. My wife could not understand whey I even watched them. To her the acting is just horrible. I tried to explain to her that if you have a strong knowledge of theatre you realize that what you are seeing is essentially stage acting, and that what we see on stage, without mikes, essentially has not changed. So it is a window into a different time.

    There are other people who idolize shows and films from that time, saying that everything great about acting has been lost.

    The problem is using one and only one lens, then not realizing that we NEED more than one lens to have an understanding of what was and what is.

    If you lean too hard on "facts", assuming we simply know more now and that everything should be reexamined, you are very close to people who simply state that modern tennis and modern tennis players are simply superior to what was. Modern rackets are better, modern strings are better, shoes that slide on HCs are better, and having a box full of people in your box, wiping your butt every 30 seconds if necessary, is better.

    Everything is better, and add to that our ranking system.

    It just wasn't the same in the early 70s.

    That's why I'm very comfortable with ties for those early years, and frankly view people who MUST have an undisputed #1 as a bit inflexible. ;)
     
    dwightcharles and pc1 like this.
    #43
  44. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    All of this is fine with me Gary. I disagree with you in this case but we can't agree on everything.

    Interesting analogy with the Twilight Zone but being a person who used to watch that show on occasion I understand.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
    #44
  45. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    The problem is also in my opinion there was no system on how to rank a player also. Some "experts" ranked a player number one if he or she won Wimbledon. Some ranked it based on other things. Maybe some ranked it based on if their shoes looked nice. Where is the consistency? There is none and you add that they didn't really have the total information and the correct thought process in how to analyze the information.

    There are a lot of things we thought were correct in the past that we know are incorrect now. We learn from history hopefully so we don't repeat mistakes.

    We have tons of books and articles on the sport of baseball in which they have conclusively analyze the data from the past and found the answers at that time were totally wrong.
     
    dwightcharles and Gary Duane like this.
    #45
  46. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,326
    I agree with you very much on this point, the point that facts were clearly wrong. In fact, using one example in music, trills and other "ornaments" were played very differently from what Bach and people of his time played and taught, and we did not find out about this until rather recently, in the past few decades.

    This doesn't make earlier playing of this music any less interesting, and it doesn't mean that it was "wrong", but it tells us that we were not getting close to what was actually played.

    We, unfortunately, do not have time machines. ;)
     
    dwightcharles and pc1 like this.
    #46
  47. dwightcharles

    dwightcharles Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Actually I don't think this is a fair representation of what I said or my beliefs.

    We don't know if they had 'total information'. And I certainly disagree that they did not have 'the correct thought process in how to analyze the information.' Rather, I think there is no 'correct' here. What we have is 'different.' (Edit: what I mean is, they may have used a 'different' process for analysing than we did, but we cannot call it 'correct' or 'incorrect'.)

    Did they exercise 'consistency'? It is also impossible to know. Perhaps each ranker had a system which they followed consistently? We don't know, actually. What we do know is that there was a lack of transparency by many rankers in how they chose their rankings.
     
    krosero and Gary Duane like this.
    #47
  48. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I don't think they had all the info. Must have been a typo on my part.

    Lack of transparency is very bad also. The ATP and WTA should set parameters on how to rank players.
     
    dwightcharles and Gary Duane like this.
    #48
  49. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,326
    That's a great point.

    We are probably all making our own points here. The number one thing I keep thinking of is the incredible disagreement about 2013, only four years ago, with a split between the ATP and that other organization for which I always forget the letters. ;)

    Nadal was #1. Djokovic was #1. Both were #1. Let the fights begin (not here but in the rest of the forum.)

    If people can't agree about 2013, they are never EVER going to agree about 1971. ;)

    My point about 2+2=5 is that it is not the right analogy.

    A better one would be that 3+3=5, which happens to be 100% true in music. C to E is a 3rd, E to G is a 3rd, but C to G is a 5th. I tell my students this is "musical math", and I explain that a letter gets double-counted. An apparently ridiculous statement turns out to be true, in music.

    So in order to evaluate anything as a true or false statement, you need context.

    I was thinking earlier that it is more like light. Is it waves? Particles? Both? Has this whole duality/paradox been redefined? (I have no idea.) <my attempt at humor>

    What I expect will happen in the future is that things will continue to get more and more muddy as more facts are brought to light. Sometimes more and more information does not simplify things but rather just underscores complexity.
     
    #49
  50. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    14,031
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Excellent thoughts but I think tennis is a bit simpler than particle physics. LOL. I do think sometimes hitting the perfect shot in tennis is tougher than particle physics.
     
    #50

Share This Page