Who was number 1 for 1970?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, Apr 17, 2009.

  1. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,938
    great post of yours, one of many in this thread. i couldn´t agree more with you, particularly on the last sentence
    You have in Laver and Rosewall two unique talents, and I don't understand the continual compulsion to make one lesser by making the other greater
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
  2. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    862
    Where is the evidence that Tingay was biased towards Wimbledon? For example, in 1964 he was the only major expert to rank Margaret Court number 1 instead of Maria Bueno. He also went against the Wimbledon winner in 62, 69, 75 and 77. For the men he picked Connors in 76, even though some people picked Borg and he himself was a big fan of the Swede.


    Regarding Peaks/Primes-

    It is clear to me that between WWII and the early open era the prime age of a tennis player was mid 20's to early 30's. Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Gonzalez, Trabert, Rosewall, Laver and Emerson all had their best results in this period. Hoad is the exception, though his early 1963 form (in what should have been his prime years) is an indication of what might have been.

    Whether a player was an early or late bloomer would impact on their peaks and whether it was closer to 25 or 32.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    krosero, Damned strong old Pancho...
     
    krosero likes this.
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Gary, Both spellings are correct.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Gary, Thanks a lot for your thoughts and analyses.

    You don't have data about the several strokes, especially of Rosewall's. But you did not contradict at any of those I listed. I made my claims according to several players and experts who saw Rosewall, some of them even in his peak years.

    For example World Tennis in 1966 wrote that Rosewall (now) has the best backhand in the world both from the baseline and at the volley. Again I would say that Rosewall had at least as many weapons as Laver but not Rod's power (even though Ken's power with his backhand and at the volleys is underestimated). By the way, I forgot to mention Rosewall's half-volley, rated by Kramer as the all-time best together with that of Gonzalez. Kramer (never a typical Rosewall admirer) also praised Rosewall's overhead.

    It's true that Rosewall often did not win his games and matches as easily as Laver or Borg did but he won his fair share of matches, altogether more than Laver and Borg (and Federer for that matter). It's not important how you win but THAT you win. Rosewall made up for his relative "soft" service (it was not soft in his peak years though) by using his many assets I have listed up from return (the all-time greatest?) to footwork and reflexes.

    Rosewall in open era was an old player. Thus his numbers then are not too telling.

    I do know that some posters here, i.e. you, krosero, treblings, thrust, dwightcharles, Nathaniel Near, DMP, 90's Clay, 70sHollywood and maybe a few more admire Rosewall and realize his greatness. But I concentrate to those rather many posters who always try to belittle the Little Master (and to pump up Laver), i. e. Limpinhitter, Phoenix1983, urban, NatF, abmk, ARFED, Dan Lobb, NonP and some others.

    I hate it to be attacked and insulted very often since July 2012 and to be forced to read Limpinhitter's mean lies and the absurd "English lessons" from native English speakers about Bud Collins' crystal clear words that Rosewall was perhaps the GOAT. That discussion (the abstruse distorting of Bud's words) was probably the lowest point of nastiness and infamy I ever experienced in this forum (infamy against Bud Collins and BobbyOne). Of course Phoenix's wish of a soon dying Rosewall can cope with it...

    Many or most posters here do like GOAT discussions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
    dwightcharles likes this.
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    krosero, Thanks for the quoting. I did not know that Rosewall was a bit handicapped in his match against Gimeno.

    Thank you for analysing the slight decline of Muscles since 1964 or 1965. Hope that Limpinhitter will observe...

    Great for old Sedgman to have a match point against peak Laver!

    Similary to you I think that Rosewall was not as consistent a player as many claim (and also I earlier have claimed). In contrary, Rosewall seems to me being a typical player for the big events (thus his huge haul of big wins and top placings).

    1965, 1971 and 1972 are typical examples for this claim: In 1965 Laver beat Rosewall very often but in major encounters Ken usually won: French Pro, US Pro, Reston (biggest claycourt event of the year), St. Louis (US Pro Hardcourt).

    In 1971 and 1972 Laver defeated Rosewall several times in the WCT series but Rosewall won the two Dallas finals which were much more important.
     
    krosero and dwightcharles like this.
  7. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,521
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Laver hurt his wrist badly in 1968 which was an injury that affected him the rest of his career. I know he also developed a bad back that affected his overhead and serve at times but I am not sure if he was affected by this in 1969. Laver was clearly past his best in 1969.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    NatF, Sorry, I already explained you the difference between seedings and rankings. Tingay and Collins were rather experts than the seeding committees.

    I also explained the No.1 seedings for Laver in early 1971 and mid-1971.

    You are right regarding Geist but I like it that in his Rosewall biography he did not rank his darling alone as No.1. The same for 1961 and 1964.
     
    treblings likes this.
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    treblings, I don't agree because Gary indirectly blamed me for not being objective regarding Laver and Rosewall. I'm convinced that I always am fair to them when pleading for Rosewall's greatness and "fighting" against the overestimating of Laver's greatness.
     
  10. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,938
    i didn´t understand Garys post as an attack against you personally.
     
    dwightcharles, krosero and NatF like this.
  11. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    24,813
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I have no comment to make on Geist or his views beyond that including him as a contemporary expert is incorrect. Otherwise I could name Raymond Lee as an expert who considers Laver at #1. Whether he is fair or not does not make him a contemporary.

    So Laver was winning so much continually that he was seeded #1 consistently at the biggest events but he was not ranked #1? That seems strange to me. Is there any information out there for how the seeding was determined, I'd like to read it for myself - the details would surely be interesting.
     
    Limpinhitter, dwightcharles and pc1 like this.
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    70sHollywood, I contradict. At the male players he almost always went with the Wimbledon winner, even in 1971!!

    Exception, as far as I know, are only 1963 (Osuna) and of course 1973 (Newcombe).

    Rather biased, Lance!
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    treblings, It was a criticism of many Laver and Rosewall admirers including of course Rosewall's main "advocate".
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    NatF, I agree about Geist and Raymond Lee.

    I have mentioned a few criteria the seeding committees have used among them Laver's high reputation which might have distorted the true situation.

    Laver won the rather big ones and some smaller ones while Rosewall and Newcombe won the real big ones and had a top placing in the other of the two big ones.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
  15. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,938
    i was commenting on his words as i understood them.
    you may well have better insight into what he meant by his words.
    to my knowledge you´re not only a Rosewall admirer. if i remember your posts correctly you have Laver as your joint no.1
     
  16. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    862
    Truth is most of those years Tingay ranked players the Wimbledon champion had the best record. The question is what did he do in years there was no clear number 1? It's possible he used the results of the top tournament to decide the outcome, which of course just so happened to be Wimbledon most of the time (but not all time, hence Newk for 73).

    This isn't bias, at least not in the sense most people use the term. If he was biased he would have ranked Wimbledon champions as number 1 in years when there was another clear cut number 1, which I don't think he did.

    Newcombe has a better claim for 1971 than he does for 1970. He won several decent tournaments outside Wimbledon.
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Charles, Many thanks for your private message (I forgot how to answer in that forum though), your praise and your criticism.

    The latter reminds me of an older criticism I got from krosero. Are you the alter ego of krosero? By the way, I consider him as a true friend even though I sometimes missed his support.

    I like your appreciation of my postings and I like your ones too. You are a big enrichment for this forum!

    Thanks that you find my approach to multiple No.1's fair-minded. Not many posters would agree with you though here.

    Thanks for your maqny "likes". I see that you like to give likes to almost everyone even in case that two posters contradict each other ;-)

    I don't know if you have read in this forum since years. In case you have not, I can tell you that I'm rather offended and unhappy that I was attacked and insulted since I write here, mostly without any reason, just because I use to claim that Rosewall is a true GOAT candidate (in my opinion the GOAT-together with Laver, slightly ahead of Gonzalez and Tilden; Federer No.5). There is sometimes some hate against me.

    I once was threatened by a poster but he does not post here anymore. Limpinhitter in 2012 compared me with Günter Parche, the man who stabbed Seles. For that insult he was banned for a few weeks but he did not post for a couple of years. Since his return his only agenda seems to be belittling Rosewall, pumping up Laver and mocking BobbyOne. Of course I sometimes ask Limpin to apologize. I still believe that everybody can change his/her behaviour. Please note: I did not say that Limpinhitter is obnoxious. I rather blamed his behaviour, his lies.

    Of course I must call his obnoxious and mean lie ( Rosewall would have won 40 open majors in my opinion) an "obnoxious lie" and his absurd numbers (Laver won 36 majors) "absurd". He (or she, who knows?) made a few more lies (about 6 or 7). Nobody besides of me critisized his behaviour last year...

    Phoenix1983 once revealed my proper name (it's forbidden) and uses to speculate about Rosewall's near death. He also does not understand why Rosewall never won Wimbledon and, more than that, he "knows" that Rosewall would not have won any Wimbledon if he was allowed to participate in his peak years.

    Then there are a few other posters who are stubborn to a great extent without direct insults against me, i. e. urban, Dan Lobb, NonP, KG 1965. They never would accept a good argument of mine and change their mind in even a minor point...

    You should know that I'm an acknowledged tennis expert, quoted in the New York Times (internet version) and called by Bud Collins the "Vienna Visionary" and the "Authoritative Austrian", and a good friend of Ken Rosewall. I guess some posters are a bit jealous because of all that (Of course some posters claimed that the above mentioned things are lies...).

    I'm rather old (68) and not in good health anymore and I really don't need to be insulted or attacked day-in and day-out. My pause of two months was refreshing for me and I think I will again make a pause or quit posting at all if the circumstances are too bad for me (too much hate; too little support from my friends).

    Not posting in a tennis forum (even though it was my greatest hobby) is not the end of the world. I rather fear the world's end by climate change, over-population and the triumph of a certain religion which is very violent and intolerant...

    Hope you can understand me a bit better now.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    treblings, Yes, I have Rod & Ken tied at first place. But I admire Rosewall more because I believe that it's more admirable to win very much without having sheer power and a murderous service (in both fields Laver has the edge; it's even more significant re Gonzalez) and to compensate his deficits by variety and touch.

    I confess that I'm a bit nearer to Ken than to Rod. I have got 45 letters from the former and zero letters from the latter...;-)
     
    dwightcharles and treblings like this.
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    70sHollywood, Okay, but I think that Smith had a better year than Newk in 1971.
     
  20. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,938
    I know you consider Rosewall your friend and that alone is more than enough reason to prefer him. There is much to admire about the man. His ability to overcome opponents who had more power and better serves is one of those things.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
  21. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,911
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Two no. 2 seeds? Is this a typo? Was Rosewall seeded no. 3, and Ashe no. 2?​
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
    dwightcharles likes this.
  22. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,521
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    The seeding committees do have sometimes silly reasons on some seedings. I remember in the late 1960s, I think 1969, Laver was seeded second to Tony Roche in some tournament. The logic was that while Laver was clearly the best player, Tony Roche was number two and since Roche was beating Laver at the time more than Laver beat him, the logic was to seed Roche number one.

    There could be seedings perhaps because they wanted certain match-ups.
     
    dwightcharles and krosero like this.
  23. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,746
    Yep, PC 1, Philadelphia 1969.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  24. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    24,813
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Ok fair enough about the seeding, I don't think it should be completely discounted but I can accept it's nothing absolute.

    There were only 2 real big ones in 1970, as I said before boiling the year down to just 2 events doesn't sit right with me. Let's just agree to disagree, I think Laver should be considered #1 in 1970 but also think Rosewall has a good case for #1 as well.
     
    dwightcharles and treblings like this.
  25. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,521
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Thank you Urban.
     
  26. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,812
    Bobby, thank you are trying to explain my bad spelling, but I really was wrong. ;)

    Winning, which comes from win, has two "nn's". Wine is a noun, and you can be "wining" someone when you "wine and dine them", meaning provide food and drink:
    I was puzzled myself, wondering why the system accepted "wining". But spell-checkers don't catch things like that!
     
  27. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,812
    I'll have to go back and check, but I believe that Nadal was seeded #2 behind Federer for years at RG even after having won several years in a row. I believe he was finally seeded #1 the first year he did not win there.

    Being seeded #2 is not disadvantage as far as facing top players, but this is an obvious example of a total lack of logic.
     
    dwightcharles and pc1 like this.
  28. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,521
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Gary,

    Stop whining about wining. There is no winning when you continue to discuss wining and dining.

    Sorry Gary. I couldn't resist. My apologies for the bad puns. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
    dwightcharles and treblings like this.
  29. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,764
    Yes, a typo in the original. I would guess that Rosewall was seeded third since he was listed last.
     
  30. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,521
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I think I've seen seedings in which Laver was around 7th to 9th seed when he didn't deserve to be. I think a lot of it is opinion on whether the surface may suit a player also and perhaps injuries and form. It makes sense but is very subjective.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
    krosero likes this.
  31. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    24,813
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Seeding is the same as ranking these days and has been for a while - obviously withdrawls not withstanding, Wimbledon is the exception.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  32. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,521
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    It does make you wonder if a little bit of subjectivity could be more appropriate sometimes. For example Nadal perhaps could have been seeded number one at the French more often even if by the rankings he didn't deserve to be as Gary pointed out.
     
  33. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    24,813
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    #1 or #2 doesn't make a lot of different, equal odds of drawing the different seeds. Might have been a suitable nod to his dominance on that surface though.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  34. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,812
    I remember he also had some problems later in his career with his serve.

    Those old Aussies were iron men, true also of Gonzalez. They played through injuries and pain. That would not happen today.

    One of the reason people play longer now is that there are better treatments for injuries.

    Murray is where he is because of modern surgery. If he had been born a few decades ago, his career would have been over. Done.

    Federer has a chance to win again this year because of how successful surgery was, and how quickly he healed. That also would not have happened decades ago.

    This is also why "mileage" is such a huge factor. The longer and harder these guys play, the more chance there is that they will wear out their bodies. Think of how many hip surgeries these guys have.

    Both Gonzalez and Rosewall had miracle genetics. Also true of Connors for a very long time, but the guys who retired early (Borg for example) probably have fewer aches and pains as they age.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
  35. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,812
    That doesn't make it logical or fair. When a guy is clearly the best on clay, year after year, before RG, seeding him #2 is not fair, and if it pushes someone down further down than #2, it can make a huge difference.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  36. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,521
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Laver developed a nagging bad problem at least as early as 1970 and who knows, perhaps before. It affected his serve and overhead.
     
  37. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    24,813
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    If Nadal was coming in seeded #3 or lower I would agree but #1 or #2 makes no practical difference. In 2013 they should have seeded Nadal #1 or #2 and had him in the opposite half to Djokovic.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  38. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,812
    Exactly. The issue is not about being (unfairly) seeded #2. It's that the moment seedings becomes questionable, it doesn't stop there.

    By the time RG took place the smart money should have been on either Nadal or Djokovic.

    Fed did not win a tournament on clay in 2011 and won Madrid in 2012.

    Nadal won 4 titles in 2012, including two M1000s and RG. Yes, he was injured in 2012, but before RG in 2013 he had won Madrid and Rome. How you put a guy with Nadal's record (at that time) as #3 is beyond me.

    The result is that Djokovic, a player I don't even like to watch, got screwed out of being AT LEAST a finalist, and the result was that the true final happened in the semi-final.

    So if RG sticks to seeding by world ranking rather than by ranking on clay alone, it's pretty illogical.
     
    dwightcharles and pc1 like this.
  39. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    24,813
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    The general thinking is that there's enough clay representation in the tour in general for the world rankings to provide an accurate seeding for the FO. Obviously that's not always the case, another example being Sampras being seeded #1 constantly at the FO.
     
    dwightcharles, Gary Duane and pc1 like this.
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,005
    Bobby, you are more than capable of finding the Sports Illustrated issue yourself...let us know of your progress on this.
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    treblings, Thanks for your understanding.

    I forgot to mention that I once contacted the Rocket but, alas, I never got an answer. The same with Buchholz, Segura, Olmedo.

    But I did get answers from Sedgman (a very long one), from Trabert who sent me his complete pro record (as far it was known then), Anderson, MacKay, Cooper, McMillan, Gimeno...

    I also forgot to mention that I contacted te Little Master in person four times, i.e. at Wimbledon, at Pörtschach (Austria) twice and near Hamburg.
     
    dwightcharles and treblings like this.
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    NatF, There only were two really big events in 1970 but of course there were some others that were rather big. Both claims are right. Laver won several rather big events, the best being either Dunlop or Wembley.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Gary, I meant Pancho's name.
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Gary, I agree.
     
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    krosero, Astonishing seeding.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    NatF, I respectfully disagree.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Gary, I would not say that the current players play longer than those of 50 years ago, see Segura, Sedgman, Drobny, Mulloy and so on.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Gary, I agree.
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,993
    Dan, If and when you quote an article you should give also the date of its publication.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  50. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    24,813
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    You would be wrong then. Seeding is essentially the same as ranking these days.
     
    dwightcharles likes this.

Share This Page