WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[hoodjem]

Tennis WORLD NO. 1
Male Singles Player (by year)

1877—Gore
1878—Hadow
1879—Hartley
1880—Hartley
1881—W. Renshaw
1882—W. Renshaw
1883—W. Renshaw
1884—W. Renshaw
1885—W. Renshaw
1886—W. Renshaw
1887—W. Renshaw/Lawford
1888—E. Renshaw
1889—W. Renshaw/Hamilton
1890—Hamilton/Pim
1891—Lewis/Baddeley/Pim
1892—E. Renshaw/Baddeley
1893—Pim
1894—Pim
1895—Pim
1896—Baddeley
1897—R.F. Doherty
1898—R.F. Doherty
1899—R.F. Doherty
1900—R.F. Doherty
1901—Larned
1902—H.L. Doherty
1903—H.L. Doherty
1904—H.L. Doherty
1905—H.L. Doherty
1906—H.L. Doherty
1907—Brookes
1908—Larned
1909—Larned
1910—Larned
1911—Wilding
1912—Wilding
1913—Wilding
1914—McLoughlin
1915—Johnston
1916—Williams
1917—Murray
1918—Murray
1919—Patterson/Johnston
1920—Tilden
1921—Tilden
1922—Tilden/Johnston
1923—Tilden
1924—Tilden
1925—Tilden
1926—Lacoste
1927—Lacoste
1928—Cochet
1929—Cochet
1930—Cochet
1931—Tilden(7)/Vines
1932—Vines
1933—Crawford
1934—Perry
1935—Perry/Vines
1936—Perry/Vines
1937—Perry/Vines(5)/Budge
1938—Budge
1939—Budge
1940—Budge
1941—Perry/Riggs/Kovacs
1942—Budge(5)
1943—Riggs/Kovacs
1944—Kovacs(3)/Riggs
1945—Riggs
1946—Riggs
1947—Riggs(6)/Kramer
1948—Kramer
1949—Kramer
1950—Kramer/Segura
1951—Kramer
1952—Gonzales/Sedgman
1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(2)
1954—Gonzales
1955—Gonzales
1956—Gonzales
1957—Gonzales
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman(2)
1959—Gonzales/Hoad
1960—Gonzales
1961—Gonzales(9)
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall(2)
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—Laver(8)
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors
1977—Borg/Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl(4)
1990—Edberg
1991—Edberg(2)
1992—Courier
1993—Sampras
1994—Sampras
1995—Sampras
1996—Sampras
1997—Sampras
1998—Sampras(6)
1999—Agassi
2000—Kuerten
2001—Hewitt
2002—Hewitt(2)
2003—Roddick
2004—Federer
2005—Federer
2006—Federer
2007—Federer
2008—Nadal
2009—Federer(5)
2010—Nadal
2011—Djokovic
2012—Djokovic
2013—Nadal
2014—Djokovic
2015—Djokovic
2016—Murray
2017—Nadal
2018—Djokovic
2019—Nadal(5)
2020—Djokovic
2021—Djokovic
2022—Alcaraz
2023—Djokovic(8)
2024—Sinner

I post this separately here for convenience. I post it also primarily for discussion, illumination, and enlightenment—not because it is definitive or proclamatory.

 

[David_86]

Some thoughts

1983 I might give to Wilander. He did have a 3-0 record against McEnroe that year, more tournament wins, fewer losses, performed better at 3 of the 4 major touraments, a better Davis Cup record. Are you including the Masters played in January 84 as part of your argument? I tend to include it in 1984 since that's when it's played even though the Masters is supposed to be the season ending event.

Also I would discount Connors from the 1977 argument. However, I agree with you splitting Connors/Borg in 1978. Most people just tend to see Borg 2 majors to Connors 1 but I would say they performed pretty evenly throughout the year.

 

[timnz]

1964?

Hello,

I have to say I really like the list. You can tell by the co-number 1 years that you have spent a lot of time and thought in it.

Comparing your list to Wikipedia's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

In 1964 it has them as co-number 1's. I'd like to see a list of both of their tournament wins so I could make up my mind. On the face of it though Laver seems to nod. (Dominant head to head plus 2 out of 3 of the majors). I wonder why the ranking voters at the time had Rosewall out on front or at least equal to Laver?

 

[urban]

In 1964, the pros had an internal point system on a 18 or 20 tournament basis, with no difference between the status of the events. Many matches and some tournaments, especially on the South African tour late in the year, were not counted. Rosewall, who led the US tour until July 1964, finished on top in a close race under this system. But Laver had a 15-4 head to head, won US pro and Wembley, the two pro biggies, and won 11 events to Rosewalls 10, and if one looks closely, it seems, that Laver surpassed Rosewall with his Wembley win in September and closed out the year with his domination of the South African tour.
Overall a good list, Hoodjem, closely following the Wikipedia list, made by Carlo and others. Some years are always debatable: For instance, i would give Connors 1976 and Borg alone 1978, Newcombe 1971 or Smith alone 1972.

 

[pc1]

In 1964, the pros had an internal point system on a 18 or 20 tournament basis, with no difference between the status of the events. Many matches and some tournaments, especially on the South African tour late in the year, were not counted. Rosewall, who led the US tour until July 1964, finished on top in a close race under this system. But Laver had a 15-4 head to head, won US pro and Wembley, the two pro biggies, and won 11 events to Rosewalls 10, and if one looks closely, it seems, that Laver surpassed Rosewall with his Wembley win in September and closed out the year with his domination of the South African tour.
Overall a good list, Hoodjem, closely following the Wikipedia list, made by Carlo and others. Some years are always debatable: For instance, i would give Connors 1976 and Borg alone 1978, Newcombe 1971 or Smith alone 1972.

I like the list. The thing I find very interesting is that Kovacs, who has been known mainly as a clown is on the list three times. He fascinates me to a certain degree because it's almost universally accepted by those who see him how gifted he was. Bobby Riggs has hinted that when Kovacs was on his game that he was perhaps the greatest. Kramer mentioned in his book how he was in awe of Kovacs and how Kovacs was one of the few who returned so well that he couldn't serve and volley against him. I know some have argue for Kovacs to be in the Hall of Fame.

On the year 1964, while I do think Laver was number one for the year based on record, Rosewall was considered (perhaps incorrectly) number one. However since "officially" Rosewall was number one I do think it is reasonable for Muscles to be considered co-number one for that year. The records, despite Laver's great head to head advantage were very comparable which means that Rosewall must have done much better than Laver against the other players.

And yes I think Borg was clearly the best in 1978. In fact it's quite possible 1978 was Borg's best year.

 

[CyBorg]

mostly agreed, except
- Rosewall in 1960 (Gonzales didn't play enough)
- Rosewall in 1964, or at least a tie
- imo, Ashe a clear best in 1975
- Borg a clear #1 in 1978
- Agassi a tie with Sampras in 1995
- Sampras equal or greater than Agassi in 1999

 

[pc1]

mostly agreed, except
- Rosewall in 1960 (Gonzales didn't play enough)
- Rosewall in 1964, or at least a tie
- imo, Ashe a clear best in 1975
- Borg a clear #1 in 1978
- Agassi a tie with Sampras in 1995
- Sampras equal or greater than Agassi in 1999

Borg in 1978 won the Italian, the French and Wimbledon plus he was in the final of the US Open against Connors and lost badly due to an injury. He had the highest Games Won Percentage of the Open Era with an incredible number over 66%!

 

[jean pierre]

Tennis WORLD NO. 1
Male Singles Player (by year)

1877—Gore
1878—Hadow
1879—Hartley
1880—Hartley
1881—W. Renshaw
1882—W. Renshaw
1883—W. Renshaw
1884—W. Renshaw
1885—W. Renshaw
1886—W. Renshaw
1887—W. Renshaw/Lawford
1888—E. Renshaw
1889—W. Renshaw/Hamilton
1890—Hamilton/Pim
1891—Lewis/Baddeley/Pim
1892—E. Renshaw/Baddeley
1893—Pim
1894—Pim
1895—Pim
1896—Baddeley
1897—R.F. Doherty
1898—R.F. Doherty
1899—R.F. Doherty
1900—R.F. Doherty
1901—Larned
1902—H.L. Doherty
1903—H.L. Doherty
1904—H.L. Doherty
1905—H.L. Doherty
1906—H.L. Doherty
1907—Brookes
1908—Larned
1909—Larned
1910—Larned
1911—Wilding
1912—Wilding
1913—Wilding
1914—McLoughlin
1915—
1916—
1917—
1918—
1919—Patterson/Johnston
1920—Tilden
1921—Tilden
1922—Tilden/Johnston
1923—Tilden
1924—Tilden
1925—Tilden
1926—Lacoste
1927—Lacoste
1928—Cochet
1929—Cochet
1930—Cochet
1931—Tilden/Vines
1932—Vines
1933—Crawford
1934—Perry
1935—Perry/Vines
1936—Perry/Vines
1937—Perry/Vines(5)/Budge
1938—Budge
1939—Budge
1940—Budge
1941—Perry/Riggs/Kovacs
1942—Budge
1943—Riggs/Kovacs
1944—Kovacs/Riggs
1945—Riggs
1946—Riggs
1947—Riggs(6)/Kramer
1948—Kramer
1949—Kramer
1950—Kramer/Segura
1951—Kramer
1952—Gonzales/Segura/Sedgman
1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(3)
1954—Gonzales
1955—Gonzales
1956—Gonzales
1957—Gonzales
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman(2)
1959—Gonzales/Hoad
1960—Gonzales(8 )/Rosewall
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—Laver(8 )/Rosewall(5)/Newcombe
1972—Newcombe/Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Connors/Ashe
1976—Connors/Borg
1977—Connors/Borg/Vilas
1978—Connors/Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg(5)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(6)
1983—McEnroe
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl
1990—Edberg/Lendl(5)
1991—Edberg(2)
1992—Courier
1993—Sampras
1994—Sampras
1995—Sampras
1996—Sampras
1997—Sampras
1998—Sampras(6)
1999—Agassi
2000—Kuerten
2001—Hewitt
2002—Hewitt(2)
2003—Roddick
2004—Federer
2005—Federer
2006—Federer
2007—Federer
2008—Nadal
2009—Federer(5)

I post this separately here for convenience. I post it also primarily for discussion, illumination, and enlightenment--not because it is definitive or proclamatory.

In 1977, Vilas is the N°1. No doubt about that : he won 2 GS (+ 1 Final), 16 tournaments, 46 matches consecutively. ATP's computer was absurd at this time !!

 

[hoodjem]

1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I originally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

 

[jeffreyneave]

i think the list is solid, but on some of the shared years i think there are definite winners.

In 1952 I would eliminate segura because gonzales won wembley and had 5-2 edge on segura leaving a shared ranking for sedgman and gonzales

in 1958 i would choose sedgman because of 2 major wins wembley (the most important0 and aussie pro to gonzales one win at forest hills, and 4-2 head to head advntage for sedgman including both 5 set matches they played.

in 1959 i would choose be cause his overall win-loss percentage is better than hoad who had lot poor results in europe. gonzales won the us tour over haod. both players are otherwise egual with 5 event wins and one major each.


in 1972 i domn't see newcombe as a contender , the race is between nastase (winner of 12 events from over 30 starts and the biggest event forest hills) against smith (9 wins from 21 starts, wimbledon and the davis cup) with vote going smith because of his 4-1 edge over nastase.

in 1975 everybody but the atp choose ashe. ashe won 9 events including wimbledon and wct finals and won his only match against connors, who was ru at wimbledon and forset hills and won 9 minor events.

in 1976 connors deserves because he won 12 events to borg's 6 and had a 3-0 head to head over borg.

in 1977 i agree its betwee borg and vilas. I would choose vilas because he won 2majors and was runner up in the aussie to borg's one major. outside the majors vilas won 16 events to borg's 10. borg's 3-0 head to head is his only claim and is not sufficient on its own.

in 1978 i would choose borg with 2 majors to connor's 1 and 3-2 head to head advantage.

in 1989 i would choose becker with 2 majors to one for lendl, and becker's big davis cup win and his 2-0 head to head edge on lendl. lendl 's only claim are 10 event wins to becker's 6


jeffrey

 

[jean pierre]

1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I orginally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

Yes, Borg 3-0 agains Vilas, but Vilas's results are very very very better than Borg's, so Vilas is the n°1 (Federer has been a long time n°1 even if he lost against Nadal, because his results were better). With the ATP computer of today, Vilas would be n°1 during several monthes. It's absurd that Connors was n°1 ATP this year.

 

[hoodjem]

i think the list is solid, but on some of the shared years i think there are definite winners.

In 1952 I would eliminate segura because gonzales won wembley and had 5-2 edge on segura leaving a shared ranking for sedgman and gonzales

in 1958 i would choose sedgman because of 2 major wins wembley (the most important0 and aussie pro to gonzales one win at forest hills, and 4-2 head to head advntage for sedgman including both 5 set matches they played.

in 1959 i would choose be cause his overall win-loss percentage is better than hoad who had lot poor results in europe. gonzales won the us tour over haod. both players are otherwise egual with 5 event wins and one major each.


in 1972 i domn't see newcombe as a contender , the race is between nastase (winner of 12 events from over 30 starts and the biggest event forest hills) against smith (9 wins from 21 starts, wimbledon and the davis cup) with vote going smith because of his 4-1 edge over nastase.

in 1975 everybody but the atp choose ashe. ashe won 9 events including wimbledon and wct finals and won his only match against connors, who was ru at wimbledon and forset hills and won 9 minor events.

in 1976 connors deserves because he won 12 events to borg's 6 and had a 3-0 head to head over borg.

in 1977 i agree its betwee borg and vilas. I would choose vilas because he won 2majors and was runner up in the aussie to borg's one major. outside the majors vilas won 16 events to borg's 10. borg's 3-0 head to head is his only claim and is not sufficient on its own.

in 1978 i would choose borg with 2 majors to connor's 1 and 3-2 head to head advantage.

in 1989 i would choose becker with 2 majors to one for lendl, and becker's big davis cup win and his 2-0 head to head edge on lendl. lendl 's only claim are 10 event wins to becker's 6
jeffrey

All good points. I'll start sifting and weighing.

(I do want to try to parse it down to one name per year, whenever logically possible.)

 

[CyBorg]

1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I orginally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

I'm not sure exactly when Gonzales retired in 1960. But going by McCauley's book (I admit I'm going on memory) he's just not present at most of the big events. I seem to recall about Gonzales retiring early in the year, but I don't have exact info on me.

1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver. Next year Laver wins more titles, but the major count is 2-1 Rosewall. In my opinion, Rosewall should get credit for one of these years or as co-#1 for both. Personally I think that Rosewall was better in 1964, but blew it at Wembley and the US Pro. EDIT: Got my facts wrong here - elaboration later.

Ashe/Connors. It's just hard to ignore Ashe winning Wimbledon and Dallas, both of which are top-5 events, along with the masters. Connors won no top-five events, although he had more consistent results. Ashe had a poor second half. I think Connors was the better player, but had a worse year.

1995 - Agassi had a consistent lead on Pete in points that year, one he surrendered by not playing the indoor season. That gets him at least a co-#1 in my books. In 1999, Pete seemed better in every respect, but gave Agassi a shot to win the US Open due to injury. Otherwise Pete still dominated Wimbledon and then took the Masters.

 

[timnz]

1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver. Next year Laver wins more titles, but the major count is 2-1 Rosewall. In my opinion, Rosewall should get credit for one of these years or as co-#1 for both. Personally I think that Rosewall was better in 1964, but blew it at Wembley and the US Pro.
QUOTE]

In 1964 I thought Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. (He also had a 15-4 head to head against Rosewall and won 2 out of the 3 majors). What tournaments do you have Rosewall winning that year when you say he has twice as many tournaments? (Be great to know )

 

[CyBorg]

In 1964 I thought Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. (He also had a 15-4 head to head against Rosewall and won 2 out of the 3 majors). What tournaments do you have Rosewall winning that year when you say he has twice as many tournaments? (Be great to know )

You might be right. I have this number in my head - 15-7. That may have been the ratio of Rod's to Ken's tourney wins in 1965.

In which case, I stand corrected.

Edit: according to wiki, Laver won 17 in 1965 and Rosewall 6. I'm being sloppy, I know, but I don't have my McCauley book on me at the moment.

All things considered, Rosewall is still in play as at least a co-#1 in these two years.

 

[timnz]

1964 again

You might be right. I have this number in my head - 15-7. That may have been the ratio of Rod's to Ken's tourney wins in 1965.

In which case, I stand corrected.

Edit: according to wiki, Laver won 17 in 1965 and Rosewall 6. I'm being sloppy, I know, but I don't have my McCauley book on me at the moment.

All things considered, Rosewall is still in play as at least a co-#1 in these two years.

So in 1964 Laver is a clear number 1. More tournaments wins, more Major wins and dominant head to head. What I don't understand is why some commentators at the time had Rosewall as number 1 - he doesn't seem to be under any criteria. Any ideas anyone?

 

[hoodjem]

I've wondered that myself. The statistics seem to suggest Laver by a hair, or co-equal number 1.

"Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10; Laver beat Rosewall 15-4 in head-to-head matches."

"A point system for 19 pro tournaments (excluding at least 10 other tournaments) also resulted in Rosewall being No. 1 to Laver's No. 2 but that system granted each tournament the same points and then was unfair to the big events where Laver was superior to Rosewall : Laver beat Rosewall & Gonzales in U.S. Pro; Laver again beat Rosewall in Wembley Pro; Rosewall beat Laver in French Pro."

Maybe it is this "unfair" point system.?

 

[hoodjem]

1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver.

In 1964, I have Laver: 11 and Rosewall: 10. CyB or Tim--can you enumerate how Rosewall wins "twice as many"?

When are the 1960 World Series Round Robin matches?

 

[timnz]

11-10

In 1964, I have Laver: 11 and Rosewall: 10. CyB or Tim--can you enumerate how Rosewall wins "twice as many"?

When are the 1960 World Series Round Robin matches?

No I have 11-10 to Laver too.

 

[pc1]

No I have 11-10 to Laver too.

According to the McCauley book, it's 11 to 11. Of course there are some errors in that great book.

 

[jeffreyneave]

1964/5

laver is clearly number one in 1964 he won 11 to 10 tournaments, 2 majors to one,and had head to head 15-4 advantage. rosewall is behind on every statistic when you analyse all play. laver's win loss percentage is also far better.

laver is ahead in 1965 because he won 17 events to 6 for rosewall, and had big head to head advantage about 13-5. rosewall was 2 to one in majors but was completely out played outside the majors. laver was regarded as number one at the time and clealy still deserves it according to these facts.

rosewall is only number 2 in both years.

jeffrey

 

[timnz]

1964 Rosewall

According to the McCauley book, it's 11 to 11. Of course there are some errors in that great book.

I only have 10 tournament wins for Rosewall in 1964. Do you know what the 11th is?

Melbourne Pro (4-man tournament)
Masters Round Robin Pro (Los Angeles)
Saint Louis Volkswagen Pro Championships
Schiltz Pro Championships (Milwaukee)
San Remo Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Venice Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Cannes Pro
French Pro (Paris-Coubertin)
Hannover Pro
Western Province Pro (Cape Town)

 

[CyBorg]

In 1964, I have Laver: 11 and Rosewall: 10. CyB or Tim--can you enumerate how Rosewall wins "twice as many"?

When are the 1960 World Series Round Robin matches?

As I've mentioned, I stand corrected. I was wrong with the numbers due to faulty memory.

 

[timnz]

Why is Rosewall considered Number 1 in 1964 ?

laver is clearly number one in 1964 he won 11 to 10 tournaments, 2 majors to one,and had head to head 15-4 advantage. rosewall is behind on every statistic when you analyse all play. laver's win loss percentage is also far better.

jeffrey

In Wikipedia it states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings


against 1964


McCauley's 1964 chapter is entitled: Rosewall Tops Again But Only Just[27] but Robert Geist co-ranked Laver & Rosewall #1 (in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall").

What is McCauley's or Geist's logic here to consider Rosewall Number 1 or co-number 1? It seems that Laver is ahead in every category of consideration. Why do they think Rosewall was the best that year?

 

[CyBorg]

In Wikipedia it states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings


against 1964


McCauley's 1964 chapter is entitled: Rosewall Tops Again But Only Just[27] but Robert Geist co-ranked Laver & Rosewall #1 (in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall").

What is McCauley's or Geist's logic here to consider Rosewall Number 1 or co-number 1? It seems that Laver is ahead in every category of consideration. Why do they think Rosewall was the best that year?

I've just re-read the chapter and honestly McCauley's logic is ambiguous. He really doesn't make much of an argument for Rosewall, nor attempts one.

That said, I see nothing wrong with Rosewall being considered the co-#1 that year. He did win the French Pro and the battles with Laver at the US and Wembley pros were close. Still the h2h is hard to overlook.

 

[pc1]

In Wikipedia it states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings


against 1964


McCauley's 1964 chapter is entitled: Rosewall Tops Again But Only Just[27] but Robert Geist co-ranked Laver & Rosewall #1 (in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall").

What is McCauley's or Geist's logic here to consider Rosewall Number 1 or co-number 1? It seems that Laver is ahead in every category of consideration. Why do they think Rosewall was the best that year?

I've just re-read the chapter and honestly McCauley's logic is ambiguous. He really doesn't make much of an argument for Rosewall, nor attempts one.

That said, I see nothing wrong with Rosewall being considered the co-#1 that year. He did win the French Pro and the battles with Laver at the US and Wembley pros were close. Still the h2h is hard to overlook.

It wasn't McCauley or Geist's logic. It was the official Pro Rankings that had Rosewall as number one. It was I believe an odd ranking system but nevertheless Rosewall was the "official number one" so I think he deserves at least co-number one for the year.

To quote McCauley's book
PRO RANKINGS FOR 1964

The pro tournaments were operated on a points system. The winner got 7 points, runner up 4, third place 3, fourth place 2 and the quarter-finalists one each. The final ratings were as follows-
1. Ken Rosewall
2. Rod Laver
3. R. Gonzalez
4. A. Gimeno
5. E. Bucholz
6. L. Hoad
7. A. Olmedo
8. L. Ayala

So while head to head is quite important, it's clear Rosewall was probably better against the other players than Laver and was perhaps more consistent.

The other thing I notice was that I counted TEN tournament victories for Rosewall PLUS Rosewall won something called the Facis Trophy which I might guess is another tournament so that make it eleven and tied with Rod Laver.

Cyborg, I agree that Rosewall should perhaps be co-number one for 1964.

 

[CyBorg]

It wasn't McCauley or Geist's logic. It was the official Pro Rankings that had Rosewall as number one. It was I believe an odd ranking system but nevertheless Rosewall was the "official number one" so I think he deserves at least co-number one for the year.

I think you're right. The title of McCauley's chapter referred to the rankings, rather than his personal opinion. Otherwise it doesn't follow.

 

[krosero]

Nice list, Hoodjem, and fun to read through and think about.

I agree you with about 1995 and 1999: like you said, Agassi and Sampras can be described as strong #2’s in those years. I think Borg can safely be described as a strong #2 in 1976, not because there’s no case for him as #1: but Borg had not beaten Connors in three years and their U.S. Open meeting was in many ways the match that decided #1; it showed that Connors was still dominant over Borg.

Wilander in 1983 does have important wins over McEnroe at the French and Australian, though I would still describe him as a strong #2 for the year because McEnroe won the January 1984 Masters and beat Wilander decisively there.

Sports Illustrated thought Wilander had a strong case but this is what they wrote after the Masters:

The Mac attack also effectively halted all debate about who is, or was, No. 1 in the world for 1983. It is, or was, McEnroe.

…. The issue became more quarrelsome than usual this year because, for the first time since 1976, the Grand Slam events had four different winners—Yannick Noah at the French Open, McEnroe at Wimbledon, Jimmy Connors at the U.S. Open and Wilander at the Australian Open. In addition, a fifth player, Lendl, led the money list with more than $1.6 million in earnings. Still, many observers maintained that the obvious choice for No. 1, regardless of the outcome of the Masters, was the man who had won the sport's most prestigious title and had finished first on the ATP computer. And that was McEnroe.

But wait a minute. Let's go to the mat for Mats. Wilander finished 1983 with a 79-10 match record (to McEnroe's 60-11) and a 15-5 mark against the rest of the Masters' 12-man field (to McEnroe's 9-6), and he was 7-4 against the other top four players in the world (to Mac's 5-5). The 19-year-old Wilander also was the only player to win tournaments on four different surfaces. All told, he won nine events, to McEnroe's six, and his Davis Cup record was superior to Mac's, 8-0 vs. 2-2. Moreover, last year McEnroe played Wilander mano a mano three times on three surfaces in three fairly significant tournaments—the French, the ATP Championships in Cincinnati and the Australian. Wilander won all three times.

Lendl had said McEnroe was #1 for the year even before he met him in the Masters final. After McEnroe won the final, Bud Collins told him there could be no doubt left about who was #1 for ’83.

In Bud’s book he still says McEnroe settled the issue at the January Masters, in what he describes as the 13th month of the season. He's ambiguous about it, though, because he says that for “breadth of accomplishment” Wilander was “Player of the Year” (then he goes on to list everything Mats did in the calendar year).

Yet for all that, I still can’t put Wilander as #1 because he was not regarded as rising to #1 in the world until 1988. Until then there were still questions about how hard he wanted to work to become #1, questions about his confidence. In all that there was the assumption that he had not yet made it to #1.

In '88, I never heard Wilander's rise to the top described as a return to #1; it was described as a breakthrough, a long time in coming.

So I see '76 and '83 as similar. Each year had 4 different Slam winners, and rather than settling the tie with smaller day-to-day wins, I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events -- by looking at who was "ready" physically and mentally to take the top place from his rivals.

 

[timnz]

Wilander in 1983 does have important wins over McEnroe at the French and Australian, though I would still describe him as a strong #2 for the year because McEnroe won the January 1984 Masters and beat Wilander decisively there.

In Bud’s book he still says McEnroe settled the issue at the January Masters, in what he describes as the 13th month of the season. He's ambiguous about it, though, because he says that for “breadth of accomplishment” Wilander was “Player of the Year” (then he goes on to list everything Mats did in the calendar year).


So I see '76 and '83 as similar. Each year had 4 different Slam winners, and rather than settling the tie with smaller day-to-day wins, I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events -- by looking at who was "ready" physically and mentally to take the top place from his rivals.

I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events

But doesn't your point here establish Wilander as number 1? Because as you said, he beat McEnroe at the French Open and the Australian - both tournaments that are more important than the Masters. Hence, Wilander won at the big events over McEnroe.

 

[CyBorg]

I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events

But doesn't your point here establish Wilander as number 1? Because as you said, he beat McEnroe at the French Open and the Australian - both tournaments that are more important than the Masters. Hence, Wilander won at the big events over McEnroe.

I would rank the masters over the Australian in terms of importance, considering the era-specific context.

 

[krosero]

But doesn't your point here establish Wilander as number 1? Because as you said, he beat McEnroe at the French Open and the Australian - both tournaments that are more important than the Masters. Hence, Wilander won at the big events over McEnroe.

It's a good question. But in the Slams and the Masters, McEnroe trails Wilander 1-2 in the H2H, which is not normally enough of a margin to establish dominance; it leaves a lot of questions open. The French and Australian meetings were great wins for Wilander, but as far as I know they didn't carry with them the weight of deciding who would be #1. The Australian meeting may have carried some pressure for Mac who wanted to seal his place as #1, but Wilander was not in the race for #1 until he went on to win the AO; only then did he have a Slam win to set against McEnroe's Wimbledon. Only then, in essence, was there a tie to be broken. And the Masters match was then seen by a lot of observers as a tiebreaker (not to mention the Masters championship as a whole; in those days it was very much up there with an AO victory). That's the only match that both men played with the pressure of #1 on them (and McEnroe won it decisively, partly because Wilander had always been weak on indoor courts -- a definite knock against a POY candidate).

That's what I really meant by breaking a tie: what matches in the H2H were regarded as breaking a tie? If you just look at the H2H as another stat, and made it the decisive factor, the year would technically go to Mats, but I didn't want to make it a decisive factor in that way. I wanted to emphasize something about how the year played out in real time, and the perceptions of each match back then (some intangibles in there, to be sure, but I prefer to look at the H2H as an unfolding story rather than just a raw stat).

 

[krosero]

I also want to clarify that I think Mac deserves 1983 alone not just because he beat Mats in that one match in New York, but because he won the whole Masters tournament. There was a 4-way tie in the Slams, and that leaves two ways to break the tie: the H2H between Mac and Mats, and the Masters championship, which counted back then as either the fourth or the fifth biggest tournament. When the two met in the semis, there was a lot of buzz about the match potentially settling the issue of #1, and that was true at that moment. But McEnroe went further to seal it the next day by winning the whole thing, which arguably broke the 4-way tie that there had been up to then in majors -- and that would be true whether or not he had met Wilander in New York.

A loss to Wilander in New York, I admit, would look very damaging to McEnroe, because then you'd have to consider giving Wilander a co-#1 just because he tied McEnroe in majors and was essentially the one man McEnroe could not beat in the season on fast or slow surfaces. And if Wilander had then won the whole Masters, the year would definitely go to him.

But I don't think he was good enough to beat McEnroe or Lendl on carpet. That Masters tournament, just for being on carpet, not to mention the other reasons, was a critical element in looking at the whole year.

McEnroe, meanwhile won Wimbledon, which had always carried the greatest importance; and Wilander did poorly there, again partly because he never showed he could play well on that form of grass.

 

[David_86]

I don't think a match that was played in 1984 should have any bearing on who is ranked no.1 in 1983.

 

[Borgforever]

Hoodjem -- overall an excellent list of world no. 1s throughout recorded tennis history. I have just a few minor nit-pickings but, as usual, great work by you.

Jeffrey Neave -- as much as I respect his undeniable knowledge and fine posts here displays above -- IMO -- severe Laver-bias of the fatal and consistent kind that has become his trademark, besides overall harsh comments to posters disagreeing with him.

As regards to Laver as No. 1 in 1964, he is that too in my book, but not with Jeffrey cocky adamant stance which lacks credibility just with the basis of his arguments.

Remember Jeffrey Neave had Vilas as No. 1 in 1977, certainly a very debatable year, but Borg's biggest triumphs and H2Hs with Vilas was devastating -- in a way resembling 1964 and Laver and Rosewall. When it comes to Laver Mr. Jeffrey Neave doesn't express his opinions with the unbiased, diplomatic elegance of Cary Grant.

Jeffrey Neave is the exact opposite of Cary Grant...

Personally I have Rod Laver as No. 1 in 1964 -- BUT with the slightest margin imaginable, so a co-No. 1 for Ken Rosewall in 1964 is order for that year, and I've checked a few experts who saw a lot of them live in 1964 and they back this up -- and since they were so close in 1964 -- it's laughable. Remember Kenny was 30 years old in 1964, on the slowest decline, seemingly, in history, but still in decline after 3-4 sublime peak years against the best of the best.

Rod was ascending his peak -- his greatest heights -- and still Ken Rosewall was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo close.

Rod Laver was subjected to annihilation in 1963 by Ken Rosewall -- but in 1964 he adapted fast and bounced back with a booming vengeance.

Still, like Borg and Wilander to a certain extent in 1976 and 1983 respectively, he dominated everybody else in the field for 12 months, even more than Laver did that year and McEnroe in 1983 and Jimbo 1976.

Of course there's differences between these years but I think you get the gist.

Krosero -- absolutely brilliant work on the 1970 Dunlop-final. I've seen it 10 times already and it grows on me. I tip my hat for you for that one.

On the other hand -- I was on the Mac boat for No. 1 in 1983 for the reasons of his Lendl Wimby blowout and that was the biggest tourney. But on further scrutinization and debate with several experts who saw them live in 1983 on every important arena including Cincy -- the verdict is in for me. Wilander was alone No. 1. He leads every stat, everything.

Nobody can sustain the Mac for No. 1 in 1983 -- Björn Hellberg and several others, I know John Barrett, only smile wheh people push Mac's argument for that year.

At AO 1983 Wilander, Lendl and Mac were in the draw -- the major contenders and Mats blowouted them all -- even though Mac had the grass-court advantage. Mats Cincy-perf is widely considered his finest play ever. The January 1984 Masters tourney has no bearing whatsoever who was No. 1 in 1983. It belongs to 1984, since the year was 1984.

Don't listen too much to the press. They're confused on many issues for long periods of time.

Same goes for Borg in 1976. Jimbo didn't really dominate Borg in 1976. That argument holds no serious water. Jimbo beat Borg four times that year -- BUT -- didn't win the biggest tourney, didn't meet Borg when he was in top-form, always won when everything was in his favor, not only form-wise -- didn't even Jimbo pull out of WCT that year too?!

A great championship that Borg won of course plus that he dominated everybody else even more than Jimbo and only lost to Jimbo at the USO-final, when he hadn't practiced for a whole month because of the Wimby-stomach-muscle-injury and Borg almost won that too -- even though his form sucked on hot ice. Borg had 4 set-points to go up 2-1 in sets against peak Jimbo.

Of course, after this near-loss against an out-of-form Borg -- Jimbo -- pretty much -- didn't win any matches against Björn Borg FOR FIVE STRAIGHT YEARS!

QED

Co-No. 1 is okey for 1976 -- be diplomatic when things are very close -- but put Borg's name first Hood -- firstly B in Borg comes before C as in Connors in the alphabet and the momentum for Jimbo as No. 1 during the time came from the fact that Jimbo had been dominant in 1974 and great in 1975 and great in 1976 and considered only becoming better and better AND since his H2H with Fortress was quite in THE BELLEVILLE BASHER'S favor many saw that as strong arguments -- but of course they didn't study the nuances of their H2H or anyhting else challenging this lazily concocted opinion. Everybody who writes newpaper-articles are not Einstein or extremely serious about their work. That goes without saying. But that year's career-trajectory analysis by many wasn't exactly brilliant and was mostly based on old results, uncritical evaluation of Jimbo's 1976-record and on future predictions and had no foundation in detailed, precise and unbiased evaluation.

Jimbo never met Borg when Björn was in peak form. Borg met Jimbo when he was in poor shape and Jimbo in peak form.

And with the benefit of hindsight -- the Jimbo-promoters was dead-wrong we all know now...

Connors lost to Borg just a few months after USO 1976 and just lost and lost and lost -- while Borg's finest 1976 triumphs was just the start of what John Barrett called in 1981 "a career without equal"...

 

[jeffreyneave]

nasty comment by borgforever about me. I may admire laver a great deal bit i always use facts to back up my points and in 1964 its

laver rosewall
11 10 tournaments
2 1 majors
15 4 head to head

laver also had a much better win/loss percentage. its clear win for laver no matter how well rosewall actually played; rosewall is number 2 according to statistics and that's what counts.


jeffrey

 

[pc1]

nasty comment by borgforever about me. I may admire laver a great deal bit i always use facts to back up my points and in 1964 its

laver rosewall
11 10 tournaments
2 1 majors
15 4 head to head

laver also had a much better win/loss percentage. its clear win for laver no matter how well rosewall actually played; rosewall is number 2 according to statistics and that's what counts.


jeffrey

Jeffrey,

I counted in the McCauley book ten tournament victories for Rosewall PLUS it states he won the Facis Trophy which I believe is a tournament. So I believe Rosewall very well won eleven tournaments as McCauley stated. This is stated on page 234 of the McCauley book. It is one line and I quote "Ken Rosewall was the overall winner of the Facis Trophy."

I believe in examining the record that Rod was the TRUE number one also but I also believe that for the purposes of this thread that you can also name Rosewall number one since he was OFFICIALLY number one.

I only have 10 tournament wins for Rosewall in 1964. Do you know what the 11th is?

Melbourne Pro (4-man tournament)
Masters Round Robin Pro (Los Angeles)
Saint Louis Volkswagen Pro Championships
Schiltz Pro Championships (Milwaukee)
San Remo Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Venice Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Cannes Pro
French Pro (Paris-Coubertin)
Hannover Pro
Western Province Pro (Cape Town)

Timnz, check my first paragraph above. I put the key words in bold.

 

[jeffreyneave]

1964

facsis event is not a touranment it was tour of italy of one night stands. it 11 to 10 for tournaments ; whether you count as extra win for tours is another matter. the official 1964 rankings are stupid just as the atp rankings in 1977 with connors number one are.

 

[Borgforever]

nasty comment by borgforever about me. I may admire laver a great deal bit i always use facts to back up my points and in 1964 its

laver rosewall
11 10 tournaments
2 1 majors
15 4 head to head

laver also had a much better win/loss percentage. its clear win for laver no matter how well rosewall actually played; rosewall is number 2 according to statistics and that's what counts.


jeffrey

I am sorry Jeffrey if you take my criticism of SOME OF THE THINGS YOU STATE as "nasty".

I clearly stated that I agree with your points and arguments to great degree AND YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN OUTSPOKEN ABOUT THIS. But that doesn't excuse your inconsistencies in SOME your arguments, when Laver is concerned. What goes for Laver in your book doesn't work for Borg in 1977 and several other examples -- we all know them.

I've had my issues with people here and I know I make mistakes and at least try to own up to them constructively and, if possible, with arguments.

You Jeffrey, on the other hand, are, according to yourself infallible and no one here forgets your many uncalled for and very vicious and denigrating accusations without any argument whatsoever against Carlo Giovanni Colussi and others, calling him and others out, and I am paraphrasing "Carlo's opinions are rubbish, crap, that's stupid et al" without any back-up for those statements. Even Einstein, who was fairly smart, never expressed such slamming of people and situations. Maybe you're smarter than Einstein Jeffrey and are above courtesy and sensitivity.

This malicious and undiplomatic attitude of yours doesn't resemble, say, Cary Grant. I don't think I am wrong in saying that.

I guess you think you're perfect and that your only response to me was that I was "nasty" towards you -- without any argumentation as is Jeffrey's "expert modus operandi" it's been proven time and again -- all of which fits neatly into the profile you've presented of yourself here over the years.

That said -- the actual content of a vast majority of your posts are, IMO, uniformly excellent and of exceptional caliber. I wish I could say the same about your diplomatic skills...

 

[jeffreyneave]

1964

facsis event is not a touranment it was tour of italy of one night stands. it 11 to 10 for tournaments ; whether you count as extra win for tours is another matter. the official 1964 rankings are stupid just as the atp rankings in 1977 with connors number one are.

 

[urban]

The 1964 Facis series was a series of matches, divided in two parts, one in summer (when Laver didn't participate) and one in autumn, when Laver dominated Rosewall. Overall Rosewall won the series, because he played the whole series. On wikipedia discussions going on the basis of McCauley alone, i pleaded at least for a co-ranking of Laver and Rosewall, and i think Jeffrey did the same. I am contend with a co- ranking, no problem for me.
The internal ranking of the pros was always a bit problematic and eclectic, in 1959 for instance, Hoad came on top of this point race of 15-18 events, which all got the same number of points, while most people saw Gonzales as the World Champ. But speaking of now, because of Andrew Tas new findings, Laver's claim for 1964 imo gets even stronger. It seems that Laver had the best of the Australian/ NZ tour in spring over Hoad and Rosewall, then Rosewall won the US tour in spring and early summer (Gonzales second and Laver third), but Laver won the climactic event at Boston (Rosewall had a bout with food poisening in the sf). In Europe in the summer, Laver and Rosewall were close, with Laver winning the World Champs at Wembley. Then at last, the South African tour was dominated by Laver. One other factor besides the head to head in favor of Laver is the the overall win-loss percentage (Jeffrey mentioned it), which Andrew Tas put on another thread. I wrote it down somewhere, but for the moment cannot find it. Maybe Carlo or Andrew Tas can put it here.

 

[pc1]

facsis event is not a touranment it was tour of italy of one night stands. it 11 to 10 for tournaments ; whether you count as extra win for tours is another matter. the official 1964 rankings are stupid just as the atp rankings in 1977 with connors number one are.

I'm not necessarily counting the Facis event but I was trying to understand where Joe McCauley found eleven tournament victories for Rosewall. The Facis trophy seemed to be the most logical reason.

The 1964 Facis series was a series of matches, divided in two parts, one in summer (when Laver didn't participate) and one in autumn, when Laver dominated Rosewall. Overall Rosewall won the series, because he played the whole series. On wikipedia discussions going on the basis of McCauley alone, i pleaded at least for a co-ranking of Laver and Rosewall, and i think Jeffrey did the same. I am contend with a co- ranking, no problem for me.
The internal ranking of the pros was always a bit problematic and eclectic, in 1959 for instance, Hoad came on top of this point race of 15-18 events, which all got the same number of points, while most people saw Gonzales as the World Champ. But speaking of now, because of Andrew Tas new findings, Laver's claim for 1964 imo gets even stronger. It seems that Laver had the best of the Australian/ NZ tour in spring over Hoad and Rosewall, then Rosewall won the US tour in spring and early summer (Gonzales second and Laver third), but Laver won the climactic event at Boston (Rosewall had a bout with foot poisening in the sf). In Europe in the summer, Laver and Rosewall were close, with Laver winning the World Champs at Wembley. Then at last, the South African tour was dominated by Laver. One other factor besides the head to head in favor of Laver is the the overall win-loss percentage (Jeffrey mentioned it), which Andrew Tas put on another thread. I wrote it down somewhere, but for the moment cannot find it. Maybe Carlo or Andrew Tas can put it here.

I have some more detailed information on 1964 and I'll check it tonight when I have some time.

It's a matter of semantics. I think Laver had the best year yet at the same time I believe Rosewall has a claim since he was officially the number one player. Push comes to shove I would pick Laver as number one for 1964.

Either way the discussion on this year is very interesting.

 

[hoodjem]

I agree you with about 1995 and 1999: like you said, Agassi and Sampras can be described as strong #2’s in those years. I think Borg can safely be described as a strong #2 in 1976, not because there’s no case for him as #1: but Borg had not beaten Connors in three years and their U.S. Open meeting was in many ways the match that decided #1; it showed that Connors was still dominant over Borg.

Good point. Edit made.

Wilander in 1983 does have important wins over McEnroe at the French and Australian, though I would still describe him as a strong #2 for the year because McEnroe won the January 1984 Masters and beat Wilander decisively there.

Lendl had said McEnroe was #1 for the year even before he met him in the Masters final. After McEnroe won the final, Bud Collins told him there could be no doubt left about who was #1 for ’83.

In Bud’s book he still says McEnroe settled the issue at the January Masters, in what he describes as the 13th month of the season. He's ambiguous about it, though, because he says that for “breadth of accomplishment” Wilander was “Player of the Year” (then he goes on to list everything Mats did in the calendar year).

Yet for all that, I still can’t put Wilander as #1 because he was not regarded as rising to #1 in the world until 1988. Until then there were still questions about how hard he wanted to work to become #1, questions about his confidence. In all that there was the assumption that he had not yet made it to #1.

I find this also to be a strong argument. Edit made.

 

[hoodjem]

Hoodjem -- overall an excellent list of world no. 1s throughout recorded tennis history. I have just a few minor nit-pickings but, as usual, great work by you.

Jeffrey Neave -- as much as I respect his undeniable knowledge and fine posts here displays above -- IMO -- severe Laver-bias of the fatal and consistent kind that has become his trademark, besides overall harsh comments to posters disagreeing with him.

As regards to Laver as No. 1 in 1964, he is that too in my book, but not with Jeffrey cocky adamant stance which lacks credibility just with the basis of his arguments.

Remember Jeffrey Neave had Vilas as No. 1 in 1977, certainly a very debatable year, but Borg's biggest triumphs and H2Hs with Vilas was devastating -- in a way resembling 1964 and Laver and Rosewall.

BF, let's please leave the perceived biases or personalities of posters out of this debate.

Let us try to proceed with the stats first, or the opinions of so-called experts second. Please.

So did I have Vilas no. 1 in 1977 before I learned more fully and deeply. These are not sins.

 

[hoodjem]

The internal ranking of the pros was always a bit problematic and eclectic, in 1959 for instance, Hoad came on top of this point race of 15-18 events, which all got the same number of points, while most people saw Gonzales as the World Champ. But speaking of now, because of Andrew Tas new findings, Laver's claim for 1964 imo gets even stronger. It seems that Laver had the best of the Australian/ NZ tour in spring over Hoad and Rosewall, then Rosewall won the US tour in spring and early summer (Gonzales second and Laver third), but Laver won the climactic event at Boston (Rosewall had a bout with foot poisoning in the sf). In Europe in the summer, Laver and Rosewall were close, with Laver winning the World Champs at Wembley. Then at last, the South African tour was dominated by Laver. One other factor besides the head to head in favor of Laver is the the overall win-loss percentage (Jeffrey mentioned it), which Andrew Tas put on another thread. I wrote it down somewhere, but for the moment cannot find it. Maybe Carlo or Andrew Tas can put it here.

1964
"In 1964 Rosewall won one main tournament: the French Pro over Laver on wood (at Coubertin). At the end of the South African tour, Rosewall also beat Laver 6–4 6–1 6–4 in a Challenge Match held in Ellis Park, Johannesburg. In the official pro points rankings (7 points for the winner, 4 points for the finalist, 3 points for the third player, 2 for the fourth one and 1 point to each quarter-finalists) taking into account 19 pro tournaments, Rosewall ended #1 in 1964 with 78 points beating #2 Laver (70 points) and #3 Gonzales (48 points). Nevertheless that ranking brushed aside at least 10 tournaments because McCauley has traced at least 29 pro tournaments played by the touring pros (plus some minor tournaments) and several short tours. It also granted each tournament the same points and thus was unfair to the big events where Laver was globally superior to Rosewall.

Laver had a great season and could also claim the top rank. Rocket has captured two very great tournaments: 1) the U.S. Pro over Rosewall and Gonzales and 2) the Wembley Pro over Rosewall in one of their best match ever (Gonzales won the probably fourth greatest tournament of that year, the U.S. Pro Indoors, at White Plains, defeating in succession Anderson, Laver, Hoad and Rosewall). Laver was equal to Rosewall in big direct confrontations, 2 all (Coubertin and Johannesburg for Rosewall, US Pro and Wembley for Laver).

Laver won one more tournament (including small 4-man events) than Rosewall (11 to 10) and above all Rocket was clearly superior to Rosewall in minor direct confrontations, defeating Rosewall eleven times out of thirteen in these smaller events, making thus a 1964 Laver-Rosewall win-loss record of 13-4. So the pro leadership began to change."

I believe that for much of 1964 things were equal, but by the end of the year Laver was on top. It appears that this odd point system is skewed to minimize Laver's more important wins. A head-to-head of 13-4 (or 14-5) is not even close and--when everything else is almost--rather decisive in my estimation.

 

[Borgforever]

Point taken Hood -- it just irks me that such a fine poster as Jeffrey resorts to such statements that I just pointed out -- his arguments are strong enough in his posts and he doesn't need to enhance them with ridicule without back-up.

My comments regarding Jeffrey Neave's tone were made in an effort to better the debate climate and I hope this is quite clear.

Regarding the thread -- could you please motivate for me Hoodjem how Jimbo in your opinion could be considered lone No. 1 in 1976 and not Borg -- while at the same time you have Mac as lone No. 1 in 1983 and Vilas co-No. 1 in 1977?

As for stats Borg won in 1976 the WCT-finals, Wimby without set-loss and went to the QF at RG losing to eventual winner Panatta -- and he crushed everybody else including Nastase who was something like 500-1 against Jimbo in H2Hs by that time.

When it comes to stats and records in majors and such in 1976 Borg vastly outclasses Jimmy Connors record for that year, it's not even close -- Jimbo who had a great year, sure, but he didn't beat a peak form Borg. If that's the ruling logic around here I guess Del Potro's Shanghai'results lately weighs more than his USO-win and that Rafael Nadal must be playing his best tennis right now...

To heck with context, truth, facts, serious experts, records, history, nuance or arguments...

That's even better than Mac in 1983 and Ashe in 1975!

Those stats in the majors are miles better than Jimbo's that year. Same thing goes for 1983. Mac was 0-3 against Mats on red clay, HC cement and fast Aussie grass at Kooyong.

ALL STATS FAVOR BORG IN 1976 AND MATS IN 1983. That is the stats.

As for opinions for Borg as LONE No. 1 in 1976 John Barrett has changed his mind and has Borg for lone No. 1 as Björn Hellberg even back in 1976. Many tennis magazines had Borg as lone No. 1 that year also plus that all lists by sportwriters all over the world had Borg on their short list of the greatest athletes, regardless of sport, for that year.

FYI John Barrett has Laver as GOAT and so has Björn Hellberg who covered and personally saw every single tourney and big match almost from 1963-1990s -- and are pretty involved still. He sends his greeting by the way.

He also has Wilander as lone No. 1 in 1983 by a wide margin. Mac wasn't consistent enough. That simple.

In 1977 Vilas, who had -- by lucky fortune, excellence and the finest classic major record for 1977 -- even though he was worse off in H2H against Borg that year than Borg had against Jimbo in 1976, while he was injured.

You see after Wimby -- Borg didn't hold racquet for 30 days straights, hardly any other exercise since his stomach-muscles healed so slowly that he hardly could stand upright. Borg's form, as you can see on the videos from Wimby 1976 to USO 1976, is like night and day.

Stat-time again. Borg had like 15 winners in the USO 1976-final and he wasn't that far from winning that too. Very impressive stat.

As a contrast of form for Björn he had about 52 winners in three sets against an experienced, 18-0 sets into the final Nastase.

Anyone see a form difference? Did Jimbo beat the best Borg.

As for krosero's arguments for Jimbo beating Borg for 3 years, well, he almost lost USO 1976 to a mediocre Borg and he was beaten by Borg just a few months later and continued to be slaughtered by Fortress for five years straight -- only capping a fine win at YEC Masters-final played in January 1978 then blown to smithereens like 10 times in a row or something.

Hood, do you think krosero's arguments above is so expert that they trump Barrett's, Hellberg's and a whole slew of great sportwriters, as regards to 1976?

I certainly don't.

If H2H's is so big Jimbo should be after Nastase in 1976 and Mac should be ranked behind Lendl in 1981 -- since the famous Czech mutilated Mac, what was it -- 4 times in 1981. He wasn't even close.

You must address these issues -- this thread is too great to marred by such faux pas, however few...

 

[hoodjem]

As for krosero's arguments for Jimbo beating Borg for 3 years, well, he almost lost USO 1976 to a mediocre Borg and he was beaten by Borg just a few months later and continued to be slaughtered by Fortress for five years straight (only capping a fine win at YEC Masters-final played in January 1978).

Hood, do you think krosero's arguments above is so expert that they trump Barrett's, Hellberg's and a whole slew of great sportwriters, as regards to 1976?

I certainly don't.

Sorry, your knowledge of these other experts is more encyclopaedic than mine. (Salut to Meister Hellberg.) I do find Krosero's points rather credible. But perhaps I should go back to my double listing strategy.

Lots of fine opinions and difficult sifting going on.

 

[Borgforever]

If you want to Hood, I can post Hellberg's year end article about who's No. 1 in 1976.

It's quite brilliant...

 

[pc1]

If you want to Hood, I can post Hellberg's year end article about who's No. 1 in 1976.

It's quite brilliant...

I would love to see it.

 

[hoodjem]

I only have 10 tournament wins for Rosewall in 1964. Do you know what the 11th is?

1. Melbourne Pro (4-man tournament)
2. Masters Round Robin Pro (Los Angeles)
3. Saint Louis Volkswagen Pro Championships
4. Schiltz Pro Championships (Milwaukee)
5. San Remo Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
6. Venice Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
7. Cannes Pro
8. French Pro (Paris-Coubertin)
9. Hannover Pro
10. Western Province Pro (Cape Town)

Should we add the Challenge Match held in Ellis Park, Johannesburg to this list as no. 11?

 

[Borgforever]

Hood, if you put Mac and Mats as co-No. 1s in 1983 and BB and JC as the same in 1976 -- I have no issues. I would go with Mats and Borg alone for those years -- but, it's debatable, and to leave some room for error is a very sound idea IMO.

I mean the list you presented here is, if we exclude these very few debatable years, perfect. The finest I've seen.

Sgt John has made some stunningly great lists also -- but this one by you Hoodjem is just sublime. Especially since you leave room for error and do not restrict yourself to one name per year if there's a legit debate to be had about those years.

The next step would be a thread about the strongest No. 2s throughout history. Not everything is about being the top dog...