WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[Phoenix1983]

Some reflections in rapid sequence.
1) there are not only those that "strangely" are called Pro majors also because in many cases are editions popped,
2) many events are to be considered big
3) the goal of this thread is to understand who was the number one a year, we went in that direction and in rare cases we did not agree with Ivan and Dan
4) in a few cases the best player is not the number one, IMHO
5) the tour included too few tournaments in the Kramer Era
6) Kramer was too strong but always had in the WS the third top player not the second although almost certainly would have won the WS
7) I have discovered some editions of big tournaments really valuable: in Los Angeles, Cannes, Geneva, Milan, and in various australian locations
8) Riggs was certainly ATG although heavily penalized by the WWII (as Budge)
9) Pancho Era tours are more structured
10) I always thought that Pancho was GOAT contender as dominant but I didn't think was so dominant
11) Rosewall is already very competitive at the end of 50s and almost always wins, you understand why it is a great player, ideal for a tournament format
12) the organizers of the Pro Tour seems not to sympathize with Segura that seems more successful than Sedgman and me impresses a lot
13) Hoad is the only top player playing at a level near Gonzalez

Re: your point 4, we can refer to 2017, when Federer was the best player of the year, but Nadal was the No 1.

Also possibly Djokovic/Murray in 2016, Lendl/Becker in 1989. I’m sure there are other examples in older eras.

 

[KG1965]

Re: your point 4, we can refer to 2017, when Federer was the best player of the year, but Nadal was the No 1.

Also possibly Djokovic/Murray in 2016, Lendl/Becker in 1989. I’m sure there are other examples in older eras.

Yes, a little bit of the idea is that.
Sometimes a player is perceived as the best player (but must prove it ... the name is not enough) can not become number one because .... he frequents bad tournaments or another circuit or does not participate in an adequate number of tournaments. I would take the injuries away from the reasoning.

It looks like an "escamotage" to overcome the "impasse". But it does not want to be an escamotage to overcome the stalemate when two players are extremely close.
Sometimes it happens that a player is best player and number one for a minimal result, for a trifle. Sometimes he is number one for a trifle but he is not the best player for a very small margin.

 

[Ivan69]

It is not mandatory to have goals, of course.
Someone has goals, someone do not.
Personally sometimes not fixed goals
Other times instead.

When I have goals many times I do not reach them, for example 2 years ago I was hoping to match the big pre-Master 1000 tournaments, but I was not able to do it.

When making some evaluations and conclusions it is necessary to present their arguments or valid reasons for these evaluations and conclusions, it's true, Ivan.
But it can happen (often to me) to carry out evaluations and conclusions without valid arguments, without the necessary preparation.
Very often in this case an idiot can come out; but sometimes something interesting can happen. Or so I think.

I agree with you that without valid arguments it is 99% impossible to defend any of the statements.
Kramer BPOAT was a statement without analysis and study. For example. I had written a "very strong thing" just because I was based on perception. And as almost always happens, perception does not reach the truth alone.
But it allowed me to deal with a lot of energy a period of time that I had not considered even a year ago.
Now discussing with you and Dan and reading many posts of NM, urban, pc1, krosero etc. I feel a little more "centered".
The subject Kramer BPOAT was a great opportunity for me ... even if it was wrong.

I have never ignored your arguments (last year as now), they are valid, simply on this specific topic I prefer not to discuss the individual points in these days, because I think it can not improve the discussion.

My conclusions are never "definitive conclusions", all the manifestos can respond. The forum is to be understood by its nature "work in progress".

I often use large and colorful letters. I know that many are annoyed, but I do it to strengthen certain points. To be honest, I prefer to read a post when the poster reinforces its concept. It's just a question of style.

I collect the example "2020 Dubai".
Dubai would have the same value in Miami as for the ATP, 99% will evaluate the two tournaments in the same way, I would perhaps evaluate based on sowing, cash prizes, but not history.
If they are played in different weeks, I have no idea where the best would be, maybe they would have participated in both.

I do not agree with the Rosewall = 23 Majors point at all.
I may change opinions in a while.

Of course, I know that everyone considers Laver's 2 GS.
But I am also aware that the day when the media and the fans will underestimate the 2 GS Laver will be underestimated.
They are already doing it. Did you notice it?

KG, in the last years I saw the attempts of some specific posters to twist the tennis history in general. And most of these attempts were based on purely naked statements without any proves.
Maybe the most significant change in the last years is the discovery made by NM about the status and name of Cleveland b/w 1951 and 1962. This is a very important discovery backed-up with strong arguments. NM presented also very important data about the prize money. No other new discoveries with arguments re the status of the tournaments were presented.

You can't agree with what you want. This doesn't change anything. Laver's slams and grand slams will stay forever. Rosewall's majors will stay forever. As well as the majors of all players in the past will stay forever.

You and some other posters have no right to change the status of the majors especially where they were OFFICIALLY sanctioned. Good or bad, top or weak THE SLAMS ARE SLAMS. Private interpretations are not needed. Even if the top 20, 50, 100 players miss a slam it will be a slam. All the slams in the past were sanctioned as slams.
The pro majors were also well and enough discovered. RG and Wembley were undoubtedly the top events IN EVERY ASPECT in every year since they started. US pro was a major till 1951, Cleveland pro from 1952 to 1956. A major status may have some tournaments (Phila, Sydney, Melbourne etc.) ONLY in some single years which is not more than 5% of total.

Even in the last decades we have many weak slams, M1000, even M500. We have the right to comment their weak fields but we don't have the right to change their status.

Re the grand slams I have asked other posters before. They didn't respond. Now I am asking you. If it was so easy to win the 4 slams in a calendar year why only 2 people in the tennis history did it? The same weak slams lasted for a long time ago since the 30s. Weak slams we had also in the Open era.. WHY?

Yeah, some fans try to underestimate the careers of the old pros. But they do this not because the careers of the old pros were bad. Rather they do this in order to overestimate the career of one another player. You know this very well. And if some numbers were different the discussion about slams and majors would be not necessary. But ... the fanatics always try to convince us in something else, even with the attempts of changing the facts.

 

[Ivan69]

Re: your point 4, we can refer to 2017, when Federer was the best player of the year, but Nadal was the No 1.

Also possibly Djokovic/Murray in 2016, Lendl/Becker in 1989. I’m sure there are other examples in older eras.

Best player by what criteria?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Best player by what criteria?

Best player on all non-clay surfaces, as proven by winning 2 slams in 2017, and besting Nadal regularly when he faced him.

Nadal the deserved No 1 as per the ranking system, due to playing more tournaments and being fairly dominant himself. But not as good a player as Federer in 2017.

 

[Ivan69]

Best player on all non-clay surfaces, as proven by winning 2 slams in 2017, and besting Nadal regularly when he faced him.

Nadal the deserved No 1 as per the ranking system, due to playing more tournaments and being fairly dominant himself. But not as good a player as Federer in 2017.

Indoor ?
What would be the balance if Roger played the clay season ?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Indoor ?
What would be the balance if Roger played the clay season ?

Federer would have even more points and thus would probably have been ranked No 1 in 2017.

 

[Ivan69]

Federer would have even more points and thus would probably have been ranked No 1 in 2017.

Probably. You want that but he didn't.

Good escape from the questions, I admit.

Are you talking about the No 1 by points or about the best player? I see some mix.

Could the balance have been 4-4 or 4-5 incl. clay?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Probably. You want that but he didn't.

Good escape from the questions, I admit.

Are you talking about the No 1 by points or about the best player? I see some mix.

Could the balance have been 4-4 or 4-5 incl. clay?

Federer already proved himself the best player overall in 2017, as I previously stated.

Had he played on clay, he would probably have also accrued enough points to finish as world No 1 that year.

The balance in the H2H vs Nadal (if the two met) would obviously have benefited Nadal slightly.

 

[Ivan69]

Federer already proved himself the best player overall in 2017, as I previously stated.

Had he played on clay, he would probably have also accrued enough points to finish as world No 1 that year.

The balance in the H2H vs Nadal (if the two met) would obviously have benefited Nadal slightly.

Slightly or smashing? Anyway. Good and clear criteria for a best player.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Slightly or smashing? Anyway. Good and clear criteria for a best player.

How clearer do you need me to be?

 

[KG1965]

KG, in the last years I saw the attempts of some specific posters to twist the tennis history in general. And most of these attempts were based on purely naked statements without any proves.
Maybe the most significant change in the last years is the discovery made by NM about the status and name of Cleveland b/w 1951 and 1962. This is a very important discovery backed-up with strong arguments. NM presented also very important data about the prize money. No other new discoveries with arguments re the status of the tournaments were presented.

You can't agree with what you want. This doesn't change anything. Laver's slams and grand slams will stay forever. Rosewall's majors will stay forever. As well as the majors of all players in the past will stay forever.

You and some other posters have no right to change the status of the majors especially where they were OFFICIALLY sanctioned. Good or bad, top or weak THE SLAMS ARE SLAMS. Private interpretations are not needed. Even if the top 20, 50, 100 players miss a slam it will be a slam. All the slams in the past were sanctioned as slams.
The pro majors were also well and enough discovered. RG and Wembley were undoubtedly the top events IN EVERY ASPECT in every year since they started. US pro was a major till 1951, Cleveland pro from 1952 to 1956. A major status may have some tournaments (Phila, Sydney, Melbourne etc.) ONLY in some single years which is not more than 5% of total.

Even in the last decades we have many weak slams, M1000, even M500. We have the right to comment their weak fields but we don't have the right to change their status.

Re the grand slams I have asked other posters before. They didn't respond. Now I am asking you. If it was so easy to win the 4 slams in a calendar year why only 2 people in the tennis history did it? The same weak slams lasted for a long time ago since the 30s. Weak slams we had also in the Open era.. WHY?

Yeah, some fans try to underestimate the careers of the old pros. But they do this not because the careers of the old pros were bad. Rather they do this in order to overestimate the career of one another player. You know this very well. And if some numbers were different the discussion about slams and majors would be not necessary. But ... the fanatics always try to convince us in something else, even with the attempts of changing the facts.

Ivan, we have shared many posts since we write here but there are 3 issues in which we don't agree.
Obviously it is not a problem, if not that not only don't agree, we have opposite ideas:
It is not that one of the two is at 1000 and the other at 800, but one is 1000 and the other at -1000.
And they are three important topics, IMHO among the most important in the history of tennis

1) Thinking about equating greats tournaments 68-70s-80s with the Wikipedia Masters 1000 has to do with interpreting the whole Open Era story.

2) Accepting those that someone (who?) calls Pro majors equating them to slam tournaments or not accepting the status quo but looking for the real big titles has to do with interpreting the whole history of the Pro Era.

3) Accepting the GS 1962 or giving the GS 1962 an importance equal to zero means interpreting or not what is the Sacred Grail of tennis.

Now I answer some of your points:
- will Laver's 2 Gs remain forever? Yes, but that of 1962 lost the importance that it had beautiful 70s-80s when the experts had not explained that it was a slam amateurs, I hope that become zero, and that Laver is evaluated for the great Pro and Open titles that are underestimated, even kept hidden.
- will the Rosewall majors remain forever?
Maybe, it is in fact that nobody interested in the 23 majors of Rosewall, in fact Fedre is the GOAT because he won 20.
No one thinks of pushing Roger to win 24 slams because Rosewall is GOAT. Rosewall with fatigue enters a top 10 all time ranking.
I hope that in a few years Rosewall will be evaluated for its big Pro titles and its big Open titles that are underestimated, even kept hidden.

 

[Ivan69]

1) Thinking about equating greats tournaments 68-70s-80s with the Wikipedia Masters 1000 has to do with interpreting the whole Open Era story.

Unfortunately I can't understand your sentence. How to equate the tournaments in the 70s with the M1000? They were different in different years. Or I don't get your point.

Anyway, a direct comparison can't be made b/w the tournaments in the less organised late 60s-70s and the official sanctioned tournaments decades later.
In the last posts you stressed the discussion to the points of the tournaments which are discussable and arguable.
More important is the level of the tournaments - first level, second level etc. based on different parameters.

2) Accepting those that someone (who?) calls Pro majors equating them to slam tournaments or not accepting the status quo but looking for the real big titles has to do with interpreting the whole history of the Pro Era.

Reviewing and analysing the history is not just important but EXTREMELY important. But misinterpretations are not allowed.

Comparing the structure of the pro tour with the current structure is an absurd. Important is the value of the tour for the players. Pro majors were the best tournaments in the pro era, the slams were/are the best tournaments in the Open Era. That's the important.

Not at last, what value did have the hundreds of tours in the USA, Europe, Australia, SA, Africa etc.?
What value did have the hundreds of one-night matches held through the world?

So, don't discuss only the pro majors and slams. They were one of the smallest issues. Put your attention on the whole structure of the tour.

3) Accepting the GS 1962 or giving the GS 1962 an importance equal to zero means interpreting or not what is the Sacred Grail of tennis.

Oh, yeah. The Grand slam was and WILL BE the Sacred Grail of Tennis. No matter if KG or Ivan or somebody else like it or not. That's why I used the word FOREVER.

Trying to discredit the career or achievement of a player is definitely a bad sign for the respective people.

- will Laver's 2 Gs remain forever? Yes, but that of 1962 lost the importance that it had beautiful 70s-80s when the experts had not explained that it was a slam amateurs, I hope that become zero, and that Laver is evaluated for the great Pro and Open titles that are underestimated, even kept hidden.

You can hope, wish or pray in the church. But the reality is different.

- will the Rosewall majors remain forever?
Maybe, it is in fact that nobody interested in the 23 majors of Rosewall, in fact Fedre is the GOAT because he won 20.
No one thinks of pushing Roger to win 24 slams because Rosewall is GOAT. Rosewall with fatigue enters a top 10 all time ranking.
I hope that in a few years Rosewall will be evaluated for its big Pro titles and its big Open titles that are underestimated, even kept hidden.

Ha, believe me, many posters in the forum are interested in Rosewall's majors. And they don't want to accept that by number Kenny has more. Pure fact. No matter if KG or Ivan or somebody else like it or not. But this is not the basic point for me.
I never compare the players only by the number of majors. I said several times that I am not "only slams count" fan like other, maybe also you.
I compare players by their OVERALL ACHIEVEMENTS. Yes, it's possible that Fed could surpass Laver and Rosewall. But currently he is far from the target.
And I understand very well that Laver and Rosewall are "friendly" underestimated by the Fed fans. There is a good reason.

 

[NoMercy]

Ivan, I really appreciate the work that you have done this year, and I think you have many reasons in this case too; I think it's complicated to analyze every year but it's much more complicated to compose a puzzle on the top tournaments of the period 1946-1968 because it concerns not a year but a whole career of some top players (in other words I can make a mistake in not assigning the right importance to a single year but I absolutely must not do on a whole career of a top player).

I can also think that Wembley is the most important Pro event, and that Paris is another big event but the difference between the two and some of the others I think is not great.

Without reiterating all the points in which we do not share a line I would like to know the opinion of other posters.

I think I will put the question.

In short, it is necessary to establish if, for example, a great champion like Rosewall has won
1) 23 Majors
2) 8 Majors + 15 Pro majors
3) 8 slam + many great Pro events including Wembley and Paris
4) 4 Open slam + many great Pro events including Wembley and Paris + 4 amateurs slam

At the moment I am far away, far from points 1 and 2 .

Point 1) is ridicolous, good for kids, maybe.
Point 4) is the closest to reality, just keeping in mind Slams and Majors are not the same.

 

[KG1965]

Unfortunately I can't understand your sentence. How to equate the tournaments in the 70s with the M1000? They were different in different years. Or I don't get your point.

Anyway, a direct comparison can't be made b/w the tournaments in the less organised late 60s-70s and the official sanctioned tournaments decades later.
In the last posts you stressed the discussion to the points of the tournaments which are discussable and arguable.
More important is the level of the tournaments - first level, second level etc. based on different parameters.

Reviewing and analysing the history is not just important but EXTREMELY important. But misinterpretations are not allowed.

Comparing the structure of the pro tour with the current structure is an absurd. Important is the value of the tour for the players. Pro majors were the best tournaments in the pro era, the slams were/are the best tournaments in the Open Era. That's the important.

Not at last, what value did have the hundreds of tours in the USA, Europe, Australia, SA, Africa etc.?
What value did have the hundreds of one-night matches held through the world?

So, don't discuss only the pro majors and slams. They were one of the smallest issues. Put your attention on the whole structure of the tour.

Oh, yeah. The Grand slam was and WILL BE the Sacred Grail of Tennis. No matter if KG or Ivan or somebody else like it or not. That's why I used the word FOREVER.

Trying to discredit the career or achievement of a player is definitely a bad sign for the respective people.

You can hope, wish or pray in the church. But the reality is different.

Ha, believe me, many posters in the forum are interested in Rosewall's majors. And they don't want to accept that by number Kenny has more. Pure fact. No matter if KG or Ivan or somebody else like it or not. But this is not the basic point for me.
I never compare the players only by the number of majors. I said several times that I am not "only slams count" fan like other, maybe also you.
I compare players by their OVERALL ACHIEVEMENTS. Yes, it's possible that Fed could surpass Laver and Rosewall. But currently he is far from the target.
And I understand very well that Laver and Rosewall are "friendly" underestimated by the Fed fans. There is a good reason.

The point relating to the Masters 1000 can be set aside waiting for the work that will probably be done by Drob.

As far as the other two points are concerned, it seems to me that our discussion does not make progress.

Currently only the slams count
- but while no one doubts that Laver was the number one in 1969 and no one doubts the 1969 GS, in 1962 how could Rosewall be the number one if Laver won the GS? Simple answer to the eyes of all those who want to see: because the GS 1962 counts zero. If it counted something Laver would have been recognized as a dominant number one.

- on Pro majors I repeat: why Rosewall is not considered GOAT with 23, and instead struggles to enter the top ten? Simple answer: because the tournaments won at Wembley, Paris and US by Pro (not just from Rosewall) are not considered majors. Or they are considered small majors.

The key is not to affirm the GS62 and the Pro majors but to pay more attention to the other big Pro titles of the old old champions.
Rosewall has been forgotten, and fossilization on the 23rd is deleterious.
Laver has resisted the use of time only for the 2 GS. But one of the two became indefensible.
Rod will not be forgotten as Rosewall for the 1969 GS. But he risks because he seems to have won only in 1969.

In order to properly re-evaluate the two aussies it is necessary to concentrate on the other big tournaments, but to do so it is necessary to sacrifice:
- the GS 1962 to be thrown into the landfill;
- call with a different and appropriate name Wembley, US and Paris, certainly not majors because they create confusion because nobody believes they are Majors.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I don't think Rosewall has been forgotten. He still features in most peoples' top 10. He is, to an extent, fortunate to have played, and won, into the Open Era - i.e. his name is brought up when stating that someone even older than Federer won a slam title. Obviously he isn't as fortunate as Laver, whose glory year of 1969 was in the Open Era.

Gonzales OTOH is hugely underrated by tennis analysts in the 'real world', who see him only as having won 2 major titles. Younger viewers of course don't know his name at all.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

I don't think Rosewall has been forgotten. He still features in most peoples' top 10. He is, to an extent, fortunate to have played, and won, into the Open Era - i.e. his name is brought up when stating that someone even older than Federer won a slam title. Obviously he isn't as fortunate as Laver, whose glory year of 1969 was in the Open Era.

Gonzales OTOH is hugely underrated by tennis analysts in the 'real world', who see him only as having won 2 major titles. Younger viewers of course don't know his name at all.

Yes, that's right. Rosewall has been downgraded, but not forgotten completely, as he won 8 Grand Slams. It is Gonzales that has been forgotten.

 

[Ivan69]

Currently only the slams count
- but while no one doubts that Laver was the number one in 1969 and no one doubts the 1969 GS, in 1962 how could Rosewall be the number one if Laver won the GS? Simple answer to the eyes of all those who want to see: because the GS 1962 counts zero. If he counted something Laver would have been recognized as a dominant number one.

Sometimes you have some genius statements, I admit.
KG, never in the history only the slams counted. Awarded were/are also the finalists, semis, ... R64. Awarded were/are also M1000, M500, M250, Finals. The fact that you ignore all this is ONLY your problem not a problem of the tennis world.

You have the right to choose Laver for 1962. It's your choice. I go with R as the better player.

- on Pro majors I repeat: why Rosewall is not considered GOAT with 23, and instead struggles to enter the top ten? Simple answer: because the tournaments won at Wembley, Paris and US by Pro (not just from Rosewall) are not considered majors. Or they are considered small majors.

The answer is simple - Rosewall is a thorn for the Fed fanatic fans. They will never admit that R had a better career which is a pure fact with many many stats behind.

I leave the theme about the pro majors. If somebody doesn't want to analyse the old pro tour fully with all specifics he will be not able to evaluate it objectively.

The key is not to affirm the GS62 and the Pro majors but to pay more attention to the other big Pro titles of the old old champions.
Rosewall has been forgotten, and fossilization on the 23rd is deleterious.
Laver has resisted the use of time only for the 2 GS. But one of the two became indefensible.
Rod will not be forgotten as Rosewall for the 1969 GS. But he risks because he seems to have won only in 1969.

If you prefer to forget Rosewall and Laver then forget them. Fortunately the unbiased tennis fans and the tennis world will not forget them.

In order to properly re-evaluate the two aussies it is necessary to concentrate on the other big tournaments, but to do so it is necessary to sacrifice:
- the GS 1962 to be thrown into the landfill;
- call with a different and appropriate name Wembley, US and Paris, certainly not majors because they create confusion because nobody believes they are Majors.

KG, are you on the war front in order to sacrifice something?
I respect the careers of the pro not sacrificing (i.e. downgrading) anything.

Call the tournaments as you wish. I don't intend to argue when I presented to you several arguments. You ignore them, didn't presented such and just make loud statements. Every serious discussion is based on arguments.

Please try to answer yourself (not to me) the question - do you want to be objective in the evaluation of the pro tour, tournaments, players, careers or not? That's the general dilemma - to be or not to be.

 

[KG1965]

Sometimes you have some genius statements, I admit.
KG, never in the history only the slams counted. Awarded were/are also the finalists, semis, ... R64. Awarded were/are also M1000, M500, M250, Finals. The fact that you ignore all this is ONLY your problem not a problem of the tennis world.

You have the right to choose Laver for 1962. It's your choice. I go with R as the better player.

The answer is simple - Rosewall is a thorn for the Fed fanatic fans. They will never admit that R had a better career which is a pure fact with many many stats behind.

I leave the theme about the pro majors. If somebody doesn't want to analyse the old pro tour fully with all specifics he will be not able to evaluate it objectively.

If you prefer to forget Rosewall and Laver then forget them. Fortunately the unbiased tennis fans and the tennis world will not forget them.

KG, are you on the war front in order to sacrifice something?
I respect the careers of the pro not sacrificing (i.e. downgrading) anything.

Call the tournaments as you wish. I don't intend to argue when I presented to you several arguments. You ignore them, didn't presented such and just make loud statements. Every serious discussion is based on arguments.

Please try to answer yourself (not to me) the question - do you want to be objective in the evaluation of the pro tour, tournaments, players, careers or not? That's the general dilemma - to be or not to be.

It's evident that on these 3 topics I do not adequately explain myself.

 

[hoodjem]

1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe/Wilander
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl(4)

Lendl - 4
McEnroe - 3

 

[thrust]

The point relating to the Masters 1000 can be set aside waiting for the work that will probably be done by Drob.

As far as the other two points are concerned, it seems to me that our discussion does not make progress.

Currently only the slams count
- but while no one doubts that Laver was the number one in 1969 and no one doubts the 1969 GS, in 1962 how could Rosewall be the number one if Laver won the GS? Simple answer to the eyes of all those who want to see: because the GS 1962 counts zero. If it counted something Laver would have been recognized as a dominant number one.

- on Pro majors I repeat: why Rosewall is not considered GOAT with 23, and instead struggles to enter the top ten? Simple answer: because the tournaments won at Wembley, Paris and US by Pro (not just from Rosewall) are not considered majors. Or they are considered small majors.

The key is not to affirm the GS62 and the Pro majors but to pay more attention to the other big Pro titles of the old old champions.
Rosewall has been forgotten, and fossilization on the 23rd is deleterious.
Laver has resisted the use of time only for the 2 GS. But one of the two became indefensible.
Rod will not be forgotten as Rosewall for the 1969 GS. But he risks because he seems to have won only in 1969.

In order to properly re-evaluate the two aussies it is necessary to concentrate on the other big tournaments, but to do so it is necessary to sacrifice:
- the GS 1962 to be thrown into the landfill;
- call with a different and appropriate name Wembley, US and Paris, certainly not majors because they create confusion because nobody believes they are Majors.

I think that to evaluate the greatness of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver one should consider the playing conditions on the pro tour. Those players did not have: coaches, physical trainers, decent traveling conditions, well kept courts, times out for any reason, ice packs, ball kids handing them towels after nearly every point. Also they were lucky to lockers to put their street clothes into. They sometimes had to use nails to hang their clothes. Wembley and the French Pro were played in consecutive weeks. Rosewall won the French on clay and Wembley on wood in 61,62 and 63 ONE week after the other. I am not saying the pro majors were equal to today's slams, but certainly close in difficulty to win and deserve some sort of accomplishment value in ranking the top pro tour players.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think that to evaluate the greatness of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver one should consider the playing conditions on the pro tour. Those players did not have: coaches, physical trainers, decent traveling conditions, well kept courts, times out for any reason, ice packs, ball kids handing them towels after nearly every point. Also they were lucky to lockers to put their street clothes into. They sometimes had to use nails to hang their clothes. Wembley and the French Pro were played in consecutive weeks. Rosewall won the French on clay and Wembley on wood in 61,62 and 63 ONE week after the other. I am not saying the pro majors were equal to today's slams, but certainly close in difficulty to win and deserve some sort of accomplishment value in ranking the top pro tour players.

1963 French was indoor on wood, same as Wembley.

 

[thrust]

1963 French was indoor on wood, same as Wembley.

True, I meant to say 60,61, and 62

 

[Djokovic2015]

1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe/Wilander
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl(4)

Lendl - 4
McEnroe - 3

Are you going to make these updates to the 1st page?

 

[hoodjem]

Are you going to make these updates to the 1st page?

Sorry. Which ones?

 

[Djokovic2015]

Which?

I thought you were saying "Lendl - 4" in that post in the sense that Lendl had a claim to 4 #1s. Do you still believe he has a claim for 1990?

 

[hoodjem]

Sorry, that was in response to someone who suggested Mac was the best of the decade of the 80s, particularly. Lendl had four years and Mac only three specifically during the 80s.


Yes. Including 1990 Lendl has five years as world no. 1.
1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl
1990—Edberg/Lendl(5)

 

[Djokovic2015]

Sorry, that was in response to someone who suggested Mac was the best of the decade of the 80s, particularly. Lendl had four years and Mac only three specifically during the 80s.


Yes. Including 1990 Lendl has five years as world no. 1.
1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe/Wilander
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl
1990—Edberg/Lendl(5)

I see, on what basis do you decide when someone has a claim to a co-#1 in that era?

For example. why doesn't McEnroe get a co-claim in 1982 for finishing #1 in the ATP rankings, while Wilander does in 1983 despite not finishing #1 in anything?
What claim does Lendl have for 1990 outside of the ITF designation?

 

[hoodjem]

I see, on what basis do you decide when someone has a claim to a co-#1 in that era?

For example. why doesn't McEnroe get a co-claim in 1982 for finishing #1 in the ATP rankings, while Wilander does in 1983 despite not finishing #1 in anything?

Thanks for the suggestion. 1982 does seem quite contentious.

Connors won Wimbledon and USO, plus Monterrey, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Queen's Club, Columbus, and had four runners-up.
Mac won no slams that year, but did win Philadelphia, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Wembley, and had five runners-up. Their H2H that year was 2-2. (Perhaps I was unknowingly guilty of latent Slam Bias?)

I'd love to see the point totals for that year. How close were they? How did Mac accrue more points in spite of winning only five titles (and no slams)? Did he carry-over more points from his wins in 1981?

 

[Djokovic2015]

1982 does seem quite contentious.

Connors won Wimbledon and USO, plus Monterrey, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Queen's Club, Columbus, and had four runners-up.
Mac won no slams that year, but did win Philadelphia, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Wembley, and had five runners-up. Their H2H that year was 2-2. (Perhaps I was unknowingly guilty of latent Slam Bias?)

I'd love to see the point totals for that year. How close were they? How did Mac accrue more points in spite of winning only five titles (and no slams)? Did he carry-over more points from his wins in 1981?

I unfortunately do not have an exact breakdown of the points for that year, only the ranking. One thing I will say though is him carrying over pts from 1981 wins would not matter for the YE ranking, because by the end of the year all the 81 pts will be dropped and replaced by 82 pts. Carry over would only matter for McEnroe being 1 throughout the year, but not at the end.

Just as an FYI, I was not disagreeing with your ranking of Connors as 82 #1 (I have the same), I was just more interested in what methodology you employed to decide which years people deserved co-#1s for in the open era.
IMO:
82 - Connors
83 - McEnroe
90 - Edberg
13 - Nadal

Should be the #1s. McEnroe 82, Wilander 83, Lendl 90, Djokovic 13 all have only weak arguments to be co-#1. However, if we entertain the notion that any of those years should have a co-#1 then all of them should due to the fact that there IS some level of dispute on all for consistency purposes.

 

[thrust]

I unfortunately do not have an exact breakdown of the points for that year, only the ranking. One thing I will say though is him carrying over pts from 1981 wins would not matter for the YE ranking, because by the end of the year all the 81 pts will be dropped and replaced by 82 pts. Carry over would only matter for McEnroe being 1 throughout the year, but not at the end.

Just as an FYI, I was not disagreeing with your ranking of Connors as 82 #1 (I have the same), I was just more interested in what methodology you employed to decide which years people deserved co-#1s for in the open era.
IMO:
82 - Connors
83 - McEnroe
90 - Edberg
13 - Nadal

Should be the #1s. McEnroe 82, Wilander 83, Lendl 90, Djokovic 13 all have only weak arguments to be co-#1. However, if we entertain the notion that any of those years should have a co-#1 then all of them should due to the fact that there IS some level of dispute on all for consistency purposes.

Were they awarding 2000 ranking points for winning slam in 82? If not, that would be the only justification for Connors not being ranked #1 in 82, especially as Jimmy won 2 slams and John won 0 that year.

 

[thrust]

According to Wikipedia, Connors won 7 tournaments, including 2 slams in 82. McEnroe won 5 tournaments, with 0 slams. Lendl won 14 tournaments in 82! How the hell did McEnroe get the #1 ranking in 82?

 

[USOPEN1991]

I think the weighting of the Slamtitel was different. Less points maybe.

 

[USOPEN1991]

The ATP began as the men's trade union in 1972, through the combined efforts of Jack Kramer, Cliff Drysdale, and Donald Dell, and rose to prominence when 81 of its members boycotted the 1973 Wimbledon Championships. Just two months later, in August, the ATP introduced its ranking system intended to objectify tournament entry criteria, which up to that point was controlled by national federations and tournament directors.The ATP's new ranking system was quickly adopted by men's tennis.While virtually all ATP members were in favor of objectifying event participation, the system's first No. 1, Ilie Năstase, lamented that "everyone had a number hanging over them," fostering a more competitive and less collegial atmosphere among the players.The original ATP ranking criteria, which was then regularly published weekly only from mid-1979 and persisted through the 1980s, was based on averaging each player's results, though the details were revised a number of times.Starting in 1990, in conjunction with the expansion of ATP purview as the new men's tour operator, the ranking criteria was replaced with a 'best of' system modeled after competitive downhill skiing. This 'best of' system originally used 14 events but expanded to 18 in 2000.

 

[KG1965]

According to Wikipedia, Connors won 7 tournaments, including 2 slams in 82. McEnroe won 5 tournaments, with 0 slams. Lendl won 14 tournaments in 82! How the hell did McEnroe get the #1 ranking in 82?

Wikipedia in this case is correct:
- Connors won 7 ATP tournaments sanctioned, including 2 slams in 82.
- McEnroe won 5 ATP tournaments sanctioned, with 0 slams.
- Lendl won 14 tournaments ATP sanctioned, with 0 slams.
Ivan is excluded from the competition simply because many of his titles were recognized by ATP but did not fall into the ATP ranking because the WCT broke with the Grand Prix and was part of a different, unrecognized circuit.
The strange thing is that in 1982 ATP did not recognize the WCT tournaments but later recognized the titles won by those who won.
So you need to deduct 11 unrecognized titles for ATP Ranking and deduct the Masters GP because no points were awarded (never in the 70s and 80s).
Basically for the ranking Lendl won “only” 5 titles: Frankfurt, Washington, North Conway, Cincy.

How the hell did McEnroe get the # 1 ranking in 82?
Good question. I had seen the triggering reason some time ago...but I do not remember. I'm curious to look again.

 

[Djokovic2015]

According to Wikipedia, Connors won 7 tournaments, including 2 slams in 82. McEnroe won 5 tournaments, with 0 slams. Lendl won 14 tournaments in 82! How the hell did McEnroe get the #1 ranking in 82?

As @USOPEN1991 pointed out the ranking was based on an average system rather than a cumulative system. I.E. if you played additional events and did bad in them it would hurt your ranking rather simply add only a small amount of points as with the system today.

I don’t have all of the results for the season on me, but I believe Mac entered 14 events and had 5 wins, 5 finals, and 4 SF so his average was high. Additionally the weights (both slams relative to other tournaments as well as titles relative to losing in earlier rounds) were less top heavy than now.

 

[KG1965]

According to USOPEN1991 the system was not operating in accumulation but through media.

Those who participated in many tournaments were penalized (like Ashe 75 and Vilas 77 ... and in that case Jimbo takes advantage at the end of the year).
Connors participated in a regular number of tournaments but Mac participated in a paltry number of tournaments.

Below are the matches of the two from the ATP website
Mac wins 71 matches out of 80 ... but you have to exclude
- the Davis Cup matches (-8 .. all won) and
- the matches played at the Masters GP, at the WCT Tournament of Ch. and at the WCT Dallas (11, of which 8 won)
Mac disputes 61 (80-19) "ATP matches" and wins 55.

Connors dispute 88 matches (78 won) but only 2 are not matched by the system (one won and one lost at the Masters GP)
So 86 "ATP matches" (77 won and 9 lost).

86 Connors - 61 McEnroe.
Jonh's average is very high but the number of tournaments / matches is very limited, very small.

A system that only works in accumulation IMHO is wrong because a top player who participates in 30 tournaments is logical that he wins more than a top player who plays 15 tournaments.
So the criterion of the average I like a lot because it invites the top players not to play too many tournaments.
The problem is that the system must also be programmed not to encourage top players who play 10 tournaments!

 

[KG1965]

I am aware that this is a thread to identify the number one at the end of the year leaving out the ATP ranking (started in 1973) but the question I ask the posters is:
does any of you have the final data of the various years of the 80s? They can not be found on ATP site or Wikipedia.

 

[USOPEN1991]

I am aware that this is a thread to identify the number one at the end of the year leaving out the ATP ranking (started in 1973) but the question I ask the posters is:
does any of you have the final data of the various years of the 80s? They can not be found on ATP site or Wikipedia.

https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=581&tab=statistics&season=1982

 

[KG1965]

https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=581&tab=statistics&season=1982

Thanks USOPEN1991, a good site, but I didn't find the final points of the 80's ATP ranking.

 

[Drob]

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 !!

Borg did not play RG. Vilas' 1977 record versus Borg was 0-3. Half of Vilas' titles were at what we now call 250s.

1977 is one of those few years (there are others) with no No. 1.

 

[jean pierre]

Borg did not play RG. Vilas' 1977 record versus Borg was 0-3. Half of Vilas' titles were at what we now call 250s.

1977 is one of those few years (there are others) with no No. 1.

Borg was certainly better than Vilas in 1977 also but the number one is the one who has the best results. In 1977 it was Vilas, who had better results than Borg or anyone.

 

[Ivan69]

Borg did not play RG. Vilas' 1977 record versus Borg was 0-3. Half of Vilas' titles were at what we now call 250s.

1977 is one of those few years (there are others) with no No. 1.

It's not an excuse that Borg didn't play RG. It can happen to everyone. He suffered many injuries through the career.
Agree that half of the Vilas' titles were 250s. But Borg's titles in that year were not different. From the big events he won Wim and Memphis.
1977 is definitely a strong year for Vilas.

 

[jean pierre]

It's not an excuse that Borg didn't play RG. It can happen to everyone. He suffered many injuries through the career.
Agree that half of the Vilas' titles were 250s. But Borg's titles in that year were not different. From the big events he won Wim and Memphis.
1977 is definitely a strong year for Vilas.

I agree. That's not Vilas's problem if Borg wasn't there. Connors didn't play the French during a long time and no one questions Borg's victories, while Connors heated Borg on clay in US Open 1976 ! And if you compare, except Grand Slams, the tournaments won by Borg and by Vilas in 1977, Borg's titles are not more important. It's exactly the same, but Vilas won more. And more Grand Slams. And more matches ...

 

[Ivan69]

I agree. That's not Vilas's problem if Borg wasn't there. Connors didn't play the French during a long time and no one questions Borg's victories, while Connors heated Borg on clay in US Open 1976 ! And if you compare, except Grand Slams, the tournaments won by Borg and by Vilas in 1977, Borg's titles are not more important. It's exactly the same, but Vilas won more. And more Grand Slams. And more matches ...

I am not 100% sure but I think that Vilas is the only player with more than 150 wins per year. That was in 1977.

 

[Drob]

I agree. That's not Vilas's problem if Borg wasn't there. Connors didn't play the French during a long time and no one questions Borg's victories, while Connors heated Borg on clay in US Open 1976 ! And if you compare, except Grand Slams, the tournaments won by Borg and by Vilas in 1977, Borg's titles are not more important. It's exactly the same, but Vilas won more. And more Grand Slams. And more matches ...

Har-Tru is far from clay. Connors won a tight match in 1976 over Borg on a surface that is not clay, not close.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The point relating to the Masters 1000 can be set aside waiting for the work that will probably be done by Drob.

As far as the other two points are concerned, it seems to me that our discussion does not make progress.

Currently only the slams count
- but while no one doubts that Laver was the number one in 1969 and no one doubts the 1969 GS, in 1962 how could Rosewall be the number one if Laver won the GS? Simple answer to the eyes of all those who want to see: because the GS 1962 counts zero. If it counted something Laver would have been recognized as a dominant number one.

- on Pro majors I repeat: why Rosewall is not considered GOAT with 23, and instead struggles to enter the top ten? Simple answer: because the tournaments won at Wembley, Paris and US by Pro (not just from Rosewall) are not considered majors. Or they are considered small majors.

The key is not to affirm the GS62 and the Pro majors but to pay more attention to the other big Pro titles of the old old champions.
Rosewall has been forgotten, and fossilization on the 23rd is deleterious.
Laver has resisted the use of time only for the 2 GS. But one of the two became indefensible.
Rod will not be forgotten as Rosewall for the 1969 GS. But he risks because he seems to have won only in 1969.

In order to properly re-evaluate the two aussies it is necessary to concentrate on the other big tournaments, but to do so it is necessary to sacrifice:
- the GS 1962 to be thrown into the landfill;
- call with a different and appropriate name Wembley, US and Paris, certainly not majors because they create confusion because nobody believes they are Majors.

I think that we need to be more rigorous in our terminology on these concepts, because they really are different.

There is so much confusion and talking past each other because we attempt to compare different concepts as if they were the same...they aren't.

1) GOAT is a global title for all time, probably using subjective criteria, or at least, special criteria not necessarily a consensus choice, could be different choices

for each evaluation.

This is a multi-year evaluation, not a single year.

2) World Champion is essentially a commercial title used for winners of tours and tournaments, again the value of which is subjective and indeterminate.

There could be more than one world champion in a single year. World Champion tours often include only two players, not a comprehensive field.

3) World No. 1 is a formal ranking result, usually the product of a points tour, or a round robin match tour. It is objective, not subjective, and usually

encompasses one calendar year, occasionally more. World No. 1 is a comprehensive ranking title for the entire field, and ranks all the players.

World No. 1 is the concept which is currently used by the ATP points system, but there have been points systems and No. 1's in tennis history.


The problem in discussion is when these three different concepts are used interchangeably as if they were the same thing, which is not the case.

1) World No. 1 players, comprehensive points systems, even before the open era, a ranking series

1942 Budge
1946 Riggs
1954 Gonzales
1959 Hoad
1964 Rosewall
1965-69 Laver
Grand Prix and ATP points tours

2) World Champions (usually a h2h series)

1946 Riggs (over Budge)
1948 Kramer (over Riggs)
1950 Kramer (over Gonzales)
1951 Kramer (over Segura)
1953 Kramer (over Sedgman)
1956 Gonzales (over Trabert)
1957 Gonzales (over Rosewall)
1958 Gonzales (over Hoad)
1959 Gonzales (over Hoad)
1960 Gonzales (over Rosewall)
1961 Gonzales (over Gimeno)
1961 Rosewall (over Gimeno, recently discovered)
1963 Rosewall (over Laver)

Hopefully, the rather casual confusion over proper terminology which has hampered efforts to discuss these issues in the past will be overcome.

The common references to "annual ranking lists" for pre-open years should be abandoned. They are not official rankings, or even rankings at all, but subjective RATINGS based on the personal perceptions of various tennis writers.

The only real official RANKINGS are derived from the ranking tours listed above.

 

[KG1965]

I think that we need to be more rigorous in our terminology on these concepts, because they really are different.

There is so much confusion and talking past each other because we attempt to compare different concepts as if they were the same...they aren't.

1) GOAT is a global title for all time, probably using subjective criteria, or at least, special criteria not necessarily a consensus choice, could be different choices

for each evaluation.

This is a multi-year evaluation, not a single year.

2) World Champion is essentially a commercial title used for winners of tours and tournaments, again the value of which is subjective and indeterminate.

There could be more than one world champion in a single year. World Champion tours often include only two players, not a comprehensive field.

3) World No. 1 is a formal ranking result, usually the product of a points tour, or a round robin match tour. It is objective, not subjective, and usually

encompasses one calendar year, occasionally more. World No. 1 is a comprehensive ranking title for the entire field, and ranks all the players.

World No. 1 is the concept which is currently used by the ATP points system, but there have been points systems and No. 1's in tennis history.


The problem in discussion is when these three different concepts are used interchangeably as if they were the same thing, which is not the case.

1) World No. 1 players, comprehensive points systems, even before the open era, a ranking series

1942 Budge
1946 Riggs
1954 Gonzales
1959 Hoad
1964 Rosewall
1965-69 Laver
Grand Prix and ATP points tours

2) World Champions (usually a h2h series)

1946 Riggs (over Budge)
1948 Kramer (over Riggs)
1950 Kramer (over Gonzales)
1951 Kramer (over Segura)
1953 Kramer (over Sedgman)
1956 Gonzales (over Trabert)
1957 Gonzales (over Rosewall)
1958 Gonzales (over Hoad)
1959 Gonzales (over Hoad)
1960 Gonzales (over Rosewall)
1961 Gonzales (over Gimeno)
1961 Rosewall (over Gimeno, recently discovered)
1963 Rosewall (over Laver)

Hopefully, the rather casual confusion over proper terminology which has hampered efforts to discuss these issues in the past will be overcome.

The common references to "annual ranking lists" for pre-open years should be abandoned. They are not official rankings, or even rankings at all, but subjective RATINGS based on the personal perceptions of various tennis writers.

The only real official RANKINGS are derived from the ranking tours listed above.

On point 1 (GOAT) I agree conceptually with you, the criteria are necessarily subjective: I can argue that the GOAT is McEnroe or Hoad because they played a sensational year, or Kramer because he played a sublime style of tennis, or Federer because won more slams or Laver because he won 2 GS, or Borg because he was a myth .....

But I am more interested in the other 2 points:
the world champion or the world number one are not comparable because they are different things.

I'm not aware of the old rankings (except for 1959, with Hoad coming just short of Gonzalez).
But given the fact that you write, in this case the number one (before the OE) only existed in 1942, 1946, 1954, 1959, 1964-69.
In the other years the number one could not exist. In other words, the number one never existed in 1949 or 1956 or 1962.
There was simply one player that the majority of experts decided was the best, but he is not a mathematical number one.

The world champions are obviously the players who won the main h2h. There is no discussion on this.
If the series was Riggs-Kramer and Gonzalez was not invited, Gonzalez could not be world champion.

It can be verified that in the same year the world champion differs from the number one: for example in 1959 Gonzalez world champion and Hoad number one.

In the years where the number one could not exist, the world champion was almost certainly the best player. But it may not be so.
Each of us draws conclusions and decides who is the best player.
Old experts don't decide. Each of us decides. As with point 1). A single year's GOAT is finally decided.

 

[Dan Lobb]

the world champion or the world number one are not comparable because they are different things.

But given the fact that you write, in this case the number one (before the OE) only existed in 1942, 1946, 1954, 1959, 1964-69.
In the other years the number one could not exist.
It can be verified that in the same year the world champion differs from the number one: for example in 1959 Gonzalez world champion and Hoad number one.

I like your point about 1959, which really goes to the main point here...Gonzales won the world championship, Hoad won the ranking tour.

So in that year you have a world champion and a world number one who are different players.

Also 1954, where Kramer still held on to his world championship title, but Gonzales won the ranking tour.

And you get my points about 1949 and 1956 and 1962....there was no ranking tour, and therefore no official No. 1.

In 1962, you actually have no tour of any kind....a cipher.

 

[hoodjem]

2019 settled.
Updated this morning, 15 Nov. 2019.