Last edited:
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
It appears that Rosewall defeated Gonzales 7 times (7 to 0) on that 1964 Trofeo Facis tour, all on clay.
Rosewall was 9 wins to 1 defeat on clay against Gonzales in 1964.
Overall Rosewall was 13 to 4 all surfaces in 1964, but apart from clay was only 4 to 3 against Gonzales that year, including the big win for Gonzales in the final of the U.S. Pro Indoor.
Last edited:
My version Numbers one years end.
7 Gonzalez
6 Laver, Sampras, Federer
5 Djokovic, Rosewall
4 Kramer, Nadal
3 Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl
2 Riggs, Edberg, Hewitt
1 Segura, Hoad, Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Kuerten, Roddick, Murray
Last edited:
I believe that should be "Benidorm", near Valencia.
A fine result for a retired player, beating Munoz and a still tough Santana.
Last edited:
The next few days I would like to observe all the results of 1971. I am undecided whether in this thread or in a new dedicated thread.
A few years ago I was very undecided about the number one (or the best player) of every single year. Especially in the Pro years.
Now the situation is clear enough.
But with 1971 I still have many doubts.
1971
I try to consider only the Top 3: Rosewall, Newcombe and Laver
Only winner titles with Prize money => 50.000 $
Philadelphia 62.500 $ NEWCOMBE
Australian Open 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Chicago 50.000 $ NEWCOMBE
Dallas 50.000 $ NEWCOMBE
Johannesburg 51.000 $ ROSEWALL
Rome 50.000 $ LAVER
Wimbledon 90.000$ NEWCOMBE
Washington 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Boston 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Toronto 50.000 $ NEWCOMBE
Fort Worth 50.000 $ LAVER
Berkeley: 50.000 $ LAVER
Vancouver: 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Bologna: 50.000 $ LAVER
WCT Finals (Dallas) 100.000 $ ROSEWALL
Tennis Champions Classic 210.000 $ LAVER
410.000 $ LAVER
351.000 $300.000 $ ROSEWALL
302.500 $ NEWCOMBE
I try to consider only the Top 3: Rosewall, Newcombe and Laver
Only winner titles with Prize money => 50.000 $
Philadelphia 62.500 $ NEWCOMBE
Australian Open 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Chicago 50.000 $ NEWCOMBE
Dallas 50.000 $ NEWCOMBE
Johannesburg 51.000 $ ROSEWALL
Rome 50.000 $ LAVER
Wimbledon 90.000$ NEWCOMBE
Washington 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Boston 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Toronto 50.000 $ NEWCOMBE
Fort Worth 50.000 $ LAVER
Berkeley: 50.000 $ LAVER
Vancouver: 50.000 $ ROSEWALL
Bologna: 50.000 $ LAVER
WCT Finals (Dallas) 100.000 $ ROSEWALL
Tennis Champions Classic 210.000 $ LAVER
410.000 $ LAVER
351.000 $
302.500 $ NEWCOMBE
Last edited:
There are two considerations to make: the 3 top dogs win 4 WCT tournaments + one big one.
So the substantial difference is how to consider Wimbledon (where Newk wins), Dallas (where Muscles is imposed) and TCC won by Rodney as more important.
I think that Wimbledon is unanimously considered the best even though Dallas in 1971 was perhaps preferable as the end of a real world championship.
TCC (forgotten in time) with a final in New York is twice the richest, and in fact Laver earns much more in 1971.
So the decisive question is Wimbledon> Dallas> TCC or Wimbledon>> Dallas>>>>> TCC ?
I'm going against the tide and I think TCC > Wimbledon & Dallas, so Laver is my number one.
The second consideration concerns the fact that while Newk never made it to other finals and Ken was runner-up only at Berkeley, Laver is runner-ups in four events (Phila, Dallas, Quebec City and Miami).
And this reinforces my thesis.
Laver is my number one of 1971.
So the substantial difference is how to consider Wimbledon (where Newk wins), Dallas (where Muscles is imposed) and TCC won by Rodney as more important.
I think that Wimbledon is unanimously considered the best even though Dallas in 1971 was perhaps preferable as the end of a real world championship.
TCC (forgotten in time) with a final in New York is twice the richest, and in fact Laver earns much more in 1971.
So the decisive question is Wimbledon> Dallas> TCC or Wimbledon>> Dallas>>>>> TCC ?
I'm going against the tide and I think TCC > Wimbledon & Dallas, so Laver is my number one.
The second consideration concerns the fact that while Newk never made it to other finals and Ken was runner-up only at Berkeley, Laver is runner-ups in four events (Phila, Dallas, Quebec City and Miami).
And this reinforces my thesis.
Laver is my number one of 1971.
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—Rosewall Laver
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
My version Numbers one years end
7 Gonzalez, Laver
6 Sampras, Federer
5 Djokovic
4 Kramer, Nadal, Rosewall
3 Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl
2 Riggs, Edberg, Hewitt
1 Segura, Hoad, Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Kuerten, Roddick, Murray
My version Best player of the year
9 Gonzalez
8 Laver
6 Sampras, Federer
5 Kramer, Djokovic
4 Nadal
3 Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl
2 Rosewall, Edberg, Hewitt
1 Riggs, Segura, Hoad, Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Kuerten, Roddick, Murray
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
My version Numbers one years end
7 Gonzalez, Laver
6 Sampras, Federer
5 Djokovic
4 Kramer, Nadal, Rosewall
3 Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl
2 Riggs, Edberg, Hewitt
1 Segura, Hoad, Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Kuerten, Roddick, Murray
My version Best player of the year
9 Gonzalez
8 Laver
6 Sampras, Federer
5 Kramer, Djokovic
4 Nadal
3 Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl
2 Rosewall, Edberg, Hewitt
1 Riggs, Segura, Hoad, Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Kuerten, Roddick, Murray
Drob
Hall of Fame
Does that first list count co-No. 1 years, or do you pick just one top dog? Do you have any years with no number-one at all?
Perhaps I don't understand the question well, drob.
On the first list I don't seem to have counted the co-No. 1, I chose what I think was the number one for the results and in parentheses I entered in rare cases the player that I think is the best player (but has won less than the number one).
There shouldn't be years without the number one. Otherwise I was wrong.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Laver won 7 titles in 1971.
Newcombe won 6 titles in 1971 (including Wimbledon).
Rosewall won 8 titles in 1971 (including the AO).
I do wonder how the (hypothetical) point totals would have worked out?
TCC > Wimbledon > Dallas?
I think that Wimbledon gets the nod as major of the year for 1971.
I remember 1971 well, Wimbledon was televised, I do not remember the TCC being televised, and both U.S. Open (weakened by pro disputes) and the inaugural
WCT lacked the comprehensive field of Wimbledon. The Aussie Open final was a great showing by Rosewall, but Ken had a bad loss to Newcombe at
Wimbledon.
Newcombe even won a very big final against his nemesis Laver at Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor final.
Laver won the big money that year with the extraordinary TCC event, but that event was a one-timer.
I think that Wimbledon gets the nod as major of the year for 1971.
I remember 1971 well, Wimbledon was televised, I do not remember the TCC being televised, and both U.S. Open (weakened by pro disputes) and the inaugural
WCT lacked the comprehensive field of Wimbledon. The Aussie Open final was a great showing by Rosewall, but Ken had a bad loss to Newcombe at
Wimbledon.
Newcombe even won a very big final against his nemesis Laver at Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor final.
Laver won the big money that year with the extraordinary TCC event, but that event was a one-timer.
Rosewall had a good year in 1971, and here is an important moment in his career, switching from wood to aluminum racquets during the 1971 U.S. Pro at
Longwood. Longwood itself appears to have switched from grass courts to artificial surface at this time.
Rosewall's opponent in the final here is Drysdale, who had upset no. 1 seed Newcombe in the semi-final.
Longwood. Longwood itself appears to have switched from grass courts to artificial surface at this time.
Rosewall's opponent in the final here is Drysdale, who had upset no. 1 seed Newcombe in the semi-final.
Drob
Hall of Fame
I found your post #4,786 I think it is, and I see that is your basis for this most recent post, which had confused me. I understand what you are saying now. Do you have a list of your No. 1 (w of w/o alternated "best" for pre-War years 1920-39)?
Last edited:
In the premise I anticipated that I considered only Prize money = or > $ 50,000.
Laver won 7 titles in 1971 including TCC + 4 big + London (actually a very good tournament but only $ 30,000) & Hilton Head (47,500 very close to $ 50,000)
Newcombe won 6 titles in 1971, including Wimbly + 4 big + Gstaad ($ 25,000)
Rosewall won 8 titles in 1971, including Dallas + 4 big + Johannesburg * (which I forgot, my mistake ... $ 51,000) + Denver & Newport two minor tournaments that have $ 50,000.
*
NEW YORK TIMES
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, April 16 (UPI)—Ken Rosewall gave an immaculate display of controlled all‐court tennis today to drub fellow Australian Fred Stolle, 6‐4, 6‐0, 6‐4, and win the men's singles title at the $51,000 South African open championships.
It was the second time in few months that the 36‐year‐old Rosewall had won a major title without dropping a set, the other was the Australian open.
Rosewall picked up first prize money of $7,342 and Stolle collected $4,285.
Rosewall completed the tournament for the loss of only 42 games in 18 sets. Nobody was able to extend him.
Stolle, with Rosewall able to handle all but an occasional delivery of his big serve comfortably, simply had no weapon to get into the match. Rosewall outplayed his opponent at the baseline and at the net.
Mrs. Margaret Court and Evonne Goolagong who will contest the all‐Australian women's singles final tomorrow, teamed to beat Brenda Kirk and Laura Rossouw of South Africa, 6‐3, 6‐2, for the doubles
Agree 100%
Drob
Hall of Fame
Rarely does Wimbledon not get the nod. But for '71 TCC; '72 WCT; '73 USO or WCT . . . and maybe for 2019 this fan-fu__ing-fantastic WTF.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Hoodjem
You started this 10 years ago. Do you have any recent revisions to your initial list? If posted, can you direct me to the post # or repost? Thx
I can't argue that much. Which tournament is bigger than Wimbly?
Newcombe won the most prestigious slam without a shadow of a doubt.
I think the most important event was the final won by Ken in Dallas where he defeats Laver again.
I am aware that the TCC was less prestigious and less publicized in 1971 and that it was later forgotten, but I also think that the demonstration of strength of Rod Laver in that event was perhaps the most impressive thing I saw in alltime tennis.
New York: Rosewall 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Rochester: Newcombe 6-4,6-2,4-6,5-7,6-4.
Boston: Roche 7-5,4-6,3-6,7-5,6-1.
Philadelphia: Emerson, 6-2,6-3,7-5.
New York: Ashe 7-5,6-4,7-5.
Detroit: Okker 5-7,5-7,6-2,6-2,6-2.
New York: Ashe 3-6,6-3,6-3,6-4.
Inglewood: Taylor 6-3,7-5,6-2.
New York:Okker 6-1,6-4,6-3.
New York: Ralston 3-6,6-1,6-4,6-3.
New Haven: Emerson 6-3,5-7,6-3,3-6,6-3.
Semifinal, New York:
Laver-Ralston 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Final, New York:
Laver-Okker 7-5,6-2,6-1.
Of the 210.000 $ prize money, Laver got 160.000 $, Okker 20.000 $, and Emerson and Ralston took 15.000 $ each.
Yes drob I had written Rosewall number 1.
I was doubtful then and I am now (but between Laver and Rosewall, not Newk), then I tried to think again about 1971 (the other OE years are clearer to me even in a few years I still have doubts) and I changed my mind at the time (I sometimes get brooding and changing my mind..). It is not definitive, the two are close (even Newk), the judgment depends on how one evaluates Dallas and above all TCC (phenomenal performance or only rich exhibition?)
I'm not competent for everything that happened before the war, I'm sorry.
I think that Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor was not only a national title, but had prize money well above the other WCT events.
Also, Wimbledon was the only event of 1971 which contained a comprehensive field, which is central in evaluating achievement.
Both TCC and WCT lacked a comprehensive field (no Smith, Nastase, Kodes, others), so although Laver and Rosewall had great success with those events, these were not open field successes.
The absence of television broadcasts for TCC also indicates a lesser status, although the money was impressive, Laver's biggest payday.
Last edited:
Only Wimbledon had an open field in 1971, the others were all partial field championships.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Drob,
Not recent.
We started out with some informative and intriguing discussions that seemed headed in the right directions for resolving some problematic years, e.g. 1964, 1971, 1977, 1989.
But, ultimately, they brought about little to no resolution, so participation waned. Alas.
And life intervened . . .
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Maybe you are correct and Laver was the true no. 1 for 1971.
I do wish we could do a (hypothetical) point total for 1971, similar to what I tried to do for 1970 (see here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/1970-an-almost-complete-picture.580228/).
This hypothetical awarding of points would be, I believe, be the most objective way to determine a year-end no. 1.
For 1971 its not true that only Wimbledon had an open field. Some WCT events also had open fields like the Italian Champs, the Berkeley event (best field 1971 outside Wimbledon with Smith, Nastase and Kodes i think) or Stockholm indoor. I think, after new findings, Laver won 8 events in 1971 and something like 85-18 matches.
Last edited:
Of the four majors, or six majors, or however many majors we choose that year, only Wimbledon had an open and comprehensive field.
Berkeley and Stockholm are not usually granted major status.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The TCC is still getting overrated it seems.
@KG1965
These matches...
New York: Rosewall 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Rochester: Newcombe 6-4,6-2,4-6,5-7,6-4.
Boston: Roche 7-5,4-6,3-6,7-5,6-1.
Philadelphia: Emerson, 6-2,6-3,7-5.
New York: Ashe 7-5,6-4,7-5.
Detroit: Okker 5-7,5-7,6-2,6-2,6-2.
New York: Ashe 3-6,6-3,6-3,6-4.
Inglewood: Taylor 6-3,7-5,6-2.
New York:Okker 6-1,6-4,6-3.
New York: Ralston 3-6,6-1,6-4,6-3.
New Haven: Emerson 6-3,5-7,6-3,3-6,6-3.
Were like a series of one night stands played out over a couple of months, it's like it they enlarged the round robin stage of the YEC. Yes that's an impressive list of victories but Laver would have had other tournaments and other losses in that timeframe I'm sure. You didn't even have to win all the matches to qualify for the SF/F. What was the scheduling like for Rod surrounding this matches? What about for his competitors? Did some of them come straight from tournaments to play him - did he? It's a hard event to really judge.
I do wonder if the one match shoot out suited Laver, the best example I can think of is 1964 - I recall from discussions years back that Laver's dominance over Rosewall that year h2h was mostly in one night stand matches. In actual wider tournament play Rosewall was the more consistent performer.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I don't think it's right to put the TCC above Wimbledon in 1971. Even prize money wise the TCC had twice the matches of Wimbledon nearly which is surely the biggest contributor to the higher prize money. In the end the TCC was a throwback to the days of the pro's in terms of format and it didn't last. Maybe for Laver it was a high priority but it's hard to say how much stock the other competitors put into it, especially next to the slams. If you want to count it as a major then go ahead, it's probably fair to include it at least on the level of the modern YEC (though maybe not Dallas in 1971 itself) but I wouldn't put it above the slams.
@KG1965
These matches...
New York: Rosewall 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Rochester: Newcombe 6-4,6-2,4-6,5-7,6-4.
Boston: Roche 7-5,4-6,3-6,7-5,6-1.
Philadelphia: Emerson, 6-2,6-3,7-5.
New York: Ashe 7-5,6-4,7-5.
Detroit: Okker 5-7,5-7,6-2,6-2,6-2.
New York: Ashe 3-6,6-3,6-3,6-4.
Inglewood: Taylor 6-3,7-5,6-2.
New York:Okker 6-1,6-4,6-3.
New York: Ralston 3-6,6-1,6-4,6-3.
New Haven: Emerson 6-3,5-7,6-3,3-6,6-3.
Were like a series of one night stands played out over a couple of months, it's like it they enlarged the round robin stage of the YEC. Yes that's an impressive list of victories but Laver would have had other tournaments and other losses in that timeframe I'm sure. You didn't even have to win all the matches to qualify for the SF/F. What was the scheduling like for Rod surrounding this matches? What about for his competitors? Did some of them come straight from tournaments to play him - did he? It's a hard event to really judge.
I do wonder if the one match shoot out suited Laver, the best example I can think of is 1964 - I recall from discussions years back that Laver's dominance over Rosewall that year h2h was mostly in one night stand matches. In actual wider tournament play Rosewall was the more consistent performer.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I don't think it's right to put the TCC above Wimbledon in 1971. Even prize money wise the TCC had twice the matches of Wimbledon nearly which is surely the biggest contributor to the higher prize money. In the end the TCC was a throwback to the days of the pro's in terms of format and it didn't last. Maybe for Laver it was a high priority but it's hard to say how much stock the other competitors put into it, especially next to the slams. If you want to count it as a major then go ahead, it's probably fair to include it at least on the level of the modern YEC (though maybe not Dallas in 1971 itself) but I wouldn't put it above the slams.
That should now be 52 tournament wins for Hoad on his career.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Most interesting: "8 events." Thanks.
I have 7 titles:
1. Rothman's International, London
2. TCC, MSG, New York
3. Italian Open, Rome
4. Colonial Championships WCT, Fort Worth
5. CBS Classic, Hilton Head
6. Pacific Coast Open, Berkeley
7. Rothman's Open, Bologna
Can you please inform us about the eighth event?
I will give you a hint: Bocage Racquet Club.....
Apart of some WCT events, all the tournaments were open in 1971.
Not sure to have understood this post.
Maybe the term "open" could be misunderstood. I meant, that despite the struggles beween ILTF and WCT, in 1971 we had no completely separate circuits of "contract" and "independent" pros, like in 1972, when only US Open and Los Angeles and maybe one or two other events, were really open to all kind of players. The WCT series and the Grand Prix were two different tournament series. The ILTF Grand Prix events were formally open, but often overlapped with the 20 events of the WCT series. But as noted, top independent players like Smith, Nastase, Kodes or Gorman participated in some WCT tournaments, which extended the normal 32 draws of pure WCT contract players,
All the Grand Prix tournaments were open.
Around a quarter of the WCT tournaments were open, two of them being part of the GP too: Washington and Berkeley.
In 1972 the third Open event was Stockholm
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Of Baton Rouge, LA?
We try..
NEWCOMBE
3 WCT titles x 1000 = 3000
Philadelphia 1250
Wimbly 2500
Gstaad 0
= 6750
ROSEWALL
3 WCT titles x 1000 = 3000
Johannesburg 1000
AO 1000
r/u Berkeley 200
Dallas 2500
= 7700
LAVER
4 WCT titles x 1000 = 4000
London 500
Hilton Head 750
r/u 3 WCT 200 = 600
r/u Philadelphia 250
r/u Dallas 500
= 6600
+ Tennis Champions Classic
if TCC 1000 LAVER ... 7600
if TCC 1200 LAVER ... 7800
The Grand Prix rankings included the WCT results, with Newcombe and Smith finishing the year tied for first place.
However, there was limited cross-play between the two circuits.
Yeah!
borg number one
Legend
It’s interesting that we have 3 players with 5 years each at #1. Thanks.
borg number one
Legend
The Davis Cup results no longer count towards the ATP rankings Urban. Thanks.
“From 2009 to 2015, winning matches in the World Group and the World Group Play-Offs of the Davis Cup gave you ATP Points. Still, they could only be used as one of the aforementioned “best other results.” Since the 2016 edition, ranking points weren’t among the benefits of competing in the Davis Cup.”
https://lastwordontennis.com/2019/10/23/atp-cup-ranking-controversy/
Thanks, Borg Number One. I recall, that several years ago, Federer, when he had a close race with Djokovic was given a slight chance before the YEC to pass Djoker on DC results. So now Nadal has no chance to extend his lead. But this whole points policy by the ATP is quite arbitrary and volatile, i must say.
It is surely designed to give the top players an "out" from Davis Cup play, which is a team tournament, requiring a selfless contribution by the players to their home country.
But most of the top players do not live in their home countries, they already are domiciled in tax havens, so it removes some of the commitment and devotion to Davis Cup play.
What we have now is apparently a transition phase where the Davis Cup is being succeeded by the Laver Cup, which is not organized by country but by region.
But most player development, at least in Canada, is provided by the national tennis organizations, like Tennis Canada, which developed all of the current crop of Canadian players.
And the national tennis bodies are pointed towards Davis Cup, which justifies their public funding. So there is a potential problem here, with the organizations which develop players being deprived of their principal showcase and raison d'etre.
Long term, the demise of Davis Cup will hurt the sport.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Thanks much.
I wonder if the TCC might be analogous to the WTF, where--I believe--each win in the round robin counts for 200 points.
Does it make sense to award 200 points for each preliminary round win?
I would like to clarify a concept.
Whoever wins a title is clear: who wins USO 2019 is Nadal. Point.
Who is the number one is much more complicated because the number one must be decreed by a ranking.
And the ranking must have parameters. And the parameters can be many. Many fans of the past thought it was worth only Wimbledon. Who won at Wimbledon was number one. Many americans thought that whoever won Wimbledon and USO was number one. Many thought that whoever won Wimbledon, USO, French was number one. Now for the majority of fans only 4 slams count. But for some even WTF. For others also the masters1000. For others also h2h. For some also the Davis Cup. For others also Olympic gold.
Mine is a trivial ranking but there could be 100 different ones.
The only currently valid ranking is made by ATP, which is monstrously precise. But almost all the fans do not recognize it because the equation 1 slam = 2 master1000 = 4 Masters 500 = 8 Masters 250 does not like anyone.
What I want to say is that a ranking has too many variables, everyone thinks differently and when there is a ruler (like Laver 69) the problem does not exist, but when 2 or 3 players have close results ... out of 100 different rankings irretrievably. .
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps we are lucky, in that most players who win slams tend also to win lesser tournaments.
I can imagine a (highly unlikely) scenario in which one player wins a slam (and nothing else), a second player wins two masters (and nothing else), another player wins four ATP 500 tournaments (and nothing else), and a fourth different player wins eight ATP 250 tournaments (and nothing else). Each ends up with exactly 2000 points. (I guess it would be decided by accumulation of non-title-winning points. Surely those results would not allow a four-way tie also.)
Maybe it isn't luck, maybe it is reality.
Which newspaper?
