In a European newspaper?
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
Hope he is doing well these days.
I have been giving him plenty of music posts to listen to, hope that he enjoys them.
I know. You both like the classical music. I wrote him a couple of times in the last months. No response. He underwent a heart surgery with some additional complications. I hope not but I suspect the worst.
Sorry to hear it. Let's hope for the best.
Justice Underworld
Rookie
This is a great thread and lots of information on tennis from the beginning.
My version Numbers one years end
7 Gonzalez, Laver
6 Sampras, Federer, 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, Djokovic
5 Kramer
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
It's not bad...with 276 thousand viewers, I think the most for any thread.
(Sorry, the Top 10 thread has 310 thousand.)
Some good posters on this thread.
Last edited:
There is now a good article available on the world championship tours and tournament series. These provide a new perspective on the World No. 1 players for 1946, 1959 and 1964 and years following. The other rankings for those eras which rely upon subjective judgments should now be regarded as of secondary value.
en.wikipedia.org
Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series - Wikipedia
The article seems a bit strange at some points. Some tours are mentioned, others like 1965, 66, 67 are declared as incomplete, but we have a lot of results, to reconstruct them to a great deal. I think, 1965 is better documented than 1964 for instance. Overall, many toure are declared incomplete, although we have many results now and can reconstruct the rankings. Overall it would be imo far more transparent for the pro situation, to get all the match results (of all tours) we have now documented (thanks to No Mercy and the published versions of Chris Jordan), into a filter, to give win-loss record for the leading pros for each year, especially in the 1960s.
I think the point about the 1964-1968 tournament world championship series was that the actual points results were not published or made available to the public. Not sure if this was intentional, perhaps just a lack of public interest.
The article looks at three categories 1) world championship tours or "exhibition" tours, which often pitted the reigning world professional champion against a top amateur player, but which did not create a pro ranking result. 2) tournament point series, which did give an official point ranking result for the field of pros, and 3) "other tours" which were often great tennis, but which did not carry a world championship title with them unlike 1) and 2).
The stats, we have now documented, are better than it appears in the article. We have now a much better overview on the pro situation for each year, mainly due to the researches of No Mercy. In the thread The structure of the old pro tour, is an interview with Gimeno, from 1965, where he gives the points ranking of the 20 tournament series of 1965. Still the systemic problem is, that the tournament series of 17 or 20 tournaments a la 3 round events covered only a third of the playing time for the pros per year (against the same opposition). Laver and Rosewall played in 17 tournaments in 1964 maybe 45 matches. For Laver, the last count i have is 136 matches in 1964, for Rosewall ca. 110. So it would be more transparent, to give all those full documented results and personal records of a given year.
1959 is still difficult to rank. Hoad and Gonzalez are almost pari, in World Series, Ampol series and overall match tours and hth. Gonzalez left this Ampol series before the last tournament (with a fat chance to win it), obviously he didn't think, that the World pro title was at stake. In the overall evaluation its still a very close call.
1959 is still difficult to rank. Hoad and Gonzalez are almost pari, in World Series, Ampol series and overall match tours and hth. Gonzalez left this Ampol series before the last tournament (with a fat chance to win it), obviously he didn't think, that the World pro title was at stake. In the overall evaluation its still a very close call.
Gonzales skipped the final tournament in 1959 knowing that the "world series" (which for 1959 was defined as the Ampol series in Kramer's publications} was indeed at stake, but was possibly tired at the end of a long season. Gonzales had already won the 4-man spring tour "world professional championship" (not to be confused with the year-long "world championship" based on tournaments, the Ampol series). Kramer attempted to persuade Gonzales not to do this, but to no avail. I think that if Gonzales had been confident of success, he would have played the final event, where Kramer pointed out that $10,000 was at stake for the winner of the Kooyong tournament which ended the season. Gonzales ignored Kramer and told the press that he wanted to spend Christmas with his fiancee, which he supposedly decided was more important than $10,000. That was a large amount of money for that season, and decided the year-long money title for Hoad in Gonzales' absence.
The tournament series in the 1960, 1964-68 eras were indeed only a part of the annual season, but they were designated as the world pro championship and that title carried some advertising prestige and clout, although no extra money prize as in 1959. Also, the most important tournaments of the 1964-68 period, U.S. Pro at Longwood and Wembley in London, were included in the tournament points series, so even though some special big money events such as the 1961 Gonzales-Hoad hth series in Britain or the 1965 CBS Dallas tournament on clay were not part of any world championship series, those restricted, invitational style events which were the residue of the old pro two-man series no longer held a world title attached to them. So they were deemed to be of lesser significance, actually of no significance, in the ranking system, although such special events carried the best prize money.
Last edited:
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
There is a lot to chew on going through the list. Interesting having Tilden #1 in 1931, it had been six years since he had been #1. Also, Kovas being tied for #1 a couple of times is interesting as well. Nice to see Larned get a mention. Not sure a lot of people would have considered Laver for #1 for 1970. Makes you want to research some of these seasons.
I take it you mean the list referred to by Timnz ,
World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia
Yes, it has Kovacs as co-No. 1 in two years, corresponding to the official lists.
You mean the list above in Timnz post?
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
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
8. Boca Tournament, Baton Rouge
Actually, Kramer designated the 1959 tournament series as "World Championship Tennis" in his official tour brochure, and it was reported this way in several press comments.
It was also referred to in the brochure and press as "the world series", a term reserved for world championships.
The Ampol points world series was the official ranking system for 1959 and offered a $10,000 payday for winning that final tournament in Kooyong. Gonzales would probably have played if he were well enough rested and thought that he could win.
Last edited:
One aspect, which is new to the long discussion here, is the number of top ten wins of players in a given year. As for the win-loss numbers, we have now more information, maybe still not complete but much more precise than in the past. This is a valuable element for evaluation, especially for the early open era, say the 1970s, when diverse circuits existed like NTL, WCT, ILTF Grand Prix, or Riordan, and top players not always played the best competition. So we get a beter overview on the quality of opposition in a given year. Ultimate Tennis Statistics has the following list for the open era.
1 Laver 35 wins 1969
2 Djokovic 31 2015
3 Laver 28 1968
4 McEnroe 1984
5 Laver 24 1970
Laver 24 1971
Djokovic 24 2012
Djokovic 24 2013
Nadal 24 2013
10 Lendl 22 1985
11 Connors 21 1976
1 Laver 35 wins 1969
2 Djokovic 31 2015
3 Laver 28 1968
4 McEnroe 1984
5 Laver 24 1970
Laver 24 1971
Djokovic 24 2012
Djokovic 24 2013
Nadal 24 2013
10 Lendl 22 1985
11 Connors 21 1976
Last edited:
Pheasant
Legend
Good stuff. Laver had 8 straight years as best in the world, along with an Amateur CYGS, a Pro CYGS, and an Open Era CYGS.
What a beast!! Beat that, Big 3!!
Based on that list, Pancho also was the best player 8 straight years.
It’s great to see players from the earlier eras get their credit. This is some great stuff.
What a beast!! Beat that, Big 3!!
Based on that list, Pancho also was the best player 8 straight years.
It’s great to see players from the earlier eras get their credit. This is some great stuff.
In some of Pancho's years there were other players also ranked No. 1 professional, so it was not as straightforward as that.
For example, Pancho was ranked No. 1 between 1952 to 1961 in various rankings, many of which were not points lists but subjective rankings by the promoters themselves, not by tennis writers.
But the 1952 "ranking" was only in his HOF bio written many years later, not a sourced ranking from 1952 as claimed. In fact, it does not look like that 1952 No. 1 ranking list even existed. I suspect that the June 1953 Players Committee Ranking of the Cleveland tournament, which probably was a 12-month ranking list, was what the HOF bio had in mind as a reference.
Segura was ranked No. 1 professional in 1950, 1951, 1952 by the two professional players organizations of the day, based only on tournament play within the U.S.
Sedgman was ranked No. 1 for 1953 by Philippe Chatrier.
Hoad was ranked No. 1 in 1959 by Kramer's points list, by Kramer's manager of operations in Australia, and by two sports writers.
Rosewall was ranked No. 1 for 1960 by sports writers several years later in 1966.
Rosewall was ranked No. 1 for 1961 by l'Equipe magazine.
The only contemporary rankings lists which named Kramer as No. 1 were in 1946, 1947, and 1948. The rest were rather vague references mostly from many years later which failed to identify any sources.
Last edited:
In the pre-1968 era when the top professionals played mostly among themselves in smaller fields, almost every match was against a top ten player. Those were tough schedules.
