Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
You may be asking for the impossible.
Based on what? To my recollection, Cliff Richey was the official #1 of the Grand Prix Tour for 1970.
According to who?
Flash, You are right with your statements.
I guess that that "mysterious" player is either Alex Olmedo or Luis Ayala who finished at the last two places in the final rankings of the tour...
Why would one tour outweigh the so called "pro major" champion, the total event champion, and the h2h champion, 15-4 against Rosewall?
It's funny. I was thinking that I should have kept the information about the 1964 130 Day Tour to myself so I wouldn't have to see this happen again. I think I'll keep information like this to myself next time and just be amused when some posters discuss a particular topic.
Some can deny the Earth revolves around the Sun but that's a fact. You can deny anything but the truth is there.
Dan, I confess I cannot stand your kind of thinking anymore.
Has Borg or Djokovic ever claimed that he was the No.1 in any year? Why should Rosewall???
krosero and I just trust Butch Buchholz who reported the big tour detailed and did claim that the tour was the championship tour even if not calling it that way. Buchholz wrote three times, every time in different wording, that Rosewall was the 1964 No.1 player of the world. Where is the "problem" for you, Limpinhitter and others??? I believe you have not read Butch's article at all. So your judgement is thus the more absurd.
The World of Tennis annuals which I possess, 1969 to 1978 (covering the years 1968 to 1977), all state that Rosewall was the No.1 in 1964 ("Laver took over in 1965"). These yearbooks were and are widely acknowledged as serious sources.
You err that Gonzalez and Hoad were excluded from the consideration. Gonzalez finished 3rd and Hoad finished 6th in that series. Hoad was far away from a top place as he gained only about 28 points while winner Rosewall gained probably 78 points (Laver probably 67, Gonzalez about 50).
ultradr, You are right. But even since there was an official ranking system established, in some years it's doubtful who was the true No.1 (see 1977 where Connors was the official No.1 whereas Borg and Vilas both have a reasonable claim for the top spot).
ultradr, Your numbers seem to be influenced by myself ;-) . I think you took that information from Wikipedia.
Dan, Who was No.1 in 1977?
Is someone is creating bogus Wikipedia pages to influence public opinion?
Limpin, Thought that Laver was the clear No.1. Now Richey was??
Limpin, BECAUSE Rosewall won the tour which was designed to determine the No.1 player. Learn history!
Limpin, Everybody can contribute to Wikpedia. By the way, I never wrote anything there (Guess you assume it)...
Limpinhitter, It's you who tries to influence public opinion (this forum) by creating bogus numbers and data. When will you correct your wrong numbers in the Laver thread????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
We want to see the manager of the 1964 tour itself, one Kenneth R. Rosewall, come forward IN 1964, and say, "the world champion for this year is ME, based on success in a 17-tournament series with points assigned"...I am still waiting to see that.
I want to hear Buchholz and Rosewall IN 1964 describe the 17-tourney series as a world championship tour....still waiting.
PC1, I think that you would accept that 1964 world tour as a world championship IF Rosewall and the tour had billed it as such at the time.
I'm simply questioning why co-#1's are listed for Gonzalez's 8 YE#1's but not listed with Laver's 7.
They both are from non-official ranking era, why co#1's not excluded for Gonzalez cases?
Dan, You will wait forever for such a statement which would be a stupid one. Note: Muscles is not a stupid man...
It's senseless to discuss further with you.
Of course. But as I wrote, the players knew it wasn't a World Championship Tour. It was just another tour with many tournaments. Like I wrote, the article, written by Butch Buchholz can be misleading to some if you don't read it carefully. A person could easily jump to conclusions. This paragraph is particular deceptive to some---"With the exception of only Laver, all of us are married and have one or more children. It is hard to leave home for a period as long as 130 days, but there are two very good reasons for doing so. First, there is a lot of money to be made in these four months, and second, most of us feel we are young enough, strong enough and talented enough to improve and become the number one player."
If you notice the paragraph does NOT say that the tour winner was to become number one. It says the money came first (seems like it's always that way, isn't it?) and it was a way for them to help them improve to perhaps become number one in the fut ure.
The other potentially confusing thing is the paragraph on Ken Rosewall---"It is impossible not to admire Ken Rosewall. He is a great player and a fine athlete and keeps himself in perfect condition. He is the No. 1 player in the world, but he asks for no special privileges. He is the treasury of our Association and as such he handles all the money, writes all the letters and figures out the percentages after each match. This work occupies a lot of his free time; his only motive in doing so is to help the Association."
Notice here Buchholz mentions that Rosewall was the number one player in the world which is of course correct, at that moment. However it does NOT say he was number one because of the tour nor does Buchholz write that Rosewall or anyone else would have become number one if they won the tour.
The rest of the article is describing players and discussing some of the matches.
I do not see anything that says that the winner would be the champion of 1964. I think Buchholz would have mentioned that clearly since it is rather important.
I continue to be flabbergasted that people don't want to believe the information I posted and the extent of it. In the meantime here's some more facts some can deny--1. Santa Claus is not real 2. the Earth is the third planet from the Sun 3. Former heavyweight champion sells George Foreman sells Grills and has made a ton of money doing it 4. John McEnroe plays tennis with his left hand. 5. Djokovic plays tennis with his right hand.
Have fun fighting over this. I am going to do something more exciting, like doing a thousand pages of paperwork and cutting my toenails. Oh joy!
To think that Vilas was so close to be the ending year world number one in 1975. I´m not sure, but maybe not playing Stockholm would have been enough to have the best average at the end of the season.
It's simple. People knew more in 1964, about everything.
Seriously, from what I have read here and elsewhere it seems pretty clear that at the end of the year the #1 spot was clearly to Laver.
Gary, Then I must suppose that you have difficulties to read a text exactly. You seem to confuse pseudo-experts with official reports from a participating member of the 1964 world tour. As earlier told, Buchholz immediately after the big tour gave a description of it in World Tennis (have you read that article in World Tennis, January, 1965?) where he states three times (!) that Rosewall was the No.1 player of the world in 1964. I just wonder how you can claim that Laver was. In which book or magazine or newspaper have you read that? Please inform us!
Bobby, I have already explained that, and I think that you already know the answer...Rosewal was the tour manager, responsible for public statements and advertising, he HAD to make a public statement about the status of the world tournament series, whether or not it was an official world championship.
The fact that Rosewall did not clarify the status of this tour is very confusing and puzzling, and we need to see something from 1964 from Rosewall on this issue.
Bobby, you know my methodology...the Big Match of the Year determines the POY...for 1977, that would be the Wimbledon final, hands down.
Bobby, Rosewall in 1964 was responsible for making such a statement, that was his job, to clarify the status of the world championship...let's hear what he actually said.
Dan, End of the discussion.
In other words, Rosewall was silent...sorry, that does not help us come to a conclusion. It was Rosewall's job to clarify the status of that big tour....still waiting.
Of couse there were experts who ranked Laver Nr. 1 for 1964. Gene Scott was one of them, i recently found it in his book. Tennis- Game of Motion, p. 86, when he is discussing Rosewall's career. As said, the situation of the pro ranking in 1964 is still unclear. I saw newspaper reports which seem to include the Austrialian tournaments begin 1964 in the pro World Championships, and reports of begin 1965 indicate, that Laver "maintained his edge" over Rosewall in the Australian tournaments. Someone- i think Carlo Colussi - told me, that Buchholz wrote in his cited World Tennis article, that Laver "might be" Nr. 1 under a Play off System. In contrast to some posters here think, we Germans are quite familiar with Koniunctivus optativus and Irrealis, and "might" is imo optativus, not irrealis "would".
I read just fine, thank you. You are confusing an honest difference of opinion with illiteracy.
I personally believe that H2H is more or less a tie-breaker. As good as Rosewall was - and I think he was a magnificent player and very close to Laver - I think Laver was better in that year.
Thanks for your answer. My issue is more focused on why the result of this tour does not wheight heavily in identifying the wolrd n°1 player of the year, if similar tour which were officialy acknowledged as a way of identifying the n°1 player of the year have been used in previous years'
I mean, if 128 players go play at Wimbledon, according to the entry and seeding system of the official Wimbledon tournament, but this tournament is not run by the official tournament, I think we would all agree that the player who won the thing won an event as prestigious as Wimbledon, with a level of competition as fierce as Wimbledon, and it would weight heavily in order to identify the n°1 player.
But think, you've already rescued one unsuspecting soul from being duped into the false meme that Laver and Rosewall were co #1's in 1964. Ya done good!
urban, Thanks for your contribution.
I'm rather sceptical regarding Gene Scott. Firstly he was not familiar with the pro scene and secondly he was an opponent of them. As told Buchholz reported directly after the tour; others talk about it many years afterwards.
At least I'm glad you think there was a pro World Championship (unlike to other posters).
Buchholz wrote "Laver might be..." but he also wrote he WAS NOT. Rosewall was, as Butch wrote three times in that article.
Your grammatic lesson cannot really contribute to our "problem" which of course is no problem at all.
Gary, You cannot give a hint where you have read about Laver No.1 in 1964. By the way, I don't think you are illiterate...
Flash, Reasonable logic. It's not deciding how the tour was called. It's deciding that the participants did know (from the first day onwards) that the winner of it was the pro king of the year. Rosewall, Laver, and the other six players knew it, and Buchholz wrote it several times.
Limpin, It's just my own opinion that Rosewall and Laver deserve a tied No.1 place. As far as I know I was the first one to argue that way many years ago. Before most or all experts rated Rosewall as the lone No.1.
So far, I haven't seen any reasonable basis to conclude that Rosewall was any better than #2 for 1964.
Limpin, Then you have not read the many posts where krosero and I have given information.
I've read about these guys many times over the years. I don't lose any sleep over whether Rosewall or Laver was a better player in 1964, but it does seem to me that rankings in those days was a total mess. So there is always room for discussion.
Because new information keeps coming to light I think it makes sense to continue to reexamine the situation. When examining two players who are otherwise pretty close I think H2H becomes important. How much importance?
No two people are going to agree.
I'm content to leave it at that.
Flash, yes, there were many tours that were known as championship tours, but there was no universal agreement about what that meant, or about how much weight to give them. There was universal agreement that they counted for a lot, which is what you're saying, and that's true. But exact agreement beyond that was scarce. The winter tour of '61 (a H2H tour) was called a championship tour, and Gonzalez won it; but L'Equipe magazine gave Rosewall the top ranking at the end of the year; and the World of Tennis yearbooks wrote that "Rosewall took over from Gonzales as pro champion at end-1950s"; all of which shows that there was no universal assent given to the H2H tours as deciding, above all else, who the top player was.
And as I've noted before, Wembley Pro, US Pro, French Pro and Forest Hills Pro called themselves, in various years, the world pro championship -- which title they could not have claimed, to any effective degree, if everyone universally understood that the reigning pro was already determined in the championship H2H tour.
PC1 and I have had a long-running debate about how to define championship tours, and this debate about '64 is only a part of that.
So, the only universal agreement is that all tours and tournaments with top competition counted for a lot. And whatever the 130 day tour of 1964 was, we know that in the end Rosewall's results for '64 were widely, almost universally, regarded as giving him the top spot for '64.
Buchholz's article was written almost at the end of '64 and covers all of Rosewall's and Laver's activity for the year. He calls Rosewall the unquestioned world champion, but if there's any question about the timing, there are many reports from '65 which STILL refer to Rosewall as the reigning world champion.
Sydney Morning Herald of January 24, 1965:
The “Old Master,” Pancho Gonzales, produced some of the best tennis of his 15-year professional career to win the N.S.W. title at White City last night.
Gonzales, 36, beat the current world champion, Ken Rosewall, in the final last night.
The New York Times of April 29, 1965:
Rosewall has dominated the pros since 1961, but Laver, who accomplished the grand slam as an amateur in 1962, is now challenging him for the leadership.
The Daily Independent Journal of May 18, 1965, previewing the LA Masters:
Rosewall, third-seeded player for the tourney, is currently the world’s defending champion tennis pro.
Denton Record-Chronicle of May 28, 1965:
By the time the [‘63] tour hit the U.S., the guess was that Laver would be either in a sanitarium or have gone back to raising kangaroos.
Rod Laver, instead, gradually became the world’s No. 2 player. This year, he should be No. 1. He trounced Gonzales in New York recently—not the feat it was 10 years ago but not a racket-spin, either.
Interesting that some of the language used to describe Rosewall in mid-'65, ie, "world's defending champion tennis pro," is the same language that was used for him in early '64, when he was still, as none of us doubt, the top pro, based on what he'd done in '63. One newspaper in May '64 called Rosewall "the defending world champion."
But leaving titles aside, obviously Rosewall's results on the '64 tour -- whatever the tour may have been called -- were regarded as giving him the top spot over Laver.
And of course, there was an official points ranking system, and we know that at the end of the season Rosewall finished with more points than Laver and was ranked #1.
@pc1, I am not trying to question the trustworthiness of the player you contacted. He told you the 130 day tour was not a championship tour and I accept that. But the devil is in the details here. Rosewall didn't do very much beyond the 130 day tour; his winning of that tour is the only possible way that he could be named #1 for the year, back then. Even if the 130 day tour carried no formal designation as a world championship tour (the way that the old H2H tours did), obviously the 130 day tour was nevertheless seen as hugely important back then (and must have offered the most ranking points), and I have no doubt the player you spoke with would agree with that.
The formal title (or non-title) of the 130 day tour can't take us far in determining what the tour was actually worth: the only thing that can do that is the specifics of the tour. That's why I wonder if you could share with us what specific details of the 130 day tour you talked about and which ones, in the player's view, made the 130 day tour not a championship tour.
krosero, Thanks for your reflections. Thanks also for the newspapers' quotings that I did not know (probably most readers did not know).
Yes, we all agree that Rosewall was the top pro in 1963/early 1964 - with the only possible exception of Limpinhitter who still has doubts that Rosewall was a No.1 player at any time...
I would like to add a further point why Rosewall deserves at least a tied No.1 place. He did not win the long tour very clearly but yet with an about ten points edge ahead of Laver. That means that Laver would not have won the tour if he had won an additional tournament (and Rosewall had lost that event in the first round).
Gary, The new information about the 1964 tour is coming from a player who judges the tour some 51 years after it was played. Buchholz' contemporary article seems much more believable.
Dan, I once more read the Buchholz article. Butch wrote that Rosewall was the treasurer of the pros' organisation. I don't know if he was responsible for public statements. The organisation's name was IPTA and founded in 1962.
EDIT: I must correct myself: Buchholz called Rosewall the 1964 No.1 not three times. He actually called him that way four times in that article.
I have no argument with that, except to say that it is incumbent upon Rosewall as director of the tour to make that argument AT THE TIME IN 1964....but he did not, and therefore your question is moot.
Rosewall was apparently responsible, taking over from Trabert.
Dan, Are you sure that Rosewall was the director of the tour? Are you sure that he (or another person) has not published the tour's result?
Separate names with a comma.