WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    No, Krosero has not supported your claim that this tour was everything in determing the number one player, and the issue of a formal declaration is a major issue...what was the prize for winning this tour? A handshake? Prize money? A title? Nothing?
    These are central questions associated with a formally designated tour.
     
  2. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    What DID Rosewall get for winning this tour? A cup? A letter of commendation? Nothing?
     
  3. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,258
    Based on the data that I'm aware of, it is clear that Laver was the #1 player for 1964. Laver leads Rosewall in every material respect. Exactly when Laver overtook Rosewall for the #1 position in 1964 would require an analysis of the full win/loss records and, in particular, the dates that they occurred which I don't have, and an assumption about whether the ranking should be based on the calendar year statistics or a rolling 52 week record. However, as of now, I have seen no reasonable basis to conclude anything other than that Laver was #1 and Rosewall was, at best, #2.
     
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    Do we have the final prize money totals for the top pros in 1964?
    Really, this might be the most significant final determinant for the number one that year, pro tennis that year was about money.

    It was different in 1959, when the pros played in major venues which carried tremendous prestige apart from money.
    In 1964, the pros were no longer playing in major venues.
     
  5. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,258
    Dan, what is the purpose of this thread? As I see it, it is to re-examine the formerly considered #1 players, year by year, based on criteria and hindsight that may not have been previously available. Prize money is just one of the criteria that can be looked at. But, since there was no official ranking system, I don't see how any one criteria, or any one event or tour, can be considered conclusive.

    However, what would be most interesting to me would be an attempt to apply the current point system (which I consider to be the best, most reasonable, most objective and equitable ranking effort to date), to years past, similar to what I what I did for 1970 between Laver, Newcombe and Rosewall.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2016
  6. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,579
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Is it really about the money Dan or is it about the accomplishments? Laver was the leading money winner by a huge margin in 1971 with $292,717 but I'm not sure if his tournament record was enough. He won possibly the toughest tournament of all time in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic and the Italian Open among his titles. Newcombe won a little over $100K but won Wimbledon and four other tournaments. Stan Smith won six tournaments plus the US Open.

    In retrospect I would probably think Laver's record may have been the best if you include the Tennis Champions Classic and Italian but they didn't judge it that way in those days. Probably not the smartest thing on their part. However if you judge by monetary earning alone, Laver was NOT almost three times better than Newcombe.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, And yet the winner of the 1959 tour was NOT automatically the clear POY! There were two tours. In 1964 there only was one tour.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, krosero has brought countless quotes of magazines and newspapers that show Rosewall was the acknowledged No.1 for 1964. Read his many posts!
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, We all don't know if he got money for winning the tour. But we all at least know that he won the certainty of being the NO.1. Not too bad for a player, I would say...
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Limpin, Firstly, Rosewall at best, was only No.4 in 1964. Laver, Pancho and Ayala finished above him.

    To be serious: It's totally irrelevant what You are thinking about the rankings in 1964. Relevant were only the players, the experts and the journalists who judged at that time.

    Yu are right that Laver edged out Rosewall in several points but you can't ignore that Rosewall won the tour which was modelled for determining the No.1 player. Thus: there were two No.1 players that year, as also were in 1970 (that year possible even three, including Newcombe).

    Have you already reflected about when you will apologize and correct you wrong claims? Go ahead! Thruth does not hurt!!
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, We don't know the exact prize money list. But we know (thanks to krosero) that Rosewall was the No.1 prize money earner in 1964. Convincing for you??
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Limpinhitter, You err again (probably for the 87th time...): There yet was an official ranking system, see Joe McCauley's book, page 235.

    Get serious and withdraw your mean lie. As long as you don't you will be considered in this forum one of the worst liars...
     
  13. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,579
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    The ranking system was based on the assumption that was incorrect that the 1964 130 Day Tour was for the World Championship. It was incorrect therefore Joe's ranking information was incorrect. Joe's information about the Pro Rankings was just a statement of the final standings of the 1964 130 Day Pro Tour. This is what Joe thought was official. Key word there was thought.

    I think if Joe received this information that the 1964 130 Day Tour was not for the World Championship, he would have changed it in his book. In fact I have almost no doubt about that.
     
    Dan Lobb, Limpinhitter and NatF like this.
  14. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,739
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    In general, one would think if the premise is false, then it is difficult for the conclusion to be true.
     
    Dan Lobb and pc1 like this.
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    hoodjem, You are right. Most of Limpin's premises are false and absurd and have been disproved by several posters...
     
  16. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    PC1, McCauley reproduced his rankings directly from the Buchholz article, but there was also the report from Nice, France, which I've posted a number of times, which had Rosewall ranked ahead of Laver officially at year-end:

    Laver Takes Second in Pro Net Rankings

    NICE, France--UPI--Rod Laver of Australia finished in second place in the 1964 world professional tennis rankings when he beat Spain's Andres Gimeno 6-4, 6-3, in the final of the Nice Professional Tennis Tourney last night.

    Ken Rosewall finished the season in first place ahead of Laver and Gimeno is officially ranked third.​

    That ranking of Rosewall, in turn, is supported by numerous articles in early '65 (as early as January and as late as May), stating that Rosewall was still ahead of Laver (one of these was a piece in World Tennis itself). Then there's the New York Times report from July 1965 stating that Rosewall had been number one "since 1961 until Laver went ahead of him this year."

    None of these reports, from the Nice report at the end of '64 all the way through the newspaper reports in May 1965, depend on any assumption about the 130 day tour being a championship tour: they all simply reported what the pro rankings were. We don't know the exact number of points earned by each player toward his ranking (those numbers appear to be lost), but we know the ranking order.

    (By the way if these reports in WT and the media did depend on an assumption that the 130 Day tour rankings were official rankings for the entire year, that would be really interesting because it would mean that the people of the time period, including tennis-knowledgeable folks at World Tennis, treated the 130 Day tour as if its rankings determined the overall #1 player for the year; in other words they'd be treating the 130 day tour like a championship tour.)

    I've found the exact rankings, by the way, at year-end 1963, as given by the pro body itself (International Professional Tennis Players Association), along with exact figures of prize money won in '63. I'll post that article a little later.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2016
    treblings likes this.
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    The winner in 1959 was officially designated the world champion...that is why I have been pressing you to show evidence that something similar happened in 1964.
    In the 1964 tour was there any award for winning the tour, a plaque or cup, a major money prize, even an award ceremony? Apparently not.
     
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    You are not answering my question, just another sidestep...what was the prize for winning the 1964 tour?
     
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    What was the prize for winning the tour? This is an important issue, otherwise, if there was no reward for winning, the tour becomes an irrelevancy.
     
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    Krosero, the figures are apparently available for 1963, when Trabert was the business manager...Trabert retired at the end of 1963, and then we have what looks like chaos for the 1964 records and tour statistics.
    What evidence do we have of an award ceremony at Nice for the 1964 tour, what prize was awarded to Rosewall?
     
  21. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    We need to know the overall prize money for the year, and how much was given for winning the 1964 tour.
    We know exactly how much the winner received for winning the 1959 tour, a huge bonus prize of about $200,000 in today's dollars.
     
  22. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    So this was the United Press report giving out the '63 rankings (Jan. 7, 1964):

    Globetrotting Rosewall Rules Pro Net World

    SYDNEY—UPI—The International Professional Tennis Players Association has voted Australia’s Ken Rosewall world professional player of 1963.

    The 27 year old Rosewall won 47 of the 62 matches he contested during the year in the United States and Canada in addition to winning major professional championships in Paris and London during his European tour.

    The association also announced that Australia’s Rod Laver, who turned professional at the conclusion of the 1962 Davis Cup challenge round against Mexico, is the top money winner among touring professionals with $60,000.

    Rosewall was second on the list with $45,000 from eight months of touring, two months less than Laver.

    Earl Buchholz of St. Louis, Mo., won $30,000 in nine months touring; Andres Gimeno of Barcelona, Spain, $25,000 in eight months, and Australia’s Lew Hoad, $20,000 from seven months.

    The association said the 14 touring pros grossed $350,000 during last year’s tour which took in the United States, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan. After expenses the players divided approximately $250,000 among them.​

    The '63 rankings were mentioned again in this press report on May 12, 1964, previewing the College Park tournament, which is usually thought of as the opening tournament of the "130 Day Tour":

    Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Andres Gimeno and Earl Buchholz, ranked in that order among the world’s professional tennis players for 1963, were seeded in that sequence for the Indoor Championship.​

    Another reference to the '63 rankings in this report from April 3, 1964:

    Professional stars from five nations will compete in a $10,000 tennis tournament here June 9-14, but the promoters have yet to line up a suitable site….

    Ken Rosewall of Australia, recognized as the No. 1 pro, will head a field of 12 players. Earl (Butch) Buchholz Jr. will be the St. Louis hope.

    Rod Laver, who finished second to Rosewall in each of the two 1963 tours, will be another of five Australians entered….

    Buchholz finished third to Rosewall and Laver on one of last year’s tours and fourth on the other, in which Gimeno was third.​
     
  23. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,579
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Dan,

    If you look at the price money from 1963 it's clear Laver was the leading money winner but Rosewall is the clear number one player. Price money is a prestigious achievement in some sports like Golf but it's not always the end all. I recall Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus once entered this tiny tiny golf tournament at the end of one year because they were both battling to be the leading money winner.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    krosero, We don't know if the tour was labelled and how it was labelled. Deciding for all of us must be that the 17 tournament tour was at least AS IMPORTANT as a world championship tour would be because it was the ONLY tour and the only parameter to determining the ranking and final standings. And, as you earlier told, the tour even included the pro majors and all bigger events.

    By the way, I'm rather sure that Rosewall finished with 78 points and Laver with 67 points (if my assumption is right that it was a 17 tournament tour).

    My only problem is that the Nice report gives Gimeno as third whereas Buchholz/McCauley give Gonzalez as third and Gimeno as fourth, slightly behind Pancho.
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Who was officially designated the world champion, Pancho or Lew??? There were two official world championship tours!!!
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, 23 Dollars.
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Such a big tour can never be as irrelevant as your curious questions and claims are!
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, You will never learn to divide off key points from lesser points.
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    krosero, Thanks for the 1963 and 1964 data. There is a mistake. Rosewall was not 27 in 1963. Actually he was 28/29.
     
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    I wonder what effect Laver's rookie status made for the 1963 money list...Laver had a contract guarantee for money winnings...also Laver looked good against Rosewall in the big money Australian tour which began the year.
     
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    What mention was there of an official world title at the Nice event, or an awards ceremony, or a money prize for winning the 1964 tour?
     
  32. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    Bobby, the two tours did not take place in December of 1959...
     
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    If there was no award or prize or title for winning the tour, the tour becomes an irrelevancy, nothing separate from the rest of the year.
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Of course Laver profited from gaining his guarantee sum.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Please ask krosero as it was him who brought the Nice information.
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, I'm sorry (and maybe not intelligent enough) but I don't understand your next funny statement...
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Then you must call Butch Buchholz, Ken Rosewall, Joe McCauley, the journalists from World of Tennis annuals, the several journalists from World Tennis, from the Nice and Holland newspapers and so on, krosero and me "true village idiots"....
     
  38. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    No, Bobby, I do not use that type of language, it is below my dignity.
    Let us say that we have a difference of opinion. I see no evidence of an award or trophy or money prize for that 1964 tour.
     
  39. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    We are discussing two different world championship tours, which were not simultaneous...so I see no problem with your question, one tour followed the other.
     
  40. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,258
    In my view, the winner of that tour was just that, the winner of that tour. Not necessarily the #1 player of the entire pro circuit at the time, nor the #1 player for the the entire year of 1964.

    Based on the actual data available to us: total matches won, match winning percentage, total events won, so called pro majors won, and the H2H record of 15-4 (which you have pointed out might actually be 18-5), all in favor of Laver over Rosewall, if the New York Times, World Tennis Magazine or any other so called expert declaimed that the winner of that tour was the #1 player for the entire year of 1964, then, in my view, that would be no different than similar so called experts declaiming that either Newcombe or Rosewall was the #1 player for 1970 when, as I have demonstrated in another thread, Laver dominated both of them, and had much more extensive achievements than they did, by far, in 1970.

    Again, isn't the purpose of this thread to re-examine the rankings of the best players (which were all unofficial until 1970), based on currently available information and hindsight? Or, is this just an exercise in blindly accepting and re-asserting the obviously unsupported, unofficial opinions of so called experts?
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Okay you don't use insulting words. But in fact your ignorance of all those many reports about Rosewall No.1 in 1964, provided by Buchholz, Rosewall, krosero and others (including me) does de facto mean all of them must be village idiots. Thanks for this your estimation...
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Funny Dan, Both tours were played in ONE year and I asked you who was the world champion in 1959, Pancho and Lew, and you cannot answer this question!
     
  43. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,669
    Now the head to head in 1964 for Laver-Rosewall remains 15-4. Joe McCauley gave a margin of 12-3. He wrote,p. 126: "However in head-to-head-conflicts there was no doubt, who the master was. The pair met 15 times and on 12 occasions Laver emerged the victor". Later Andrew Tas added 4 more matches on the New Zealand tour.
    I had that discussion about 1964 (and other pro years as well) with Carlo Colussi and Jeffrey Neave around 2003 or so, even before Andrew Tas edited his numbers. I had thought that is was a very close and unclear affair, when some 20 years ago, i read an article in the 1965 (for 1964) Yearbook of the Encyclopedia Americana, where Allison Danzig ranked both Rosewall and Laver at the top of the pros.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Hi Limpin, I now learn that all the experts of 1964 and 1965 were so-called experts while you are a true expert (maybe the only tennis expert at all). I'm glad to learn that from you.

    You still don't realize that the "so-called" experts and players of 1964/65 and 1970 had different criteria than you have: They followed parameters of that time, for 1964 the big tournament tour (the only big tour of 1964) and the importance of the GS tournaments in 1970.

    Just like Dan regarding 1964 you are convinced that Tingay, McCauley and Collins (!!!) were village idiots (one of your favourite terms in 2012, by tzhe way!!) because they ranked Laver No.3 and No.4 respectively! It's disgusting...

    However, at least we can say that Tingay, Joe and Bud were not liars as you are..
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    We need to evaluate the importance of the championship tours, some were significant and gave an added importance to the events. The 1964 tour appears to be almost invisible.
     
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    No, they are just giving their individual opinions about rankings, which they are entitled to do...I am entitled to disagree.
     
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    There were two world championships, one followed the other...you must exercise your judgment and decide which player had the better year....ties do not count.
     
  48. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    I was using Tas as a source for the NZ tour, so if those matches are already in the total, then 15-4 is a better number.
     
  49. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,579
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    It was really one World Championship Tour I believe in 1959. The other World Championship Tour I believe started on January 28th of 1960. Gonzalez won that over Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo fairly easily. The tour ended in May.
     
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    There were two world championship tours in 1959, according to the media coverage...the tournament series was officially labelled a world championship by Kramer.
    The 1959 tournament series ended on January 2, 1960, so from that date until May 1960, Hoad was officially the world champion.
     

Share This Page