Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
Krosero provided the proof as I showed above, that Hoad won the world title.
Dan, Anderson referred only to the tournament tour whereas Kramer gave his overall 1959 official rankings where Hoad is ranked fourth. Get serious finally!
Bobby, I do not disagree with that...but that is a separate point.
The official ranking is from the tour results, with Hoad at number one, Gonzales second, Rosewall third, Sedgman fourth.
Kramer, in giving his list of personal choices for the best players, rated Hoad number 4 behind these others..no doubt an attempt to goad Hoad to sign a contract for the winter/spring tour.
Dan, You are confused: we discussed 1964, not 1959!
702Hollywood, As easily as you could pick a No.1 for every year, as easily could other experts pick another player as No.1 as I have learnt in this forum and also with good arguments...
Bobby, check the "Season with most achievement" thread for Krosero's research on 1959.
Dan, You will not understand: I referred to the evidence you required from krosero for the 1964 tour and I answered that krosero has already provided much evidence that there was an official world rankings in 1964. Then you answered someting about the 1959 tour. Don't mix these two matters. I got and get furious that you ignore all that huge information krosero has reported about the 1964 tour (not the 1959 tour). It's really difficult to seriously discuss with you since you change the subject very often and since you invent permanently new claims without reason.
Dan, you've missed something in one of the links I gave which you re-posted the other day: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vJ4UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Rq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7083,356521
Hoad will not challenge Gonzales for the world title this year as he plans a long rest from the game.
The 1960 world series starts in America in a few weeks and will end in Australia in April or May.
So it does seem that even though Hoad won the Ampol world series, the Kramer organization still regarded Gonzalez as holding the "world title."
If you notice, at the start of the article Hoad is said to have become "crowned the new world professional tournament champion." That qualifier, "tournament", may be significant. Hoad's series, after all, was made up of tournaments only. Gonzalez' series had been all one-night stands.
There's a wrinkle to all this, however. The Ampol series, when it began, had no qualifier attached to it. The series was described earlier in the year simply as a way to determine the world champion. When Ampol announced the creation of the series in January 1959, this was the report:
Search for world’s best tennis star
Ampol Petroleum will give a £2,500 award, plus a trophy, to the acknowledged world's best tennis player, this year.
Managing Director of Ampol (Mr. W. G. Walkley) announced this last week saying that the award will be adjudged from players who competed in 11 international tournaments each year.
Mr. Walkley said that the award would be known as the “Ampol Open”. It was his hope that in the near future tournaments would be permitted between leading amateurs and professional tennis players.
The report on Sept. 23, 1959 at http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593 again had no qualifiers:
WORLD TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP
The world's open tennis championship will be played in Australia at the end of this year.
Jack Kramer's troupe of seeded professionals — now playing in Europe—will wind up their 1959 points-score in five Australian Tournaments beginning in late November.
The Ampol Tournament of Champions—a five-day battle for a £5,000 prize—will be staged in Sydney between November 29 and December 6.
Points scored in this tournament will count in the overall points-score for the Ampol Trophy—a yearly award with a £2,500 cash prize.
Lew Hoad, Australia’s Davis Cup champion, leads the professionals' 1959 points-score with a tally of 35 points.
Pancho Gonzales, the United States 'tiger', runs second with 32 points. He was only one point behind Hoad when he withdrew from the troupe on the eve of its European tour.
Next in points are two Australians — Frank Sedgman, 26, and Ken Rosewall, 25.
Tony Trabert beat Sedgman in the final of the Paris tournament last week, but is still three points behind him with 23.
The Ampol Trophy has solved one of the pressing problems of professional tennis, namely the seeding of players for tournaments.
Points are allocated for each tournament, as follows: 1st, 7 points; 2nd, 4 points; 3rd, 3 points; 4th, 2 points; equal 5th and 6th, 1 point each.
There is the additional incentive to each player of the £2,500 Ampol Trophy prize for the player leading at the end of each calendar year.
Kramer's Australian manager, Mr. Bob Barnes, said in Sydney yesterday, that he had negotiated success fully with the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia for the Sydney Tournament to be staged at White City.
The troupe will open up its Australian tour at Brisbane on November 26, 27, 28.
Other tournaments will be staged in Perth on December 8, 9, 10, and in Adelaide, December 12, 14 and 15.
The world series will wind up at Kooyong, Melbourne, with a six-day finale between December 26 and January 2.
Nevertheless I think it's significant that the final report, when the series was over on January 2, 1960, described Gonzalez as still holding the "world title." And that was in an Aussie newspaper.
I'm not sure what happened but we could speculate a little. Maybe the Ampol series began with ambitions of becoming the new format by which the sport would, on a yearly basis, determine its top player; but by the end of the year Kramer went back to the old H2H series with Gonzalez defending the "world title", while Hoad was left with a modified title of "world tournament champion."
That's just speculation, but we do know that Ampol's original plan of having an annual tournament series did not occur. There were no more tournament series giving out ranking points until 1964 (as far as I can tell), and that one was formed by Kramer and the pros themselves rather than by Ampol. For whatever reasons, Ampol's experiment never produced another tournament series beyond the one in '59, won by Hoad.
I don't think that any of this necessarily lessens the importance of the series, however. As you know I am not a fan of deciding a tour's importance based on its technical titles; I'd rather look at the substantive features of the tour. And I've said before that the Ampol series was an improvement over the old H2H tours. Gonzalez in the H2H tour faced Hoad and two rookies, and no one else, with no tournaments involved; Hoad, in the Ampol series, was playing Gonzalez and all the other pros in the troupe (ie, the "entire field"), in tournaments offering big prize money, many of them at important sites (Forest Hills, Wembley, Roland Garros, Kooyong). I'm not sure that we, judging by our own standards, need to regard Hoad's achievement in '59 as lesser than Gonzalez's merely because Hoad's title carried the qualified phrase, "tournament champion".
But I would have to say that strictly speaking, it looks like by the standards of the time Gonzalez was still acknowledged by the Kramer organization as the overall world champion even after Hoad won his world series.
Krosero found evidence of a points system, but, strangely, no evidence of an official WORLD title. Nor did he find evidence of a money prize or award of any kind for this 1964 tour.
Krosero found abundant evidence to support the 1959 tour as an official world championship.
Krosero, I think that you may have misunderstood the context...."the 1960 world series" means just that, the world championship for 1960, played until May of 1960.
The writer was thinking of the Ampol series as a world title for 1959, not 1960. The Ampol tour is also referred to here as a "world series", the same language used for the 1960 tour.
I don't see the necessity of your point here. There were two formats for the world championship, and Hoad held the most recent. Kramer was planning another tournament series for 1960, but scrapped the plans in April when Gonzales withdrew.
No, there is no contradiction between the earlier claims of the Ampol being a "world championship" and the final statement that Hoad was "CROWNED as the NEW world professional tournament champion", the words "crowned" and "new" indicating the same force as the earlier statements.
I think that the January statement is actually weaker than the later statements, because it simply refers to "the acknowledged world's best tennis player", which does not require a formal world title.
The September report refers to the "world's open championship" in more formal terms, and as a "world series".
"Open" in the sense that it involved all of the top pros.
True, there were two different formats in these world titles, one a round-robin 4 man, the other a series of tournaments with all the pros involved competing.
But both formats claimed to be world championships, and had Kramer's sanction to that effect.
Kramer had virtually no choice but to accept the Ampol plan, which offered enormous money to all twelve of his pro players, and major venues.
Kramer's odd rankings, with Hoad placed 4th, I think indicates his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Ampol world championship.
Hoad was not Kramer's type of player, and Hoad had played below form in the European Grand Prix. Although Gonzales had not even shown up in Europe, Hoad's lack of effort, perhaps resting his back, was not to Kramer's liking.
The obvious answer for 1964 was that it wasn't for the World Championship therefore you can't find evidence.
The obvious answer for 1959 was that it was for the World Champioship so you can find plenty of evidence.
My thoughts were exactly along those lines.
I already just recently got a statement from one of the members of the that 130 Day 1964 Tour and it was very very clear from him that the tour wasn't from the World Championship. The article by Buchholz was simply misunderstood that led to some posters to conclude that it was a World Championship Tour.
I have a hunch if I got statements from all the living members of that tour that it wasn't a World Championship tour there would still be a disagreement on this. LOL.
130 days is only 4 months, leaving 8 months for the other events...if there was so much riding on those 4 months, you would expect major advertising or press statements..Krosero found none. Case closed.
It's a huge reward to win the World Championship. Someone has to take note of that.
Some posters have made some errors in the past on statements. For example I once posted that I ranked Laver, Tilden, Gonzlez (I think it was those players but it doesn't matter for this) ahead of another great player. One poster wrote that it's pretty good that I ranked his favorite number four. He assumed I ranked his favorite number four when in actuality I ranked several other players also ahead of his favorite. I think this is what happened here. There were too many assumptions made.
Dan, You are again wrong. krosero did not find evidence of a point system as that system was official in 1964 itself, reported by Buchholz in early 1965 and published by Joe McCauley in 2000. krosero did find many (MANY) reports additionally to the 130 days tour outside of the Buchholz article that stated Rosewall being the undisputed No.1 in 1964. I blame you and others for ignoring all those reports and findings by krosero!!!
We did not ignore them, Bobby, but those reports did not give the 1964 tour the title of world championship...just a technicality? No, more than that, we need to see evidence.
Dan, We should take Butch's "130 days" with a grain of salt as the tournament tour actually lasted from May to October, described by Buchholz himself
The case was closed long before you started to post in this forum as virtually all experts ranked Rosewall No.1 and Joe has brought the list already in 2000!
Dan, You need a few weeks of holidays in order to better reflect these matters...
Again, Bobby, this is not a question of who was no.1, but of whether or not the 1964 tour was officially labelled a world championship tour...two different questions, which should not be confused.
You could make a good argument for Rosewall at no. 1 that year without the tour being labelled a world championship.
Experts also say Laver was number one from 1964 to 1970 also as in this summary of Laver's career. Do we necessary believe it or do we analyze the results?
What about here?
What about here?
Here's a quote from Laver in his autobiography which states he took over as number one in late 1964.
https://books.google.com/books?id=m...v=onepage&q=1964 rod laver number one&f=false
Interesting that the Tennis Hall of Fame has him as #1 in 1964 AND 1970.
My point is this. Just because the Tennis Hall of Fame ranks him number one in 1964 and 1970 doesn't necessarily make it so although it is interesting as you wrote. I do think Laver was number one in 1964 and 1970 if you examine the record which frankly a lot of tennis experts did not in those days.
All this stuff about experts ranking Rosewall as number one in 1964 may be true but I'm sure some at least ranked Laver number one in 1964. I saw an article that Don Budge called Laver number one in 1964. Does that make it true? Not necessarily.
I believe all the important stats indicate Laver is number one in 1964. The only thing that would have gotten in the way was the 130 Day tour and whether it was a World Championship Tour. If it was a World Championship Tour I would think I would rank Rosewall number one however I know that it wasn't a World Championship Tour in 1964. There is no proof of it despite what some posters write. Too many assumptions about the Buchholz article. You cannot assume things and you know what they say when you assume.
Some have indicated Rosewall was possible number one or co-number one for 16 years! Do we have to prove that he wasn't? I think he was number one for two years in 1962 and 1963.
Dan,The label (or not label) of the tour is a secondary question. Deciding is the fact that the man who won the 130 days tour was acknowledged as the No.1 player and the POY!! Buchholz' words are totally clear for any serious reader. He wrote that "Rosewall again won the tour" (meaning as in 1963 and maybe earlier) and he described that tour detailed, mentioning all 17 tournaments and he three times wrote that Rosewall was the No.1 in 1964, once even "unquestionably". What else do you need??????????
You are nearing truth with your last sentence: Rosewall was acknowledged the No.1 player in any case, independent of if and how the big tour was labelled.
NatF, I guess you mean Laver. Here I must stress that HOF, just as ATP and Wikipedia, uses to make some errors.
Interesting that Rosewall is called the 1964 No.1 at most experts of that time and even later, see McCauley. Interesting also that Rosewall was ranked ahead of Laver in 1970 by virtually all contemporary experts. Muscles even was rated POY at the Martini & Rosso panel, in front of Laver and Newcombe.
Sure it's not proof to me or anything like that, just interesting.
In retrospect I find Laver had the superior years to Rosewall, experts be damned
Thing is that you have more info than they had years ago. And frankly they didn't do systemstic logical comparisons in those days. It was generally opinion. I could have an opinion that Wilt Chamberlain was shorter than Muggsy Bogues but I'd be wrong. In tennis I'm as correct as anyone.
Dan, I understood your argument per this post that you made a few days ago:
And that is not true, because Gonzalez was referred to as "world champion" throughout the 1960 series. At the opener in San Francisco the press referred to him as "World Champion," and they continued to do so throughout the series.
That indicates at the very least that the Kramer organization considered Gonzalez still to be the overall world champion; the fact that even the Aussie newspaper on January 2 had referred to him that way strongly suggests that there was agreement about this. That's why it seems that Hoad was regarded as holding a title ("tournament champion") separate from Gonzalez's title.
They had to make some kind of distinction between Gonzalez and Hoad, when you think about it. The same organization (the Kramer organization in this case) could not officially call both of them "world champion."
It is important HOW the tour was labelled, whether or not there was an official title, that is a separate question from who we think was number one, and a different argument.
Krosero, the press of the two continents differs. The AMERICAN press referred to Gonzales as world champion, referring to the 1959 4-man tour as his credentials...the AUSTRALIAN press was obviously more familiar with the details of the Ampol tour of 1959, thus used the terms "world championship" and "world series" to refer to the Ampol tour.
Is there any indication that the American press was familiar with the details of the Ampol world championship? If not, then that could explain the continued use of the term"world champion" for Gonzales.
The Australian press quote does not refer to Gonzales as "world champion", but rather says that Hoad would not challenge for the 1960 world title or "world series".
The term "world series" is used to refer to both the 1959 Ampol tour and the 1960 world title tour in May. Obviously, Hoad had already challenged Gonzales for the 1959 Ampol world series, and won.
It is clear that Ampol was intent on continuing the 1959 format in years ahead, but Kramer appears to have cancelled the plans in April of 1960, when Gonzales refused to participate.
No, there cannot be two world champions simultaneously, and I don't think that the Australian press intended that meaning at all, thus the phrase that Hoad was "CROWNED the NEW world tournament champion" implies a succession of world title from Gonzales to Hoad.
I do not see how you could read that differently.
When you talk about BobbyOne making incorrect assumptions about the Buchholz article you're forgetting that Bobby read the article exactly as Joe McCauley did. Per your own post from last week you said that McCauley incorrectly assumed the Buchholz tour to be a championship tour and therefore he took Buchholz's rankings from the tour and made them rankings for the entire year.
All of your emphasis on what one poster has or has not done makes it seems as if he was the first, and the only one, to read Buchholz's article that way. The first to read it that way was McCauley, so your argument really should be, not about why BobbyOne is wrong, but about why McCauley was wrong to read Buchholz's article that way. Didn't your interview with the player shed any light on that?
McCauley and Buchholz both wrote articles for World Tennis and may even have done so during the same years, so it's quite possible that McCauley, when he wrote his book years later, still knew how to get in touch with Buchholz, if he had any important question at all about his article.
And McCauley was a witness to the events of '64 in his own right so he may have known of other reasons to read Buchholz's article as he did. Perhaps he recalled that Rosewall ended 1964 officially as #1 per the pros' own ranking system and that he was called "world champion" well into 1965, as I've documented.
Why do you think that McCauley read the article as he did?
Krosero, the point is not whether Rosewall was regarded as the number one player for 1964, although that is an important issue, but rather did the 1964 tour get official billing and advertising as a world championship tour, in the same sense as the two tours in 1959?
Dan, I am not inclined to theories that the press of one nation was entirely unaware of something as momentous as Gonzalez having been dethroned from the world title that he'd held for so long. If you remember, I researched the entire 1960 world series in detail and saw news reports for every stand: nowhere did anyone say or even hint that Gonzalez had been dethroned. No one says that his title was snatched away from him by Hoad and that now he was working to get it back. That was true of the American press, and the European press when the tour stopped there, and even the Australian press when the troupe arrived there, at the end of the '60 series.
The American press was not unaware of what Gonzalez had done in the tournament series, and the journalists who knew the most about him (and about tennis) would surely have said that Gonzalez no longer held his title, if that had been the case.
Moreover, everyone in the press would have asked Kramer, and the players themselves, what the actual situation was. If Gonzalez no longer was acknowledged by the Kramer group as holding his world title, then Kramer and the players themselves did a great job of hiding it.
Is there any indication that the American press was even aware of the Ampol tour and its extent and claims to be a "world series" or "world championship"? I have not seen any indication that the American press was aware of it.
Of course, the term Hoad "was CROWNED the NEW world tournament champion" implies a succession of title from Gonzales to Hoad, which is also implied by using the term "world series" to refer to both the 1960 world tour AND the 1959 Ampol tour.
The use of "world series" for both establishes an equivalence of meaning.
Perhaps you could prove me wrong by showing some discussion of the Ampol tour in the American press...I have not seen any mention of the 1959 Ampol world series in the American press.
Of course, Anderson published the Ampol results in World Tennis, claiming that it determined the world number one for 1959. So the players were not "hiding" anything.
I think that Kramer himself was not excited about the Ampol tour results, so perhaps that should be factored into the understanding.
I don't know but he was. Does it make any difference? A question I would have is whether Bobby had any influence in the matter.
By the way I never meant that he was the first and only. Remember I also wrote it can be easily misinterpreted.
And this is just false.
It matters because it would open up a conversation about the details of the ranking system; about the details of how championship tours were defined back then; the details about a hundred things. You surely learned some details, in your interview, that would help to clarify those points.
And I utterly reject your insinuation about Bobby. Let's talk about historical matters and historical details, rather than about people.
Unless I miscounted it's 16 separate years.
That's 9 years! 9 separate, individual years.
1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972. My mistake, it's 15 years and he said it was when Rosewall was the best player. The only year missing is Laver's Grand Slam Year in 1969.
Frankly nine years is too much also.
At least 15, by this count...including the "some streaks" years...at least 15 here, if you include 1959, where Bobby claims a possible "co-number 1" for Rosewall.
He made two separate lists, which you are now collapsing into one. The first list was Rosewall as possible year-end number one. The second list was when he was the best player of the year during part of the year ("in streaks").
You clearly were talking about year-end rankings because you talked about Rosewall being year-end number one, for you, in 1962 and '63:
Nine years is still too much.
Perhaps PC1's "possible number one" is inclusive of "some streaks".
You can argue Federer was number one in streaks for a while too. What about Nalbanian? He's number one in streaks and often a dominating number one in those streaks. Tom Okker has been number one in streaks. Vilas also as well as many others.
Yes it is. Bobby was using that "some streak" terms to push Rosewall. Hoad has been number one in many years in streaks including many of his amateur years. Wouldn't you agree Dan? I think whenever a player wins a majors that player is number one in streaks. Marion Bartoli was number one in streaks when she won Wimbledon. Heck whenever a player wins a tier 1000 tournament that player is number one in streaks. Michael Chang won two consecutive tier 1000 tournaments so he was number one in streaks.
Krosero, I have just reviewed your superb research on the 1959 Ampol tour, and I do not see any in-depth coverage in the American press, just a brief reference in the L.A. Times.
That is vastly different from the Australian press coverage, which uses much different terms to describe the Ampol series, such as "world open championship" (Ampol was hoping to include the amateurs in the concept at some stage) and "world series".
Yes, I have certainly pointed to Hoad's hot streaks in 1961, 1962, 1963 1964 as indicating a high level of play, better than anyone.
So in streaks we can probably argue Hoad was number one in some amateur years and many pro years like in 1959 also. That's a lot of years.
Yes, and Hoad was only consistently great in a fairly brief window from 1956 to 1960.
Separate names with a comma.