Bobby, Rosewall entered 1964 at number one due to the 1963 championship tour, there was NO championship tour in 1964...that leaves the possibility of choosing Laver as the best player of 1964, nothing you have shown us challenges that.
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
In other words, McKay finished near the bottom...just as I have been saying.
Not an insinuation, a mere observation, that designated world championship tours draw the best efforts from the players. No one doubts that.
No, Bobby, that tour was not designated a world championship tour, so we have to look at the most prominent tournaments to decide the number one...Laver by a wide margin.
No, he appears to have clarified that the 1964 tour was definitely NOT a world championship event...that does not conflict with his earlier articles, which you have apparently misunderstood.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Dan, no. I think I stated clearly that I have mostly paid attention to Open tennis and to the really major players of the previous pro era. And I said clearly that I know almost nothing about MacKay. That's why I was asking. I didn't know whether he had retired, or semi-retired.
You have to understand that things are so partisan here that I often feel as if I am in the middle of a civil war.
I think it was this way here long before I ever posted.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Tennis player that was the best hockey player? That's tough. You would think Drobny because he was offered a NHL contract and did super on the Olympics.Gonzales in a street fight. Or maybe Ion Tiriac
and of course there will always be Tony "2Ton" Trabert
which tennis player was the best ice hockey player?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
This is what I mean by a "civil war". I see a reasonably close year, and I see that a couple of experts from that time differed on who they thought was #1. I personally would definitely give Laver the edge at this time, based on what I know.
But the way you guys argue it is like being caught in political fight between supporters of Trump and Clinton.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Just post what you want or just read the forum and don't post at all. You don't have to get involved. Don't worry about it.This is what I mean by a "civil war". I see a reasonably close year, and I see that a couple of experts from that time differed on who they thought was #1. I personally would definitely give Laver the edge at this time, based on what I know.
But the way you guys argue it is like being caught in political fight between supporters of Trump and Clinton.
Dan, Note: not all pro majors had only three rounds! MacKay beat first-class players like Gimeno and Buchholz in those majors to reach the QFs.
Thanks, Gary. I just can say: English language-a strange language... ;-)
treblings, Yes, Tiriac also played ice-hockey (maybe there he learnt some nasty behaviour). Fred (Fredi) Huber became very popular in Europe. Yes, he played ice-hockey (a goalie) for the Carinthian club KAC. There he learnt to jump and to throw himself on the ground. Thus his always red shirts and shorts when playing on clay like Boris Becker at the net...
Huber and Hans Redl (only one arm after WW2) played together very well at Wmbledon and won a set from Hoad/Rosewall...
Dan, "Nothing" means in your mind: A World Tennis article written by Butch Buchholz, five times a Buchholz statement that Rosewall won the deciding tour and finished No.1, several newspaper clippings (thanks krosero) from 1965 stating that Rosewall was the No.1 player in 1964 and early 1965, about TEN World of Tennis yearbooks where it's written that Rosewall was No.1 from 1960 to 1964, Joe's book and, last but not least, a confession made by a not unknown player in 1965 that he still was No.2. His name: Rod Laver (maybe you have heard of his name already). Not enough, troll??
Troll, Your permanent brain-loopings don't impress me longer. MacKay finished behind four first-class players: Rosewall, Laver, Buchholz and Gimeno...
Dan, You will not lose your label "troll" with such posts. Have you watched the 1964 deciding tour??
Troll Dan, Are you really sure there was no world championship tour in 1964? It would be better you would trust the 1964 Buchholz more than the 2016 Buchholz who recently spoke 52 years after the tour. The essence of his 1964 article was clearly: it was a tour with the weight of a world championship tour!
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
It is a strange construction, and I asked a friend of mine who is a translator what is going on. It took us a few minutes to figure this out:
He was not the best, any more than Emerson was the best.
It should really have a comma.
But also:
He was not the best, any more than Emerson was the best...
He was no more the best than Emerson was [the best]...
Now, I'm 1000 times better going from German to English than English to German, but something like this:
Er war/waere eben so wenig Der Beste als.....
Dan, Note: I'm not an idiot! I'm able to understand an English written article of World tennis. Buchholz formulated in a clear and non-sophisticated language! Do you even think that serious poster, krosero, a man who understands English at least as good as you do, and a man who is neither a Rosewall fanatic nor a Bobby's lackey, has MISUNDERSTOOD the Buchholz article. Really?? Thern it#s a shame!
At the most Butch recently said that the tour was NOT LABELLED as a world championship tour (which could actually be), but even here I have some doubts. I rather assume that he answered a question that was not a deciding one, such as "Butch, was the 130 day tour a world championship?" (it actually was NOT) or similary. Again: you should trust more a "contemporary Buchholz" of 1964 who participated a few days before he wrote the report article, more than a Buchholz who was asked 52 (sic) years post festum!!!
Dan, no. I think I stated clearly that I have mostly paid attention to Open tennis and to the really major players of the previous pro era. And I said clearly that I know almost nothing about Buchholz. That's why I was asking. I didn't know whether he had retired, or semi-retired.
You have to understand that things are so partisan here that I often feel as if I am in the middle of a civil war.
I think it was this way here long before I ever posted.
Gary, Now you unfortunately confused MacKay with Buchholz. The latter was significantly stronger than Mackay as he somewhat succeeded even in open era.
Last edited:
This is what I mean by a "civil war". I see a reasonably close year, and I see that a couple of experts from that time differed on who they thought was #1. I personally would definitely give Laver the edge at this time, based on what I know.
But the way you guys argue it is like being caught in political fight between supporters of Trump and Clinton.
Gary, I doubt that any experts in 1964/early 1965 claimed that Laver was the 1964 king. As far as I know all experts favoured Rosewall.
I concede that urban once wrote that Allison Danzig gave a split No.1 place to both players. But I have not yet seen that report.
Again please differentiate between the contemporary judgments and the modern judgements. The main discussion went and goes about what in 1964/65 was said about the rankings. And that is clear: All said Rosewall was the No.1 player.
I'm a "Danzig man" and give Laver and Rosewall together the top spot because Rosewall won the deciding and official tour.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Fixed. I was working earlier and my attention was divided. Yes, I was talking about MacKay, and that I know very little about him. However, Buchholz is also mostly just a name to me. I do not ever recall seeing either of these guys play. I do recognize their names.
Gary, Thanks. Now I really understand. I'm glad, Buchholz did not use any difficult formulations in his article...
Gary, MacKay had a tremendous serve and he once beat world champion, Rosewall, at Vienna in the SFs by a score of 6-3, 0-6, 6-4. He lost to Gonzalez in the final in straight sets. It was Barry's only win over Rosewall though, as far as I know...
Buchholz has beaten Rosewall at least 13 times (but lost at least 67 encounters). Butch also had a great serve and an excellent volley.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I don't recall using those exact words, but if I did, they were a poor choice.
Right now we have three men whose place in history is not yet fixed, and already we have insane, partisan arguments about each.
Djokovic is expected to go on winning slams for years and surpass Fed's 17. (I do not think this is likely.)
Nadal was expected to make a run at 17 just a few years ago, and of course that now appears all but impossible.
Finally, Fed was expected to add more slams to his 17. That has not happened.
But we can look right now at the partisans, and how they deliberately skew things in favor of their favorites. Fed fans claim he is clearly the best ever, of course ignoring his H2H against Nadal and his relatively early decline. One of the arguments for GOAT candidates is continuing to be extremely competitive against the next generation. Federer only succeeds partially at this, and I say that as a fan of his tennis.
Nadal fans declare him at least the best of this era, hands down, in spite of various weaknesses on surfaces other than clay.
And Djokovic fans are already declaring him the best of this era and best of all time. With this I absolutely do not agree.
But I can see good arguments for all three players being very high on the list of best players in tennis history.
For similar reasons I see strengths and weaknesses in the records of Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver, but all three seem to be clearly the best of the best for well over a decade both because of their peak play and also their ability to continue to win against younger players after their primes. So I would put all three on any list of greatest players. I don't feel a need to order that list, unlike most.
I do not think that Laver, at any time, totally owned Rosewall. At his peak I do believe he dominated the H2H against Rosewall, although not by a huge margin. And Gonzales had an amazing H2H against both Laver and Rosewall, still winning sometimes way past his peak. Peaks are important to me, being able to utterly dominate when "zoned", so it is normal to think about that.
But the biggest problem in the hole in which these older, great players played in - hole in that so much was hidden, and they got so little credit until the Open era - is assigning value to all tournaments.
Today someone can say that Fed's win over Djokovic at Cincy in 2015 - I hope I am remembering right - is just as important as his losses to Djokovic in majors, or that Fed/Novak were 1/1 in last year's WTF because Fed won in earlier rounds. But today we simply look at the ranking of the tournaments, add up the points, and the result is the ranking.
There was nothing like that in the early 60s, as you very well know.
And to me that's where the trouble lies.
One writer from that period assigns huge weight to the co-called "pro majors", and another assigns more weight to other tournaments. Different writers evaluate the H2H differently. For instance, today one person will talk about the H2H between Nadal and Fed as if the tally is the end of it, claiming Fed was killed by Nadal. The next will break it down by surface and will talk about how many times Nadal was not around to challenge on grass and hard courts. So people argue about surfaces, timing, age when the matches are played, and so on.
But today in the end most arguments are settled with weeks at #1 and wins in tournaments.
In the 60s it was a giant mess.
You apparently are weighting certain tournaments in 1964 as more important than others. Using this method wins in certain matches would get far more points than other wins. I don't know exactly what tournaments you are doing this with, nor do I know what tournaments other people are using to argue against you.
All I see is an endless vicious cycle with name calling, and it is endlessly frustrating to me because I only care about the history. I came here to learn more, and that is precisely why I have been disgusted.
I would be interested to read it.
No. That is not clear to me yet. What is clear to me is that there were people in the 60s who agree with you, and there are also modern writers (more modern at least) who argue convincingly for Rosewall to get far more credit.
One such writer is this guy, Robert Geist
http://www.woodtennis.com/rosewall/rosewall.txt
I think he argues very well for more respect for Rosewall. But I do not know much about him, nor do I know if he is well-respected.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
duplicate post
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Oh dear...
Time to end this discussion.
Time to end this discussion.
Buchholz gave your idea the thumbs down...enough said.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
There is another side to this analysis. Newcombe thought that Gimenez might have stifled his own progress by turning pro too early. According to Newcombe (unlike Laver, Hoad or Rosewall), Gimenez turned pro before getting enough experience in tournament play and winning amateur championships.
As for Segura, he was a brutal competitor. If they had used today's ranking system, it would not surprise me if he had 100 or more weeks at #1 for his career.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Duplicate. The forum software is acting up.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That pretty much sums it up. And I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if Emerson had joined the pros, he too would have upped his game more. With Emerson I think there was not doubt about talent, but he stayed in the small pond, then when he finally got into the big one, it was too late.
Gary, Thanks for your interesting and reasonable thoughts.
In the 1964 tour the 8 (or more) man tournaments were more important than the 4 man tournaments.
The problem in the discussion that makes you frustrated is that some (only a few) posters ignore or distort the authentic and clear Buchholz report.
All contemporary sources say that Rosewall was the No.1 player.
Robert Geist is an acknowledged tennis historian, as far as I know.
EDIT: Sorry for the duplicates! Is it my old computer or my own old age? Gary, Thanks for your interesting and reasonable thoughts.
In the 1964 tour the 8 (or more) man tournaments were more important than the 4 man tournaments.
The problem in the discussion that makes you frustrated is that some (only a few) posters ignore or distort the authentic and clear Buchholz report.
All contemporary sources say that Rosewall was the No.1 player.
Robert Geist is an acknowledged tennis historian, as far as I know.
Last edited:
Deleted post
Last edited:
Deleted post
Last edited:
Deleted post
Last edited:
Gary, Thanks for your interesting and reasonable thoughts.
In the 1964 tour the 8 (or more) man tournaments were more important than the 4 man tournaments.
The problem in the discussion that makes you frustrated is that some (only a few) posters ignore or distort the authentic and clear Buchholz report.
All contemporary sources say that Rosewall was the No.1 player.
Robert Geist is an acknowledged tennis historian, as far as I know.
EDIT: Sorry for all that mess. I hardly can post anymore with my old laptop...
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
No. My frustration is from posters who continue to repeat the same talking points with no changing facts.
I would like to see all the tournaments in 64 listed that Rosewall or Laver won, then I would like to see those tournaments discussed as to which are most important. I don't think that list is agreed upon.
Even today there are strong debates about the importance of the WTF. Some people put more importance on it than just the points. Others say stick to the points only. People even argue about which slam is more important and whether or not the points awarded for each slam correctly reflect their importance. But in the end the points win, and #1 "is what it is".
I get nowhere watching you tell Limpinhitter, every day, that he is wrong, while he tells you, every day, that you are wrong.
That's the frustration.
People talk about the number of tournaments won by Laver and Rosewall in 64 then proceed to ignore some of them or reduce the weight of them according to a logic I do not understand.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
duplicate
Dan, Buchholz did NOT change his mind since his article 52 years ago! Get real!
Deleted post
Last edited:
Dan, Buchholz did NOT change his mind since his article 52 years ago! Get real!
Dan, It's not my idea at all. It's history reported by Buchholz and others. Get real, troll!
Deleted post
Last edited:
Dan, Buchholz did NOT change his mind since his article 52 years ago! Get real!
Dan, It's not my idea at all. It's history reported by Buchholz and others. Get real, troll!
Dan, A wrong opinion stays a wrong opinion even when repeated several times.
Deleted post
Last edited:
Dan, Buchholz did NOT change his mind since his article 52 years ago! Get real!
Dan, It's not my idea at all. It's history reported by Buchholz and others. Get real, troll!
Dan, A wrong opinion stays a wrong opinion even when repeated several times.
EDIT: I will stop now posting. Hope it will work again later. I apologize for that mess!
Last edited:
Limpin, Who is Gimenez? A Spanish cyclist? How is his first name?
Limpin, Who is Gimenez? A Spanish cyclist? How is his first name?
Limpin, Who is Gimenez? A Spanish cyclist? How is his first name?
That pretty much sums it up. And I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if Emerson had joined the pros, he too would have upped his game more. With Emerson I think there was not doubt about talent, but he stayed in the small pond, then when he finally got into the big one, it was too late.
Gary, I'm sure that Emerson by far was not as talented as Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Segura, Sedgman were. He was more of a Cooper or Olmedo.
Emmo once said to Hoad "Mate, I'm not in your class"...
That pretty much sums it up. And I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if Emerson had joined the pros, he too would have upped his game more. With Emerson I think there was not doubt about talent, but he stayed in the small pond, then when he finally got into the big one, it was too late.
Gary, I'm sure that Emerson by far was not as talented as Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Segura, Sedgman were. He was more of a Cooper or Olmedo.
Emmo once said to Hoad "Mate, I'm not in your class"...
