treblings, Now you have hit the point perfectly. Some ( de facto only three posters) try to re-write tennis history in order to push their darling. It's disgusting.
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
treblings, Now you have hit the point perfectly. Some ( de facto only three posters) try to re-write tennis history in order to push their darling. It's disgusting.
LImpinhitter, It's YOU. Just only YOU (and one or two fellow posters).
What was re-written?? The fact that Buchholz and Laver (and several other sources) stated that Rosewall was the 1964 No.1 player of the world because he won the official pro tour that year. I don't think that Buchholz or Laver thought that Emerson or Stolle were better than the pro king, Rosewall.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
It seems that someone is so desperate to re-write history in order to improve Rosewall's legacy, at the expense of Laver's legacy, that he pretends that there is no distinction between the rankings for the 130 day tour and the rankings for the year of 1964 for which there were no official rankings.
In any event, the fact remains that Laver had the best year in 1964 and deserves the #1 ranking.
In any event, the fact remains that Laver had the best year in 1964 and deserves the #1 ranking.
Limpin, Rosewall does not need any improvement as he won more majors than any other male player.
You again refer to a "130 day tour" even though krosero and I have explained to you that the 130 days were just the European and South African parts of the big tour. The U.S. part of the tour (the first part) comprised 55 days. So together it was 185 days!
If you had understood Buchholz's words in his article you would know that there actually was no distinction between the rankings of the long tournament tour of 18 important tournaments (as we now know: the Wembley Golden Racquet must be included) and the rankings for the whole year 1964! You should read again the whole Buchholz article in order to end your wrong claims!
The "Buchholz rankings" were official ones as they were surely sanctioned by the pro association! Otherwise other participants, especially Laver, would have protested aginst the crystal clear article! Don't you think??
Regarding "desperate": I'm not desperate in one sense but yet desperate in another sense. Let me explain, Limpin: I'm not desperate in a sense that I would need to re-write tennis history (as you and your few friends seem to need ) because I like it to disprove wrong and silly arguments by answering with right and convincing arguments. I like to disprove absurd claims and I can say that I seem to succeed every day in this respect when answering your and Dan's bizarre "arguments".I'm a bit proud that I was able to disprove all of your wrong claims and wrong data.
But on the other hand I'm yet desperate to a certain degree. In my long life (67 years) I have experienced dozens or hundreds persons with wrong and/or silly arguments but you actually provide a new dimension of absurd and abstruse writing. Therefore I got a bit tired to reject your (and Dan's) absurdities day after day and week after week...
But believe me, Limpinhitter: TRUTH WILL PREVAIL. I hope very soon...
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
The truth remains that, looking at all of the data in retrospect, Laver had the best year in 1964 and deserves the #1 ranking. Ignoring all of the data and cherry picking and intentionally mischaracterizing the 130 day tour as a world championship tour, or more ridiculous, the "deciding" tour, is dishonest and disingenuous.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter: Disingenuous are only you and that even to an amount I have not experienced by any other poster in this forum: Sorry, but I must yet come back to your very mean and obnoxious lie which you made in order to present me as a moron ("Rosewall 40 open era majors")!
It's you who makes cherry picking quoting all (excellent) Laver achievements but intentionally ignoring the great Rosewall feat of winning the official pro tour that was modelled by IPTPA in order to create a serious tournament series for determining the pro champion.
Laver won in several categories but failed in the most important (similary to 1970 and 1971). That's a fact, my friend.
As you still mention a "130 day tour", I only can assume that you cannot read exactly or think properly. It's a shame!
Nobody will understand why the term "deciding tour" (Buchholz wrote in that sense) is ridiculous. You must have a very special kind of humour...
It's a pity that you apparently failed to read your own quote...there is nothing there to indicate that Rosewall's number one status was related to the 1964 tour...just your imagination again acting up.
Rosewall achieved number one from his 1963 tour.
Yes, PC1 disproved your claims about Buchholz...the sooner you acknowledge this, you can move on to more productive discussions.
Bobby, as much as it pains me, I find myself in agreement with you about something.
The old world pro titles were decided by a small 4-man elite tour, with intensive hth confrontations...like the 1964 NZ tour.
That is more impressive to me as a tour.
treblings
Hall of Fame
you make a good point about primitive record-keeping in the pre-computer days.
do you believe that they did indeed have official rankings for 1964?
was Buchholz ranking that he gave in his article official but later changed because of missing results?
do you think that Buchholz was aware when he gave his ranking, that there were still results missing?
treblings
Hall of Fame
i believe my posts are specific and clear enough
treblings
Hall of Fame
here´s another quote from the article that i´ve posted before: "Rosewall again won the tour, edging out Rod Laver" Buchholz was talking about the 1964 tour
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I frankly doubt if Buchholz was 100% sure of the rankings. He is an intelligent person. Do you think anyone would give Rosewall number one if they had all the stats we have today and if the World Tour wasn't a World Championship Tour. And we do know he knew at the time it wasn't a World Championship Tour.
Don't forget that Roy Emerson didn't even know he led in majors won until someone told him!! Stats weren't as easy to find then as they are now.
As you know, according to the article the reseeded every three weeks? Does that mean it was based on the previous three weeks results or the whole tour? Seedings as you know in those days were based not on formulas but on opinions. This was a bit ahead of the times in reseeding probably by results every three weeks. I'm would guess the initial seedings were done on opinion however.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Neither one of you are necessarily wrong. Remember the fact is that the 1964 Tour wasn't a World Championship Tour. This is according to Butch Buchholz in 2016.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
And in reading the article it's very clear that if a person reads it carefully with total objectivity that there is no mention it was a World Championship Tour. I can easily see the article misinterpreted if a person doesn't read it carefully. If read carefully a person knows it wasn't a World Championship Tour. In fact if read carefully it's obvious that it wasn't. When the author of the article says it wasn't a World Championship Tour, well I think a person should believe it. This article would not hold up in court, legal or tennis as a World Championship Tour!
Yes it was an official tour. But that's it. There have been lots of official tours but most aren't World Championship Tours.
Last edited:
treblings
Hall of Fame
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying for sure but that's is my best guess because people in general weren't aware of stats to that extent in 1964.
Think about it.
Laver won 1 more tournament that year.
Laver won two Pro Majors to one for Rosewall
Laver was 81-27 for the year
Rosewall was 69-30 for the year
Laver defeated Rosewall 15 of 19 for the year.
Laver won 7 important tournaments for the year according to Laver in his book
Rosewall won 7 important tournaments for the year according to Bobby.
So where is Rosewall ahead if the Tour wasn't a World Championship Tour?
Would you or anyone put Rosewall number one based on this information?
Would Buchholz or any intelligent objective individual give the number one for 1964 to Rosewall based on this?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
What's he going to say? That Laver or Rosewall was number one? Even then it's just an opinion. We know Laver wrote in print he was number one that year. When you write that you've taken over as number one that sounds official.
Dan, You are right: The Buchholz quotings ("Rosewall No.1) refer only to Ken's grandious seasons in 1951 and 1980, not to 1964!
Dan, There is no productive discussion with you and your friends.
treblings, The Buchholz rankings (in his article) were official ones. Butch did not miss any results.
treblings, I fear we will not be able to convince stubborn posters...
treblings, Well said.
The pros considered the events of the last three weeks, especially the results of the tournaments.
treblings, It would be good to ask Buchholz who the acknowledged No.1 in 1964 was. We do know it but some ignore the facts and the article.
treblings, There surely are no written rankings from 1964/1965 showing Laver as No.1.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I doubt if he had all the stats at the time. They didn't do things that way in those days. I was hoping years ago to get the rankings from a top promoter years ago but I understand the records were damaged in the person's garage.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
And there are also no written rankings showing Rosewall was number one in 1964/1965. Only results of a tour are shown.
Now written rankings are different from people calling a player number one and Rosewall was acknowledged as number one by many for much of 1964. However this doesn't mean Rosewall was number one in 1964.
Gonzalez and Budge acknowledged Laver as the best player during the year of 1964 also.
Heck, Laver himself acknowledged he took over as number one in November of 1964! So I guess Laver is his own written ranking for 1964!!
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
They are non-specific. You made an allegation. Please answer my question. Specify who you claim is trying to re-write history, and what is being re-written.
treblings
Hall of Fame
they are specific enough. i seem to have touched a nerve though...ouch
as much as i enjoy our little encounters, to be honest i have better things to do
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
they are specific enough. i seem to have touched a nerve though...ouch
as much as i enjoy our little encounters, to be honest i have better things to do
Of course you do.
..not a world championship tour...right?
Dan, At least a tour long and important enough to determine the end-year rankings.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Not the magical, mystery, "deciding tour," either.
Limpin, Oh yes, it was the non-magical, deciding, determining, official tour. Ask Mr. Buchholz and you will see clearer (and not write nonsense anymore in this question).
Bobby, we have already seen that this tour was not a championship or "deciding" tour.
Apparently, it did not determine the year end rankings.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I agree. It determined the tour rankings, nothing more.
Dan, Where have you seen it? Where has Buchholz written: "The tour was not a championship or deciding tour"? Where? I would be grateful for useful information. I promise I will change my opinion if you can provide me with new information!
Dan, Buchholz wrote his clear article on November 27th or on one of the following days or weeks. He stated four times that Rosewall was the No.1 player ("unquestionably"). He gave the final standings. How could he or any other person change the rankings thereafter although there was no single tennis match played after Nov.26 through January 11th, 1965??????? How could Laver surpass yet Rosewall without playing a single match?????Please solve this your riddle and enigma!! If you find a serious answer, I will not hesitate to send you 1000 Dollars!
To be serious: Of course the rankings on December 31st or January 1st, 1965 were the same as those provided by Buchholz after November 26.
It's clear in the Buchholz article that all (small) events after Cape Town (October, the last 8-man tournament) did not count to the deciding tour. Laver was excellent in November 1964 but Rosewall did not play at all then because he knew that he had won the determining tour and Laver could not surpass him even if playing in November.If Muscles would have had any doubts about his status as the top pro he would have played also in November to defend his title! That's why treblings wrote that the article was crystal clear! Buchholz thought that all his readers are able to understand the message and the sense of his clear article. He did not know that 52 years after publishing the article in World Tennis two or three posters from Talk Tennis would not be able to understand clearly written English sentences and statements. It's your privilege to ignore the facts and the truth in order to push your darling who clearly was described by Buchholz and by Laver as No.2 behind Rosewall. Congratulation. A masterpiece of thinking!!!
Last edited:
Limpin, Even though you were nasty toward me and I don't like you at all, I promise also 1000 Dollars for you if you can prove your claim! Honestly!
Buchholz would have written "championship" tour if it had been a deciding event...he did not write that, and recently confirmed that this was not a championship tour...come on, Bobby, you already know this.
All of this is unnecessary, Bobby...because Buchholz has clarified his intent..this was not a deciding or championship tour.
Now, I think that the 1964 NZ tour of 24 intense matches between 4 elite players is the real championship event for that year...I see no evidence that anyone did not think of the NZ tour as the championship event..prove to me that someone did not think of the NZ tour as a world championship tour. Where did anyone say that?
All you have to do is look at the results and you can see that I am right.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I didn't see a single word in Buchholz article about the 130 day tour being a "deciding tour," a "determining tour," or "championship tour," or even an "official tour." Why do these false characterizations keep popping up? It may, or may not, have been the biggest tour of the year. So what? It doesn't matter because looking at all of the data for 1964 it is clear that Laver had the best year in 1964 and deserves the #1 ranking. If the 130 day tour determined the ranking for the entire year of 1964, then the remaining 235 days of the year would have to be meaningless, which is ridiculous.
Dan, These who had been thinkings that you could not surpass yourself regarding writing absurd things can now see that yet you are able to surpass your own absurdity when claiming the NZL tour was the real championship of that year! In fact it lastened only a few weeks whereas the deciding tournament tour lastened several months!
Nobody ever thought the NZL tour was a deciding one. You have the privilege to be the first one. My congratulations!
Mr. or Mrs. Limpinhitter; You still write "130 day tour". That way you have disqualified yourself from any serious discussion. You were, are and will be the greatest liar this forum has ever seen. It's disgusting!
The NZ tour of 1964 was clearly a world championship tour, an elite 4-man tour of 24 matches, following the standard world championship format.
We do not know if it was billed or accepted by contemporaries as the true world championship...it might have been...you have shown no evidence to dispute that claim.
The facts as we have them clearly point to this NZ tour as the true and deciding world championship for that year.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Here's an old post from the very knowledgeable Carlo Giovanni Colussi. Note that Carlo doesn't mention a World Championship Tour. It's kind of hard to mention a world championship tour when there wasn't one for that year 1964. I always get eyestrain when I read Carlo's posts. So many words! Carlo's hands have to be tired after typing so much! LOL! In all seriousness, Carlo is superb as a poster even though I often disagree with him.
Last edited:
