WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[krosero]

Krosero, first i want to say, that this discussion is frustrating and fruitless, every time i answer some of Your post, some jack in the box will come out of this box and will Insult people. I only will say, that i don't want to be quoted for things, i didn't write or insinuate. In older discussions, which remained friendly, Jeffrey Neave, Carlo and me all agreed, that given the McCauley book a ranking, based on a selected tournament series for 1964 existed, but we all agreed, that this ranking wasn't decisive nor representative, because simply it covered not enough ground. There were other pro rankings, which were very debatable, in the 1950s and 1960s, and there were other tournament series, with final Rankings, including later the WCT and Grand Prix series. The most similar is the WCT tournament series in 1971, which also had that 10, 7, 4, 2 and 1 Point System, but consisted of 20 tournaments with at least 5 rounds over the whole year. You could play at best 100 matches, and this is a representative amount of activity. On contrast, this Buchholz series of 1964 consisted of at best 51 matches for a player, and at largest of 119 days (17 a 7 days, netto 17 a 4 days). It was not half of the activity, that Laver and Rosewall played in 1964.
You see, if someone has open eyes, a sharp contrast to 1965, when the tournament series was more established. First The Australian/NZ part of the tour was firmly included, then there were more tournaments in the US, Europe and South Africa, so that we get close to 30 Events for 1965, i can count them on McCauleys basis. 30 Events a 3 rounds makes around 90 possible matches, which is a way more representative number for the overall activity. In 1964, Carlo mentioned 29 tournaments and many tour matches, if those would count in a ranking, he makes his clear point about the evaluation. I am still unconvinced that the Australian circuit was completely shut out for all ranking matters in 1964, and some of those schedules in 1964 are quite odd, see this Trofeo Facis, where Rosewall took part in both sessions, while Laver won all his matches but took only part in the last session. I thought in 2005, that Rosewall would lead Laver in overall stats, despite his hth deficit, but Andrew Tas stats, which came out later, point in the other direction. Laver is matching Rosewall for tournament wins, including the big one at Wembley (and Boston), and leading him massively in hth and clearly in overall matches and win-loss stats.
Some of the paper reports cited above are plain wrong, including Andersons statement, that Laver lead Rosewall in tournaments for 1964 but had lesser tour matches wins. Note i am not insulting people like Anderson or Buchholz, but i doubt, that they were keepig or being aware of all exact records. They were players, nor researchers or writers. Buchholz was to my knowledge not present on the Australian tour in 1964. Other paper reports like Canberra Times note in begin February 1965, that Laver "maintained" the edge over Rosewall. Problem with the old pro tour is, that all records were not well kept and many press people had some information deficits. As someone said, it was clear like mud.

Urban, first of all my apologies if I misrepresented your views in any way. Since I define a world championship tour as a set of events used to determine year-end rankings, and I wanted to get PC1's definition about it, I mentioned in my post to him that Carlo also believed a 17-tournament (exact number debated) series was established in '64 to determine the year-end rankings. And I mentioned that you and Jeffrey also believed it, at least years ago when you were all here and posting about the topic. I didn't participate in the topic then because I knew too little about it, but I remember the posts. And like I've said to you in the recent past, I once found your discussions at Wikipedia with Carlo and Jeffrey, and I remember them still because they impressed me as very good discussions, focused hard on details but remaining civil.

I did not mean to imply that you, Jeffrey and Carlo all referred to the 17-tournament series as a "championship tour" or that you all embraced it as an ideal system. In fact the one thing I remember most is that you all had criticisms of the series for not including more tournaments. Here's an example from Jeffrey: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-laver-new-article.442302/page-9#post-7039602

On that point I would actually tend to agree with all three of you. You've seen that for some years now PC1 and I have had a running disagreement about how heavily to weight championship tours. I don't think any of them were fully representative and I think all of them can come under the same criticism that has always been directed at the 1964 series -- even more so. If it's a big deal that the '64 tour lasted only about 180 days, well, the Budge-Vines tour of '39 lasted only 63 days. If it's a big deal that the '64 tour included all the 8-man tournaments but left out the 4-man tournaments, well no previous championship tour had ever included any tournament of any kind.

That's why, I agree with you that later tournament circuits and ranking systems were better than those in '64, but imo '64 was better than any that came before -- in the messy world of the old pro tour.

I risk saying that, at this moment when we've all suggested taking a break, not to stir things up but simply because this is an issue that's going to return again and again when we study other years, even those before Rosewall had ever picked up a racquet.

I still agree we should take a break. Urban, I'd like at some point to continue discussing this with you. You get into the nuts-and-bolts and details which I appreciate. And I miss Jeffrey and Carlo's presence on this board, even if they did pick Laver as sole #1 for '64

 

[BobbyOne]

This ^^^

The majority of reports at the time obviously paint Rosewall as #1, but I also think looking independently at the results that year lead to the conclusion that actually Laver was #1.

At this point if everyone would just agree to disagree, perhaps there are other years which haven't been done to death that might benefit from exploring.

NatF, We cannot disagree about historical facts! The 1964 tournament tour was for world championship and the most important parameter of that year.

 

[BobbyOne]

Exactly. And the fact that particular years have gotten so much scrutiny while others linger in obscurity is quite indicative of our pro/anti bias.



Lacoste. It's true cuz Wiki tells us so.

NonP, We should try to examine every doubtful year as exactly as we (especially krosero) did regarding 1964. There are so many years that did not have a clear-cut No.1.

 

[BobbyOne]

I was thinking 1977 but Rosewall was still on the tour then

NatF, You are not far from truth: Rosewall in some moments of 1977 was actually an absolute top player, f.i. when he beat world's No.3, Gerulaitis, in straight sets and gave Connors a magnificent fight one day later...

 

[NatF]

NatF, We cannot disagree about historical facts! The 1964 tournament tour was for world championship and the most important parameter of that year.

Perhaps but that fact is irrelevant to me looking back with hindsight. The 1964 tournament tour was a flawed system.

NatF, You are not far from truth: Rosewall in some momemts of 1977 was actually an absolute top player, f.i. when he beat world's No.3, Gerulaitis, in straight sets and gave Connors a magnificent fight one day later...

You could apply this across so many years though. All ATG's are able to show flashes of brilliance at young and old ages.

 

[BobbyOne]

NonP, you've made a few points here that are very much appreciated and you have my personal thanks. I don't agree with all your points but I won't go into those, since you've suggested -- in a very reasonable way -- that we all take a break. I agree we should. That's not because I think the debate itself can go too long -- I would delve into it as long as necessary -- but I'd much rather do so with willing participants and with cool heads. Sometimes you just need a break and let everyone cool off.

I will have one more post for Urban, who at least deserves that I address the issue of how I represented his views (I don't want to misrepresent them).

Bobby, I personally don't need anyone to agree with me about the data I've presented. I know its value and I'm proud (I believe, with justification) of the research I've done and my choice to make it public. As I've said to you by email, it's not that I don't care AT ALL whether my immediate debate opponents agree with me (who could possibly claim that?), but for me the importance of historical material is that it be put out there, for anyone, today or in the future, to pick up and study. It's a matter of creating a historical record, much more than it is about the immediate debate. Sure, I care about how the immediate debate (who wouldn't?), but if the people I'm talking to have told me explicitly that they don't wish to discuss it at this time, there is nothing I can do about that. I may not like or agree with their decision to leave the debate, but that is their choice and there is nothing I can do about it. I would MUCH RATHER open up this topic at a later date, either with the cooler heads, or with different participants who do wish to speak about it.

There is still the matter of Andrew's data for 1964, that I've offered to post. If no one explicitly takes me up on the offer to post it, I won't do so. I am more than happy to give the data to anyone who is still interested in seeing it and I could do so by email if you send me a personal message.

krosero, On one hand I can understand your frustration about some (to call them mildly) "negative" reactions and to stop posting in this thread, on the other hand I regret this your ( ultimate?) decision because it's always refreshing to read your findings, quotings and opinions and because those who find your illuminate discoveries and your explaining posts superfluous or even negative could think that you would agree with their negative judgment and that you would realize that you were wrong at your opinions and your (extremely mild!!) criticism. Truth should always prevail over bias and wrong claims!!

It's good to know that you are proud of your huge work and of presenting it to your readers. I'm sure you are frustrated but you nevertheless are convinced that you did not wrong or write anything wrong (apart from your misinterpretation of a statement from urban).

As written in my fundamental post to NonP, I yet claim that all posters and readers should agree about your great findings and historical facts and truth.

I wonder a bit about your sentence that you don't need anyone (in this case me?) to agree with. I think you enjoy any positive reaction and support from your readers (even from myself ;-) ). So I hope my agreement and positive reaction was not unpleasant for you.

 

[BobbyOne]

Urban, first of all my apologies if I misrepresented your views in any way. Since I define a world championship tour as a set of events used to determine year-end rankings, and I wanted to get PC1's definition about it, I mentioned in my post to him that Carlo also believed a 17-tournament (exact number debated) series was established in '64 to determine the year-end rankings. And I mentioned that you and Jeffrey also believed it, at least years ago when you were all here and posting about the topic. I didn't participate in the topic then because I knew too little about it, but I remember the posts. And like I've said to you in the recent past, I once found your discussions at Wikipedia with Carlo and Jeffrey, and I remember them still because they impressed me as very good discussions, focused hard on details but remaining civil.

I did not mean to imply that you, Jeffrey and Carlo all referred to the 17-tournament series as a "championship tour" or that you all embraced it as an ideal system. In fact the one thing I remember most is that you all had criticisms of the series for not including more tournaments. Here's an example from Jeffrey: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-laver-new-article.442302/page-9#post-7039602

On that point I would actually tend to agree with all three of you. You've seen that for some years now PC1 and I have had a running disagreement about how heavily to weight championship tours. I don't think any of them were fully representative and I think all of them can come under the same criticism that has always been directed at the 1964 series -- even more so. If it's a big deal that the '64 tour lasted only about 180 days, well, the Budge-Vines tour of '39 lasted only 63 days. If it's a big deal that the '64 tour included all the 8-man tournaments but left out the 4-man tournaments, well no previous championship tour had ever included any tournament of any kind.

That's why, I agree with you that later tournament circuits and ranking systems were better than those in '64, but imo '64 was better than any that came before -- in the messy world of the old pro tour.

I risk saying that, at this moment when we've all suggested taking a break, not to stir things up but simply because this is an issue that's going to return again and again when we study other years, even those before Rosewall had ever picked up a racquet.

I still agree we should take a break. Urban, I'd like at some point to continue discussing this with you. You get into the nuts-and-bolts and details which I appreciate. And I miss Jeffrey and Carlo's presence on this board, even if they did pick Laver as sole #1 for '64

krosero, I don't think that the 1965 tour was more established than the 1964 tour. Both were well organized. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[pc1]

You could apply this across so many years though. All ATG's are able to show flashes of brilliance at young and old ages.

That's true, generally speaking I would think. Look at Federer in recent years. He has been superb and a threat to win every major.

Gonzalez was great when he was young and won tournaments like the Howard Hughes in 1969 and 1970 defeating players like Roche, Ashe, Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver during those two years. And Gonzalez was 42 in 1970.

Andres Gimeno won the French in 1972 in a year he would be 35.

Laver even in a year he was 39 defeat Gerulaitis in the WCT Challenge Cup. I vaguely remember one of the points was a particularly athletic point by Laver in which he twisted his body in mid air to somehow put away a volley. Vic Braden couldn't believe it. Could be wrong but that's what I remember.

McEnroe a few years ago almost beat Roddick in WTT. And McEnroe was in his fifties.
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Andy-Roddick,-John-McEnroe-Deliver-Crowd-Pleasing-.aspx

Agassi was fantastic in his later thirties and of course as a teen.

I don't think it's a coincidence that some of these players played on the Old Pro Tour. They learned how to conserve energy and play within the game because of the constant playing in the old days. It probably served them in good stead as they aged.

 

[BobbyOne]

Perhaps but that fact is irrelevant to me looking back with hindsight. The 1964 tournament tour was a flawed system.



You could apply this across so many years though. All ATG's are able to show flashes of brilliance at young and old ages.

NatF, A world championship is never irrelevant even though I agree that it's not the lone parameter to judge a year like 1964. The tour was not flawed. It was as it was. Even if it would be flawed, all players knew they had to succeed in that "flawed" system. It's a fact that Laver failed to win the tour and he knew it even as late as mid-1965. I trust the contemporary Rocket more than the recent "old" Rocket. Laver might be influenced recently by Joe's results (November 1964) and by Andrew's statistics. As earlier written, Laver's newer claim is as "objective" as Rosewall's claim from 1992 or 1993 when I talked to him. It's fitting that both Aussies claim to having been No.1 in 1964. That fits exactly to my old claim that both were No.1 that year...

Rosewall's feats in 1977 are at least more impressing than those of others because he was 43 years old when he achieved them...

 

[BobbyOne]

Again you really need to learn when to let things go. If this is any consolation I do think your "enemies" (who BTW aren't my "friends") are too stubborn to accept that your boy's victory on that 1964 "world championship tour" (or whatever the hell you wanna call it) was indeed a big deal. I fully believe pc1 when he reports having been told recently by Buchholz himself that there was no such thing, but the various contemporary reports dug up by krosero are just too numerous and explicit for any honest observer to rule out the likelihood that Rosewall was viewed by many as the world #1 as late as the following year.

But like I said some time ago all this focus on the exact nature of the tour is really a red herring. Again it's a documented fact that Laver was at the very least just behind Rosewall in the tour rankings, and not only did he win two pro majors that year to Ken's one (at both of which he defeated his rival) he also led their H2H by a huge margin. To me the oft-made distinction between best and most achieved is a false dichotomy, and the results do tell me that Rod had reached a higher sustained peak than Ken by '64, just Sampras did over Agassi in '99.

Now if you want to argue that the tour's point-ranking system is a more objective way to rank its participants that's fine by me. But it's clear many posters don't agree, and even clearer that nobody's going to change his mind at this point. It's time for you to accept that and move on. You're not going to get everyone to agree with you all the time. That's just a fact of life.

NonP, Hours ago I sent you a longer post but it has vanished soon. Don't know why. I will try a second version.

I don't want to call the 1964 tour this way or that way. I only tried to report facts: that the tour was the deciding tour for determining the pro end-year ranks. Weeks later the great researcher krosero found what I call the MISSING LINK which was demanded by Dan and others so strictly: that the 17 (or rather 18) tournament tour was the official "pro world championships" (a newspaper on August 25, see krosero's post).

Your sentence is not right that Rosewall was "viewed by many as No.1". In fact Rosewall was the acknowledged 1964 pro champion, sanctioned by pro association, IPTPA! That's a difference between opinion, even reasonable opinion, and historical fact!

I find it a scandal of high degree that after krosero's discoveries there still are a few posters (partly even you) who ignore his huge work and still claim Rosewall was not the official No.1. If I were krosero, I perhaps would think now: "Why have I done all that time-consuming examination of tennis history about the 1964 season and why have I found and published the "missing link" of that whole issue when still some people doubt or contradict my task, partly even with inadequate words?" But of course krosero is not me and I'm aware from one of his posts above that he probably does not regret his endeavour to find all that stuff and that he is still proud of his work (and that justified!).

Please note: Every person is entitled to have his or her opinions. We can discuss if Rosewall or Gonzalez was the better player. We can discuss if Gimeno was stronger or Santana, if Jürgen Melzer is better or Gerald Melzer. But we just cannot discuss or disagree about well-known facts: that N.Y.C. is in the USA and not in Poland; that an elephant is bigger than an ant, and so on. The same way we cannot disagree that the 1964 tournament tour was the main parameter for the pro rankings and that Rosewall was the acknowledged No.1 pro. It's a clear fact! This even if we rightly can say from a modern point of view that Laver deserves a Co.-No.1 place for that year because he achieved very much in 1964. But we cannot ignore the fact that the Rocket failed at the main parameter of the year.

I don't want to force all people of the world (or at least all posters in this forum) to accept my opinions (even though I nevertheless hope to being able to convince some people that Rosewall is a true GOAT candidate at least). I just demand (horribile dictu!) that every poster in this forum is ready to accept facts of tennis history equally if they are provided by krosero, by myself, by Dan, by Limpinhitter or by any other person who provides us with a true historical fact. And this even if a fact is pleasant for us or not! We can discuss if Ivanisevic had the better service or Sampras but we CANNOT discuss if Ivanisevic served more aces or Santoro! The latter is a fact!

Hope you understand what I mean. Thanks.

EDIT: I have corrected 1963 pro champion into 1964 pro champion (third paragraph)

 

[pc1]

I was going to look at 1983 and McEnroe versus Wilander but I realized in looking at the stats that McEnroe clearly looked better. McEnroe won Wimbledon, WCT and the Year End Masters. A super year. I'll try another disputed year tomorrow.

 

[urban]

Krosero, maybe we can - and i would be glad - to resume this discussion about the realities and mechanics of the old pro tour later on, when the smoke has cleared a bit. You know, that i appreciate Your research very much. If i would be better equipped with Internet sources, i would do the same, to find more contemporary sources. I am more a paper than an Internet man, but I know two things from other historical fields: every researcher is as good as his archive. And you have to do critical evaluations and analyses of those sources. Maybe we can get the solution, i wrote many years ago on the wiki article on Laver, that 1964 was a disputed year with Claims here and there, and Laver was undisputed pro champ in 1965.
One thing i find most interesting among those press reports, is a statement by Laver given by Gerald Williams in 1964, that he (Laver) wants to play Wimbledon again. Remember this is 1964 and open Tennis light years away. Maybe Laver could see the future, or just maybe - this is a speculation - he had talked already with Herman David. David was the chairman of the All England Club and always present at Wembley, and he was eager to see Laver again at Wimbledon. And he was the chief influence of the 1967 Wimbledon pro and later the open Wimbledon.

 

[BobbyOne]

Krosero, maybe we can - and i would be glad - to resume this discussion about the realities and mechanics of the old pro tour later on, when the smoke has cleared a bit. You know, that i appreciate Your research very much. If i would be better equipped with Internet sources, i would do the same, to find more contemporary sources. I am more a paper than an Internet man, but I know two things from other historical fields: every researcher is as good as his archive. And you have to do critical evaluations and analyses of those sources. Maybe we can get the solution, i wrote many years ago on the wiki article on Laver, that 1964 was a disputed year with Claims here and there, and Laver was undisputed pro champ in 1965.
One thing i find most interesting among those press reports, is a statement by Laver given by Gerald Williams in 1964, that he (Laver) wants to play Wimbledon again. Remember this is 1964 and open Tennis light years away. Maybe Laver could see the future, or just maybe - this is a speculation - he had talked already with Herman David. David was the chairman of the All England Club and always present at Wembley, and he was eager to see Laver again at Wimbledon. And he was the chief influence of the 1967 Wimbledon pro and later the open Wimbledon.

urban, I'm a bit disappointed that you did not react to my apology.

 

[krosero]

Krosero, maybe we can - and i would be glad - to resume this discussion about the realities and mechanics of the old pro tour later on, when the smoke has cleared a bit. You know, that i appreciate Your research very much. If i would be better equipped with Internet sources, i would do the same, to find more contemporary sources. I am more a paper than an Internet man, but I know two things from other historical fields: every researcher is as good as his archive. And you have to do critical evaluations and analyses of those sources. Maybe we can get the solution, i wrote many years ago on the wiki article on Laver, that 1964 was a disputed year with Claims here and there, and Laver was undisputed pro champ in 1965.
One thing i find most interesting among those press reports, is a statement by Laver given by Gerald Williams in 1964, that he (Laver) wants to play Wimbledon again. Remember this is 1964 and open Tennis light years away. Maybe Laver could see the future, or just maybe - this is a speculation - he had talked already with Herman David. David was the chairman of the All England Club and always present at Wembley, and he was eager to see Laver again at Wimbledon. And he was the chief influence of the 1967 Wimbledon pro and later the open Wimbledon.

Urban, there was nothing in the rest of that article about Herman David but I'll look for more material about the '64 Wembley and see what I can find.

Thanks for your words about my research and yes, I hope we can figure out further specifics of the puzzle in much the same way as we've tried to do with the '59 series, or really with any other year. I find historical research to be very much detective work (that is not my actual line of work though someone once said I should have worked for Scotland Yard!) And I find it thrilling. I try to find clues in every little number and every little statement or word -- which is why I ask so many questions about source material and interviews. I like the way you and Jeffrey and Carlo worked through the material in what I have seen of your discussions and that's the kind of thing I'd like to be involved in.

And I'm glad that you appreciate contemporary sources to the degree that you do. This is really something that I believe is revolutionizing the study of tennis history -- the uploading of so many newspaper archives to the internet. (Andrew's work, most notably, would not have been possible without this.) There are so many fields in academia where the historians would kill to have a daily newspaper record of the events they study, such as we are fortunate to now have for tennis.

And what's been put online thus far is just the tip of the iceberg of what will eventually be available. Countless reports that I've posted here about one tour or another have only been uploaded recently to the internet. Six years ago we had very little apart from what we could find in books. So give it another 6 years and you can imagine how much more will be available.

Even the archives I've looked through are just a piece of what's currently available. There are many archives from Europe that I simply don't have access to and which I would have trouble analyzing anyway because I don't know the various languages -- to say nothing of sources from other continents that the pros played in.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Limpin, It's just a great pity that you are NOT the voice of unbiased reason! Remember your many wrong numbers in your Laver thread, your stubborness regarding the official world championship tour and your mean behaviour toward me (your big lie, not addressing me etc).

Ranking Rosewall at No.18 or worse does not show unbiased attitude...

Bobby, still with that "official" tour stuff? If it had been an official world championship tour, Buchholz would certainly have remembered it that way. If there had been an award, a trophy presentation, money, you can rest assured that Buchholz would have recalled that...didn't.

 

[Limpinhitter]

NonP, you've made a few points here that are very much appreciated and you have my personal thanks. I don't agree with all your points but I won't go into those, since you've suggested -- in a very reasonable way -- that we all take a break. I agree we should. That's not because I think the debate itself can go too long -- I would delve into it as long as necessary -- but I'd much rather do so with willing participants and with cool heads. Sometimes you just need a break and let everyone cool off.

I will have one more post for Urban, who at least deserves that I address the issue of how I represented his views (I don't want to misrepresent them).

Bobby, I personally don't need anyone to agree with me about the data I've presented. I know its value and I'm proud (I believe, with justification) of the research I've done and my choice to make it public. As I've said to you by email, it's not that I don't care AT ALL whether my immediate debate opponents agree with me (who could possibly claim that?), but for me the importance of historical material is that it be put out there, for anyone, today or in the future, to pick up and study. It's a matter of creating a historical record, much more than it is about the immediate debate. Sure, I care about how the immediate debate (who wouldn't?), but if the people I'm talking to have told me explicitly that they don't wish to discuss it at this time, there is nothing I can do about that. I may not like or agree with their decision to leave the debate, but that is their choice and there is nothing I can do about it. I would MUCH RATHER open up this topic at a later date, either with the cooler heads, or with different participants who do wish to speak about it.

There is still the matter of Andrew's data for 1964, that I've offered to post. If no one explicitly takes me up on the offer to post it, I won't do so. I am more than happy to give the data to anyone who is still interested in seeing it and I could do so by email if you send me a personal message.

If it's not too much trouble, please post it.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Bobby, still with that "official" tour stuff? If it had been an official world championship tour, Buchholz would certainly have remembered it that way. If there had been an award, a trophy presentation, money, you rest assured that Buchholz would have recalled that...didn't.

Hermann Göring's method was, repeat the same lie often enough, and the public will eventually accept it as the truth.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hermann Göring said that, if you repeat the same lie often enough, the public will eventually accept it as the truth.

At this point, it seems clear that there was no trophy or money prize or presentation ceremony at the final event in Nice....in other words, the point system was not being used to qualify for anything.
That means that the "tour" championship was being played for precisely nothing, no reason...this cannot qualify as a genuine world championship, no matter how confused some of the newspaper reporters were.

 

[BobbyOne]

Hermann Göring's method was, repeat the same lie often enough, and the public will eventually accept it as the truth.

Mrs. or Mr. Limpinhitter, It's the greatest joke of the century that JUST YOU blame a serious poster for making a lie as you are the biggest liar yourself in this forum as you and all readers know. It's your next big lie that the tour of 1964 was not an official world championship tour. You have surely read krosero's many reports and quotings!! Your lies are obnoxious and utterly disgusting! Your comparison with Göring is mean and vile!!!

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, still with that "official" tour stuff? If it had been an official world championship tour, Buchholz would certainly have remembered it that way. If there had been an award, a trophy presentation, money, you can rest assured that Buchholz would have recalled that...didn't.

Mr. Lobb, I'm stopping now to answer people WHO CANNOT READ serious posts (about the 1964 world championships)! Bye.

 

[BobbyOne]

Krosero, maybe we can - and i would be glad - to resume this discussion about the realities and mechanics of the old pro tour later on, when the smoke has cleared a bit. You know, that i appreciate Your research very much. If i would be better equipped with Internet sources, i would do the same, to find more contemporary sources. I am more a paper than an Internet man, but I know two things from other historical fields: every researcher is as good as his archive. And you have to do critical evaluations and analyses of those sources. Maybe we can get the solution, i wrote many years ago on the wiki article on Laver, that 1964 was a disputed year with Claims here and there, and Laver was undisputed pro champ in 1965.
One thing i find most interesting among those press reports, is a statement by Laver given by Gerald Williams in 1964, that he (Laver) wants to play Wimbledon again. Remember this is 1964 and open Tennis light years away. Maybe Laver could see the future, or just maybe - this is a speculation - he had talked already with Herman David. David was the chairman of the All England Club and always present at Wembley, and he was eager to see Laver again at Wimbledon. And he was the chief influence of the 1967 Wimbledon pro and later the open Wimbledon.

urban, 1964 IS a disputed year. It WAS not a disputed year to be exact. In 1964 and early 1965 there was NO discussion about the status of Rosewall and Laver. From our modern point of view it IS a year to be disputed.

 

[eldanger25]

1977 is a fascinating year. I'll make the Connors argument (even though I ultimately feel that 1977 belongs to the Swede).

1. He maintained his YE#1 ATP ranking position - which was the product of a flawed but widely publicized and accepted ranking system, and therefore a worthy data point.
2. Unlike 1975, Connors won big events in 1977, most prominently the Dallas-YEC double and the WCT Challenge Cup. He was exceptionally good indoors that year.
3. Connors was arguably most consistent across "prestigious" events, winning the YEC and Dallas, and making the finals of Wimbledon, the Open, and Philadelphia.
4. Connors had the best results among the 1977 Big Three at the handful of events all three entered. Specifically:

Connors: YEC winner, SW19/Open finalist
Borg: SW19 winner, YEC finalist, lost in Open 4R.
Vilas: Open winner, YEC semifinalist, lost in SW19 3R.

5. He dragged a fractured right thumb (surely impacting his beloved backhand) to within 2 games of the Wimbledon title. Astonishingly close to clear sole or joint World #1 status for that season.

Maybe this'll get the fires burning for 1977 or some other year - I agree that the law of diminishing returns is by now in play for 1964, at least for awhile.

 

[pc1]

Nice points for Connors for 1977!

 

[BobbyOne]

1977 is a fascinating year. I'll make the Connors argument (even though I ultimately feel that 1977 belongs to the Swede).

1. He maintained his YE#1 ATP ranking position - which was the product of a flawed but widely publicized and accepted ranking system, and therefore a worthy data point.
2. Unlike 1975, Connors won big events in 1977, most prominently the Dallas-YEC double and the WCT Challenge Cup. He was exceptionally good indoors that year.
3. Connors was arguably most consistent across "prestigious" events, winning the YEC and Dallas, and making the finals of Wimbledon, the Open, and Philadelphia.
4. Connors had the best results among the 1977 Big Three at the handful of events all three entered. Specifically:

Connors: YEC winner, SW19/Open finalist
Borg: SW19 winner, YEC finalist, lost in Open 4R.
Vilas: Open winner, YEC semifinalist, lost in SW19 3R.

5. He dragged a fractured right thumb (surely impacting his beloved backhand) to within 2 games of the Wimbledon title. Astonishingly close to clear sole or joint World #1 status for that season.

Maybe this'll get the fires burning for 1977 or some other year - I agree that the law of diminishing returns is by now in play for 1964, at least for awhile.

eldanger25, Please try to avoid calling the US Open just "Open" as many tournaments have the epithet "Open", f.i. Australian Open, French Open, Italian Open.

Please note: There are not only readers from the USA in this forum, and even your great and proud country is not identical with the whole world. Thanks.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Mr. Lobb, I'm stopping now to answer people WHO CANNOT READ serious posts (about the 1964 world championships)! Bye.

If the 1964 tour points were not used to qualify for anything, no trophy, no money, no title, then it could not have been a world championship of anything. Period.

 

[pc1]

1977 is a fascinating year. I'll make the Connors argument (even though I ultimately feel that 1977 belongs to the Swede).

1. He maintained his YE#1 ATP ranking position - which was the product of a flawed but widely publicized and accepted ranking system, and therefore a worthy data point.
2. Unlike 1975, Connors won big events in 1977, most prominently the Dallas-YEC double and the WCT Challenge Cup. He was exceptionally good indoors that year.
3. Connors was arguably most consistent across "prestigious" events, winning the YEC and Dallas, and making the finals of Wimbledon, the Open, and Philadelphia.
4. Connors had the best results among the 1977 Big Three at the handful of events all three entered. Specifically:

Connors: YEC winner, SW19/Open finalist
Borg: SW19 winner, YEC finalist, lost in Open 4R.
Vilas: Open winner, YEC semifinalist, lost in SW19 3R.

5. He dragged a fractured right thumb (surely impacting his beloved backhand) to within 2 games of the Wimbledon title. Astonishingly close to clear sole or joint World #1 status for that season.

Maybe this'll get the fires burning for 1977 or some other year - I agree that the law of diminishing returns is by now in play for 1964, at least for awhile.

It was a very strange year. Bud Collins wrote that most experts picked Borg as number one for that year but as we have discussed, experts aren't necessarily correct. We do have more information nowadays. Borg won 13 of 20 tournaments including Wimbledon. Vilas I believe won around 17 tournaments including the French and the US Open. You already did some of the info on Connors.

I will say this, I believe Borg was the best player for level of play that year. If Borg, Connors and Vilas all played a round robin of 50 matches (total of 100) against the other two I believe Borg would have the best record. Whether Borg had the best year is debatable. I think it's between Vilas and Borg.

 

[Limpinhitter]

If the 1964 tour points were not used to qualify for anything, no trophy, no money, no title, then it could not have been a world championship of anything. Period.

As pc1 has exhaustively repeated (a great public service in the face of relentless, repeated, misrepresentations by a vociferous few), Butch Buchholz, one of the players on that tour, has conclusively confirmed that there was no World Championship tour in 1964.

 

[eldanger25]

eldanger25, Please try to avoid calling the US Open just "Open" as many tournaments have the epithet "Open", f.i. Australian Open, French Open, Italian Open.

Please note: There are not only readers from the USA in this forum, and even your great and proud country is not identical with the whole world. Thanks.

Bobby, no offense intended. "The Open" to me means the American national tennis championship and the British national golf championship - always has, always will.

 

[eldanger25]

It was a very strange year. Bud Collins wrote that most experts picked Borg as number one for that year but as we have discussed, experts aren't necessarily correct. We do have more information nowadays. Borg won 13 of 20 tournaments including Wimbledon. Vilas I believe won around 17 tournaments including the French and the US Open. You already did some of the info on Connors.

I will say this, I believe Borg was the best player for level of play that year. If Borg, Connors and Vilas all played a round robin of 50 matches (total of 100) against the other two I believe Borg would have the best record. Whether Borg had the best year is debatable. I think it's between Vilas and Borg.

I think Borg had the best year as well. Results across surfaces means a lot, and although he may not have dominated clay like Vilas that year (who camped out on the dirt), or been as strong indoors as Connors, Borg won big tournaments on all surfaces that year, unlike the other two.

(Although as an aside he continued to have issues with outdoor hard courts - I don't think Borg won his first outdoor HC event until 1978, and only had one season (1979) where he won more than 1 such event across a calendar year.)

The really interesting thing about 1977 is that any of the three guys was one match away from probably being sole #1 for the season. If Connors wins the fifth set of the Wimbledon final (which he may well have done if his thumb wasn't fractured), the crown could've been his - titles at Wimbledon, Dallas, and the YEC, alongside runs to the Open and Philly finals, is a hell of a year for a 1970s player. If Borg beat Connors at the YEC to go with his Wimbledon title and cross-surface results, I don't think Vilas has an argument. And if Vilas had beaten Tanner in the AO final, not even Borg's level of play could have bested that great rarity: a 3 slam season.

 

[pc1]

I think Borg had the best year as well. Results across surfaces means a lot, and although he may not have dominated clay like Vilas that year (who camped out on the dirt), or been as strong indoors as Connors, Borg won big tournaments on all surfaces that year, unlike the other two.

(Although as an aside he continued to have issues with outdoor hard courts - I don't think Borg won his first outdoor HC event until 1978, and only had one season (1979) where he won more than 1 such event across a calendar year.)

The really interesting thing about 1977 is that any of the three guys was one match away from probably being sole #1 for the season. If Connors wins the fifth set of the Wimbledon final (which he may well have done if his thumb wasn't fractured), the crown could've been his - titles at Wimbledon, Dallas, and the YEC, alongside runs to the Open and Philly finals, is a hell of a year for a 1970s player. If Borg beat Connors at the YEC to go with his Wimbledon title and cross-surface results, I don't think Vilas has an argument. And if Vilas had beaten Tanner in the AO final, not even Borg's level of play could have bested that great rarity: a 3 slam season.

Excellent observation that all of these players were one match for being number one for the year.

I think what a lot of experts problems with at the time had with Vilas' season was that many felt he cleaned up in smaller clay court tournaments to pad his totals. Nothing wrong with that. He was playing within the system and he did play super tennis that year.

What I find odd in retrospect is that everyone at the time in 1977 considered Borg, Vilas and Connors as a level higher than any other player. It's now odd to think of Vilas on the Borg and Connors level but he was thought of that way. And Vilas was a great player capable of defeating Connors at times. The ATP has Vilas defeating Connors 4 out of 9 times which is about right I would think.

 

[BobbyOne]

As pc1 has exhaustively repeated (a great public service in the face of relentless, repeated, misrepresentations by a vociferous few), Butch Buchholz, one of the players on that tour, has conclusively confirmed that there was no World Championship tour in 1964.

Limpinhitter: As krosero has exhaustively repeated (a great public service in the face of relentless, repeated, misrepresentations by a vociferous few), Butch Buchholz, one of the players of the tour, has conclusively confirmed there was a big and deciding tournament tour that determined the end-year rankings of the pros and Rosewall's place 1 in 1964. I trust more the contemporary long and clear article from Butch than a doubtful statement: we don't know how the question to him was, 52 years post festum. As krosero also has shown in numerous quotings from 1964 and 1965, the tournament tour was officially acknowledged as "Pro World Championships" (see August 25, 1964) and Rosewall was the undisputed No.1 pro in whole 1964 and even in the first months of 1965 even though Laver won 4 tournaments in January/February of 1965! I concede that I would have given the No.1 spot after the Australian tour to Laver in February 1965.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, no offense intended. "The Open" to me means the American national tennis championship and the British national golf championship - always has, always will.

eldanger25, I did know that you did not intend any offense, but the title "(the) Open" for the US Open (and maybe the British golf championships) sound a bit arrogant as there are many "Open" events. I doubt that the French people call their GS tournament "the Open". They probably call it "the French Open".

 

[BobbyOne]

I think Borg had the best year as well. Results across surfaces means a lot, and although he may not have dominated clay like Vilas that year (who camped out on the dirt), or been as strong indoors as Connors, Borg won big tournaments on all surfaces that year, unlike the other two.

(Although as an aside he continued to have issues with outdoor hard courts - I don't think Borg won his first outdoor HC event until 1978, and only had one season (1979) where he won more than 1 such event across a calendar year.)

The really interesting thing about 1977 is that any of the three guys was one match away from probably being sole #1 for the season. If Connors wins the fifth set of the Wimbledon final (which he may well have done if his thumb wasn't fractured), the crown could've been his - titles at Wimbledon, Dallas, and the YEC, alongside runs to the Open and Philly finals, is a hell of a year for a 1970s player. If Borg beat Connors at the YEC to go with his Wimbledon title and cross-surface results, I don't think Vilas has an argument. And if Vilas had beaten Tanner in the AO final, not even Borg's level of play could have bested that great rarity: a 3 slam season.

eldanger25, 1977 is a "classical" year where two or even three players have a reasonable claim to be No.1, similary to 1961, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1982.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Limpinhitter: As krosero has exhaustively repeated (a great public service in the face of relentless, repeated, misrepresentations by a vociferous few), Butch Buchholz, one of the players of the tour, has conclusively confirmed there was a big and deciding tournament tour that determined the end-year rankings of the pros and Rosewall's place 1 in 1964. I trust more the contemporary long and clear article from Butch than a doubtful statement: we don't know how the question to him was, 52 years post festum. As krosero also has shown in numerous quotings from 1964 and 1965, the tournament tour was officially acknowledged as "Pro World Championships" (see August 25, 1964) and Rosewall was the undisputed No.1 pro in whole 1964 and even in the first months of 1965 even though Laver won 4 tournaments in January/February of 1965! I concede that I would have given the No.1 spot after the Australian tour to Laver in February 1965.

Buchholz has conclusively shown that there was no world championship tour for 1964.

 

[timnz]

I think Borg had the best year as well. Results across surfaces means a lot, and although he may not have dominated clay like Vilas that year (who camped out on the dirt), or been as strong indoors as Connors, Borg won big tournaments on all surfaces that year, unlike the other two.

(Although as an aside he continued to have issues with outdoor hard courts - I don't think Borg won his first outdoor HC event until 1978, and only had one season (1979) where he won more than 1 such event across a calendar year.)

The really interesting thing about 1977 is that any of the three guys was one match away from probably being sole #1 for the season. If Connors wins the fifth set of the Wimbledon final (which he may well have done if his thumb wasn't fractured), the crown could've been his - titles at Wimbledon, Dallas, and the YEC, alongside runs to the Open and Philly finals, is a hell of a year for a 1970s player. If Borg beat Connors at the YEC to go with his Wimbledon title and cross-surface results, I don't think Vilas has an argument. And if Vilas had beaten Tanner in the AO final, not even Borg's level of play could have bested that great rarity: a 3 slam season.

What issue on Hard Courts are you referring to? Hard Courts were few and far between before 1978. I believe that is why you didn't see him win a title before then. You can't win them if they don't exist (well largely don't exist).

 

[eldanger25]

What issue on Hard Courts are you referring to? Hard Courts were few and far between before 1978. I believe that is why you didn't see him win a title before then. You can't win them if they don't exist (well largely don't exist).

Tim, you are absolutely right to point out that outdoor hard court events were a smaller part of the tour back then than they are now. But they definitely existed, and some of them were pretty prestigious. A good half-dozen tournaments come to mind - Los Angeles, the SA Open in Johannesburg, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, the Tokyo Outdoor, and the WCT Challenge Cup - that were well regarded. I know there were several smaller WCT events on outdoor hard back then too.

Before 1979, when he won Las Vegas and the newly outdoor HC Toronto event, Borg appeared at some of the above multiple times (he was a regular at Palm Springs, the WCT Challenge Cup, and the SA Open, and I think made at least one appearance at the Los Angeles event early in his career), and showed up to a few smaller outdoor HC tournaments in the American southwest through the late 1970s. Definitely not a large part of his calendar - I think he only played a few such tournaments a year - but worth mentioning.

 

[BobbyOne]

Limpinhitter: As krosero has exhaustively repeated (a great public service in the face of relentless, repeated, misrepresentations by a vociferous few), Butch Buchholz, one of the players of the tour, has conclusively confirmed there was a big and deciding tournament tour that determined the end-year rankings of the pros and Rosewall's place 1 in 1964. I trust more the contemporary long and clear article from Butch than a doubtful statement: we don't know how the question to him was, 52 years post festum. As krosero also has shown in numerous quotings from 1964 and 1965, the tournament tour was officially acknowledged as "Pro World Championships" (see August 25, 1964) and Rosewall was the undisputed No.1 pro in whole 1964 and even in the first months of 1965 even though Laver won 4 tournaments in January/February of 1965! I concede that I would have given the No.1 spot after the Australian tour to Laver in February 1965.

When having a look into Bud Collins' encyclopedia for the Whats your Top 10 thread I found yet another remark about Rosewall being the acknowledged No. 1 in 1964: Bud mentioned "Rosewall the pro king" in the chapter on 1964. This a hint for all open-minded readers and posters. Some others will not be impressed by that quote because they already were not impressed at all by Butch's clear article and krosero's many serious quotings from 1964 and 1965...

 

[Limpinhitter]

Let’s review 1964, once again, for the benefit of the casual reader who might be mislead by the persistent historical revisionists on this board:

- Laver lead Rosewall in total titles 11-10,

- Laver lead Rosewall in pro major titles 2-1,

- Laver lead Rosewall in total matches won 81 to 69,

- Laver lead Rosewall in winning percentage 75% (81-27) to 70% (69-30),

- Laver lead Rosewall in H2H matches by a dominating 15-4,

Laver was #1 for 1964. Rosewall was #2.

 

[BobbyOne]

Let’s review 1964, once again, for the benefit of the casual reader who might be mislead by the persistent historical revisionists on this board:

- Laver lead Rosewall in total titles 11-10,

- Laver lead Rosewall in pro major titles 2-1,

- Laver lead Rosewall in total matches won 81 to 69,

- Laver lead Rosewall in winning percentage 75% (81-27) to 70% (69-30),

- Laver lead Rosewall in H2H matches by a dominating 15-4,

Laver was #1 for 1964. Rosewall was #2.

Mrs. or Mr. Limpinhitter, It's you who misleads our readers since months with your lies and wrong data.

Your stats here are correct (sic!) but they are not a proper answer to my quoting of Bud's sentence.

Laver cannot have been the lone No.1 in 1964 because he failed at the -by far- most important parameter: the Pro World Championships.

It's curious: You and a few other revisionists never deny Gonzalez a No.1 place in those years when he won the world championships, even when his No.1 place is doubtful as in 1961 when Rosewall had at least the same record. Only to push your darling you deny Rosewall his place as the official No.1 in 1964 and you even ignore all the official quotings and rankings of that year.

By the way, you would increase your reputation if you, lately though, would apologize for your lies and correct your wrong Laver data...

EDIT: The 1964 tour was more important than the Gonzalez tours because it included the pro majors.

 

[pc1]

There is a lack of consistency above. The person discusses the 1964 Pro Tour as if it was a World Championship Tour but it was clearly stated by Butch Buchholz (who played on the tour) that it wasn't a World Championship tour. This has been mentioned a million times yet the poster above ignores that. Yet that same person argues for another player instead of Gonzalez for 1961 despite the fact Gonzalez won the 1961 World Championship Tour, more tournaments and a Pro Major.

So I guess a World Championship Tour is important if it helps your player but you forget about it when it doesn't help your player.

 

[hoodjem]

So I guess a World Championship Tour is important if it helps your player but you forget about it when it doesn't help your player.

That would appear to be the case.

 

[Limpinhitter]

There is a lack of consistency above. The person discusses the 1964 Pro Tour as if it was a World Championship Tour but it was clearly stated by Butch Buchholz (who played on the tour) that it wasn't a World Championship tour. This has been mentioned a million times yet the poster above ignores that. Yet that same person argues for another player instead of Gonzalez for 1961 despite the fact Gonzalez won the 1961 World Championship Tour, more tournaments and a Pro Major.

So I guess a World Championship Tour is important if it helps your player but you forget about it when it doesn't help your player.

In addition, apparently, someone thinks it helps to bolster Rosewall's case to continually and falsely declaim that the 130 day tour of 1964 was a World Championship Tour.

In any event, the record for 1964 is indisputable - Laver lead Rosewall in every material respect.

 

[NatF]

With respect to Bud he was likely just going off Mccauleys work. Unless there's new research in that chapter it does nothing to sway my opinion.

The conversation had been put to one side but apparently someone can't let go of 1964. Not sure why it matters this much what anonymous Internet people think. The discussion has passed the point of being pointless.

 

[pc1]

With respect to Bud he was likely just going off Mccauleys work. Unless there's new research in that chapter it does nothing to sway my opinion.

The conversation had been put to one side but apparently someone can't let go of 1964. Not sure why it matters this much what anonymous Internet people think. The discussion has passed the point of being pointless.

True enough. I committed a major sin of discussing it again. I beg forgiveness!!

Never should have responded to that poster.

 

[BobbyOne]

In addition, apparently, someone thinks it helps to bolster Rosewall's case to continually and falsely declaim that the 130 day tour of 1964 was a World Championship Tour.

In any event, the record for 1964 is indisputable - Laver lead Rosewall in every material respect.

Limpin, That's your next lie: Nobody during the last few weeks (or longer) in our discussion has claimed the 130 day tour was the world championship tour. The 130 day tour was only a PART of the official world championships, as I have explained you several times!!!

Rosewall does not need to be bolstered, neither regarding 1964 when he was the UNDISPUTED No.1 player (as Buchholz has written) not generally as he has won the most majors at all plus keeps several other records such as achieving three consecutive Channel Slams.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Limpin, That's your next lie: Nobody during the last few weeks (or longer) in our discussion has claimed the 130 day tour was the world championship tour. The 130 day tour was only a PART of the official world championships, as I have explained you several times!!!

Rosewall does not need to be bolstered, neither regarding 1964 when he was the UNDISPUTED No.1 player (as Buchholz has written) not generally as he has won the most majors at all plus keeps several other records such as achieving three consecutive Channel Slams.

Let's hear it for your boy, Bobby.

Hooray for Muscles!!!

 

[BobbyOne]

With respect to Bud he was likely just going off Mccauleys work. Unless there's new research in that chapter it does nothing to sway my opinion.

The conversation had been put to one side but apparently someone can't let go of 1964. Not sure why it matters this much what anonymous Internet people think. The discussion has passed the point of being pointless.

NatF, My Bud's quoting was just an additional remark to the MANY others that were known before, coming from the crystal clear Buchholz article ("Rosewall the undisputed No.1 player"), from other sources ("World of Tennis" yearbooks) and especially from that huge researching work provided by krosero who gave us many different quotings about the official pro world championships of 1964 and the several rankings 1964/1965 where Rosewall was No.1. Every serious and non-biased reader accepted that all. Only idiots and Laver-biased posters still try to distort historical facts!

I don't understand that even you (as a non-idiot) don't resspect krosero's huge contribution!

Regarding Bud and Joe: Nice try. The next of the Rosewall haters' hostile assumptions and attacks against me! For your interest: Bud called Rosewall the pro king already before Joe's book has been published! He called Muscles that way at least in the 1994 and 1997 issues. Joe's book was published in 2000. (I don't have Bud's 1980 issue but probably he has Rosewall the same way even there).

Get real! The conversation is still alive as there is the serious group taht acknowledges Rosewall's status in 1964 and the other group, the Laver-biased group! The discussion became almost pointless because of a few ignorant posters who tried and still try to distort tennis history. It's a shame. Thought you would be a bit more serious than Limpinhitter & Co. ...

 

[NatF]

True enough. I committed a major sin of discussing it again. I beg forgiveness!!

Never should have responded to that poster.

Yeah I just feel at this point there's no way any party is changing their position so what's the point...

 

[Limpinhitter]

Let's hear it for your boy, Bobby.

Hooray for Muscles!!!

Dan, let me ask you a question. Do you think that Rosewall was the undisputed #1 player for the year 1964? Consider the following:

- Laver lead Rosewall in total titles 11-10,
- Laver lead Rosewall in pro major titles 2-1,
- Laver lead Rosewall in total matches won 81 to 69,
- Laver lead Rosewall in winning percentage 75% (81-27) to 70% (69-30),
- Laver lead Rosewall in H2H matches by a dominating 15-4.

What do you think? Rosewall, undisputed #1 for 1964?

 

[NatF]

NatF, My Bud's quoting was just an additional remark to the MANY others that were known before, coming from the crystal clear Buchholz article ("Rosewall the undisputed No.1 player"), from other sources ("World of Tennis" yearbooks) and especially from that huge researching work provided by krosero who gave us many different quotings about the official pro world championships of 1964 and the several rankings 1964/1965 where Rosewall was No.1. Every serious and non-biased reader accepted that all. Only idiots and Laver-biased posters still try to distort historical facts!

I don't understand that even you (as a non-idiot) don't resspect krosero's huge contribution!

Regarding Bud and Joe: Nice try. The next of the Rosewall haters' hostile assumptions and attacks against me! For your interest: Bud called Rosewall the pro king already before Joe's book has been published! He called Muscles that way at least in the 1994 and 1997 issues. Joe's book was published in 2000. (I don't have Bud's 1980 issue but probably he has Rosewall the same way even there).

Get real! The conversation is still alive as there is the serious group taht acknowledges Rosewall's status in 1964 and the other group, the Laver-biased group! The discussion became almost pointless because of a few ignorant posters who tried and still try to distort tennis history. It's a shame. Thought you would be a bit more serious than Limpinhitter & Co. ...

You're obsessed Bobby. Get over it. I don't care who was #1 in 1964 I have my opinion and I think it's well supported by the statistics - I've acknowledged that the media at the time had Rosewall #1. In that vein I don't think your position is indefensible.

However the conversation should be dead, it's only alive because you can't let go of any Rosewall related quibble. You won't convince any of your 'opponents' to change their opinions.