NatF, Your part should be to concede that one group is right and trying to explain the other group how wrong it is.
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
NatF, Your part should be to concede that one group is right and trying to explain the other group how wrong it is.
Limpin; I wonder about your intelligence. You again confuse two things: The historical fact that in 1964/1965 Rosewall was ACKNOWLEDGED the undisputed No.1 by the players and experts and our current trial to examine if that assessment of the contemporary people was right or not. Here we rightly can claim that Laver was the best in several parameters and therefore deserves a No.1 place. But even we people of 2016 must consider that Rosewall won the most important criterion, i.e. the official world championships and therefore also deserves a No.1 place.
It's so easy to understand but some don't want to understand at all (in order to be able to "prove" that Rosewall's reign was a very short one ("18 months" at the most)...
NatF
Bionic Poster
I have no obligation at all. There's nothing wrong at all with giving Laver the lone #1 spot in 1964. It makes the most sense to me and others.
NatF, Yes I'm obsessed of truth. And I hate people who try to distort truth even though they do know how the historical truth is.
Why do you blame (only) me? I just found a Bud's quote and thought it would help to convince one or the other reader. But you are right: Some strange posters here (always the same three or four) will never concede they were wrong, just as Limpinhitter never apologized for his lies and never corrected his wrong Laver data. He even claims still that the 130 day tour was relevant for our question even though I have explained the matter several times. I take it as an insult against me.
Why don't you blame my enemies who immediately brought again their wrong "arguments" after my short quotation?
But at least I'm glad you seem to accept now the historical facts, unlike the Limpinhitters.
Okay, It's senseless.
For 1964 I have Laver #1 because of winning at Longwood and Wembley.
But that should not stop us from raising a rousing cheer for Muscles (and possibly keeping Bobby happy when his boy is acclaimed).
I have Rosewall about #5 or #6 on my all-time greatest list....hope that makes Bobby feel better.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
What's the term, oh yes "It's beating a dead horse."
Bobby, you previously accepted that the 1964 tour was not an "official" world championship because your boy, Rosewall, whom you apparently now acknowledge was the administrator of the 1964 tour, did not advertise this tour as a world championship...that is the decisive fact.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That's very generous of you, Dan.
Bobby and I are really not so far apart on Rosewall, but of course, I use Rosewall's own ratings list from 2010, which disagrees with Bobby"s,
1. Hoad..in Rosewall's own words "...and the greatest player of all was my [friend] Lew Hoad."
2. Gonzales
3. Laver
4. Federer
I have Rosewall tied with Sedgman for #5 and #6.
Gonzales also rated Hoad as having the number one game.
Others who agree with that are Laver (pre-Open era), Bedard ("...Hoad was the greatest PLAYER."), Ashley Cooper, Sven Davidson, Abe Segal.
NatF
Bionic Poster
You don't think Federer might have moved up in the last 6 years?
Dan, Please stop your absurd statements. You do know excatly that I used to say that the long tournament tour was the deciding parameter and that's not clear if it had an official title (but it could be). Then krosero found finally what you were hoping for, the missing link: the newspaper report of August 25, 1964, calling the tour the "Pro World Championship". Therefore I use that term since! You and your fellow Rosewall haters should also accept the historical fact! Amen.
Dan, A player usually does not mention himself/herself in an all-time list. Laver did not. Rosewall also did not.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Here is a web page that summarizes some interesting comments, and references to 1964, (some of which I've seen before), by well known tennis commentators some of which are reproduced below. It doesn't cite all of its sources or indicate who wrote this summary or the date it was written. However, the latest date referred to on this page is 2008. Further, although it does point out that Laver won all of his traditional major titles on clay and grass, in my view, hard court may have been his best surface.
http://www.liquisearch.com/rod_laver/place_among_the_all-time_great_tennis_players
"According to the article [by Lance Tingay?], Bill Tilden was the best player for seven years and Pancho Gonzales for eight years. While Laver was indisputably the best player from 1965 through 1969, the article asserts that Laver had a valid claim for the top spot also for 1964 and 1970."
"Many experts disagree with Kramer's assessment of Laver. For example, Dan Maskell, John Barrett, Joe McCauley, Ted Schroeder, and Tony Trabert and John McEnroe rank Laver as the best of all time."
"Schroeder has been quoted by Alan Trengove as saying, 'You take all the criteria – longevity, playing on grass and clay, amateur, professional, his behaviour, his appearance – in all criteria, Laver's the best player of all time.'"
"Trabert said in January 2008, 'I still maintain that Rod Laver is the best player who ever played the game because he's done something no one has ever done in the 120 or 140-year history of our sport: he won the Grand Slam as an amateur and he won the Grand Slam as a pro. If someone in some other sport held a world record no one else had, you would say that person was the best in that sport. So in my view, you've got to say Laver is the best player of all time.'"
"He also holds the record for most titles won in a single year during the amateur era (22 in 1962), during the touring pro era (19 in 1967), and during the open era (18 in 1969)."
"In an article in Tennis Week in 2007, the tennis historian Raymond Lee statistically analysed the all-time best players. Laver topped his list ahead of Tilden and Borg (tied), Roger Federer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Ivan Lendl, Connors, Sampras, McEnroe, and Kramer."
"In a poll by the Associated Press in 2000, Laver was voted "The Male Tennis Player of the Century", ahead of Pete Sampras, Tilden, Borg, Budge, McEnroe and Hoad (tied), Rosewall and Roy Emerson (tied), and Kramer."
"In terms of yearly prize money won, Laver was the leader from 1964 until 1971." Eight straight years as the money leader. This may be the most impressive statistic of all.
http://www.liquisearch.com/rod_laver/place_among_the_all-time_great_tennis_players
"According to the article [by Lance Tingay?], Bill Tilden was the best player for seven years and Pancho Gonzales for eight years. While Laver was indisputably the best player from 1965 through 1969, the article asserts that Laver had a valid claim for the top spot also for 1964 and 1970."
"Many experts disagree with Kramer's assessment of Laver. For example, Dan Maskell, John Barrett, Joe McCauley, Ted Schroeder, and Tony Trabert and John McEnroe rank Laver as the best of all time."
"Schroeder has been quoted by Alan Trengove as saying, 'You take all the criteria – longevity, playing on grass and clay, amateur, professional, his behaviour, his appearance – in all criteria, Laver's the best player of all time.'"
"Trabert said in January 2008, 'I still maintain that Rod Laver is the best player who ever played the game because he's done something no one has ever done in the 120 or 140-year history of our sport: he won the Grand Slam as an amateur and he won the Grand Slam as a pro. If someone in some other sport held a world record no one else had, you would say that person was the best in that sport. So in my view, you've got to say Laver is the best player of all time.'"
"He also holds the record for most titles won in a single year during the amateur era (22 in 1962), during the touring pro era (19 in 1967), and during the open era (18 in 1969)."
"In an article in Tennis Week in 2007, the tennis historian Raymond Lee statistically analysed the all-time best players. Laver topped his list ahead of Tilden and Borg (tied), Roger Federer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Ivan Lendl, Connors, Sampras, McEnroe, and Kramer."
"In a poll by the Associated Press in 2000, Laver was voted "The Male Tennis Player of the Century", ahead of Pete Sampras, Tilden, Borg, Budge, McEnroe and Hoad (tied), Rosewall and Roy Emerson (tied), and Kramer."
"In terms of yearly prize money won, Laver was the leader from 1964 until 1971." Eight straight years as the money leader. This may be the most impressive statistic of all.
Fed was great through 2012.
Mr. or Mrs. Limpin, It's really curious what quotings you accept only to praise your darling.
Trabert does not know if tennis history is 120 or 140 years old.
The prize money stats are the most impressive one. Only you and Dan believe that absurdity!
You quote Raymond Lee who ranked Rosewall No.6. Hurray! Great improvement after your "No.18"! Hope you will change your mind.
A list where Emerson is tied with Rosewall? Fantastic. You have convinced me by providing your lists!
You are really the most serious poster in this forum!
Exactly, Bobby, you did not claim that it had an official title.
That minor newspaper report did not have any correlation with the tour's own official releases, which were controlled by Rosewall.
You now seem to accept that Rosewall was the tour administrator...we are making progress at last.
They sometimes do mention themselves in their evaluations...Gonzales claimed that Hoad's game was better than his.
Rosewall claimed that Hoad was "...the greatest player of all", and that when Hoad was "on" he was "the greatest of all time".
It does not appear that Rosewall was exempting himself from these evaluations, unlike your belief.
The prize money stat is very impressive, and makes a good claim for Laver in 1964.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
And 70' and 71'.
Dan, Your assumption is not right. I did not say if I think that Rosewall controlled the tour or not. I rather believe that he controlled only the money.
It's a kind of modesty.
1971 because of the extravagant TCC and its absurd prize money!
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
PS: I thought it was interesting that Lance Tingay appears to say that Laver has a good claim for 64' and 70', and that the much quoted and relied upon Joe McCauley ranks Laver as the greatest of all time.
Last edited:
Limpin, I agree with Tingay: I also give Laver a No.1 place for 1964 and 1970. Tingay did NOT refer to 1971.
For 1970 he gave Laver only the third place in his official rankings.
Last edited:
Buchholz made it clear in his article that Rosewall was the tour administrator.
Rosewall only mentioned four names, implying that he regarded himself as equal or better than the rest beyond that point...I accept that.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Rosewall clearly thought Gonzalez was superior to himself although in this interview the numbers seem a bit off in favor of Gonzalez.
http://www.tennisworldmagazine.com/mag/magazine.php?num=18&pag=13
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
"I lost in three sets to Jimmy Connors,” he says. “You will not believe it, but it was my best match at the [Wimbledon] Championships. I was forty years old and competing in my fourth Wimbledon final."
Surprising. But he should know.
(He took one set against Drobny in 1954, one against Hoad in '56, and two sets against Newcombe in 1970.)
Last edited:
Rosewall is right, I do not believe it.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yep, I have serious doubts whether Rosewall played his best final against Connors...I assume you believe it was against Hoad?
hoodjem, Even as a Rosewall admirer I can't agree with Muscles. I'm not sure if Ken meant all his Wimbledon matches (1952 to 1975) or, more probably, his seven matches in 1974. But even if he meant the latter, I would rate his win over the world's No.1, Newcombe, in the QFs higher. They say it was a great match and Muscles won one set by 6-0. Connors might have been stronger than Newcombe at that time but still Rosewall was overwhelmed by JImmy more than an in top form Rosewall would concede. He only broke Connors once in the whole match even though Connors' serve was weaker than those of Tanner, Newcombe and Smith who were beaten by Rosewall plus Rosewall was of course a tremendous returner who should have won more than only one single break.
I would wonder a lot that a 39 years old would play better in the last round than in earlier rounds, especially considering his long SF encounter against Smith.
In my opinion Rosewall had several better performances at earlier Wimbledons than the 1974 final: 1968, first round against Pasarell; 1970, QF against Roche; 1971, QF against Richey; 1974, QF against Newcombe...
EDIT: Rosewall was totally wrong regarding his balance against Gonzalez (winning only 8 out of 70 matches). That never happened, even not in their 1960 tour.
Even great players sometimes tend to have lapses in their memory which is no wonder as they have played so many matches over the decades. Rosewall f.i. once believed that he beat Connors clearly in 1973 but I corrected him as it was 1972 (at L.A.).
krosero told me in an e-mail that Laver in his recent autobiography also made a few mistakes (confused 1965 with 1964 regarding Gonzalez playing at Wembley and similary things).
Of course we should not blame these giants for those little errors. Players don't study their career results as meticulously as (good) experts do. I'm sure krosero or Andrew Tas know more Laver and Rosewall results than the two Aussie masters do...
Last edited:
NatF, I agree. We should not forget that Connors, even though very strong that year, was forced to five sets at that Wimbledon by both Phil Dent and Jan Kodes. I mean Jimbo was not yet at his absolute peak at that time but strong enough to outclass an almost 40 years old player.
Yes, winning a set from strong Hoad in 1956 indicates a rather strong Rosewall.
The 1956 Wimbledon final against Hoad was the only final where Rosewall played something like his best tennis.
NatF, I just read a bit in Naughton's Rosewall biography of 2012. Regarding the 1974 Wimbledon final it's written that some columnists after the match said that "Rosewall left his A-game in the dressing room". Rosewall himself said in that book that he was "shot to pieces by the earlier matches" and "I was probably exhausted by that stage". This is more reasonable than his newer claim in that interview.
By the way, at Forest Hills, where he was declassed even worse (won only two games) there was no day's rest between SF and final which must have affected such an old player significantly.
After a look into the Naughton's Rosewall biography I'm not sure anymore if the 1971 TCC presented absurd prize money. According to Naughton it was "only" 50 000 Dollars, 35 000 for the winner. I don't know if the numbers are correct though. I do know for sure that the winner of the US Open got 15 000 Dollars and the winner of the WCT Finals got 50 000 Dollars. Thus the latter gave the highest prize money of the year and shold be considered a more important event than the TCC.
Dan was not correct when claiming that some pros were missing in the WCT tournaments leading to the Dallas finals.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Laver won $160,000 in prize money for going unbeaten in 13 matches against the top players in the World in the 1971 TCC. It was the highest paying event in the world, it required the most number of matches almost double that of a major, and had the toughest draw. It was like winning two majors at once. In addition, Laver won a record $292,717 for the year, the highest yearly prize money ever.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I wasn't the first one on this board to describe the TCC as equivalent to two majors. This was written before I joined.
"I feel this is like winning 2 Grand Slams back to back with the deepest field ever! . . ." - timnz
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...er-rated-achievement-happened-in-1971.329647/
PS: BTW, my understanding is that the winner made a minimum of $100,000 (double the prize of the WCT final), and that Laver made $160,000 because he went undefeated.
"I feel this is like winning 2 Grand Slams back to back with the deepest field ever! . . ." - timnz
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...er-rated-achievement-happened-in-1971.329647/
PS: BTW, my understanding is that the winner made a minimum of $100,000 (double the prize of the WCT final), and that Laver made $160,000 because he went undefeated.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well then I disagree with timnz too...
It was spread over 3 months, that dilutes some of the difficulties (e.g. endurance) of winning a major. I think considering it a major is enough.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Here is the schedule according to poster Scott tennis, post #11. It was spread over about 11 weeks. The semis and final were back to back:
"My records show the dates of the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic matches are as follows:
1/2 New York Laver d Rosewall
1/10 Rochester Laver d Newcombe
1/13 Boston Laver d Roche
1/17 Philadelphia Laver d Emerson
1/21 New York Laver d Ashe
1/23 Detroit Laver d Okker
1/28 New York Laver d Ashe
2/4 Los Angeles Laver d Taylor
2/6 New York Laver d Okker
2/17 New York Laver d Ralston
2/19 New Haven Laver d Emerson
3/18 New York SF Laver d Ralston
New York SF Okker d Emerson
3/19 New York F Laver d Okker"
PS: pc1 made a similar comment at post #6: "I was having a disagreement with a poster who was arguing about changing what is a major and not and I made the offhand comment that this tournament and field was almost two majors if he wanted to change history."
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well I would hope if you're going to analyse this event and deem it is worthy of two majors you'd do the same for other tournaments Laver has won that aren't simply Open Era AO, FO, Wimbledon's and USO's. As long as you're consistent I don't care.
Like I said I find this an impressive list of scalps but the format means I wouldn't rate it as more than a major.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think considering the great competition for 13 matches it was a great accomplishment. Yes the difficulty is diluted somewhat because of the breaks but it also indicates how powerful a rested Laver was for one match. I do consider the overall accomplishment greater than a major.
NatF
Bionic Poster
That's fair enough, it's hard for me to judge without following the tour live. How did it match up with various tournaments were any of his opponents tired after a long week before etc...too many variables. I think a major is fair, though perhaps underselling a bit - but calling it too majors is too far IMO.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps not two majors as I've indicated in the past but clearly more than one. And I'm not sure how fully rested Laver was since he did play other matches in between. Clearly the semi and the final were played on back to back days. I'll check the days and rest Laver had. Can't do it now because I'm in the car.
Bobby, I think you know that Connors and Nastase skipped the 1974 WCT circuit, and I suspect that other pros were also absent.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Okay here's the dates of the matches Laver played during the 1971 Tennis Champion's Classic and during breaks in the Tennis Champion's Classic. This is from Andrew Tas by the way.
January 2 1971
New York
Defeated Rosewall 63 62 75
January 10 1971
Rochester
Defeated Newcombe 64 62 46 57 64
So Laver had an 8 day break here.
January 13 1971
Boston
Defeated Roche 75 46 36 75 61
Laver had a three day break here which isn't that bad.
January 17 1971
Philadelphia
Defeated Emerson 62 63 75
Laver had a four day break here.
January 21 1971
New York
Defeated Ashe 75 64 75
Laver had a four day break here.
January 23 1971
Detroit
Defeated Okker 57 57 62 62 62
Laver had a two day break here.
January 28 1971
New York
Defeated Ashe 36 63 63 64
Laver had a five day break here.
February 4 1971
Inglewood CA
Defeated R Taylor 63 75 62
Laver had a seven day break here.
February 6 1971
New York
Defeated Okker 61 64 63
Laver had a two day break here. Incidentally Okker said he played as well as he ever played, perhaps better than he ever played but he was never in the match. Laver was in the zone and beat Okker easily. Laver went to play in a WCT tournament in Philadelphia starting on the 9th.
February 9-14 1971
WCT Philadelphia USA
R32 defeated Ray RUFFELS 6-0 6-4
R16 defeated John ALEXANDER 6-4 6-2
QF defeated Brian FAIRLIE 6-3 6-2
SF defeated Arthur ASHE 6-3 7-6 3-6 6-1
F Lost to John NEWCOMBE 76 76 64
Tennis Champions Classic
February 17
New York
Defeated D Ralston 36 61 64 63
Laver had a three day break here.
February 19
New Haven CT
Defeated Emerson 63 57 63 36 63
Laver had a two day break here.
Australian Open
Estimate Laver played March 9th and 11th so Laver had about a three week break.
March 18-19
New York
SF defeated Ralston 63 64 75
Laver had around a week break here.
F defeated Okker 75 62 61
Laver had a one day break here.
Last edited:
