I respect your opinion (and that of the experts) but...I disagree
. I think Laver would be the #1 player under most computer systems. At the time clearly the rankings bias towards Wimbledon and USO performance. There's some grounds to that for sure but I think the gap in tournaments won (some of which were still quite large) is just too big.
Typical Aussie modesty perhaps? I agree with him though. Laver was the best player that year, he dominated the two guys in the running with him both in the h2h and more importantly in the sheer number of titles.
Indeed! As I explained in another thread, based on the current ATP point allocation system:
In 1970, Laver won a total of 15 titles: the Dunlop International, plus 4 more Masters 1,000 equivalent titles, the Tennis Champions Classic (arguably another major equivalent or super major and the top prize money event of the year), and 9 more smaller titles. Based on the current ATP ranking points system a major is worth 2000 points and a Masters is worth 1,000 points. Therefore:
1) 5 of Laver's titles are worth either 5,000 or 6,000 points depending on whether you value the Dunlop as a Major or Masters equivalent.
2) The value of the TCC could be 1,000, 2,000 points or more depending on whether you value that as a Major, a Masters equivalent, or Supermajor.
3) Assuming,
arguendo, that the remaining 9 titles are smaller ATP 500 equivalent events, they total of 4,500 points.
Therefore, Laver's ATP equivalent points for 1970 would total from a minimum of 10,500 to 12,500 (or more), depending on the value you give the Dunlop and the TCC.
Rosewall won a total of 6 titles: 1 major and 5 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 4,500 points.
Newcombe won a total of 3 titles: 1 major and 2 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 3,000 points.
Laver was 5-0 vs. Rosewall in 1970.
Laver was 3-0 vs. Newcombe in 1970.
Newcombe himself acknowledges that Laver was #1 for 1970.
Laver was #1 for 1970 - by a wide margin.
Edit: I corrected Rosewall's and Newcombe's point totals for 1970.